Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, March 5, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 93

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

The importance of affordable ferry travel for coastal communities

D. Routley

J. Sturdy

Importance of non-profit societies

S. Cadieux

R. Singh

The importance of supporting fisheries for

communities

J. Rice

E. Ross

Rural transportation

T. Stone

D. Routley

Private Members’ Motions

Motion 7 — Gender equity

M. Dean

M. Stilwell

R. Kahlon

G. Kyllo

J. Routledge

J. Isaacs

B. D’Eith

J. Thornthwaite

A. Kang

D. Clovechok

G. Begg

10:20:26, S. Cadieux, “for the local food bank” changed to “or the local food bank”;

10:35:11, J. Rice, "than" added — "less than $10,000 annually"

MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2018

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

THE IMPORTANCE OF AFFORDABLE

FERRY TRAVEL FOR COASTAL

COMMUNITIES

D. Routley: It gives me great pleasure to be able to rise in the House and

make a statement about the importance of B.C. Ferries — car ferry

transportation and passenger ferry transportation to coastal

communities.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

It’s maybe important for us to examine the history of B.C. Ferries

just a little bit. It’s formerly a Crown corporation. It was set up in

1960 to provide service to the coast when the Black Ball line, a ferry

line at the time, and the Canadian Pacific Railway, which also provided

ferry services, were affected by job action. So the government at the

time took a very social democratic approach to strike-breaking, in a

sense.

[10:05 a.m.]

B.C. Ferries has risen out of that beginning to become the largest

passenger ferry line in North America and the second largest in the

world. When British Columbians talk about their ferry service, they’re

talking about one of the crown jewels in B.C.’s public assets. It has a

fleet of 35 vessels, with a total passenger and crew capacity at any

given time of 27,000 people serving 47 locations along our B.C.

coast.

There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people who

transport across the waters by B.C. Ferries. More than that, there is

the entire economy of the coast being shuttled back and forth on the

ferries in trucks and containers. This is a vital piece to the economy

and society of our island communities.

A UBCM study on the socioeconomic impacts of B.C. Ferries that was

done in 2014 showed that a series of ferry fare increases over a

ten-year period had resulted in $2.3 billion in reduced GDP. This report

also found that B.C. Ferries stimulated a total of about $1.8 billion in

expenditures each year, which in turn produced $1.5 billion in

value-added GDP to this province. This is not only a vital social and

cultural link but also a vital piece of economic infrastructure to the

coast.

The same report estimated that, had fare increases in that

ten-year period from 2003 to 2013 been limited to the rate of inflation,

passenger volumes would have grown by 19 percent, which would have added

$2.3 billion to the provincial gross domestic product over that ten-year

period. Instead, the ridership in that period fell by 11 percent. This

lost economic activity delivered to B.C. an estimated total loss of $609

million in tax revenues from that economic activity.

In every way you view B.C. Ferries, it is a vital and crucial

piece of infrastructure to the coast in every single way, and it is very

efficient. Their farebox recovery rate is 92 percent. That compares very

favourably, in fact above any other publicly supported transit system in

this province. Despite frequent criticism, B.C. Ferries’ performances on

every level operationally compares, also, very favourably with its

competitors in other sectors of public transportation.

The AVICC president at the time, Larry Cross, said: “The findings

of the study show that we already have an efficient system in terms of

cost recovery. What is missing is recognition by the province that ferry

service is an extension of the highway system and needs to be funded

accordingly.”

Well, that has changed. The new government views this system as,

in the words of the Premier, “our coastal highway.” That restores us or

brings us back to the original mission and purpose of B.C. Ferries,

which was to continue a service that had been provided by private

services but was unreliable. It was delivered by the Socred Premier

W.A.C. Bennett, and it has survived to this day because it’s a good

idea, because it’s good for our communities and good for our economy

when it’s achieving its goals and when it’s true to its

mission.

It did stray away from that core purpose for some time and did not

measure up to the expectations of public service when a number of

measures were taken that were detrimental to its public service

effectiveness. One of them was transparency.

At the time that the Crown corporation was made an independent

publicly owned corporation, it was also excluded from

freedom-of-information scope. In the darkness of that veil over the

corporation’s business, the CEO’s salary skyrocketed from a few hundred

thousand dollars to just over $1 million, with no one in the public

knowing any better or any worse. Board compensation wasn’t reported, so

that we found out after the freedom-of-information scope was restored,

after a seven-year struggle to make that happen, that, in fact, very

inefficient measures were being taken.

[10:10 a.m.]

The theme of cuts for the last 16 years to afford tax breaks to

the wealthiest British Columbians at the expense of increased fees and

decreased service levels was nowhere more true than with B.C. Ferries.

The effects of that have been detrimental to First Nations who depend,

along the coast, upon B.C. Ferries services and all of the rest of the

communities.

The economy has suffered. Tourism, one of our most sustainable

export industries on the coast, has suffered, as was described in a UBCM

study. Business competitiveness along the coast has been drastically

impacted, as businesses face much higher costs and a much higher

escalation of costs and rate of escalation.

Medical costs to Vancouver Islanders and coastal British

Columbians, as well as lost opportunity, can’t even be measured. It has

impaired social mobility. Families are disconnected. Associations are

discouraged by the costs. It has amplified labour force challenges and a

skills shortage. A saying on the coast is that the most endangered

species on the coast and the Gulf Islands is the working

family.

We are taking steps to reduce those costs and to improve the

likelihood of people making their home on the coast in a way that helps

all of us culturally, socially, economically and

environmentally.

J. Sturdy: I’m pleased to stand to speak to the issue of affordable ferries,

both on the coast and, frankly, in the Interior.

I am a ferry-dependent guy. I represent Bowen Island, which is a

ferry-dependent community. I have Horseshoe Bay in my riding and,

certainly, long-established on the Sunshine Coast — not the least of

which, as well, is my weekly commute to this place. So I’m very familiar

with the ferry system. It’s been a critical part of our family for,

essentially, forever.

I do want to point out that…. First, I should note this is really

about connections. This is about how we connect communities. I had the

pleasure and the privilege to lead the Vancouver Island transportation

strategy consultation that was done a number of years ago, visiting

dozens and dozens of communities up and down the coast of British

Columbia.

The issues that came up, the issues that we talked about,

reaffirmed to me in my mind that as important as ferries are, connecting

communities and vitalization or strength and resiliency in coastal

communities is about more, certainly, than simply ferries. Although I

know that there’s a desire or a belief that we can distil it all down to

that, it is about much more than that. It’s about the road system. It’s

about the telecommunication system. It’s about Internet connectivity.

It’s about connecting communities, and yes, it is also about

ferries.

As we look at ferries, what are the important pieces here? What do

we have to be considering? Goods and people movement are really what

we’re talking about, but there are many ways of dealing with this, in

terms of barge opportunities for goods, in terms of passenger-only

aspects to a B.C. Ferries system, to fixed links, to

connecting….

The member will be very familiar with the assessment done on

Gabriola Island. One of the ones that’s really interesting to me is in

the Queen Charlottes, where we have a ferry system that connects Graham

and Moresby. It costs the taxpayer about $10 million a year to maintain

that, yet you could literally throw a rock from one island to another.

We have to look at a variety of different solutions here to create

affordability for communities and create connections for those

communities.

The member mentioned what B.C. Ferries is. Certainly, it’s the

second-biggest ferry fleet in the world: 47 terminals, almost two

million vehicles, almost five million passengers, 42,000 sailings,

growing at a year-over-year rate of 5 percent. This is a good-news

story. This is a system that is working. Dozens of routes, billions of

dollars of investment over the last number of years — seismic upgrades,

vehicle-passenger separation.

I think we all remember when we used to walk on in front of the

cars, and now we’re separated from the cars. These are important

improvements to the system. Fundamentally lowering the age of the fleet.

The fleet was approaching 50 years old, and that has come down to about

30 years old because of the investments that have been made over the

last 15 years or so.

What does the future look like? We have to look at transit

connections, commuting and changes in utilization.

[10:15 a.m.]

Frankly, I think the member recognizes well that the system is

very well respected by its ridership. Over 90 percent of the people are

pleased with what that system looks like.

What is it going to look like in the future? How do we look at

fuel systems, for example? Cable ferries — an innovative ferry was put

in a number of years ago. All ferries now are going to be dual fuel or

LNG, and the next step is battery ferries. I think Bowen Island is an

excellent opportunity to lead in this respect. Where do passenger

ferries only go? How do we create equity overall in the

future?

It’s a big system. It’s a very expensive system. It costs a little

over $860 million a year to operate that system, where, interestingly,

the whole road network in the whole province of British Columbia,

including in these ferry-dependent communities, is less than half of

that cost.

I think it’s important to understand that this system needs to be

sustainable, that we need a system that is affordable going forward. We

need a system that is outside of government, that does not allow for

arbitrary fare reductions — fiddling with schedules, fiddling with

prices — because we’re going to, I think, see that we have a $60 million

hole in the B.C. Ferries budget at this particular time.

In times of growing ridership, we’re going to see a delay in

capital improvement and….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

D. Routley: Thank you to the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. Most of

what the member said I will agree with wholeheartedly in terms of the

variety of services that are required on the coast and the variety of

services that might evolve under the B.C. Ferries banner or under other

banners.

The difference here, I think, is around the basic view of what the

corporation is, what it should be doing, the purpose, and how that

translates into choices that government makes with its budget and with

its public policy planning.

The member said that he thought it was important that it remain

outside of government. Well, when it was outside of government, it was

veiled by a cloak of secrecy and excluded from the

freedom-of-information scope for seven years, and the public paid a

great price for that. At the same time that my constituents were being

asked to surrender routes on their

schedule and were suffering over 118

percent increases on the minor route that I represent, Gabriola to

Nanaimo, the salary of the CEO had skyrocketed to over $1

million.

It’s important that there be public oversight and public scrutiny

of what’s happening, as well as being open to public policy guidance.

The member can say that it was excluded from political interference, but

when the government was against the ropes in terms of popularity several

years ago, we saw former Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon introduce

reduced holiday season fares at the drop of a hat, without even

consulting with the CEO of the corporation or anybody below that level —

and then random and arbitrary service

schedule requirements that have

resulted in cuts directly. Yes, B.C. Ferries got to choose which routes

were cancelled, but they were told exactly what they were going to do

overall.

I think that speaks to the notional differences of what B.C.

Ferries represents. Are highways profitable? I don’t think we ever even

consider them as such, but it’s different when it comes to B.C. Ferries.

If we consider that with B.C. Ferries, we have a marine highway, well

then, the ferry is the bus. Why should the people who depend on that bus

experience such a huge rate of increase — so many times greater than the

increase in fares for other forms of public transportation?

I think we have to go back to considering the goals that were

established when the corporation was born. Those were economic

development on the coast, to bring the communities of the coast

together, combine their economic potential and develop and evolve

communities.

It was about sustainability, and it’s become even more about

sustainability — beyond economic sustainability. It’s become about

family and community connectedness. This is a very important service,

and we’re happy to reduce its cost.

[10:20 a.m.]

IMPORTANCE OF NON-PROFIT SOCIETIES

S. Cadieux: I’d like to take this time this morning to talk to the House about

the importance of our society’s not-for-profit organizations.

Non-profits take all shapes and sizes in all spheres of interest or

passion but always operate outside of the drive for profit. They support

dynamic and diverse sectors of our province, from agricultural to art,

education to environment, religion to science.

Many of the organizations that we consider intrinsically woven

into our province’s narrative are in fact not-for-profits. For example,

beneath this umbrella is the University of British Columbia, Fraser

Health Authority, boards of education — all non-profits. Of course, when

we think of this sector, we also use the word “charity.” We think of

groups like the SPCA or the cancer society or the local food

bank.

I don’t think that most people, including most of the members

here, truly understand the scope of work and impact in our communities.

According to the satellite account of a non-profit institutions

volunteering report by StatsCan in 2007: “In 2006, the core non-private

sector generated 20 percent more value-added than the entire

accommodation and food services industry, more than 2.5 times that of

agriculture, and generated nearly six times as much value-added as the

motor vehicle manufacturing industry. The broader non-profit sector,

which includes hospitals and universities and colleges, exceeded by more

than one-third the value-added of the entire retail trade

industry.”

Or take these statistics from 2004 from Imagine Canada. In B.C.

alone, not including the big ones like universities and hospitals, the

core not-for-profit community in British Columbia employed 114,000

people in 2004. In contrast, mining, forestry, fishing, oil and gas

together employed 35,300. And 6 percent of non-profits have revenues

over $1 million and employ 73 percent of those people.

Non-profits are a crucial part of this province, working

tirelessly for the good of the work itself. It cannot really be stressed

enough that the only commonality across non-profits is that the work

they do is for the people that they serve and not for their own benefit.

The needs of the population, as they shift and change with the times,

create more citizens who are interested in advocacy and charity. And

just as our needs are subject to changes over time, so too are those

voices.

Some charities fall away. Some blossom out of new needs, like

Mercy Canada’s work with trafficked women or the Wild Steelhead

Coalition, dedicated to the return of the wild steelhead in our coastal

waters, both just examples of non-profits in British Columbia.

Additional work is done daily in enormous network of associations,

charities in constant flux and innovation. They serve an important role

in our communities.

I spoke last week about the community kitchen in Cloverdale that

serves hundreds of meals every week to those in need. I know that every

member of this House can speak to similar examples. I speak on behalf of

this House, I know, when I say that most of the days, there is someone

in this very room singing the praises of one of those local

non-profits.

They’re often guests that we invite for introductions. Non-profits

are a recurring theme across private members’ statements, in question

period, and stakeholder and committee meetings. They’re as much a part

of our communities as the for-profit sector and are represented in all

constituencies. Non-profits challenge us to be better government with

their advocacy.

Their presence is welcome, and their responsibility calls us to

attention. That’s precisely why they’re invited and thanked here nearly

every day: because non-profits are always interested in a better British

Columbia for the worth of British Columbia alone, much the same as

members here are.

I know that there are members here today who have a history with

non-profit work or volunteerism, like myself with Spinal Cord Injury B.

C. and Realwheels Theatre. Not only did I find my own passion in paid

work with the not-for-profit SCIBC, but I’ve also volunteered my time

with the Realwheels Theatre Society, with the YWCA, with Disability

Alliance British Columbia, ICORD, the Rick Hansen Foundation, Minerva

and many more in my community.

That’s one of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I’m here before you

today as a Member of the Legislative Assembly. As a member of those

organizations and the work that I did, I developed a passion for making

things better, and it led me here. The work that non-profits do every

day in our communities helps our communities grow, helps people get

through the toughest of circumstances. I think it’s incredibly important

that we recognize that here in this House.

[10:25 a.m.]

R. Singh: Thank you to the member for Surrey South for bringing such an

important topic today: the importance of non-profit organizations in our

society. I totally agree with my colleague on that.

I have had personal experience with non-profits as well. When I

started my career in India, I started with the Indian Red Cross Society.

When I first moved to Canada, my first job was with a non-profit. It was

called Information Services Vancouver at that time. Now it is known as

bc211.

At that time, I came face to face with the work that the

non-profits do, as my colleague has mentioned, for the betterment of

society. And bc211 still runs crisis lines for women who are fleeing

violence, an alcohol and drug information line and a problem gambling

help line. Those are the first resource for people who are the

vulnerable populations, who are looking for resources.

Working in that organization, I also came to know about different,

other non-profit organizations and all the work that they are doing for

the betterment of society. I was so amazed by the passion of the workers

who are working in those non-profit organizations.

One thing that I realized then is that non-profit organizations

are essential to our quality of life not only because of the valuable

programs that they provide to local citizens but because of the positive

economic impacts within our communities. These are the organizations

that hire very specialized workers, and for so many of these workers,

they are a steady source of income as well.

In my community of Surrey, I have been in touch with so many

non-profit organizations — like PICS, DIVERSEcity, Surrey Food Bank,

Surrey Women’s Centre and Atira transition housing society. The list is

endless and the range of work that they do — from helping seniors get

housing to helping new immigrants find jobs, to helping women fleeing

violence, to providing food to people who need it, every day. The vast

range of work the non-profit organizations do and the contributions that

they make in our community are immense.

The two major issues that come to us, two issues that people are

always talking about: housing and child care. I was just going through

the research, and I see that so many non-profit organizations are

partners in such important sectors as well, like housing. When we talk

about housing, it is not just the government that is contributing to

housing, but we are looking at the housing supplies through the

non-profit sector. The same goes for the child care sector, also, which

is one of our most essential needs.

In closing, I would just say I would really like to thank you

again, Member, and also would like to reiterate the fact of the immense

contribution that these non-profits are doing to make our life

better.

S. Cadieux: Thank you, Member, for your comments. It’s always interesting, I

think, when we speak in this House and find our commonalities. The

member referenced her time with the Red Cross. Indeed, while I have not

volunteered specifically with the Red Cross, in fact, the program that I

started with, the non-profit I worked for, received a Power of Humanity

Award from the Red Cross, well, I guess, ten years ago now.

The reality is there are so many things that tie us together, and

one of those things is undoubtedly our support and our reliance on the

not-for-profit organizations in our communities. I think it’s so

important to recognize the voices and work represented by those

non-profits here in this House, because we speak a lot about our

for-profit sector in session.

[10:30 a.m.]

So it’s with great joy that I’m given a chance today to speak

about a topic that’s so close to my heart. The sector continues to

represent some of the best things about our province and our society.

They are the sectors that the sector itself serves. I know every single

member here would agree they’re important. They ensure that those within

this House listen and include every British Columbian, which we are

always, of course, trying to do.

I would like to extend my profound gratitude for the thousands of

British Columbians that make their living in the not-for-profit sector

and for the thousands of those who give generously of their hard-earned

dollars to support that sector.

I don’t think anyone will disagree the not-for-profit sector

struggles financially. They scrimp, they find ways to stretch their

dollars, and they have a huge impact. They do a great deal of

fundraising. Many of us attend many of those functions on a regular

basis.

Organizations that the member opposite referenced, like PICS, and

others in my community, like Options and Sources, are huge organizations

that have government contracts as well as raise charitable dollars. As

the member from Green Timbers said, they’re essential to our quality of

life. They have positive economic impacts.

That’s, I think, why it’s so important that when we do our work in

this House and when we speak about the impacts of government policy, we

have to recognize that those non-profits work very hard for the dollars

that they have.

It’s my profound hope that all members of the House will not only

join me in thanking the workers, donors and volunteers that make this

sector hum but that we will also take time to understand the depth and

importance of their missions to our economy and realize the impacts of

government decisions on this vital sector.

THE IMPORTANCE OF SUPPORTING

FISHERIES FOR

COMMUNITIES

J. Rice: In years past, Prince Rupert was a booming hive of commercial

fishing activity. Today you can still see fishing boats tied at the

docks, but many of them sit idle most of the year. Their hulls are

heavily loaded with marine growth from inactivity.

Coastal communities in B.C. want to retain their connection to the

ocean and the commercial fishing industry, not just for livelihoods but

for culture, for food security, employment and stewardship. There is an

inaccuracy in the words I regrettably hear too often that fishing is

dead.

In fact, globally, fishing is increasingly providing more value to

communities, even though we may be catching less fish. That is, if

you’re fishing in the Atlantic provinces of Canada or in Alaska. While

there may be limited awareness of the commercial fishery among the

general public, it remains a mainstay of rural coastal economies, many

of which are First Nations communities who have lived and fished the

B.C. coast for millennia.

The commercial fishing industry employs approximately 6,000

harvesters and contributes over $370 million in landed value and nearly

$800 million in wholesale value. However, despite surging global demand

for seafood, B.C. is not seeing the industry growth that is evident in

Alaska and in Atlantic Canada.

The B.C. fisheries workforce is aging, and incomes have stagnated.

So the industry faces severe labour supply challenges. Pun intended,

B.C. is missing the boat when it comes to realizing the full benefits of

the commercial fishing industry.

One of the greatest challenges faced by fishing communities is the

increasing privatization of resources. Non-fishing entities and

multinational companies have bought and sold fishing quota like a stock

market commodity. In the past, the landed value was retained by the

fisherman who caught the fish. Now in many fisheries, up to 80 percent

of the landed value is paid out to investors, many of whom are fish

processors.

Even though the value of seafood products is increasing, B.C.’s

fishermen’s fishing incomes are trending down. The privatization,

consolidation and corporatization policies adopted by the federal

Department of Fisheries and Oceans have created unemployment in rural

coastal communities, particularly in First Nations

communities.

[10:35 a.m.]

The number of active fishermen has declined. Between 1985 and

2015, small-boat numbers dropped by 65 percent, and the number of big

boats has dropped by 44 percent. Over 11,000 fish harvesting jobs have

been lost. Due to federal policies, most north coast salmon fishermen

are grossing less than $10,000 annually. Many fishermen are no longer

insuring their vessels. Their boats need much capital investment, and

most are indentured to the processing companies for seasonal loans or to

lease quota.

Every year fewer rural fisherman are able to go commercial

fishing. Older fishermen who want to retire from salmon fishing find

they can’t sell their licences at a reasonable price. Younger fishermen

can’t afford to buy salmon licences, as the return is too small. And

they are unable to buy into the more lucrative fisheries because the

cost to buy a licence or quota is in the hundreds of thousands, if not

millions, of dollars. Most young entrants just lease quota to try to pay

for their newly bought boats.

Shoreworker employment and earnings are also trending down in our

coastal communities. Twenty years ago there were seven large and six

small companies operating on the north coast that employed around 2,200

shoreworkers. Through consolidation, the Canadian Fishing Company ended

up with the large companies’ assets. Canadian Fish and five small

companies remain.

Canadian Fish has all but closed its northern operation. The

closure of Prince Rupert’s cannery meant that wage employment declined

from around 1,000 workers in the Prince Rupert and Port Ed area in

2014-15 to around 250 currently. The workers at Canfisco’s plants have

paid the biggest price, with not only fewer people employed but over a

50 percent cut in days worked and earnings. Rural shoreworkers are

seeing processing move to the Lower Mainland or to Asia.

I’ll leave my remarks here for now, but I look forward to talking

about the possible solutions in my closing remarks.

E. Ross: Salmon is an iconic fish that all British Columbians identify

with. Today the salmon fishery still remains vital to the communities up

and down the coast. The salmon fishery is divided up between three

sectors, including the commercial fishery; the recreational fishery; and

the First Nations, who have relied on salmon for food and ceremonial

purposes for thousands of years.

Salmon are also an important indicator species. Their populations

reflect the health of our ecosystems. They are a nutrient backbone to

all of our coastal ecosystems and are sometimes the only source of

nitrates in many microecosystems when they die.

As chief councillor of the Haisla Nation, I tried to look into

improving on stock returns in my territory only to find out the problem

of salmon returns goes way beyond what’s just in my territory. On the

other side of the continent, the salmon fishery in the Atlantic Ocean is

commercially extinct. There are concerns that wild stocks of Atlantic

salmon could collapse altogether, just like cod stocks have — all due to

overfishing and habitat loss.

In British Columbia, we are blessed with 9,000 salmon populations

in our province, but not all are healthy. The population and health of

steelhead are still very much a concern. This is why I worked with my

Chief and council to see if we could improve on salmon runs returning to

our communities for the benefit of our communities. The Cohen Commission

definitely pointed me in the right direction, and I truly thought all

parties would work to save the wild salmon based on science.

Unfortunately, that is not always the case.

We as humans and communities have become experts at locating and

catching salmon at all phases of their life cycle. When out at sea, at

the mouth of rivers, mid-river and even spawning grounds, there are

people there to harvest salmon. Yes, I’m including poaching. The

technology and efficiencies to catch salmon just keep getting better.

There are many players at this table too, and respect for international

treaties is key to the future of wild salmon. In fact, communities all

around the world love salmon.

The demand for wild salmon far outweighs anything else, including

rational discussion, because people have a tendency to treat salmon in a

proprietary way. When returns are low for any species in a given year,

there’s often a fight over who deserves their share most, and the fights

are within our communities. This is counterproductive, because the Cohen

Commission reminds us we have to look at the entire species as a whole,

and it’s all based on demand. Every person who exclusively catches or

eats wild salmon is demanding to keep or add unsustainable pressure on

wild salmon.

[10:40 a.m.]

The targeted species of salmon are of course most susceptible, but

the bycatch is also a concern that not many people understand or care

about. One of the issues that brought me to overfishing in the first

place was the capture of a non-commercial fish that is at the core of my

people’s existence — eulachon. The eulachon is a non-salmon species, but

they are highly prized for their oil content. Finding out that the

eulachon were being caught by accident out in the Pacific Ocean and then

being discarded because of its non-commercial value added to my fight to

bring back the eulachon and the salmon to my community.

Like all wild species of fish, we must do our best to protect the

salmon from the greatest threat to our future survival — overfishing and

habitat loss, not just for our communities but for our future

generations.

J. Rice: If we believe the value of the commercial fishery to the province

is the value retained in its communities by its residents, then there

are opportunities to bring that wealth back to rural B.C. Working

fishermen need to see the landed value accrue to them, not to

speculators or processors. Shoreworkers need to have fish in their rural

communities to work on.

We can promote fisheries policies that benefit communities,

workers and active fishers, instead of quota investors, speculators and

processors. The province and communities should be represented in DFO

policy processes.

Presently federal Fisheries Minister Dominic LeBlanc is proposing

protections written into the Fisheries Act for independent fishermen and

their rural communities in Atlantic Canada. So far, those pro-people

policies are not going to apply to B.C.’s fish harvesters and our rural

coastal communities.

We should be pressuring the federal minister to extend those

protections to B.C. fishermen. Provincially we can promote policies that

support active fishers and their communities, such as fishermen’s

organizations. DFO policies have created de facto private ownership of

fish and consults with licence and quota owners, and active fish

harvesters are increasingly excluded from policy in fisheries

consultations. Fishermen need the resources to organize and represent

the interests of active fishermen in these policy decisions.

Another idea is a fishermen’s loan board. A fishermen’s loan

board, as structured in every province in Canada except Alberta and

B.C., gives fishermen the ability to raise capital without having to

indenture themselves to the processors. For example, in my constituency,

Lax Kw’alaams has a good-sized fish plant. However, most Tsimshian

salmon fishermen cannot deliver to the plant because they are indebted

to the large processors for start-up loans. We can promote policies that

support shoreworking employment in coastal communities.

Adjacency. I’ve spoken about this before. Besides direct adjacency

provisions, rural community benefits can be achieved through offering

fishermen or communities control over access to fish.

We can talk about Alaskan-style ocean ranching. The Heiltsuk are

very successful in running a facility in Bella Bella. We can also talk

about community- and fishermen-owned licence banks and quota. The

Northern Native Fishing Corporation is an example in my region. This is

an entity owned by three North Coast tribal councils. It’s an example of

a community licence bank. Gillnet licences are leased to First Nations

commercial fishers, and local fishermen tend to deliver to local

communities.

The possibilities are endless, and I call upon this House to

support me in urging the federal government to better support commercial

fishermen in British Columbia.

RURAL TRANSPORTATION

T. Stone: It gives me a great deal of pride and honour today to stand and

speak, briefly, about rural transportation, which is so critical to

communities throughout this province of ours. The safe, reliable

movement of people and goods is all about connecting communities. It’s

all about ensuring that we can keep our economy moving forward but also

ensure the highest quality of life possible in communities large and

small.

Transportation plays a vital role in making all of that happen,

and I certainly had an upfront seat to this issue for 4½ years as a

former Minister of Transportation. I was fortunate to develop a ten-year

transportation plan during that time, which really addressed the broad

gamut of transportation issues across this huge province of

ours.

[10:45 a.m.]

We heard, earlier this morning, a bit about the importance of our

ferry system to coastal communities in British Columbia, many of which

are rural, very small communities that really depend on the lifeblood

that ferries represent for their communities.

We have talked in this chamber often about the critical importance

of transit, not just in the Lower Mainland but in smaller communities

around British Columbia. We know how important our ports are to this

province — again, hugely important economically — for the tens of

thousands of jobs that are provided in our ports, which facilitate the

movement of goods in and out of this province of ours.

Airports are critically important as well. I was proud, as the

former minister, to resurrect a program called the B.C. air access

program, which oversees millions of dollars of investments, on an annual

basis, in small community regional airports across the province, in

places like Port Alberni and in places like my community in Kamloops and

others around the province. I’m very pleased that the current government

seems to be continuing with the investment in airports, which, again, I

believe is very important to the economy and small communities as well

as the quality of life that is enjoyed in communities across this

province.

I wanted to talk mostly, in what’s left of my statement here this

morning, about roads, about highways, about the importance of ensuring

that we’re doing everything we can as a province to ensure that people

can move safely on British Columbia’s roads — in particular, looking

through the lens of rural British Columbia.

We have 47,000 kilometres of roads in this huge province of ours —

47,000 kilometres of provincial road, that is: highways, secondary

highways, side roads and so forth. We have 2,700 structures, which are a

lot of bridges that need to be regularly inspected around the province.

Our road and bridge contractors employ about 2,000 people and provide

important economic vitality in about 140 communities around the

province.

The maintenance of our roads is critically important. We are

experiencing a very challenging winter this year. There is no question

about it, if you talk to any member from rural British Columbia —

whether that’s on northern Vancouver Island, in the Interior or the

north. If you talk to the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke or the

member for Kootenay East, there are some very serious challenges out

there on our roads, with very severe winter conditions, more so than

we’ve seen in quite some time.

There are, rightfully so, lots of questions being raised by the

public, by local governments, by law enforcement, by first responders

and others, as to what more can be done to ensure that we’re doing the

best job possible to keep our roads safe.

Now, prior to the last election, we had embarked down a path to

renew these maintenance contracts. That is now a task that the new

government is in the midst of. I was very insistent — we were very

insistent as a government — in ensuring that as part of this road

maintenance renewal contract opportunity, we were doing everything we

could to actually enhance those road maintenance standards. In fact, we

had worked hard, with the B.C. Road Builders and with the BCGEU, to

achieve about 6 percent of savings over the entire term of the contract,

the total dollar value of the contract. About 3 percent of that is on

labour savings.

The intention was to plow that $180 million back into enhanced

road maintenance. That would ensure that, for example, we would achieve

bare pavement sooner after a weather event, when minus 9 degrees Celsius

or warmer, on all class A, class B and class C highways. For example, on

a class A highway, you’d go from a response time of two days down to 24

hours. We would also ensure that we would improve the management of

compact snow below minus 9 degrees. Part of the savings would provide

for a smaller size of winter abrasive. Cracked windshields are a fact of

life in rural British Columbia.

[10:50 a.m.]

Lots of work had been done leading up to and through the last

election. I know the current government is working on this as well.

Folks in rural British Columbia are hopeful that as these road

maintenance contracts come up for renewal later this year, they will see

a commitment, from the government, to enhanced standards. That’s going

to require ensuring that those savings that we achieved remain in those

contracts and go towards improved road standards. Also, we’re hopeful.

Rural British Columbians are hopeful that they’re going to see from this

government an overall lift in the budget for better road

maintenance.

The road maintenance contractors do as good a job as they can

within the confines of their contracts. We need to make sure that they

have as many resources as they possibly can, so that they can keep

British Columbia’s roads as safe as absolutely possible. I’ll leave it

there for now.

D. Routley: Thank you to the member for Kamloops–South Thompson for his

comments about transportation in the rural communities of this

province.

This is obviously a huge challenge. Transportation is an

underpinning — a core, foundational piece — of economic infrastructure,

no matter where you are in the province. Earlier I had the pleasure of

being able to talk about B.C. Ferries and the challenges that the

corporation faces and what the communities it serves inherit by way of

those challenges.

The member is correct, obviously, that in rural B.C., particularly

away from our coast, one could argue that highways are the most

important infrastructure piece to those communities. So many communities

are quite landlocked, not by water sometimes but with single routes in

and out or very low-capacity highways. In that view, our government is

proposing a number of projects.

The Malahat Highway right now — a project started by the previous

government and being continued by our government to four-lane a

five-kilometre stretch of Highway 1, which has been the location of

several very, very serious crashes. In fact, I myself know someone who

was lost in that stretch of highway. I knew someone.

Lillooet Highway — Highway 99. There is a long-term stabilization

of a slide there. These are all very large projects, with that one

costing $60 million. Chase — the Highway 1, Hoffman’s Bluff to Jade

Mountain upgrade. That’s 11.9 kilometres of the highway being upgraded

to a 100-kilometre per hour four-lane standard. This includes

realignment of the highway and construction of interchanges. These were

projects that were started by the previous government that will be

continued. There is a long list of them.

The member’s comments focused on maintenance issues — the recovery

of maintenance costs, the efficient negotiation of maintenance contracts

and where government directs its resources. Without being partisan, I

find that it’s difficult to entertain criticism yet from members of the

other side before we have actually been able to implement plans. But we

are continuing the good planning that was done, where it

exists.

Maintenance contracts have been a huge problem throughout the

province over the past 16 years. The inadequacy of maintenance

standards…. For a very long time, it was very difficult for the

government to pull the standards up with these contractors. Some of that

has happened, and it will continue to be, obviously, a goal in

negotiating maintenance contracts. The consultation with stakeholders,

First Nations, and finding out exactly where maintenance priorities are,

is an important consideration.

I know that the minister will be familiar that local department

heads are frequently meeting with local MLAs to ask us and other

stakeholders what their priorities are in maintenance. I have to say

that in my experience as an MLA over the years — in opposition for 12

years and now, very new, in this government experience — of all the

ministries that I dealt with, Highways, or Transportation, was probably

the most effective and efficient and the most willing to respond to the

needs of local politicians.

[10:55 a.m.]

I can’t say enough about the people who I’ve dealt with over the

years. Like with other government ministries and services, there’s a

fairly high rate of turnover, a lot of retirements, a lot of good people

advancing through the ranks, so it’s notable they’ve managed to keep the

quality of the performance of people up during such a period of rapid

turnover. That’s my contribution and respect to the people who work in

the Transportation Ministry.

As for the contractors, I think it will continue to be a situation

where good management will require good diligence, strong oversight and

accountability from the contractors, so that we don’t see renewals or we

don’t see bonuses paid where there haven’t been standards met. That was

a problem in the past, less so in the recent past. This is a trend that

we need to continue. The standards we expect from contractors need to

increase while we do everything we can to decrease costs. That is not

necessarily a penalty to the contractor. It demands a new way of doing

things.

Thank you to the member for his comments.

T. Stone: I do want to thank the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan for his

comments with respect to rural transportation generally and specifically

with respect to road maintenance.

I concur with the member’s comments in so far as the exceptional

professionalism that we have in the Ministry of Transportation.

Hard-working men and women in every corner of this province work very,

very hard to ensure that they understand the needs of their local

communities and that they’re reaching out to all stakeholders — the

local MLAs, also local officials, law enforcement, first responders and

the public. There is no end to the need in rural British Columbia from a

transportation perspective.

The member did comment about investments that are currently being

made. Yes, increasing capacity on rural highways is very, very

important, as is continuing to focus on safety enhancements. That’s why

avalanche control systems through the Three Valley Gap are very, very

important.

That’s why the variable speed zone technology, which our former

government implemented and which I hope that the new government takes

forward and expands across British Columbia, is so important, as is

putting down more median barrier and more side-road barrier. We

certainly made good progress on the Malahat, for example, with a median

barrier. There’s more work to be done there, and the member has

acknowledged that.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Adding more passing lanes around the province, doing more to

enforce the chain-up requirements of commercial trucks, providing more

opportunities for commercial truckers to be able to safely pull over and

to put their chains on, like the Box Canyon project on the Coquihalla

Highway, intersection safety enhancements, and so forth. On and on the

list goes.

It even includes new high-visibility paint, which may seem very

boring until you actually get into it and you realize we have a real

challenge in this province about people being able to see the lines on

the road because of new environmental standards which came out federally

a number of years ago. The paint just doesn’t stick as long as it used

to. There’s some good work underway on that front as well.

Last but not least, Highway 16. The safety enhancements have been

made up there, with contiguous transit service now connecting every

community from Terrace right through to Prince George, as well as the

community van program that now exists, webcams, more shelters. All of

which has resulted in much improved safety for folks who live along

Highway 16 and depend on Highway 16 for their quality of

life.

Hon. S. Robinson: I now call private member’s Motion 7: “Be it resolved that this

House acknowledge the importance of supporting gender

equity.”

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to

proceed with Motion 7 without disturbing the priorities of the motions

preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 7 — GENDER EQUITY

M. Dean: I’m so very grateful and proud to be nominated as the

Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity and, today, to speak to the

motion of supporting gender equity. I’ve been working in the area of

social service and tackling social injustice for over 30

years….

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member, forgive the interruption. Please move the motion. “I

so move” will suffice.

M. Dean:

[Be it resolved that this House acknowledge the importance of

supporting gender equity.]

I so move.

[11:00 a.m.]

We know that inequality is a centuries-old issue. While we’re

making progress, as the campaigns of Me Too and Time’s Up and Press for

Progress illustrate, there’s so much more to be done. It’s timely that,

in this week of International Women’s Day, we take our places here this

morning to discuss the benefits of gender equity.

The impacts of individual, institutional and structural

discrimination continue to put women and transgender people at a

disadvantage, risk of exploitation and direct abuse and harm. There are

a range of implications, including access to careers, equal and fair

pay, self-determination, health, safety, quality of life, opportunities

and status.

When we have equity, everyone benefits and succeeds. Equity

underpins respect for the human rights of all British Columbians.

Without achieving gender equity, women and trans people will not be able

to fulfil their potential, and then we all miss out.

Gender equity is also vital for the economy of B.C. Our economy is

not operating at its full capacity until everyone has the choice to

enter the workforce and fulfil their productive and earning

potential.

Programs, policies, measures and strategies are required to

address social and historical disadvantages women and transgender people

experience. For example, this includes evaluating policies for their

impact, direct and indirect, on self-identifying women and trans

individuals and whether they reinforce vulnerability or disadvantage,

and includes programs that directly tackle discrimination.

Measures can be taken that promote gender equity and tackle the

inequalities of opportunity and equal pay. So, for example, the plan

arising from the Fair Wages Commission of increasing the minimum wage in

B.C. to $15 an hour will build a fairer province. This will make an

especially large difference for women, who disproportionately earn under

$15 an hour.

Budget 2018 makes concrete steps to support gender equity. For

example, tackling the housing crisis, which disproportionately affects

women and transgender people. Budget 2018 increases housing supports,

affordable housing choices and accessible shelters for vulnerable

women.

A historic investment in Budget 2018 in child care makes life more

affordable for families. It means tens of thousands of parents,

especially women, will have the opportunity to both build a family and

pursue their career.

Everyone has the right to live without violence, yet women and

transgender people in B.C. continue to face violence and sexual assault

simply based on their gender or gender expression. This gender-based

violence and assault takes many forms and has a substantial harmful

impact that is experienced differently by individuals. It may be made

worse by discrimination such as racism, ableism, classism, homophobia,

transphobia and biphobia. I’m proud to be part of a government that has

tabled a budget that increases funding by $18 million for programs to

assist women experiencing domestic violence and sexual

assault.

Indigenous women and girls are disproportionally affected by all

forms of violence and are five times more likely to die of violence than

other women of the same age. It is imperative that we pursue a holistic

and comprehensive strategy to help individuals, families and

communities. We must tackle racism, colonialism, vulnerability, trauma

and remoteness. Our government will be reporting on progress to date on

this issue.

Only with a determined and thorough pursuit of gender equity will

we eradicate these forms of violence. While I’m proud our government has

created this position, it will take all of us working together every day

to eliminate structural inequality. It’s up to all of us to do our part

to shape a society where everyone fulfils their potential and

contributes to the prosperity of the entire province. It is on a

foundation of gender equity that we build a better B.C.

M. Stilwell: Gender equity has been an issue in society since the beginning of

time. In recorded history, one can find many accounts where women faced

issues of equity in relationships, in their career, in education and in

athletic opportunities.

[11:05 a.m.]

I’m pleased to speak today in the House acknowledging the

importance of supporting gender equity, especially, specifically, in

sport, an area near and dear to my heart. The number of women and girls

participating in regular activity, recreational sport and elite

competition has increased rapidly in the last few decades. That’s

significant when you think that no women participated in the first

Olympic Games back in 1896.

Women and girls, however, who account for more than 50 percent of

the population in Canada, continue to be underrepresented in sport and

physical activity systems. Significant gender differences persist in

participation and leadership in the Canadian sport system. Women and

girls typically report more barriers to sport and physical activity

participation across the life span than men and boys, which affects

their involvement, as you can well imagine, as participants, athletes,

coaches, officials and leaders.

Just think of our Island girl Cassie Sharpe in the halfpipe. She

is leading the way in breaking gender biases in sport. In fact, the 2012

Olympic Games were the first Olympics where women competed in every

single sport. The battle for equality between men’s and women’s sports

continues, though. Women’s progress has been uphill. They first had to

counter the common notion that women’s bodies were restricted and

delicate and that vigorous physical activity was dangerous.

Still, when females are competing on national and international

levels, their male counterparts are still seen as stronger, more daring,

worth switching the channel for. This is evident when their skill and

their countless hours of dedication and their blood, their sweat and

their tears have landed them on the stage of prestigious competitions or

events, and too much attention is paid to how they look rather than how

they perform.

Genie Bouchard and Serena Williams were prime examples of that

when they were asked to twirl in their outfits at the Australian Open.

Men are never asked to do such things. The problem is that female

athletes are expected to be equal parts supermodel and elite athlete.

Should they sweat too much or repeat their outfits too many times, you

Match that with the fact that millions of young women from all

over the world play sports every day. However, the number of women

playing sports does not correspond to the amount of media coverage that

they get. In newspaper articles, coverage on men’s sports is a greater

number of articles than women’s sports in a ratio of 23 to 1. The media

strongly emphasize men’s sports as a demonstration of masculinity,

suggesting that women seriously interested in sports are crossing gender

lines.

All too often female athletes will be sexualized, bullied and

patronized during their career. They must overcome all of this just to

get to the top. Add that to other multiple barriers like lack of access,

safety, transportation issues, social stigma and the lack of positive

role models, and it’s amazing that we’ve come as far as we have. Since

the early 1970s, the number of female athletes has grown by a whopping

560 percent in high school students and nearly 1,000 percent in college

students.

Although there has been a rise in participation by women in

sports, there is a large disparity that still remains. These disparities

are prevalent globally and continue to hinder equality in sports. Many

institutions and programs still remain conservative and do not

contribute to gender equity in sports. Many sports still remain

dominated by men, financially and globally, in terms of better pay and

funding. Women often receive less funding and inadequate equipment.

They’re either systematically excluded from participating alongside of

men or denied the space to practise and compete on their own

terms.

This goes the same for women who are reporting in sports. No

matter how extensive their experience is in a given sport, they are all

too often presumed to just be another pretty face on TV, hired to bring

diversity to the commentator panel. They will be told they know a lot

about their sport for a woman, despite dedicating years of their life to

them. Their opinions are often belittled or ignored until they are

repeated by a male colleague with praise and agreement. Women are not

seen, nor will they be heard in sports, until there is a wide movement

of advocacy for them. But rest assured, as everyone is still arriving to

the game, we are already breaking records and becoming powerhouses in

sport.

[11:10 a.m.]

R. Kahlon: I’d like to thank the member for Parksville-Qualicum and the

member for Esquimalt-Metchosin for speaking so eloquently on this topic:

“Be it resolved that this House acknowledge the importance of supporting

gender equity.”

When I started playing field hockey — I played field hockey for my

whole life, and I’ve been fortunate to compete at the Olympics and

compete in many games — I started playing on an all-girls team. When I

started playing, there were no boys playing. I did not have to twirl.

I’m getting gestures from the other side. I played on an all-girls team.

There were only a handful of boys playing at the time. I guess I learned

to play like a girl early on, and that’s part of the reason why I’ve

been so successful in sport. It was an amazing experience. Then, as more

boys started playing, we started competing against the girls teams. More

boys started playing, and we ended up having a more competitive

league.

For 20 years, I’ve been coaching — coaching sport, coaching field

hockey. It’s been almost 20 years of mostly coaching women. In that time

of coaching, I’ve seen some of the barriers that these young athletes

have faced. I would say that the majority of the girls that I coached

when I started don’t play sport anymore. That’s a real

challenge.

There’s a reason why women are dropping off in sport at a faster

rate than men, and it’s a real, real concern — social pressures and so

on. The studies are overwhelming. By the age of 14, girls are leaving

sport at double the rate of boys. We have a real challenge, not only in

this province and Canada — I’d say North America — where we’re seeing

girls dropping off at high, alarming rates. There are so many reports

around it.

Some of the reasons are lack of access. That means a lack of

access to sports in high school, where there will be a team for the boys

but there won’t be a team for the girls. It’s a major, major issue. It’s

not only in the high schools. It’s in colleges. It’s in elementary

schools. It’s in just clubs generally, overall.

I remember a few years back I was at the Delta Sports Hall of Fame

where the first women’s soccer team from Delta ever was being inducted.

I think it was 26 years ago, not that long ago. The main thing they were

talking about was this very issue, and we still have that issue. Not to

that extent, but we still have it. A lack of physical education in

schools. Limited opportunities to participate in sports.

There’s a lack of access to adequate playing facilities. It’s a

major issue. I’ll just speak about field hockey again. Too often a

girl’s team would come there, and the boys would be playing on the

better field, and then the girls would have to play on the grass field.

That’s just one example of field hockey, but there are lots of examples

across the way in many sports.

Costs. Costs are a major challenge, a major impediment to access

to sport. I think it’s across the board, but it hits women, and it hits

women of colour at a higher rate than most. Gender stereotypes. It’s a

major, major issue. Rugby is for boys. Well, not anymore. We’re making

progress there. But it’s a major concern.

I think that one of the pieces that’s a big concern for me is how

we treat girls when they’re young. If a boy is climbing a tree, it’s a

boy being a boy. When a girl is climbing a tree: “Get down. It’s not

safe. Don’t play in mud. That’s not the right way to be playing.” This

is something that is engraved in our society, and kids pick it

up.

I’ll share with you. I think my wife and I are fairly progressive

on this issue. My wife is a very strong feminist, advocate for gender

equality, the strongest you’d probably find. My son was five years old.

He came home — my wife was sitting there — and he said: “Girls don’t

play sports. Only boys do.” First off, I was shocked. I said: “Well,

why?” He said: “Well, two reasons. One, when we watch sports on TV, we

only see boys playing.” I was like: “Okay.” Second, he said: “Only daddy

takes me to sports. Mommy doesn’t take me to sports.”

[11:15 a.m.]

That’s when it hits you — that even if you are consciously aware

of it and progressive-minded, you still can miss these

opportunities.

I just started, hon. Speaker, but my red light is up. I could

speak about this for hours. A lot more to do, but we are making

progress, and we have good role models, like the member for

Parksville-Qualicum. We need to continue to have more role models in

sport.

G. Kyllo: It’s a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak on the motion:

“Be it resolved that this House acknowledge the importance of supporting

gender equity.” I’d like to thank the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin for

moving this motion and congratulate her on her new role promoting gender

equity and the advancement of women.

I’d like to begin my remarks by acknowledging my wonderful wife,

Georgina, and our four fantastic daughters: Sarah, Brittany, Angela and

Samantha — five amazing women who have provided me with no shortage of

mostly positive female influence in my life. As well, my six amazing,

beautiful granddaughters — Maya, Kylie, Siddhalee, Nova, Hannah and

Journey — increase that female influence to 11.

Now, I must confess to having one grandson, Nolan Gregory, yet we

remain happily outnumbered by these amazing women and girls. They’re a

constant source of inspiration to me as a father, as a grandfather and

as an MLA. As my daughters were growing up, my wife and I always tried

to encourage them to pursue whatever passions they desired and to push

past their obstacles in their path to success to find something that

they were truly inspired about. I knew if they chose a career path,

something that they were excited about, they’d work very hard. And if

they worked very hard at it, by nature, they would be

successful.

We never wanted our girls to feel that there were any limitations

to what they could do. In addition to being a loving mother and

caregiver, my wife was also heavily involved in our family business. She

showed our girls, from a very early age, that she and I were both

capable of running a successful company. We both had the smarts, the

people skills and the drive that it takes to run a business, which I

know every entrepreneur will tell you is no easy task. It comes with a

lot of risk but also a lot of reward.

Our girls were exposed to all of it, helping us out wherever they

could. And it was imperative that I, as Georgina’s husband and their

father, also set the right example. My wife and I truly worked as a team

both outside and inside the home, though, truthfully, maybe Georgina did

a bit better job than I. I’m not sure. But in addition to the skills,

the hard work, creativity and energy we encouraged our daughters to put

towards any endeavour, it was important to us that our girls also knew

that they had our full confidence and support to achieve their

dreams.

Beyond what we as parents try to instil in our children and

grandchildren, they sometimes face unfair roadblocks in a wider world.

There are some folks out there who don’t provide that support to girls

in our communities, who prefer to tear down a woman’s confidence instead

of raising her up to achieving great things. I think it’s incumbent on

all of us to draw attention to it when we see or hear it and work

towards permanently changing that type of behaviour.

It’s important that we are visible and vocal in our support of

women. As men, we are often unaware of certain systems that are stacked

in our favour or that are inherently unfair to women. We need to try

harder to recognize these occurrences and not simply accept them as the

norm or the way things have always been done. We need to keep in mind

that everyone should be provided with fair treatment, as well as a full

range of opportunities and benefits — in essence, the same finish

line.

As legislators, it’s important to show women and girls that we

value their opinions, experiences and perspectives. In this House, we

have 32 talented female MLAs, each of whom has had to overcome hurdles

to get here and each of whom contributes so much to this province. I’ve

had the good fortune to work with a number of amazing women in this

Legislature: Premier Christy Clark, B.C.’s first elected female Premier,

and the member for Prince George–Valemount, assisting her, in her role

as Minister of Jobs, Tourism, Skills Training and Labour; and also

B.C.’s first female Attorney General, and the member for Richmond South

Centre, B.C.’s longest-serving female member of this

Legislature.

It has been a privilege to work with each and every one of these

great leaders. And as International Women’s Day approaches, let’s think

of the ways we can better promote fairness and equity in this House and

this province.

J. Routledge: Thank you to the previous speakers for their insightful

contributions to this very important debate.

[11:20 a.m.]

I’m reminded of an old ad that urged us on: “You’ve come a long

way, baby.” But we’re not there yet. In fact, recent poignant statements

in this House make me wonder if we may even have regressed.

Goodwill, good intentions, alone will not achieve gender equity.

As the previous speaker said, there are practices and policies embedded

in the system that continue to disadvantage women. Systemic

discrimination happens when men and women are treated the same but the

results give men the advantage anyway. Now, that seems counterintuitive,

so let me share an analogy that clarified it for me.

A man and a woman are in a car race for the good job. The man is

driving a high-performance sports car. His road is straight. The road

signs are clear and point him in the right direction. There’s no speed

limit, and the cheering crowds are urging him on. The woman, on the

other hand, is driving a station wagon. Maybe the tires are bald. Her

road ahead is full of potholes. There are sharp curves, steep hills and

there are no road signs. Her cheering crowd may be the kids in the

backseat, and her starting line is half a mile further back. It’s even

further back if she’s racialized or has a disability.

Now, we can move the woman up to the same starting line as the man

to make the race fair. But until we straighten out her road, fill in the

potholes and put her in a sports car, the man is still going to get to

the finish line first. After all these decades of enlightenment and

consciousness raising, women are still less likely than men to be in the

workforce, to be in the race at all.

Women, when they get there, are a lot more likely to work

part-time. Women tend to work fewer hours than men, and when they take

involuntary time off, they’re more likely to cite child care as their

reason. In fact, one study shows that women are twice as likely to be

responsible for unpaid child care and elder care than are men. So while

women’s hourly earnings have risen to 90 percent of what a man earns on

average, our annual earnings are only 75 percent of what a man

earns.

One of the deepest and widest potholes slowing women down in their

race to income security is the lack of universally accessible,

affordable, quality child care. In spite of changing attitudes, women’s

experience of paid work continues to be shaped by our caregiving roles.

It means our careers are being interrupted. Women are making detours, if

you will, while our male counterparts are speeding straight ahead in the

race for good jobs. It means we are making lower pension contributions,

condemning many women to poverty in later life.

Our government is getting to work to fill that pothole. We are

investing a record $1 billion over three years to lower the costs for

parents, increase the number of child care spaces and make sure those

spaces meet the highest standard of care.

Last week the member for Chilliwack-Kent made some shocking

allegations about our commitment to bring this much-needed relief to

working parents and parents who would work if they could afford the

child care. Now, I couldn’t quite follow the logic of his argument. He

seemed to be suggesting that mothers should stay home to look after

their children. That’s what he meant when he said that in B.C., we now

have one full-time, 24-hour-a-day child care space for every child in

B.C.?

Tell that to the families who are struggling to provide for their

infants on one income. Tell that to the families who put their names on

multiple waiting lists before their child is even born. That’s what he

meant when he said the NDP is ignoring the cries of infants leaving

their parents who have to go to work? Did he just invoke parental guilt,

one of the more insidious forms of sexism?

Let’s not live in the past. June Cleaver only exists in reruns,

and Ward Cleaver’s salary isn’t enough to support a family in their big

house today. In fact, in today’s economy, Ward is likely to have been

replaced by a machine. Today there is a 40 percent chance that June and

Ward would get a divorce and an 80 percent chance Wally and Beaver would

end up living with June. How would she support them without child

care?

[11:25 a.m.]

Our child care plan is modern. It’s made-in-B.C., it’s what the

people want, and it’s essential to achieving gender equality.

J. Isaacs: I rise today to speak on the motion, which highlights the

importance of gender equity. It’s one of the defining moments of our

time to speak on this issue, as we are seeing a revolution in gender

relations. And while this revolution has been quietly going on for some

time, we are now seeing an accelerated pace and real progress for gender

equality.

I started my career in 1974 in the investment industry, and at

that time, nearly 90 percent of the industry was made up of men. Even

though there was a small contingent of hard-working women, it was a

male-dominated environment, and women were often completely excluded

from business conversations.

There were few job opportunities outside of the traditional

secretary or administrative role. There were few opportunities for

additional skills training or upgrading, and even fewer opportunities

for promotion to a managerial or executive position. In those rare cases

where there was an opportunity for career advancement, the salary gap

was often far below the mean paid to men.

As women entered the field of sales — such as real estate,

investment banking and as business entrepreneurs — there was slowly a

shift and recognition of how women were perceived in the business world.

Women’s perspectives and work ethics were bringing new value to

corporations. As a result, many corporations now seek out women leaders

to help build diversity within their organizations.

Women are reaching new career plateaus — as air traffic

controllers, pilots and even astronauts. In addition, we’re seeing more

and more women entering the trades, a sector previously dominated by

men. Women welcome the opportunity to compete equally in trades, such as

welding and construction. It has taken a lot of hard work and

determination by women who persevered despite the seclusion they faced,

even when it was uncomfortable for them to do so.

We need to thank these women for their fight for gender equality.

But there’s still more to do. We need to see more women serve on boards

of directors, leading industry as CEOs, and developing new leaders as

top executives. And we need to encourage more women to participate in

government.

Our last government broke many barriers in this regard. We had

Canada’s longest-serving female Premier. We had the only female Premier

to be re-elected, and we had the province’s first female Attorney

General, the member for Prince George–Valemount.

The Me Too movement has shown that women around the world are no

longer willing to accept the unacceptable. We are an equal part of

society, and we will not allow anyone to hold us down any

longer.

As part of my community and not-for-profit work, I encountered

many of our society’s most vulnerable citizens, and a disproportionate

number of them were women. We as a society need to do more to ensure

that women have the same opportunities as men, recognize that women’s

needs may differ from men and to be more flexible to meet the different

needs of women.

Throughout my over-40 years in the business sector and alongside

other women who pioneered and mentored women of all ages and from

different walks of life and different ethnic backgrounds, I have seen

many positive changes that have advanced women and young girls in

overcoming these obstacles.

I’m proud to support the motion that continues to champion in the

ultimate quest for gender equality for women.

B. D’Eith: I was very honoured to have been asked to speak on behalf of this

motion. I think it’s very important for men to speak up, especially for

gender equality. I’m very proud of our government, in the fact that we

have actually got complete gender equality in cabinet. It’s the first

time in British Columbia history.

[11:30 a.m.]

I believe that actions speak louder than words. I hope that this

leadership with our government, in regards to gender equality, will

inspire other governments and other organizations around British

Columbia to move towards gender equality in management, senior executive

positions and boards.

The Me Too movement has certainly put the spotlight on the

entertainment industry, with such notable cases as Harvey Weinstein.

While these cases are often about men in positions of power using their

positions to exploit women, I truly hope that this attention will also

bring to light other systemic issues that exist in the

workforce.

I’ve worked in the creative industries for 28 years, and it was

always apparent that women were not being represented as having the same

representation as men in senior positions in the music industry in

particular, where I worked. In 2012, Women in Music Canada, a non-profit

organization comprised of influential members in the Canadian music

industry, was formed. The organization is dedicated to fostering gender

equality in the music industry through the support of advancement of

women.

They did a study in 2014. In the study, it showed that the annual

salaries of women in the music industry in 2014 were 27 percent lower on

average than the most recently available average salary for the sound

recording segment in Canada, and that women employees of music companies

earned approximately 10 percent less than their average music company

employee. Of the companies surveyed, 48 percent had no women in their

executive tiers, and among the women polled, only 10 percent held

executive positions. So there’s clearly a long way to go in that sector,

in the sector that I have worked in for so many years.

Other sectors within the creative industries…. Responding to the

limited opportunities for women in leadership positions in the film and

television industry, the Women In Film and Television Vancouver was

formed in 1989 by a group of professional women working in the industry.

This group is one of 35 worldwide chapters of Women In Film and

Television.

There’s also another group called Please Adjust Your Set, another

group of screen-based advocates. They partnered with the advocacy

committee for the Vancouver Women In Film and Television to gather

statistics on women’s participation in the film and television sector.

They were actually able to show through statistics that only 4 percent

of featured film directors, 11 percent of writers and 13 percent of

editors were working in the film industry.

In a 2010 report prepared by Marilyn Burgess for Telefilm Canada,

she noted that women professionals report that they are disadvantaged

with respect to access to professional networks, opportunities for

on-the-job experience and visibility at festivals — factors which are

considered crucial to successful career development. The study also

noted that the lack of family-friendly working environments impacted on

their careers.

Also, the Women In Film and Television advocacy committee

conducted a detailed analysis of Telefilm’s funding, and they found that

within the funding, only 27 percent of directors, 22 percent of writers

and 14.3 percent of editors and 8 percent in photography were female,

which is very low. On the positive side, though, 48 percent of producers

were female. But for the most part, it still showed that there was a lot

of opportunity lost.

As far as other studies, there was a study done by Sundance, which

is a U.S. festival. They found, in fact, that on average, only 29

percent of filmmakers that were represented at the Sundance festival

were women. These are actually very similar to the statistics that are

being shown now in Canada.

To change this situation, there were some recommendations made.

One is that women need more mentoring and encouragement for early career

development in the film industry. They need better access to finance.

And there needs to be much more awareness being made. These

recommendations are very similar — that were made by the Please Adjust

Your Set people and other groups.

I’m really excited to say, though, that there has been some

progress. In 2016, on Women’s Day, the National Film Board announced

that 50 percent of all productions and 50 percent of spending had to be

directed by women. And that’s very exciting.

Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. There’s a lot of work to be

done in this regard.

[11:35 a.m.]

J. Thornthwaite: I rise today to speak to the motion about the importance of gender

equity, but I believe that what I’m about to say could save a life. Last

week MLAs recently attended a breakfast hosted by the Heart and Stroke

Foundation, focusing on women’s heart health. Did you know that heart

attacks are the leading cause of premature death for women in Canada,

with a woman dying every 20 minutes of heart disease? Five times as many

women die of heart disease as breast cancer. Early heart attack signs

are missed in almost 80 percent of women.

This is because two-thirds of heart attack clinical research

focuses on men, even though women who have a heart attack are more

likely to die or suffer a second heart attack than their male

counterparts. As Yves Savoie, the CEO of the Heart and Stroke Foundation

said: “We are decades behind in our knowledge of the differences between

men’s and women’s hearts.” This is gender inequity.

What we have found is just the tip of the massive iceberg. Women

have more adverse reactions than men to certain heart medications, and

these reactions are generally more severe. Women are at greater risk of

drug-induced heart rhythm disorders, and they have twice the risk of

bleeding complications from common treatments such as angioplasty. Dr.

Karin Humphries of the B.C. Centre for Improved Cardiovascular Health

said: “Sex and gender blinders have led to too many women dying

unnecessarily.”

Nancy Bradley’s chest pain was so bad that she had trouble

catching her breath. Given her family’s heart history of heart disease,

she was sure she was having a heart attack. But when she went to the

hospital, she was told that her symptoms were probably just a bad case

of heartburn and sent home.

Two weeks later Nancy had a massive heart attack. “I’ve had

heartburn before. This wasn’t heartburn. I tried to explain that when I

was feeling different. When it happened the second time, the pain was

actually the same.”

Women’s heart health is under-researched. Physicians themselves,

in a study published in the American Journal of Cardiology ,

have noted that the lack of information…. Only 22 percent of primary

care physicians and 42 percent of cardiologists felt well prepared to

assess heart disease in women.

The cost of the research bias means that women admitted to

hospitals for heart disease were less likely to receive beneficial

medications or surgeries. Women are underdiagnosed because their

symptoms are different. For instance, unexpected arterial tears are the

cause of 25 percent of all heart attacks in women under 60.

Carolyn Thomas is a heart attack survivor. She said: “In the mind,

the stereotypical heart attack was an old guy clutching his chest on a

golf course. Women need to know that they can have a heart attack yet

continue to walk, talk and work.”

Women generally recognize the Hollywood heart attack — the

chest-clutching, crushing pain. If their pain is less severe or if they

have non-pain signs such as nausea, sudden fatigue or shortness of

breath — signs more often reported in women — they are more likely to

delay getting to emergency care. Once there, they are less likely to get

fast, aggressive treatment.

Let’s learn the signs of heart attack: chest discomfort, pressure,

squeezing, fullness of pain, burning or heaviness, upper-body

discomfort, neck, jaw, shoulder, arms, back, shortness of breath,

sweating, nausea, light-headedness. If you feel any of those, call 911

right away. It’s time to break the glass ceiling on heart

health.

A. Kang: Today’s private member’s statement is: “Be it resolved that this

House acknowledge the importance of supporting gender equity.” I am

proud to be standing here with my colleagues of all genders to speak on

this statement. As a woman and as a woman of colour and ethnicity, this

resolution is a very personal topic to me. It saddens me and frustrates

me that even until today, in the 21st century, we still stand here in

this chamber with a need for advocacy for gender equity.

Gender equity is part of human rights, including the right to be

free from coercion, intimidation and violence at work and at home. One

of the issues we, as a society, still struggle to adequately address is

violence against women. Violence of any type against anyone should not

be tolerated, but women are victims of violence at a disproportionate

level.

[11:40 a.m.]

Gendered violence is rooted in gender inequalities and other

systems of oppression. Intimate-partner and sexual violence are

disproportionately perpetrated against women and violate their rights to

live free from abuse and violence.

Let us ask ourselves as we talk about gender equality: “What are

we doing as legislators, as a society and as individuals to support

women?” Transwomen, Indigenous women and women of colour continue to

live their lives in fear of violence.

Statistics Canada has no information about the rates of murder,

violence, poverty or homelessness faced by trans-Canadians. It was only

recently, since June 2017, that the Canadian Human Rights Act and the

Criminal Code were updated to include gender identity and gender

expression.

For years, the previous B.C. Liberal government refused to even

consider amending the B.C. human rights code to include transgender or

gender-diverse people, as Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova

Scotia, Northwest Territories, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland had

already done.

I applaud the member for Vancouver–West End for his years of

advocacy that ultimately led to the B.C. code’s amendment in 2016. And

let me be clear: transwomen are women. Gender equity is not just a

women’s issue; it’s a human issue.

Indigenous women and girls also face disproportionate levels of

violence. Indigenous girls and women in Canada have been murdered or

have gone missing at a rate four times higher than the rate of

representation of Indigenous women in the Canadian population, which is

4.3 percent. Non-Indigenous women of colour also face higher rates of

violence and can be wary of accessing services because of experiences of

discrimination and racism by social and legal institutions.

Racialized women are also less likely to report incidents of

sexual assault or seek help due to previous community experiences of

racism from authorities. Studies show that when women of colour report

violence, their experiences are often taken less seriously within the

criminal justice system and their perpetrators routinely receive more

lenient punishments. This has to stop.

For too long, supports for survivors have been inadequate in our

province. I am glad to see that in this year’s budget, our New Democrat

government is standing with survivors of gendered and sexual violence

and taking a new approach, providing ongoing funding for the services

that we need and depend on.

This budget invests $136 million over three years to support the

construction of 1,500 housing units across the province for women and

children fleeing abusive relationships. In the fall, we invested $5

million to help to expand counselling, outreach and crisis support

services.

This budget continues that work, committing $18 million over three

years to meet the demand for programs and services for women and

children who experience sexual assault, domestic violence and other

crimes. We’ve also committed $2 million to support the Moose Hide

Campaign, emphasizing B.C.’s ongoing commitment to end violence against

women and children.

Violence against women is not an issue that will get solved

overnight, but additional funding is a first step. I dream of a day when

women — our mothers, our daughters, our loved ones — no longer have to

live in fear of violence. A wise woman, Vera Nazarian, has expressed: “A

woman is human. She is not better, wiser, stronger, more intelligent,

more creative or more responsible than a man. Likewise, she is never

less.”

D. Clovechok: I’m honoured every time I am able to rise in this House and speak

on behalf of my constituents in Columbia River–Revelstoke. Today is a

very special day, as I have an opportunity to speak to something that is

very important to me and to my family, and that’s gender

equality.

I’ve always been honoured and privileged to work throughout my

multiple different careers with incredible women. That applies to the

women on both sides of this House who inspire me, teach me and challenge

me to be a better politician and a better person.

As a fairly newcomer here, I am forever asking the member for

Prince George–Valemount questions. To her credit, if I’m annoying her

with the multitude of questions that I always ask her, she has not let

on but shares with me her years of experience on so many of the files

and issues that she’s worked on. Her mentorship for me is something that

I have great value for.

[11:45 a.m.]

As a father, a son, a husband and an elected representative, I

endeavour to be a big proponent of gender equality. My daughters were

raised to know that there’s no such thing as imposed ceilings, just what

they impose on themselves. I’m proud to say that my daughters have

become very successful in all that they have chosen to do. My oldest

daughter is the vice-president of Tourism Saskatoon, and my youngest

daughter graduated with honours and distinction from the Haskayne School

of Business.

I can remember my oldest daughter as a 5-year-old inside the

cavity of an elk that I had just shot, helping field dress that animal

while the other kids were running everywhere. She had her arms up to it,

and she has become an incredibly talented and skilled bow

hunter.

I’m also proud to say that my two granddaughters, ages 9 and 3,

are becoming strong, fearless and independent human beings. In addition,

I look to my wife every day for guidance and input. She’s my

rock.

While we’ve seen women across our province and our country smash

through glass ceilings one after another — and the previous Premier of

the province of British Columbia, Christy Clark, was one of those — we

do have to recognize that many women face obstacles that are invisible

to men.

Gender equality should not just come at the call for women that we

know. It must be called because women are whole and equal citizens.

Gender equity is needed immediately, not just for our sisters and our

wives and our friends and our mothers, but for every woman in this

country.

There’s a great value in having more women in politics. Women look

at issues differently than men and bring a completely different

perspective to the table. They bring a whole different set of skills to

the table, both because of their lived experiences and, if you’ll allow

me the generalization, because they’re better listeners. This is where I

believe that we, as men, need to do better — being willing to listen to

and learn from our female counterparts, be they our constituents or our

colleagues.

We need to advocate for women and recognize that policies we enact

and the work that we do will inherently affect our constituents

differently. We talk a lot in this House about different economic

strata, but the gender question is of equal importance. We have a lot to

gain by pushing our conversations further, recognizing that the women in

our province have experiences, opinions and values as various as those

of the women in this House.

Women of colour, Indigenous women, LGBTQ…. All women will face

different challenges alongside of sexism, like burdens of racism and

homophobia. Although not all gender discriminations and misogyny looks

the same, gender equity requires us to understand that it is all

connected. If we’ve had the privilege of being safe from these

challenges, we must work that much harder to support those who are

not.

As representatives of a great number of peoples, we stand to gain

a lot by learning to empathize with a variety of diverse and unique

backgrounds. We must all listen to the complaints and concerns, the

needs and hopes, of all of our constituents and work together to create

a more equal British Columbia.

Research has shown that if a woman is on a board, her opinion will

be given less weight than that of a man until there are three women on

that board. That’s just not acceptable.

It’s our responsibility to make sure women in politics are not

only supported in their election bids but in all aspects of the work in

this House. Together we can ensure that this House is a safe place for

all peoples to work and thrive, free from all forms of discrimination.

It’s too easy to say: “I support gender equity.” Our actions speak

volumes, and we must demonstrate that every day — that this is the

truth.

The bottom line. When women are at the table, everybody

benefits.

G. Begg: I think it’s appropriate, as we begin to ramp up this discussion,

to ensure that we all understand what we mean when we say gender equity.

Gender equity means fairness of treatment for women and men according to

their respective needs. Simply put, women and men, girls and boys,

should enjoy the same rights, resources, opportunities and

protection.

Most members of this House would have seen Maclean’s

magazine this month and a full-banner headline that says, in black: “Pay

equity: one magazine at a time. This month women pay $6.99 and men pay

$8.81.” This reflects the shocking 26 percent pay gap between men and

women that still exists in Canada. The date on the magazine: March,

[11:50 a.m.]

The feature story inside sets the stage perfectly for the

discussion. “No more excuses. For too long, employers have gotten away

with asinine justifications for paying women less.”

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It’s worthwhile, I think, to take a look at just two of those

excuses. We’ve all heard that there aren’t enough female candidates,

which purely and simply is not true. In every developed nation in the

world, this country and this province included, women are now better

educated than men. According to OECD data, women on average still earn

15 percent less.

The other common excuse is that women don’t ask for more money. In

fact, they do. But the sad fact is that they just don’t tend to get it.

I’m proud to stand in this House today to say that in this province,

under the leadership of this new government, we’re committed to being

markedly in the forefront of closing the gap. In fact, Premier John

Horgan set the tone for gender equality in B.C. by appointing 11 women

to a 22-member cabinet and last Thursday appointed Esquimalt-Metchosin

MLA Mitzi Dean as Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity.

Let’s look back for a moment to help us understand how we got

there. What was the prior government’s response to the factors

surrounding this issue?

Unfortunately, we’ve inherited a province where child care is

still wildly expensive, costing Vancouver parents, on average, over

$1,200 a month. In this province, 83 percent of lone-parent families are

headed by women. One in two B.C. children in lone-parent households

lives in poverty, yet the prior government refused for years to raise

social assistance rates. Under the B.C. Liberals, minimum wage was well

below the living wage in Metro Vancouver. And 60 percent of minimum-wage

earners in this province are women.

Women also make up 70 percent of the teachers in B.C.​

However, between ripping up contracts, tying the teachers union up in

legal battles, stripping the public school budgets and closing schools,

the prior government’s treatment of teachers in this province has been

nothing short of abysmal.

As we look to the future, there are some statistics that we must

consider. With more than 900,000 job openings expected in B.C. by 2027,

women will play an increasingly important role in keeping the province’s

economy diverse, strong and growing. B.C. has more than one million

women working — the most in B.C.’s history and nearly half of the

current provincial labour force.

Approximately 38 percent of all business owners in B.C. are women

— above the national average of 36 percent. Women comprise 38 percent of

all self-employed people in B.C. in 2017, ranking B.C. third among all

provinces and above the national average of 37 percent.

We have much to be thankful for in this province. We have

accomplished much. But in the future, there is much more to be

done.

American author Nicholas Kristof, in his book Half the Sky:

Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide , has a

great quote that I want to leave with you. “In the 19th century, the

central moral challenge was slavery. In the 20th century, it was the

battle against totalitarianism. We believe that in this century, the

paramount moral challenge will be the struggle for gender equity around

the world.” It is incumbent upon all members of this House to ensure

that British Columbians are at the forefront of that battle.

G. Begg moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Now that that’s been done, I adjourn the House so we can go have

lunch.

M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

Unmatched Element [correctionsList]

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