Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, March 5, 2020

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 324

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Statements

Journée de la francophonie

Hon. A. Dix

World Lymphedema Day

N. Letnick

Journée de la francophonie

N. Letnick

Introductions by Members

Statements

CCAA Women’s Basketball National Championship

S. Malcolmson

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M204 — Equal Pay Reporting Act

S. Cadieux

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Cowboy Heritage Week

D. Barnett

International Women’s Day

M. Dean

75th anniversary of liberation of Netherlands

T. Shypitka

Shakti Society

R. Singh

Women in politics

S. Furstenau

Immigrant Link Centre Society and food redistribution

B. Ma

Oral Questions

Government staff involvement in protests

M. de Jong

Hon. M. Farnworth

Indigenous Relations Minister meeting with protestors at Legislature

M. de Jong

Hon. S. Fraser

M. Polak

Funding for sexual assault clinics and services

S. Furstenau

Hon. M. Farnworth

Government handling of resource project proposals

A. Weaver

Hon. B. Ralston

Status of protests and agreement on Wet’suwet’en rights and title

S. Bond

Hon. S. Fraser

Hon. J. Horgan

Tabling Documents

Office of the Merit Commissioner, merit performance audit, 2018-19

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2020

Hon. H. Bains

J. Martin

S. Malcolmson

L. Larson

R. Singh

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued)

L. Throness

Hon. K. Chen

Hon. K. Conroy

THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 2020

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: S. Thomson.

Statements

JOURNÉE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

Hon. A. Dix: I know people have been waiting for this today. We are celebrating

B.C. Francophonie Day, la Journée de la francophonie en

Colombie-Britannique.

We’re going to have an event in the Hall of Honour at noon, and I

welcome all MLAs to come. There are two major themes this year. Of

course, today’s principal theme is that we will be celebrating the

Canadian Francophone Games which are coming here to Victoria this

summer, which is going to be fantastic.

Secondly, we’re acknowledging the 75th anniversary of la

Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique, which is a

recognition of their extraordinary achievements as an

organization.

In the galleries with us today is Marie-Nicole Dubois,

vice-president of la Fédération des francophones de la

Colombie-Brittanique; Marie-Pierre Lavoie, the presi­dent of the

organizing committee for la Jeux de la francophonie canadienne here in

Victoria; Casey Edmunds, who’s the executive director of the games; and

Pauline Gobeil, the executive director for the Société francophone de

Victoria.

I wish that everyone makes them welcome and joins us to celebrate

Francophonie Day.

WORLD LYMPHEDEMA DAY

N. Letnick: I have two announcements to make this morning. One is this is the

World Lymphedema Day — tomorrow, actually, on March 6. This is a tragic

and incurable condition that affects millions of people worldwide,

including up to a million Canadians, and often results in swelling in

the limbs that can leave people with chronic discomfort and

disfigurements.

It is a very distressing condition, and the work that this

organization does to raise awareness, promote healthy and hopeful living

and fight for a cure cannot be thanked enough.

Would the members of the House please join me in thanking the B.C.

Lymphedema Association on the World Lymphedema Day tomorrow.

JOURNÉE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

N. Letnick: I’d like to join le ministre de la santé pour la Journée de la

francophonie aujourd’hui à Victoria et à travers la province de la

Colombie-Britannique. Il y a plus de 300,000 personnes, francophones

et francophiles, ici en Colombie-Britannique qui célèbrent la

journée. J’espère que tous les députés de cette chambre vont joindre

le ministre et l’association pour un petit verre ici à midi juste en

dehors de ces portes.

Would the House please join the minister and myself and all the

300,000 French-speaking or sympathetic people to the French language in

celebration of this wonderful day that comes once a year in the province

but, actually, comes once every day in my house back at home. Please

welcome them.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, Mental Health and Addictions.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Darcy: Merci beaucoup, monsieur. C’est un grand plaisir pour moi de faire

des introductions de deux amis spéciaux. That’s as far as I’ll

go.

It’s a great pleasure to make introductions today to two very special

friends who are in the gallery. One of them was introduced yesterday, but

he’s back today — Thomas Sigurdson, the outgoing director of the B.C.

Building Trades and a good friend and a constituent from New Westminster. He

is here today with Vicky Waldron, who is the executive director of the

construction industry rehabilitation plan.

[10:10 a.m.]

We are very, very proud in our ministry to work in close partnership

with the B.C. Building Trades and the Construction Labour Relations

Association, the employers, in order to respond to the overdose crisis to

save lives, connect people to treatment and recovery. As we know, one in

four people who are dying work in trades or transport.

The construction industry rehab plan does remarkable work in the areas

of providing education, prevention, combating stigma, delivering treatment

services, naloxone training, counselling programs and connection to

treatment and recovery programs and a new pilot project, which is about

developing alternatives to opioids for the management of chronic pain for

workers in that industry.

I also want to give a shout-out to Vicky’s team — Nicole Che, Mardean

Neuman, Esha Mashhour, Sandeep Ranu and Serena Slatten. Together we are

saving lives and connecting people to their pathways of hope to treatment

and recovery. Thank you so much for your amazing work.

Would the House please join me in welcoming them today.

A. Wilkinson: In honour of International Women’s Day, we’re joined today by 12

women, up-and-comers from the Lower Mainland and Victoria who are here to

shadow female MLAs and learn how the Legislature operates — perhaps not in

its usual fashion today, but it’s interesting, nonetheless.

They are Alana Tacy, Courtney van den Boogaard, Sarah Miller, Leslie

McDonnell, Alisa Gloag, Kaelin Hickford, Lindsay Remple, Anissa Lau, Lisa

Matthew, Emily Lycopolus, Justine Lee and Kirsten Sharp. And there’s a 13th

passenger. Baby Myra belongs to Ms. Lycopolus and, at ten weeks, is setting

a new record for the youngest Young Liberal ever.

Hon. L. Popham: My ministerial assistant, Jason Craik, is joining us in the chamber

today, and he has a very special guest with him. His father is here. Jeff

Craik is visiting from Kaleden. Now, I know that Jason is trying to show his

dad a very good time, and I know that he’s making it extra cozy, because

Jason ordered new bed linens just to make his dad feel more at home. So

welcome.

D. Clovechok: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce some folks from the

Kootenays. In the gallery today, I have three tourism heavy-hitters who are

here attending the TIABC conference. Barry Zwueste is the president and CEO

of St. Eugene’s Mission Resort and Casino. I’ve known Barry for over 30

years. He’s been with CP Hotels and Resorts and then Fairmont. He’s just a

great guy. I understand that at the dinner tonight they’re going to be

receiving an award. So congratulations for that.

Vivek Sharma, is the president and CEO of Fairmont Hot Springs Resort.

Vivek comes to us from Sun Peaks, and he’s a great addition to our valley.

Dave Butler is the director of sustainability for Canadian Mountain

Holidays. He’s also an author, books called Full Curl , No Place

for Wolverines and In Rhino We Trust . If you haven’t read

them, you need to go out and buy them.

Also in the audience is Sarah Miller from Invermere, a great friend of

mine. She’s here on the shadow program.

I want to ask this House to make them all feel very

welcome.

J. Sims: Last weekend I had the pleasure of attending a very special wedding.

Those of you who’ve been to South Asian weddings know that they’re not tiny

family affairs. These are weddings where people gather from right across the

globe. In this case, it was no different. We had people there from

Australia, from India, from England, from the United States and, of course,

from all across Canada.

This was a big weekend for the Gill family and the Chhina family. I

want to say that both the bride and groom, husband and wife Amarjit Singh

Gill and Seerat Chhina, are in the House today. They brought with them a

representative of the international guest list they had at their

wedding.

Here are Ripan Chhina and Rimpy Chhina, brother and brother-in-law to

Seerat, the bride; Kanwar Baath and Gurleen Baath, relatives; Davinder Malhi

and Manty Malhi, who are sister and brother-in-law to the groom; Jagdeep

Sidhu, a cousin.

[10:15 a.m.]

Narinder Chhina, of course, is the lady who was the focus of

everybody’s attention. Not you, Seerat, but the mom of the bride. I know how

hard it was to participate in this wedding and how emotional it was for you.

Of course, the little nephew and niece who stole the show — Manjaap Chhina

and Amrose Chhina. They’re accompanied by Rabina.

Please join me in celebrating the marriage of Amarjit and Seerat

Chhina and welcoming their guests.

M. Lee: I’d like to also join to welcome one particular participant in the

shadow program, and that is my daughter, Justine Lee. Justine was born in

Ottawa back at a time when I worked for the federal Minister of Justice —

hence, her name. She has grown up to know no limits in terms of what is

possible for her in this world and in terms of her student leadership.

Whether it’s with environmental sustainability issues, working with

inner-city school kids in Chicago as well as with women on the Downtown

Eastside, Justine continues to demonstrate the kind of leadership that we

all, particularly Mom and Dad, really respect and are very proud

of.

Thank you, Justine, and welcome to this House.

J. Routledge: Please join me in welcoming a group of brave women who are showing the

way. This morning the government women’s caucus met with a large group of

women in trades. They told us some incredible stories about what they went

through to get into their trades, some of the issues they face day to day on

the job. They are challenging stereotypes every day. They are incredible

role models for the next generation of strong women. They are making it

possible for young women to have good jobs that will change the province and

build the province.

J. Thornthwaite: I’d like to welcome to the House a friend to the B.C. Legislature. He

was our MLA for several years — I think two or three. I’ve got to get it

right. He was elected the same time I was, anyways, in 2009. Now he is the

new MP for Pitt Meadows–Maple Ridge. Would the House please welcome Marc

Dalton.

Statements

CCAA WOMEN’S BASKETBALL

NATIONAL

CHAMPIONSHIP

S. Malcolmson: I hope that the Legislature will give a warm welcome to the eight

women’s basketball teams from across the country who are coming to

Nanaimo to compete at Vancouver Island University in the CCAA Women’s

Basketball Championships. It’s a huge honour for Nanai­mo to host

teams from B.C., Alberta, Quebec, Ontario and one team from the Atlantic

region, and to have it hosted in Snuneymuxw territory at Vancouver

Island University. It’s going to be fantastic.

I hope people will come out from March 18 to 21 and cheer your

team on. I’ll be cheering for the Mariners.

Introductions by Members

T. Shypitka: I like to return favours. As my colleague from Columbia

River–Revelstoke just introduced a couple of constituents from my riding, I

will return the favour and introduce a couple of constituents from his

riding. In the gallery, we’ve got Jim and Babs Webster from Kimberley. They

are part of the Pipes and Drums of British Columbia — I’ll be speaking more

to that in my two-minute statement — and their friend Nancy Watson from

Sidney. Would the House please welcome them to the gallery.

M. Dean: It’s my great pleasure today to introduce Christina and Bella Ross.

They’re here from Metchosin. Bella is a student at Hans Helgesen Elementary

School in Sooke school district 62, and she won a competition in December

last year to create the picture for my seasonal card that went out to so

many people in my community. I’m so excited that they’re here today. I would

hope that everybody would make them very welcome.

D. Barnett: Today in the gallery, we have three students who are here for a

robotics contest from Peter Skene Ogden School in 100 Mile House — grade 9,

10, and 11 students Corey Bougie, Mickey Hannesschalger, Ty Butler. With

them, they have our fire chief, who is, I think, mentoring them and helping

them, Roger Hollander.

[10:20 a.m.]

Good luck in your contest, for those of you that are staying here. It

is a robotics contest, and it’s at the Save-On Centre for the next three

days. Congratulations and good luck.

S. Furstenau: I have three introductions to make. I’m delighted to have Curtis Walz

and Ella Mister Douglas here today shadowing me. Curtis is a first-year

political science student at UVic. We met in my friend Andrew Wender’s UVic

poli-sci class in the fall. He grew up in Kelowna, has always loved politics

and is looking forward to a career in politics. He’s the chair of the UVic

Greens and apparently really nailed his portrayal of Thisbe in A

Midsummer Night’s Dream . He really enjoys theatre.

Ella Mister Douglas — I actually met her when she was presenting at

the Lake Cowichan city council meeting about her experience as a member of

the B.C. Youth Parliament and reporting on what she’d learned. She’s a grade

12 student at Lake Cowichan School and is looking to go into political

science at UVic next year. Her hobby is watercolour painting.

I’m especially excited to announce and to introduce my son, who is

here in the gallery today. He’s Peter Salmon; he’s 14 years old. He is a

funny, hard-working, humble, lovely person. It is my delight to be in his

company these last few days.

Peter started his citizen action part of his life quite early. When he

was seven years old, he wrote a letter to the editor, pointing out that the

earlier school start time for elementary schools meant that very small

children were standing on the side of the road in the dark, waiting for

their school buses. The next year the school time got pushed back to a later

starting date. I don’t know how much Peter’s letter had to do with that, but

it was a great example of how to be involved as an active citizen. I’m

delighted he’s here today.

Would the House please make all three of my guests very

welcome.

R. Singh: I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate three female

leaders from my community of Surrey who have been nominated for YWCA Women

of Distinction Awards. Those are Anita Huberman, CEO of Surrey Board of

Trade; Neelam Sahota, CEO of DIVERSEcity; and Sonia Andhi, the founder of

Shakti Society. Would the House please join me in congratulating

them.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M204 — EQUAL PAY REPORTING ACT

S. Cadieux presented a bill intituled Equal Pay Reporting

Act.

S. Cadieux: Eliminating the wage gap between men and women is critical to

achieving our goals of inclusivity and sustainability. Women’s work

should not be undervalued, nor should women’s skills be

underutilized.

It’s true that part of the gender wage gap can be explained by the

overrepresentation of women in lower-paying professions. In 2016,

roughly two-thirds of em­ployed women worked in office

administration, health, education and sales. In contrast, less than a

third of men were employed in these occupations. But undervaluing the

work of women is another issue for another day.

The OECD calculates the gender wage gap amongst the provinces.

P.E.I. is the standout performer, and they get a B grade. British

Columbia gets a D. In the six provinces that have pay equity

legislation, the pay differentials are up to 12 percent

lower.

How do we catch up? Well, the transparency that the Equal Pay

Reporting Act would provide is a start. Of course, encouraging more

women to seek employment in higher-wage occupations in male-dominated

fields such as STEM is helpful. Frankly, if women ultimately don’t feel

satisfied with their jobs or believe they’re being treated unfairly,

that won’t be enough.

Good management and modern workplace policies — including flexible

hours, telecommuting and parental leave — will all help women balance

the demands of work and family, and of course, the availability of child

care plays a role. Discrimination and unconscious bias must also be

acknowledged and addressed, though. It’s hard to fix something you’re

not looking for.

It can be fixed if organizations and governments are transparent

about hiring practices, wages and requirements for promotions. We here

have the power to prescribe transformational measures and compel

employers to do what’s right and best for British Columbians. The

government knows that equal-pay legislation is seen as best practice,

yet we don’t yet have it in place.

This bill intends to bring pay inequality to light by requiring

employers in British Columbia with 50 or more employees to publicly post

an annual breakdown of gender wages. The information would include wages

and bonus pay for male and female employees and be available on a

company website or by other easily accessible means.

[10:25 a.m.]

The aim of the bill is just to drive change. It’s to

facili­tate conversation and allow both employers and the public

to see where there’s still work to be done.

I’m not interested in excuses; I’m interested in progress. It’s

not a political stunt. It’s a meaningful attempt at ensuring equality in

our workplaces.

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

Motion approved.

S. Cadieux: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M204, Equal Pay Reporting Act, introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

COWBOY HERITAGE WEEK

D. Barnett: For the last 11 years, the government of British Columbia has

proclaimed a week in March as Cowboy Heritage Week. This year, Cowboy

Heritage Week has been proclaimed for March 15 to March 22. The

proclamation publicly acknowledges the contributions of the ranching

industry and cowboy culture to the economic, social and cultural

development of the province.

Fostering appreciation of cowboy heritage leaves a legacy of

understanding and enjoyment for future generations. It also is an

opportunity to recognize and respect cowboy heritage. This encourages

richer encounters between Canadians and cowboy enthusiasts

worldwide.

On February 8 in 100 Mile House, the annual cowboy concert, which

has been held for 20 years, performed its last concert. Mark and Kathy

McMillan have put on the concert since its inception, but now they are

retiring, and unfortunately, no one is stepping up to take their place.

Kamloops Cowboy Concert, which is also put on by Mark and Kathy

McMillan, will be March 14 and 15. It, too, may be the last

concert.

All funds raised over the past 20 years have gone to youth

scholarships for cowboy families and to the Williams Lake Museum, which

houses the Cowboy Hall of Fame. This year’s inductees will be inducted

at the Williams Lake Indoor Rodeo April 17 to 19.

The B.C. Cowboy Heritage Society was formed in 1998 to capture the

memories of these living legends and share their stories. Last year’s

inductees were Lawrence Elkins, Phillip Camille and Willie

Crosina.

Thank you for 20 years of dedication. Please, if you’re in

Williams Lake, go to the Cowboy Hall of Fame, see the history and the

heritage of our cowboys, and their hard work will be there

forever.

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY

M. Dean: Put your arms out front and strike the “Each for equal” pose.

Let’s all be each for equal. That’s the theme of this year’s

International Women’s Day, this Sunday, March 8.

The message is that we are all individually responsible for

creating equality in our world. We recognize women from all different

backgrounds for their achievements. We recognize our sisters, aunties,

mothers and daughters.

Here in B.C., we show our appreciation for the many women and

girls who work to empower and advance others and strive to bring

equality for everyone: women who fight sexism, gender-based

discrimination, harassment and violence every day; women who offer

mentoring, role models, support and safety to others who are targeted,

suffering or struggling. We can all choose to be intentional in our

daily activities, to challenge myths, eliminate bias, highlight success

and celebrate all that women are and can be.

Gender equality is a foundation for economies and communities to

thrive. We can all make a difference, whether it’s in the Legislature;

in our workplaces, boardrooms, media, community groups or sports teams;

in our families, friendships and communities.

Our collective action will carry us towards gender equality, so

today let’s all celebrate and appreciate the women in our lives. Let’s

all do what we can for the “each for equal” campaign. Together, we can

advance equality and build a brighter future for women, girls and

gender-diverse people in British Columbia, Canada and around the

world.

Strike the pose. Let’s all be each for equal.

[10:30 a.m.]

75 th ANNIVERSARY OF

LIBERATION

OF NETHERLANDS

T. Shypitka: Today I am very excited to speak about an event that will

highlight our incredible B.C. talent and put it on a world stage. I’m

talking about the bagpipes and drums of British Columbia and their road

to the 2020 commemoration for the 75th Anniversary of the Liberation of

the Netherlands.

For those that don’t know, in the final months of World War II,

Canadian Armed Forces led the fight to liberate the Netherlands from

Nazi occupation. The First Canadian Army fought to open the port of

Antwerp and to clear northern and western Netherlands of occupying

forces. On May 5, 1945, Canadian General Charles Foulkes, commander of

the I Canadian Corps, accepted the German surrender.

From across our great province, 42 pipers, ten side drummers, 11

tenors, two bass drummers and 15 support personnel will be performing

seven events on this historic trip. But the trip does not end there. The

group will then continue on to perform at the Vimy Ridge memorial. The

band will be centred near Nijmegen, which was one of the combat sites in

Operation Market Garden and featured in the old movie classic A

Bridge Too Far .

I am told they will be rehearsing at the Vernon military base on

March 7 in preparation for the trip. This is a proud moment for all of

these band members to represent British Columbia. Hats off for the

coordinating efforts of pipe major Chad Goodman with the Kelowna Pipe

Band Society, to the Kimberley Pipe Band and president Jock MacDonald

from Cranbrook, along with two members that are in the gallery today,

Jim and Babs Webster.

Good luck to all members. I know you will represent us

well.

SHAKTI SOCIETY

R. Singh: This Sunday is International Women’s Day, a day to take account of

the vast body of achievements of women activists and leaders who have

come before us and led the good fight from even before suffrage to the

many battles of gender equality. It’s a day to celebrate those mighty

women and those who are leaders of today and tomorrow, whether it be in

activism, business or politics. By highlighting them and their

achievements, we create representation and, thereby, role models, whom

younger women and girls look up to and take up the torch

from.

Shakti Society is one such organization that has been highlighting

and honouring women and their successes for 20 years through the now

popular Shakti Awards. They are a non-profit that has dedicated itself

to empowering individuals, families and their communities. The word

shakti is a Hindi word and is also the name of a goddess in

Hindu mythology that personifies strength, energy and feminine creative

power. These have been the operating foundation of the Shakti Awards as

well.

Over the last two decades, they have honoured some amazing women

in the fields of academic achievement, public services, volunteering,

arts, sports and personal resilience. They are a volunteer-driven

collective, led by the wonderful Sonia Andhi, who sacrifice their time

and work painstakingly towards achieving their vision and for the

wellness of the larger community.

I would like you all to join me in congratulating them on their

20th anniversary, which they will be celebrating at this year’s Shakti

Awards dinner gala this Saturday, March 7, in Surrey.

WOMEN IN POLITICS

S. Furstenau: Super Tuesday was not so super for Elizabeth Warren, so it looks

as though the U.S. Democratic Party will get to choose between two males

of a certain age for their presidential candidate, and then choose

between two males of a certain age for their president — same old, same

old.

Here in Canada, a poll last year indicated that 19 percent of

people think that feminism has too much influence in Canadian politics.

This is polling that was done at the same time that Canada had only one

woman amongst 13 provincial and territorial leaders in the country. In

the 2019 federal election, a record-setting 29 percent of MPs elected

were women. At the rate we’re going, it’s going to take 100 more years

before we reach parity.

[10:35 a.m.]

While women are underrepresented in office, we are overrepresented

in other ways. More than 1.9 million women in Canada live on a low

income, 82 percent of sexual assault victims under 18 years old are

girls and over 6,000 women and children sleep in shelters on any given

night because it isn’t safe at home. These data sets are not

disconnected. Women elected to office bring a necessary and deeply

underrepresented perspective. When women are elected, change

happens.

In Nevada, the first female-majority legislature in U.S. history

has shown that the laws that have been passed very much demonstrate

this. These laws include protection for women firefighters, a

requirement that companies of over 50 employees pay sick leave, equal

pay legislation and protection of women’s reproductive rights. The

Nevada legislature also introduced a series of laws related to domestic

violence, sexual assault and sex trafficking that were passed

unanimously.

We will only meet the needs of every citizen when our elected

representation actually reflects our citizenry. This needs to be

recognized not just on International Women’s Day but every

day.

IMMIGRANT LINK CENTRE SOCIETY

AND FOOD

REDISTRIBUTION

B. Ma: Last week I was visited by two incredible people at my office.

With passion in their voices and fire in their eyes, Reihaneh Mirjani,

an immigrant from Iran, and Igor Bjelac, an immigrant from Serbia,

shared with me how the work they do through their charity, Immigrant

Link Centre Society, helps new immigrants find community, supports

vulnerable people with good-quality food, improves the health outcomes

of the people they serve and helps to reduce GHG emissions. It sounds

like magic, but it’s actually very simple, and it’s all about food

waste.

An enormous amount of energy is used to produce food — to grow it,

to raise it, to process it, to ship, to distribute it, to cook it — and

to throw it out. Yet 58 percent of food produced in Canada, amounting to

35.5 million metric tonnes, is lost and wasted every year. Of that, 32

percent is edible food, amounting to $50 billion worth of edible food

that is thrown out annually across the country. In addition to the GHGs

released through the production of food, every year 56.5 million tonnes

of CO 2 -equivalent emissions are created by decomposing food

waste in Canada.

Charities like Immigrant Link Centre Society and Harvest Project

on the North Shore work with grocery retailers to collect food that

stores won’t sell anymore but that is nevertheless still perfectly

edible and would otherwise end up in the dump. They distribute it to the

people who need it, bringing it either directly to people’s homes, like

Immigrant Link Centre Society does, or through not-for-profit stores and

other distribution networks, like the Harvest Project does in

partnership with many not-for-profits across the North Shore.

In doing so, they are helping their communities and the

environment, and I am very, very grateful.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT STAFF

INVOLVEMENT IN

PROTESTS

M. de Jong: There is a group of people out front of the building, and they are

carrying signs that say things like: “Shut down the government.” Last

night apparently, a minister of the Crown thought it would be a good

idea to bring some of those folks in. It created chaos. It led to

arrests, and we have some questions about the judgment that was

displayed around that. That would have been my question, but I am

obliged now to confront the Solicitor General with some

information.

Stephanie Papik is listed by OIC as having worked in the Premier’s

office as the director of priorities and account­abilities between

September 2017 and October 2018. To be sure, she is not listed as

employed there now.

Her name is listed on the Google spreadsheet used by blockade

organizers to bring supplies to the occupants on the front steps of the

messages, including the following, earlier in February. “Please come out

tonight and help keep the visibility of Indigenous youth to protect them

from the Victoria police department.”

[10:40 a.m.]

Now the incredible part — and it is incredible, so incredible that

I hope that the Solicitor General can stand up and say it’s not true.

Stephanie Papik is listed today on the government directory as the

director of strategic integration of Indigenous knowledge within the

Ministry of Public Safety.

Can the minister stand up and assure the House that the Stephanie

Papik that is calling for protection from the police isn’t the same

individual who is the director of strategic integration within his

ministry?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I will take the question on notice and come back with the

information for the member.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West, a new question.

INDIGENOUS RELATIONS MINISTER

MEETING WITH PROTESTORS

AT LEGISLATURE

M. de Jong: I’ll accept that from the minister. I do hope, however, that he’ll

clarify this matter today, if not in the House then through some other

venue.

I’ll return, then, to the matter and the events of last night for

the minister. I mentioned a group who have dedicated themselves,

apparently, to shutting down the government. They are connected and

supportive of other blockades and protests taking place around the

province.

Last night the minister apparently thought it would be a good idea

to invite them into the building. It led to chaos. It led to arrests

within…. These galleries are closed to the public and have been all

week, and the minister thought it would be a good idea to invite these

folks into the building.

It led to the police having to attend. The police have released a

statement that the minister will hear about in a moment. Their members

were surrounded by hundreds of protesters. For hours, they were

precluded from attending to other possible emergencies in and around

Victoria.

How is the judgment — the poor judgment, the lack of judgment —

that the minister displayed last night supposed to convey any sense of

confidence or create any sense of confidence that he has the necessary

judgment to undertake, on behalf of British Columbians, the negotiations

that are taking place today?

Hon. S. Fraser: We received a request for a meeting with the protesters outside

who have been there for probably two weeks now. Last night I met in good

faith with the delegation of Indigenous youth who have been protesting,

obviously. I wanted to share with them the work that we’re doing with

the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs to make the historic progress on

rights and title. My hope was to convince them to give space to the

Wet’suwet’en people as they consider the agreement and to end the

protest.

We had a respectful discussion. It was witnessed by the Leader of

the Third Party, the member for Saanich North and the Islands. I want to

thank him for agreeing to do that. We had a respectful discussion, but

there was an agreement and a commitment, which they did not honour, that

they would leave following the event.

I’m deeply disappointed, obviously, that they broke their word,

but I stand by my commitment to meet with people with respect and

willingness to listen to others. In my job, if you can’t start a

discussion with respect, with good faith and offering trust…. I’ve

found, first of all, that has always been reflected back. That is the

approach I have always taken as minister, and I stand by

that.

[10:45 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.

M. de Jong: Unfortunately, what the minister did was to put a lot of people at

risk, people that work within this building and people in and around

Victoria for whom the police — the numerous police who were required to

attend — were no longer available to provide service.

My question is: before he took this extraordinary step that played

out so badly, did he seek advice from the Minister of Public

Safety?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for his question. We consulted with the

Speaker’s office. The Sergeant-at-Arms was there, also, and there was

agreement to this approach.

M. Polak: For weeks now, all of us in this building have been carefully

following the advice we’ve been given by Legislative Protective

Services, and some of that advice is to be very careful about who we’re

bringing into the building.

Many people may not know this in the public, but as legislators,

we have access to the building any time, day or night. Legislative

services will stand by and allow us to use our judgment to bring people

into the building. It’s a huge responsibility.

My colleague is correct. In acting with the appalling lack of

judgment that the minister showed, he put all sorts of people at risk.

I’m disturbed to glean, through his comments, that…. I’m almost getting

the impression he would do it again.

He talks about being surprised that these protesters didn’t keep

their commitment. These are the same protesters that promised, when they

first set up their camp, that they would leave in five days. That’s what

they told protective services. They did not. They promised that they

would not light a fire. They broke that promise too. I have a really

difficult time understanding how someone with good judgment would

believe that they would keep their commitment to leave the

room.

But here’s what the Victoria police department said this morning

in a statement that they issued. This is what should concern all members

of the public in and around the Victoria area with respect to the

judgment of this minister. Here’s what they said: “Officers who were

responding to the scene were surrounded by over 100 protesters and were

unable to respond to emergency calls for service.” I understand from

this statement that this lasted for hours.

I think this House wants to know and deserves to know: did the

minister discuss this with the Premier’s office before doing

it?

Hon. S. Fraser: I do want to certainly acknowledge legislative security here for

their calm professionalism throughout what was a difficult evening, a

difficult night, and as well, the Victoria police department, and

likewise, their calm professionalism that they displayed last night in a

difficult time. I very much respect that and the work that they

do.

When I met with the delegation, there was an agreement that they

would leave. I met them at good faith. The work that we’ve been able to

accomplish with the Hereditary Chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en, the work that

we’ve been working on with the Hereditary Chiefs, is based on…. The

Wet’suwet’en term is called wiggus . It means “respect.” The way

I operate as a minister….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response. Thank you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Fraser: The way I operate as a minister, and I’ve learned this in working

with Indigenous peoples and First Nations, is that respect, trust and

good faith is the approach towards reconciliation — the only approach

that can possibly work.

I made the decision. As I mentioned, we discussed it with the

Speaker, and the Sergeant-at-Arms was there. We entered into these

discussions with good faith.

[10:50 a.m.]

I am very disappointed. The discussions were produc­tive.

There was no indication that there would be an occupation. I’m deeply

disappointed that there was.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the opposition on a supplemental.

M. Polak: I’m really quite shocked that the first thing that the minister

didn’t do when he got up in this House is to apologize. I’m quite

shocked. I fully expected there would be some printed apology statement

ready for us. I’m probably not surprised that he won’t answer the

question as to whether or not he decided to seek advice from the

Premier’s office, because in spite of our many disagreements, I’m pretty

sure your Premier wouldn’t have shown that kind of bad

judgment.

Here we are, though, with hours and hours of the Victoria police

department not being able to respond to emergency calls, this building

put at risk, security services put at risk.

Security services here — the minister has complimented them — each

and every day are putting in incredible amounts of overtime to deal with

this protest. They’re experiencing abuse being hurled at them each and

every day. And then you force them to stand back as you bring some of

these protesters in?

I want to know from the member…. He’s implied, by saying they were

at the meeting, that the Sergeant-at-Arms office actually was okay with

him doing this. Is that actually the advice he was given?

Hon. S. Fraser: I have an approach, as a minister, that I’ve learned not just in

my time as minister but in my time in opposition. In my time as

opposition, I witnessed from the other side their approach. I don’t

think I need to take any lessons from the other side.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, order, please.

Hon. S. Fraser: Instead of working respectfully with Indigenous peoples, the other

side held a referendum on Indigenous rights, kind of a

tyranny-by-the-majority approach. That isn’t our approach. Our

government believes in bringing people together. These are hard

situations, and we should not shy away from the fact that it is dialogue

that will solve them.

I am deeply disappointed that the respect that the member for

Saanich North and the Islands and I gave to that small group of

individuals that we agreed to speak with did not reflect that respect.

But the way forward….

I remain committed to working with respect, with dialogue, with

good faith and with trust. That’s the way, not tyranny by the majority

as displayed by the previous government.

FUNDING FOR

SEXUAL ASSAULT CLINICS AND

SERVICES

S. Furstenau: On Tuesday this week, government tabled a bill to legislate five

days’ paid leave for survivors of domestic or sexualized violence. It is

an absolutely crucial change and one that our caucus is proud to

support. Ensuring that survivors have the ability to take off time when

they need to seek medical care, meet with law enforcement or access

emergency counselling services following an assault is critical, as is

ensuring those services are there when they go to look for

them.

In many areas of our province, this is not the case. The decision

by multiple governments over many decades to consistently underfund the

medical and justice services needed by survivors of sexualized violence

is inherently sexist and dangerous to women. It does not have to be this

way.

[10:55 a.m.]

As we raised the question in question period on Monday, B.C. is

home to an integrated clinic that offers medical, police and counselling

services in one location and is a model that has proven, both medically

and fiscally, to provide better care at a lower cost. All communities

deserve this level of support.

My question is to either the Minister of Health or the Minister of

Public Safety and Solicitor General. Given the overlap and intersection

between health and justice in cases of sexualized violence, which one of

you is taking responsibility for ensuring these specialized services are

available to survivors when they leave work to look for them?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the hon. member for that very important

question.

All ministries in government take this issue that she has raised

extremely seriously, whether it’s my ministry or the Ministry of Health

or other ministries in government. That’s why I can tell you that in

terms of the work that my ministry does around sexualized violence,

we’re spending right now more than $37 million a year to more than 400

agencies providing services right across the province.

The member talks about the centre in Victoria, which I visited,

which I believe actually serves as a model for potential services around

the province to deal with sexualized violence, to look at them in a way

that serves each community in the way that meets the needs of those

particular communities. That’s why that service has received and is into

the second year of a $200,000 grant, and I’m looking forward to

receiving a grant application for the funding in this coming year. We

will continue to make these services a priority right across the

province.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader, Third Party on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: I’m pleased that the minister agrees that the Victoria clinic is a

model. However, they did make a funding request for Budget 2020, which

was rejected. That request would have helped with sending communities

and clinics the capacity to build up this model across the

province.

Providing people with effective medical and police support are not

elective services to be thrown grant money if we have some left over at

the end of the year. These are essential government services, and it’s

not enough to just focus on clinics in major cities. People are

assaulted in literally every community in the province, and we cannot

pretend that these rates aren’t impacted by government’s

priorities.

As the final report from the missing and murdered Indigenous women

and girls inquiry stated, there is substantial evidence linking major

resource extraction projects and violence against Indigenous women. This

government can find billions of dollars to subsidize these projects, yet

when we need the millions to respond to the consequences, they aren’t

there.

My question is to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor

General. How much will it take to get funding to these clinics around

the province, and which minister will stand up and fight for

this?

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said a moment ago, each ministry in government takes these

issues extremely seriously. And as I outlined, that’s why funding has

been increased in the budget since we became office. That’s why an

additional $5 million each year and an additional $3 million on top of

that funding is in place in this year’s budget.

As I said, I want to see these kinds of services extended around

the province but in a way that meets the needs of particular

communities. We have committed by the actions that we have taken to

date. As I’ve said in the case of the Victoria centre, which I think is

doing excellent work, I’m looking forward to receiving their grant

application. Base funding has increased in other areas of government. As

I can tell you, this is a priority, and it will continue to be

one.

GOVERNMENT HANDLING OF

RESOURCE PROJECT

PROPOSALS

A. Weaver: I’m sure every member of this House will agree that a stable

regulatory environment is key to maintaining B.C.’s reputation as a

welcoming place to do business. This means that the approval of natural

resource projects must be based on scientific evidence and not politics.

Yet in 2012, upon recommendation from the executive director of the

environmental assessment office, the B.C. Liberals rejected the Morrison

mine project proposed by Pacific Booker Minerals, despite it having

received a positive environmental assessment. In justifying their

decision, they cited environmental concerns about the effects of the

mine on water quality in Morrison Lake and local salmon populations,

despite already having a positive environmental assessment.

[11:00 a.m.]

Despite their rejection of the Pacific Booker project, in 2013 the

B.C. Liberals went to Ottawa to lobby the federal government to approve

the Prosperity mine, a project that had received two negative

assessments by federal review panels. There’s some suspicion that the

decision around the Morrison mine had less to do with environmental

concerns and more to do with political calculation.

My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources. Has this government been able to determine why this company

was treated so differently from others at the time? And how will it

prevent situations like this from happening in the future?

Hon. B. Ralston: I’d like to thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for his

question. I’m sure the member will appreciate that I’m not in a position

to advise what led the former government to make its decision about the

proposed Morrison mine. What I can say, though, is that their approach

was shortsighted and certainly didn’t bring certainty to the

sector.

Our government has taken a different approach. My predecessor, as

minister, initiated the Mining Jobs Task Force, which worked hard with

First Nations, industry and communities to find ways to strengthen this

fundamental, foundational industry.

There were 25 recommendations emanating from the task force.

They’ve all been accepted by government, and almost all of them have now

been implemented. We have made two mining tax credits permanent,

bringing immediate benefits to the B.C. mineral exploration sector by

adding more certainty. We’ve invested $1 million for the mining

innovation roadmap, $1 million for the Regional Mining

Alliance.

As further evidence of the strengthening of the sector, the

Ontario Teachers Pension Plan just signed a $300 million investment deal

to provide an investment in the New Afton mine, just outside the civic

boundaries of Kamloops.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: I must admit that was a lot of information about a lot of mines

that weren’t the mine I’m actually talking about. Maybe I can try

again.

A key element of the previous government’s unrealistic strategy

for natural resource development revolved around, as we all know, LNG.

We know that certain natural gas projects were located in areas close to

the Morrison mine. Comments from groups engaged in the Pacific Booker

project have indicated that the province was facing significant pressure

to avoid reopening discussions around the Morrison mine in order to

obtain the support necessary for the Prince Rupert gas transmission

line.

The decision to reject the project had serious repercussions for

Pacific Booker. Their share price plummeted, from $14.95 to $4.95 in one

day, and many investors lost their life savings. What’s more is that the

ministry failed to inform Pacific Booker of its intention to issue an

adverse recommendation and did not provide the company with an

opportunity to respond to it.

After a legal battle in which the Supreme Court found that this

conduct violated standards of procedural fairness and that the

environmental assessment office recommendation be presented to cabinet

for reconsideration, the government once again rejected the project in

order to undergo further assessment. However, in its order, the

government appeared to issue unclear directions that substantially

delayed the process. As of 2019, in September….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Weaver: As of September 2019, Pacific Booker had yet to be fully provided

with this opportunity.

My question, again, is to the Minister of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources. When is this firm going to have

the chance to have their project undergo further assessment, as put

forward by the Supreme Court?

Hon. B. Ralston: The short answer is that the company is currently working through

the required regulatory processes for further assessment. The further

assessment for the proposed project includes the requirement for a

supplemental application information requirement. There are a number of

requirements. The EAO continues to work with the company on this, and

I’m advised that the latest submission was received by the EAO in

December 2019.

[11:05 a.m.]

STATUS OF PROTESTS AND AGREEMENT ON

WET’SUWET’EN RIGHTS

AND TITLE

S. Bond: Well, yesterday the Premier declared that there had been a drastic

drop-off in blockades, and he predicted a period of calm would prevail.

Well, only hours later, there were three new blockades. The busy Cambie

and 49th intersection in Vancouver, the University Boulevard and

Wesbrook Mall intersection at the University of British Columbia, and

the intersection of Mountain Highway and Keith Road in North

Vancouver.

And all of us know what happened here in the Legislature. Five

people were arrested at the Legislature. So much for the Premier’s

prediction about a period of calm.

These blockades continue to impact British Columbians’ lives. They

are disrupting people who just want to get on with their day and get

home to their families.

British Columbians deserve to know what the Minister of Indigenous

Relations did and what he said and how he worked through his

negotiations to deal with the blockades. Can he stand up today and tell

British Columbians exactly what his negotiations discussed when it came

to ending blockades in the province?

Hon. S. Fraser: The member knows, because we’ve canvassed this before, that the

discussions that we had with the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs last

weekend — three days, three nights — were in camera. It’s not

appropriate for me, with respect to the Wet’suwet’en people, to speak to

those issues until the Wet’suwet’en people have a chance to review and

ratify the arrangement that we had come to, regarding a recognition, a

process to recognize rights and title.

But I will say that we’re guided in this place by one of the most

significant pieces of legislation that this place has ever seen — a few

months ago, Bill 41, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Act. I just want to…. I know there are some groans from the other side.

But I would note that the other side voted for this piece of

legislation. It was unanimous.

Now, maybe it’s not the actions they voted for. Maybe they just

voted for the words. But the declaration actually speaks to consulting

and collaborating in good faith with Indigenous peoples as a way to

change the Crown-Indigenous relationship, which is long

overdue.

That is exactly what we are doing as government. It’s what I am

doing as minister. Is it hard work? I’ve never faced harder challenges,

hon. Speaker. Is it worth it? Yes, it is.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, all of us in this House recognize the responsibilities that

we have, and one of those responsibilities, the primary one, is to stand

in this place and ask questions and get answers for all British

Columbians.

We should be clear that British Columbians expected this minister,

in those negotiations and any agreement that he agreed to, would include

the issue of blockades. But that simply hasn’t happened. British

Columbians have no idea — not one detail of the agreement that this

minister agreed to.

The public are not the only ones who are in the dark. The elected

Wet’suwet’en Chiefs are saying…. This is from the elected Wet’suwet’en

Chiefs: “Negotiation of this agreement to date has moved forward without

our Wet’suwet’en communities.”

On the other hand, we have the Hereditary Chiefs saying that the

Premier “let his ego guide his mouth.”

The Premier has completely mishandled this file. British

Columbians want and deserve answers. Can the minister, at least today,

stand up and assure British Columbians that he will table the agreement

in this Legislature?

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate the question from the member. I’ll do my level best

to give her direct answers to the points that she raised.

I’m not familiar with the quotation she referred to, my mouth and

my ego. I look forward to the comprehensive quote sent over at any

moment now.

What I do want to say to all members and to all British

Columbians: these are extraordinary times. They are extremely

uncomfortable for opposition, for government, for those who are in the

gallery, those who are at home, for the media, for all of us. These have

been an extraordinary few weeks, unparalleled in my personal experience

and, I believe, in the history of British Columbia.

That is not to diminish the responsibility that government has.

But it’s also to remind those of us who are sitting here that we have a

collective responsibility for the Legislative Assembly, through the

Speaker’s office and the Legislative Assembly Management Committee.

That’s where those issues, with respect to the group outside, should be

handled.

I have full support in the Minister of Indigenous Relations

looking for an off-ramp in a very difficult situation. I believe that

the right steps were taken, and I want to personally apologize to the

Victoria police department for the situation they found themselves

in.

I would also ask the member who asked the question, the Leader of

the Official Opposition, and other members on the opposition side what

suggestions and advice they may have for how we address the situation

where there are a number of people on the front steps.

Interjections.

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

Hon. J. Horgan: It’s all right to abdicate responsibility on that side of the

House. Or do we work together as British Columbians, putting aside our

partisan perspectives and try and find a way forward?

We agreed in November as a unit, as every member of this House, to

work towards genuine reconciliation. That’s what we’re trying to do. Is

the mob outside helpful? I would suggest not.

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, then what, Member? Then what?

The member on that side of the House prefers to just throw her

hands up in the air, and so do the rest of them.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, order, please. Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, order, please.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

Mr. Speaker: Premier.

Hon. J. Horgan: Hon. Speaker, I would suggest, in a very sensitive period where

there are high tensions outside the building, that it would be better to

calm the tensions down inside the building.

The message all of us should be sending to British Columbians and

our constituents….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: Hon. Speaker, we have politics outside. We have politics inside.

Just another day in British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

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

Merit Commissioner intituled 2018-19 Merit Performance Audit

Report .

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading Bill 5, Employment Standards

Amendment Act. In

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

the estimates for the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

[11:15 a.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. H. Bains: I move that Bill 5 be read a second time now.

Bill 5 introduces up to five days of employer-paid domestic- or

sexual-violence leave each calendar year to B.C.’s Employment Standards

Act, the law that sets minimum standards and conditions of employment

for most workers in this province. Paid leave will support workers

experiencing, or who have specified family members experiencing,

domestic or sexual violence by allowing them to relocate or pursue

legal, medical, counselling or other support services without the risk

of losing income. It allows workers the time and opportunity to remove

themselves or their loved ones from a violent situation, to put their

safety and security first and to seek out support that they

need.

Last spring this government passed the Employment Standards

Amendment Act, 2019, Bill 8, which introduced unpaid job-protected

domestic- or sexual-violence leave. This change ensured that workers

could take leave without worrying about losing their job. This was just

the first step.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

At the time Bill 8 was introduced, the government committed to

engage in next steps. The engagement process conducted last fall was

far-reaching, including the public, employers, labour representatives,

Indigenous women’s organizations, groups supporting individuals and

families who have experienced domestic or sexual violence, and gender

equity groups. Specifically, it consisted of an online questionnaire,

which received 6,300 responses, and face-to-face consultation with

stakeholders.

The majority of the participants expressed support for paid

domestic or sexual violence leave as both necessary and overdue. I just

want to show what we heard during those consultations. Ninety-four

percent of the workers supported an employer-paid leave, 83 percent of

employers supported an employer-paid leave, and 92 percent of

respondents wanted at least five days paid leave. If you break it down,

five days were recommended by over 60 percent, six to ten days were

supported by about 17 percent, and 11 to 20 days were supported by about

5 percent. And more than 20 days were supported by about 10

percent.

It clearly showed that there was vast support from all kinds of

stakeholders. I also would like to say that 80 percent of the

organizations, which are unions, employers and non-profits, wanted at

least five days paid leave. So that is the consultation process that we

went through. That’s the response we received.

As a result, the government listened. If you just break it down

even further, who actually participated, there were non-profits, about

38 percent. Trade union and other labour groups were 30 percent. Other

organizations representing workers, about 5 percent.

[11:20 a.m.]

Employer or employer associations or business groups — combined,

35 percent. So there was a vast and really good participation by the

employers group. One thing that they all agreed on was that there should

be some sort of paid leave for those survivors of sexual or domestic

violence.

This government listened, and I listened, with the result that

this legislation establishes a worker’s entitlement to domestic or

sexual violence leave each calendar year. It’s in about three parts,

with up to five days of paid leave, which is the new entitlement part of

this bill. Already we have ten days of unpaid leave. Now those ten days

of unpaid leave will become five days of unpaid leave.

If this legislation is passed, what it means to those people, the

survivors of domestic and sexual violence, is that they will now have

five employer-paid leaves, on top of that, five unpaid days’ leave. If

they need additional time, they can take up to 15 weeks, unpaid, in a

one-shot deal. Or in the event that they agree with the employer, they

could also break it up into smaller segments.

This legislation ensures that B.C. keeps pace with legislative

developments across the country. British Columbia and Alberta were the

only jurisdictions that did not have any paid leave for survivors of

domestic and sexual violence. We were way behind. This one will bring us

at pace with the rest of the jurisdictions in Canada, because we were

the outliers. Now only Alberta will be a jurisdiction that does not have

any paid leave to provide to these survivors.

If you look across the jurisdictions, in every jurisdiction you

will find they have two days, three days or up to five days, in

different jurisdictions, different provinces. This represents further

progress on this government’s commitment to support individuals

experiencing domestic or sexual violence.

Around the province, domestic and sexual violence is a

life-altering and traumatic experience for too many people. While it

affects individuals across all segments of society, we know that women,

particularly Indigenous women and LGBTQ2S+ individuals, are

disproportionately impacted by violence and sexual assaults. For

example, we know that Indigenous women and girls are 3½ times more

likely to face violence than non-Indigenous females.

Children are also, unfortunately, impacted. According to a report

by the B.C.-Yukon Society of Transition Houses, three out of five

children in every classroom have been exposed to domestic violence. The

numbers are disturbing and show us that domestic and sexual violence

affect us all — as employers, as colleagues, as friends and as

family.

For many people after an assault, losing even a day’s pay is not

an option. They have a mental and physical burden after the incident,

but now they worry about paying bills. They cannot even imagine what

would happen if their paycheque stops. The bills don’t stop. They still

need their children to find a new school. They need time for that. They

need time to take legal advice. They need time for counselling. They

need time to find a new home. They need time to put their children and

their family at a safe and secure place.

Those things don’t happen on the weekends. They need this time.

That’s why this government listened. We consulted, and we are acting

now. These are the survivors who need to start to rebuild their lives.

When they know they have security and safety, when they know they have

support, it is much more likely for them to leave their violent

circumstances.

[11:25 a.m.]

The intent of this legislation is not to just add a burden onto

the employer but to promote the safety and dignity of workers by

alleviating a barrier to their ability to remove themselves and their

family members from an unsafe situation. It will help people rebuild

their lives, help ensure the children can grow up in a healthy home,

free of violence.

We owe it to those children. Those are our children. Those are the

society’s future. They need support, and this bill does that.

It may also even help to enable survivors of violence to remain in

the workforce rather than having to quit. It sends a strong signal that

domestic and sexual violence are important issues for our society which

all segments of society, including employers, are prepared to take

action against. This is a time for leadership on an issue that impacts

far too many British Columbians and their families.

I’d like to thank a member from the opposite benches, the member

for Surrey South, for her advocacy, for her support on this issue. I am

expecting support from all members of this House so that we can show

those survivors that we care. Support is there. Their safety and

security is important to us as a society. We, as a society, must deal

with this issue. It’s not just their issue; it’s our issue.

I would also like to thank many people of the public who came and

gave us their opinions, participated in the consultation process, gave

their recommendations: all the employers who came; labour

representatives; Indigenous women’s organizations; the groups supporting

individuals and families who have experienced domestic or sexual

violence; and gender equity groups — for sharing their views and

perspective on how to improve domestic or sexual violence

leaves.

I look forward to the debates on this bill. Thank you very much

for the opportunity.

J. Martin: Thank you to the minister. Appreciate the elaboration of the

legislation. Appreciate it coming forward in a timely manner.

No surprises here. It’s my pleasure to have the opportunity to

speak in support of Bill 5. I will be supporting this when the time

comes to put it to a vote.

All of us on both sides of the House — I’m sure this has always

been the case — understand, recognize and appreciate that domestic,

sexual violence is a very serious issue. It has short-term and long-term

consequences on victims’ physical, mental and spiritual health and

profound impacts on family, extended family, social networks and

communities. It’s a problem that belongs to all of us, and it’s

incumbent on all of us to take a societal approach to this. That

includes a strong, committed stance against domestic and sexual abuse

under any and all circumstances.

Here in this House, we’re in a unique capacity, as legislators. As

those who have been sent by our respective constituents to have a voice

in Victoria, it gives us an added responsibility to provide proper

support for victims where it’s lacking and to help them recover from

traumatizing, painful, agonizing experiences — to help them

heal.

The bill before us today is a small but important step toward this

goal. It builds on legislation brought forward last year by the

minister. This offers up five days of paid leave to employees who are

victims of domestic violence, sexual violence. We all welcome that,

because we all know, we all understand in this House, that victims often

face a variety of obstacles. These obstacles and these barriers could

become reasons why they do not leave abusive relationships or why they

do not seek out the resources that are required to help them through

this period, to help them heal.

[11:30 a.m.]

One of the main barriers is taking time out of a daily

nine-to-five job to access resources that very likely are only available

during nine-to-five office hours. There are emergency and there are

after-hours support services. But they’re not all available all the

time.

This bill provides victims some financial security, a small but

very, very helpful measure. It offers them some financial security so

that they do not have to worry about losing their jobs or losing income

while they take leave to seek the resources and the services that they

require. Appreciate that those who may find themselves in such an

unfortunate situation probably don’t have these resources on their list

of contacts. They probably wouldn’t know where to begin. It’s

time-consuming. If it requires a few hours or a few days away from the

job site to access these resources, then let’s help them achieve

that.

I support this bill because all governments have an obligation to

prevent violence of any type. While domestic violence can happen to any

gender, age, race or ethnicity, we all know that women are at a much

higher risk to be victims of partner violence. This bill ensures that

the employer supports and addresses domestic violence by providing what

I like to refer to as a more holistic response. It helps victims get the

help that they need to be protected, to be treated with care, with

attention, and to help them heal.

We’re glad to see such legislation in front of us includes victims

of sexual violence. Last year’s legislation provided ten days of unpaid

leave for victims of domestic violence. It was one of my colleagues,

from Surrey South, that put forward — and the House unanimously passed —

an amendment to extend the protection to victims of sexual violence.

It’s important to provide the same protection to all and any who

experience violence.

While we recognize that this bill is a necessary and important

step forward, clearly there is much more that needs to be done. There

are more initiatives that we can bring forward in this House. Much more

needs to be done to provide support for victims and to make homes and

communities throughout British Columbia safe for everyone — to help

people heal.

I look forward to discussing the bill further in the committee

stage. I thank the minister once again for bringing this

forward.

S. Malcolmson: Imagine you are in the family place that should be the safest for

you — you’re with your domestic partner; you’re responsible for your

children — and that home becomes no longer a safe place. This more often

happens to women as the victims of domestic violence. But this,

unfortunately, is something that happens to men in relationships as

well. But I’m going to speak from the women’s perspective, because I’ve

been given the deep responsibility to hear both from women in my riding

of Nanaimo and also when I was a federal Member of Parliament in

Nanaimo-Ladysmith and the New Democrats’ critic for women’s

equality.

I heard heartbreaking stories about the circumstance that would

lead a woman to consider pulling herself and her children out of their

family home. What must have come to that point and how unsafe they must

feel — in the place that they should feel the most safe, their home — to

take the deeply brave step of leaving a marriage, leaving an abusive

relationship, leaving the home of safety and threatening putting your

children and yourself into poverty. This tends to be what happens to

women when they leave marriages when they’re driven out by

violence.

[11:35 a.m.]

Imagine the bravery of these women. I want to thank them for doing

something harder than I have ever done. Imagine them asking for help and

not getting it. Imagine them being at risk of losing their job, of not

having the security of employment, at exactly the time that they need it

the most.

This has been going on in Canada for a very long time. The women’s

movement and women’s shelter organizations have been carrying the bulk

of this work and the load for a very long time. I’m very grateful to

them.

In British Columbia, in particular, for a very long time, women

who needed a break at work, in order to deal with the consequences of

leaving a violent situation, did not have the protection that they

should have had under B.C.’s employment standards.

I am so proud of our government, a year ago, for having followed

the lead of some other governments across the country and bringing in

protection for employment, to have now ten days of leave that you can

ask for, the same as if you had an illness or other family calamities.

Now domestic violence is recognized as something that you can get time

off work for, and your job is protected. You cannot lose your job if you

do not come to work after you have left a violent

relationship.

I was with some of the members of the Manitoba NDP government on

the day that their legislation for paid domestic violence leave was

enacted. That was in the spring of 2016. It was a great moment. They

were raising their hands to Steelworkers, who had been the first ones

who negotiated paid domestic violence leave into collective

agreements.

As in so many other ways that labour standards and also women’s

equality standards have been advanced, it was labour that led the way.

The Labour Minister, this morning, reminded me that it was…. Oh, now I’m

not going to remember which union.

Pay equity was first negotiated by labour back in the ’60s, way

before governments did it.

Interjection.

S. Malcolmson: No, it wasn’t, actually. They were not the very first. Postal

workers were at the lead, though — there’s no question — and fought, for

decades, the federal government in court in order to have their

collective agreement upheld.

Here we are. A year ago this government was able to bring in

employment standards that protect leave for women who want to be able to

hang on to their jobs. At the most insecure time of their lives —

they’ve just left a violent relationship — to have their workplace be a

place of stability, we heard again and again from witnesses, is a vital

piece of the equation for them.

Now, a year later, with the encouragement of almost 7,000 members

of the public and a great number of stakeholders who encouraged the

government to take the second step, to make five of those days be paid

leave, I’m very proud to see this.

Our government is rebuilding social services across the spectrum,

making unprecedented investments in the health care system, in dealing

with addiction and homelessness, in building up affordable housing,

building the first new social service program offered in a generation —

tremendous investments in child care. That we were also able to find the

budget to be able to offer paid leave for women leaving a violent

relationship and have that paid security is a very important

step.

I also want to speak, though, to the other part of help that women

need at this most tender and also vulnerable point of their lives. At

the point that they leave a violent relationship is a key time. It may

be that their partner is able to get the counselling, and they’re able

to repair the relationship. But they are leaving their home, and they’re

taking their children with them. They are taking themselves out of

safety, and for them to go to domestic violence shelters and be told

there is no room at the inn is a double heartbreak.

We know that women have had to return to abusive and unsafe

conditions because they haven’t had access to safety, despite the very

strong and very hard work that the woman’s movement and the shelter

movement have been doing across the country to try to bring them

protection.

In Nanaimo, I was just so happy to see, along with Snuneymuxw

First Nation and B.C. Housing, our Parliamentary Secretary for Gender

Equity announcing — and now there are women getting the shelter — ten

more beds of transition homes for victims of domestic violence on

Snuneymuxw First Nation. A very strong partnership there.

[11:40 a.m.]

There are, I think, across the province, all together, 240

violence-against-women programs that we are funding and also, compared

to the past, an unprecedented number of investments from B.C. Housing

and local NGO partners to build that transition housing back

up.

We know there is more to do. Across the country, there has been a

repeated call for federal leadership to put in a national framework.

British Columbia wants to be a strong partner in that federal

network.

I want to give special credit to Lise Martin from Shelters Canada,

who’s been such a strong partner for all of the provincial

organizations, arguing both for paid domestic violence leave and also

for a strengthening and a deepening of investment in the shelters and

transition house program so that women at their most vulnerable time

know that our society is standing with them to keep them and their

children safe, to allow them to repair their lives in whatever way that

is — whether that is renting a new house, getting counselling or getting

support for their children.

This leave also applies to parents whose children were the victims

of sexual violence. It’s not only for the workers themselves. This is

going to take effect immediately. People are going to benefit. This is

going to change lives. Together, working with the non-profit sector and

our government, we are going to continue to deepen these investments and

strengthen the safety net for women who are taking the very brave step

of leaving domestic violence. I’m proud to vote in favour of the

legislation and proud to be part of this team that is making a real

change on the ground.

L. Larson: It’s my pleasure to rise today to support Bill 5, the Employment

Standards Amendment Act, 2020. All of us, on both sides of the House,

recognize that domestic and sexual violence is a serious issue, with not

only short- and long-term consequences on victims’ physical and mental

health, but also profound impacts on families and

communities.

As a society, we must take a stand against domestic and sexual

abuse. As legislators, we have the responsibility to provide support for

victims and help them recover from those traumatizing and painful

experiences. The bill before us today is an important step forward

towards this goal. It builds on legislation brought forward last year to

offer up to five non-consecutive days of paid leave to employees who are

victims of domestic and sexual violence. I welcome that.

We are aware that victims of domestic violence often face a

variety of obstacles, which could become reasons why they do not leave

those abusive relationships. One of the many barriers is taking time out

of daily jobs to access resources that might only be available during

office hours. Just a few days of financial security is extremely

important. Many women are the sole providers for their families, and

this relief can make the difference that will allow women time to look

for the resources and services they need to support and recover, whether

it’s safe accommodation, obtaining legal or financial assistance, or

mental health support.

While domestic violence can happen to people of any gender, age or

race, women are four times more likely than men to become victims of

partner violence. It is a gendered crime. This bill ensures employer

supports, and it addresses domestic violence by providing a more

holistic response. It helps women to get the help they need to feel

safe, protected and treated with care. However, there needs to be

recognition by government that in many areas of the province, women do

not have access to even the basic services.

We’re glad to see the legislation in front of us includes victims

of sexual violence. Last year’s legislation provided ten days of unpaid

leave for victims of domestic violence, but our side put forward and

successfully passed an amendment to extend the protection to victims of

sexual violence. It is important to provide the same protection to all

of those who experience violence.

[11:45 a.m.]

We recognize this bill is a necessary and important step, but

there is still a lot more for us to do to provide support for victims

and make homes and communities across British Columbia safer for

everyone. I have three daughters and two granddaughters. I pray they

will never have need of the supports we are dealing with in this

bill.

R. Singh: It is my honour to speak in favour of this bill. It was much

needed. We know that we were one of the last jurisdictions to bring in

this legislation. Having worked in this field, being a

violence-against-women counsellor myself, I heard so many stories from

victims of domestic violence and sexual violence. They are, no doubt,

very, very…. It is a very traumatizing experience.

Although this bill, this legislation, will help everybody, we know

that women are seven times more vulnerable to experiencing violence. I

think this bill being introduced in the week when we are going to

celebrate International Women’s Day is a great achievement. I would

really like to thank the Minister of Labour for doing that.

Coming to the bill again, we know that it will provide five days

of paid leave. It is in continuation of the process that the minister

had started last year. That was ten days of unpaid leave. Now out of

those ten days, five would be paid days. These five paid days are

extremely crucial. When a person is going through these circumstances,

they should have the ability to access services that are very crucial at

that time — services like counselling, medical help. Also, if they have

to relocate, to get those kinds of services — looking for housing,

looking for shelters — that is important.

Research has shown that a lot of times, women who are experiencing

violence won’t leave that abusive situation because of the financial

vulnerability that they are in. Also, if their jobs are not protected,

they won’t leave those abusive situations, and they keep on staying in

that unsafe environment, which is simply not viable for them and also

for the children.

I really applaud the minister for bringing this. I would like to

say that this is just the beginning. This is in continuation of the work

that other ministries are also doing. I know the Minister of Housing —

she’s sitting in the House right there — and what she has done to bring

in transitional housing and shelters for women. Having worked on those

crisis lines and not being able to refer women to the required services

when they used to call in the middle of the night, not having enough

services for those women, that is most heartbreaking for a social

worker.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It’s due to the collective effort of this government for the

safety, the protection and also in respecting the dignity of women. That

is something that women deserve. Not just women; we all deserve that.

But in this case, obviously — women being the most vulnerable sector,

especially women of colour, Indigenous women, LGBTQ people — for helping

to bring those people up, creating those safety guards for these people,

I really want to commend our government for doing that. I am all in

favour of this bill.

R. Singh moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Heyman moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:50 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CHILDREN AND

FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A);

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11:21 a.m.

On Vote 19: ministry operations, $2,228,446,000

(continued) .

L. Throness: I want to begin today by referencing our Twitter exchange from

last evening. I want to make a plea to the minister of state and the

Minister of MCFD.

When we have cabinet ministers sitting around the table, many of

them will plead for jobs. Many of them will call for career aspirations

to be fulfilled. Many of them will call for equality. All of that is

great. The minister’s legislative mandate is to stand up for children

and the welfare of children.

Over the past three years, at the beginning of every estimates

session, I have laid before the ministers credible, peer-reviewed, good

studies that demonstrate — not just imply but demonstrate — that there

are some ill effects that come out of Quebec and their universal care

system. To my mind, the ministers have not paid adequate attention to

that information.

My plea to the ministers today, on behalf of child welfare, is for

them to instruct their public officials to do a deep dive into that kind

of information, into those studies, to determine what has gone wrong —

in some aspects; not in all aspects — in the Quebec situation, and to

write a serious policy paper that will address the shortfalls in the

Quebec system so that we can avoid them here in B.C.

My questions to the ministers are: will they mandate such a paper,

and will the public see it this summer?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: I’m actually glad that the member opposite brought up our Twitter

exchange and our comments. I have to say it is quite shocking to hear a

critic for child care talking about harmful effects — that investing in

early learning and care could have a negative impact on our

children.

We’ve seen a lot of studies, and we have seen a lot of evidence

from across multiple jurisdictions and learned a lot from other

jurisdictions and other studies and academics and professionals in the

sector about how important early learning is. The studies really show

that investing in early learning and care helps the child to build a

strong foundation for their future. It’s evidence-based.

If we think about how a child’s brain develops the fastest before

the age of five…. As a mother with a young child myself, I’ve seen how

my son has grown so much in his early years. How his early years’

experience, whether through preschool, StrongStart program, a family

in-home multi-age program…. He’s gone through a lot of child care

centres. All the experience that he has obtained…. The early childhood

educator’s care for a young child is crucial. As a mom, I cannot thank

all the professionals in the sector enough for the critical work that

they do to support our young children.

The challenge that we’re really facing now is that families don’t

have an option. Families are struggling with the lack of access to

affordable, quality, inclusive child care. That early years’ experience

is especially crucial for children who may require extra support. I’ve

met families who share stories of how it is the early years’ experience

when they realize that their child needs extra support.

The early support in the child’s early years really helps to make

sure the child is properly supported and able to have a smooth

transition when they go in to the K-to-12 system. There are so many

benefits. It’s very evidence-based, and the research really shows how

important it is to invest in early learning and early childhood

education.

I really want to emphasize that. I know the member keeps talking

about a paper that he has read. He’s talking about a Quebec system. We

do look at the Quebec system, and we know some of the challenges that

Quebec has faced, and that is why we have a made-in-B.C.

plan.

Our made-in-B.C. plan talks about how important it is to invest in

affordable child care, to make sure parents get the relief, to make sure

we support and accelerate the creation of spaces, and at the same time —

I think the crucial piece of our plan — enhance the quality of care and

make sure that early childhood educators are being supported and that we

have a quality, inclusive child care system for all.

L. Throness: Well, I have never suggested that there are no positive benefits

from child care, but there are also some negative ones that are being

experienced in Quebec. And I’m astonished — astonished — that the

minister would blow off the studies that I am bringing

forward.

[11:30 a.m.]

In any case, I’m going to move on. I have received a copy of the

preliminary review report from Malatest and Associates of prototype

care. There are some executive directors who have commented about parent

fees. I want to read from page 142 of the report:

“Those who commented thought that the current fee of $10 per day or

$200 per month was too low. The executive directors who felt that the

fee was too low gave alternative suggestions for payments, ranging from

$15 to $25 per day. One executive director suggested that the payment

should range from zero to $50, depending on parental income. Almost

one-half of the respondents felt that parental fees should initially be

dictated by an income-based sliding scale, rather than a universal fixed

amount.”

Will the final report be making recommendations on fees, and will

the minister be guided by those recommendations?

Hon. K. Chen: Of course we’re going to look at the results and the learning from

our prototype sites. The ministry will definitely receive a final report

including analysis on return on investments — and also the social return

on investments — when we invest in a universal child care system with a

block funding model and also recommendations for future rollout of

low-cost child care.

The result of this evaluation, along with the ministry’s own

internal evaluations, will help us to inform our future plans to

transition towards an affordable, inclusive early learning care system

in the future.

L. Throness: In the interviews that Malatest did with different prototype

sites, they noted that some parents are engaging in hoarding behaviours

to keep access to such low-cost child care. This includes, for example,

claiming need for a full-time spot when, in fact, they only require a

part-time spot; keeping children in the centre over the summer; and

retaining spots for siblings, even though the siblings may not yet

require a child care space.

In the absence of universal adoption of the policy, it would be

prudent, the study says, to re-examine the current fee structure to

increase effective utilization of subsidized spaces. Given behaviours

like hoarding, is the minister considering a different fee structure to

increase the effectiveness of space utilization?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: I want to explain about the preliminary report that the member

opposite keeps bringing up. The report provides analysis of the baseline

survey and focus group data collected during the first three to four

months of the initiatives: information on providers, educators, parent

perceptions on the implementation of initiatives and on the financial

and other impacts of the prototype site.

It’s important to emphasize that evaluation of those findings in

the preliminary report is very…. It’s just initial feedback that we have

got. To be honest, we’re not surprised about the demand and the needs

from parents who need to access affordable child care, because there is

a shortage and there is a strong need for many, many years in

B.C.

L. Throness: A couple of questions about the affordable child care benefit now.

Through a freedom-of-information request from MCFD, ministry staff

compared the affordable child care benefit with the former government’s

child care subsidy over a comparable one-year period. The average

benefit received per family for an entire year under the ACCB was $356

per month. The average benefit received for an entire year under the

child care subsidy was $382 per month. That is $26 more per

month.

Isn’t it true that the annual child care subsidy given by the

former government actually benefitted the average family more than the

present affordable child care benefit?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: When it comes to the average, it really depends on when the member

pulled out the data to do the comparison. The information that we

actually have, when it comes to data, is that the number of children

benefitting from the subsidy program had gone down over the years when

the subsidy was available.

When we changed it to the new affordable child care benefit, the

number of children and families benefiting from the program

significantly increased, and the amount of the benefits that they are

entitled to also increased because we have increased the amount of

benefits up to $1,250. Also, the income requirement has gone way up to

$111,000. So a lot of middle-, higher-income families are also eligible

to get this additional affordable child care benefit.

In terms of the number of families over a one-year period of time,

these are the statistics we have. For example, from January 2019 to

December 2019 under our new affordable child care benefit program, there

were 45,386 families and 60,063 children benefiting from the affordable

child care benefit. Compared to the previous government’s subsidy

program, doing a comparison between even the time period between

September 2017 to August 2018, the number of families under the previous

subsidy program was 21,411, and there were only 31,122

children.

As of February this year, over 66,000 children have been approved

for the affordable child care benefit. Each of those

families….

All of those additional supports to those families means that they

can pay for better housing, better food and extracurricular activities

and are able to stay in their community. The affordable child care

benefit has been really popular and has expanded the support to a lot of

middle-income families.

L. Throness: This is probably my last question. I think we just have a couple

of minutes left, so I want to take the opportunity to thank the

ministers for their patience and for their staff who’ve come and

attended these 11 or 12 hours. It’s much appreciated.

I’m just going to give one final question about the fee reduction

initiative. The minister’s fee reduction program that has been operating

for two years now. According to freedom of information, as of November 5

of last year, 382 organizations were still choosing not to opt in to the

child care fee reduction initiative. That represents 5,400 child care

spaces that would otherwise be eligible for up to $350 per

month.

That’s a sizeable amount of money for hundreds of providers,

thousands of children and thousands of families — and early childhood

educators, who, unfortunately, if they work for these not-opted-in

organizations, do not get the wage enhancement of $2 per hour. I believe

they get less in CCOF dollars as well. This puts them at a significant

economic disadvantage in their communities, perhaps by thousands of

dollars per month.

How does driving some providers and some early childhood educators

from the field by putting them at economic disadvantage help to improve

child care in B.C.?

Hon. K. Chen: I think it is important to remind the member opposite that when we

started to work on our Childcare B.C. plan, we were facing a very

market-based system. When we introduced the new child care fee reduction

program, we budgeted for 75 percent of the participation rate. And now

we have 92 percent of participation rate. This is a huge success. The

program has been really popular. So many providers are opted in to the

program so they can benefit from other benefits.

We continue to encourage more providers to join the program

because it is definitely a significant relationship that we have with

all the diversity of providers to be able to bring down the cost of

child care for families. I cannot thank those providers who have opted

in to this program enough for the important partnership. It’s an option

for providers, and we continue to encourage more providers to

join.

I know this is the last question, so I just want to take this

opportunity to really emphasize the fact that our Childcare B.C. plan is

a comprehensive systematic change for B.C.’s early learning and child

care sector.

[11:45 a.m.]

We are lowering parent costs. We are accelerating the creation of

child care spaces. At the same time, we’re supporting the workforce,

making sure child care is high-quality and inclusive and that the

workers are supported.

I cannot thank our team from MCFD and also the minister

responsible for MCFD, enough for all the great work, and everybody who

has been advocating: parents, advocates, professionals who have

advocated for years to invest in early learning and care. We’re proud of

the work, but we understand we have more work to do. We’ll continue to

work hard to make sure all families and more families can get relief

when it comes to child care.

Vote 19: ministry operations, $2,228,446,000 — approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: Before I move this, I would just like to thank our staff who have

done incredible work, both in MCFD and also our staff from EMPR, who

helped support me in all things Columbia. I want to thank all the MLAs

who came and asked both the Minister of State and myself the questions,

again, on the Ministry of Children and Family Development, child care

and all things Columbia, because it is a real honour to be able to

answer those questions and to work with the amazing staff that we do

have. And again, to thank the Minister of State for Child Care for the

incredible work she is doing on that file as well.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report resolution and

completion and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2020: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada