Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, October 5, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 102

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Early Childhood Educators Act

(continued)

Hon. M. Dean

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 15 — Early Learning and Child Care Act

Hon. K. Chen

K. Kirkpatrick

E. Ross

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Early Learning and Child Care Act

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

Hon. M. Mark

A. Wilkinson

B. Anderson

D. Davies

Hon. N. Simons

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2021

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued debate on Bill 14.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 14 — EARLY CHILDHOOD

EDUCATORS

ACT

(continued)

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister to close the debate.

Hon. M. Dean: Hon. Speaker, I want to say thank you to all of the MLAs who spoke on

this really important bill. I want to thank them, especially, for recognizing

the work of the Minister of State for Child Care and all of her staff, as well,

and to thank them for recognizing the value of our early childhood educators

and supporting our progress and our work moving forward.

We’re recognizing that profession and those workers and really trying to

build a system that does support more early childhood educators being able to

enter into the profession, obviously providing that really vital service of

early learning for our children, who of course are so important to us now and

for our future as well.

I really appreciated how people recognized that so many people working

in this sector are women and the importance of lifting women and recognizing

the value of the work that all of these, mostly women, are doing. They are

taking care of our precious young children while the parents are able to get

into the workforce to help rebuild the economy and to help continue driving the

province forward as well. As we’ve said so many times, these early childhood

educators are the workforce behind the workforce.

[1:35 p.m.]

I myself was an employer of early childhood educators. I ran a child

care that happened to be on school grounds and supported a range of parents,

especially young parents. So I know firsthand, as I would hear from the manager

that one of the workers had called up and said they couldn’t make it in. They’d

have to really scramble and make sure that they had enough staff coverage,

themselves quite often having to get emergency arrangements for their own

family to be able to come in to operate a licensed, quality, inclusive child

care.

We know that by putting these measures in place, we’re really supporting

the sector and lifting the sector so that we don’t end up with those precarious

kinds of situations that actually threaten the stability of child care and

really create a lot of stress and strain for families, who rely on it as well.

You know, I worked with our team, and I would go to the daycare often. They

were absolutely dedicated, committed, highly skilled and very compassionate

people who were providing that early learning and child care for those

youngsters.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

I’m really happy to see the bill moving forward and thank everybody for

their contribution as we move forward.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Dean: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be

considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 14, Early Childhood Educators Act, read a second time and referred to

a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage, Bill 15.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 15 — EARLY LEARNING AND

CHILD CARE

ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 15;

N. Letnick in the chair.

The committee met at 1:39 p.m.

The Chair: The committee will stand in recess for a couple of minutes while

staff are making their way to their seats.

The committee recessed from 1:39 p.m. to 1:42 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

On clause 1.

The Chair: Would the minister like to introduce her staff?

Hon. K. Chen: Sure. I am here with our ADM, Kevena Hall, for the child care division

from MCFD; Teresa Butler, director of child care policy; and also Renae Snell,

manager for legislation and legal support.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister and her staff. I know that you’ve all put

quite a bit of work into this bill. Child care is, I think, foundational to

families and to British Columbia. I think that you have wonderful jobs, and you

do great work.

My role here, as I see it, is to support making this the best bill

possible. I look forward to learning more about it and expressing my questions

as we go through this.

Now, this is my first committee experience. So, Mr. Chair, I ask for

your patience with me. I will strive to follow the process as clearly as

possible here.

section 1, although I don’t have a question specific to it…. I would

ask the Chair if I might ask two general questions to start with.

Okay.

Does the minister believe that this government has met its obligations,

related to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, with

respect to this bill? Who did that consultative work, and who was consulted

with, specifically?

[1:45 p.m.]

The Chair: Just for the benefit of our new members, we are now referring to the

different parts of the bill as clauses, not sections.

All you need to do is stand up and ask your questions, and I will

recognize you. That would be great.

Hon. K. Chen: Thanks to the critic for the questions. This is my first committee as

well, so I guess we have so much to learn together. I really appreciate your

time spent on the two legislations in front of us.

To answer the question, we have done extensive engagement with our

Indigenous partners, including the First Nations Leadership Council, Métis

Commission, Métis Nation B.C. and also B.C. Aboriginal Child Care Society,

which have always been partners along this journey to build a universal,

inclusive, early learning and child care system.

We have been incorporating the Declaration Act into our proposal and the

work that we do, of course, in consultation with our Indigenous partners as

well. The proposed legislation is consistent with the following articles of

UNDRIP, including articles 3, 5, 20(1), 21, 22 and 23.

K. Kirkpatrick: My second question….

I’m sorry. You have to recognize me, don’t you?

The Chair: Yes, that’s okay. You stand up, and then I recognize you. The Chair

will either say “Member” or will actually say your riding. In either case,

you then start. Then when you’re done, you put your mask back on.

All right. Member.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Chair.

Who were the other groups that were consulted with, and what is the

makeup of those groups — for example, child care providers, ECE workers? What

was the geographic representation? Was there a combination of non-profit,

for-profit, public, Montessori? It’s just to get a flavour of who’s had input

into this.

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: We have been consulting with the sector and many diverse stakeholders

since we started the Childcare B.C. plan in 2017-2018. Of course, we rely

mostly on our Provincial Child Care Council, which has diverse members coming

from the child care sector: family providers, multi-age providers, licensed

group care providers, non-profit, for-profit, providers that have experience

with children who require extra support — providers and stakeholders from, for

example, the education community — academics and community groups.

Then they also are from different geographic regions, such as Vancouver

Island, Vancouver Coastal, Fraser, Interior, Northern. We do consult with them,

with their diverse experience and expertise on child care. As part of our

Childcare B.C. plan, of course, we have always been conducting other public

engagement opportunities, engaging with families and our local child care

resource referral centres.

I’ll give an example. Earlier this year we also had a reference group

and a workforce group of child care sector, education and labour professionals

to advise on some early questions regarding the future of child

care.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Minister. You explained a little bit about how some of that

consultation information was gathered, but can you give more detail, more

specifically, in terms of how those groups were engaged with? How was that

input considered with respect to the content of the act?

The Chair: Just continuing with our advanced education in parliamentary

procedure, it’s important to go through the Chair. So don’t pose questions

directly to the minister. Come through the Chair. Thank you.

Hon. K. Chen: Through our engagement process, we find every way possible to learn

from, of course, the diverse sector professionals and also from families across

the province about their experiences with child care. For example, we’ve done

town halls. We’ve had in-person meetings — before COVID, of course. Now we tend

to do a lot of Zoom meetings.

[1:55 p.m.]

We’ve had emails coming in. People provide feedback about child care,

our team and our ministry. I cannot thank our child care team enough for their

dedication and their tons of work into child care. We take that correspondence

very seriously. We make sure that the appropriate department gets the feedback

and the response. I personally approve a lot of the correspondence, as well,

and I learn from those providers, educators and professionals in the sector.

We’ve had technical briefings and, especially prior to COVID, done a lot of

in-person meetings. Those engagements really helped us to inform our child care

plan.

K. Kirkpatrick: Bill 14 creates a regulator for the ECE sector. What connection or

authority, if any, does that regulator have with respect to this

bill?

The Chair: Just for clarification, you meant Bill 15, correct?

K. Kirkpatrick: No, I meant Bill 14.

The Chair: If the minister chooses to answer the question on her other

bill….

Hon. K. Chen: The answer is no, because that’s related to Bill 14.

The Chair: That’s what we thought. If you would like to ask a different

question….

Just, by the way, for education for all of us, the reason why we go

through the Chair is that it can get pretty heated in here. If we start

talking directly across the aisle, it gets even more heated. That’s why.

This is to calm things down.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

K. Kirkpatrick: To the minister, the transition

section later in the act refers to

grants and subsidies. I wasn’t clear, on that transition, as to the impact of

the grants referenced in this section. Are they going to be replacing CCOF,

CCFRI, the ECE top-ups, the new spaces fund? Is this something different than

those existing programs?

Hon. K. Chen: I think that’s referring to clause 3, but we’re in clause 2. So maybe

I’ll wait for the next clause. Is that correct?

The Chair: You may if you wish, or you may answer. It’s up to you. I take your

answer as you want to wait. That’s fine.

K. Kirkpatrick: I need to ask for clarification, just on what we’re referencing, each of

these sections. I haven’t done this before. When we’re talking about clause 2 —

I know you did give an explanation earlier — are we talking about

part 1,

clause 2 being the application of the act? Or are we moving to…? Just a

clarification. I was getting myself a little turned around there.

The Chair: Right. Clause 2 says: “Application of Act.” The number 2 is there.

Then there’s (

a) and (b). If you need to go back to clause 1….

K. Kirkpatrick: No.

The Chair: Okay. On clause 2, do you have another question?

K. Kirkpatrick: I do not.

Clause 2 approved.

The Chair: Now, I will say: “On clause 3.” When I say, “On clause 3,” that’s

when you get up, if you have a question.

On clause 3.

The Chair: Shall clause 3 pass? You’re not getting up. You are getting

up.

Interjection.

The Chair: Thank you for that, Member.

K. Kirkpatrick: Mr. Chair, I do appreciate your patience with me here.

On clause 3, child care grants…. I am in the right place, so I’ll

repeat. The grants are referenced in this section. Later on, there’s a

transition

section that talks about transition, but it wasn’t clear to me if

the CCOF, CCFRI, ECE top-ups, new spaces fund and those things are being

replaced and will be called something different under this

section of the

act.

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: The act gives us the legislative foundations to be able to administer

all the grants that the critic has mentioned. But just to clarify, for the

clause, for the purpose of this clause, that’s all the grants except for the

affordable child care benefit.

Then at the same time, it’s important to note that we’re not renaming

the program as a result. We are actually broadening it. We are, through this

clause, allowing the ministry to continue with all the funding and the support

for families and expanding the grants to allow the ministry to do more for

families.

Even though it’s not under this clause, I just want to explain the

transition clauses that you were mentioning. It’s actually to support existing

programs and support for families to be able to continue when this act becomes

enforced, and it’s really to provide stability to the families and the

providers who were receiving those grants at the time.

K. Kirkpatrick: As you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, there’s a lot of concern in this

sector, as referenced by the member for Saanich North and the Islands earlier,

as to who’s going to be eligible for these grants under the new act. It’s yet

to be explained. As I understand, it will be contained in the

regulations.

Could the minister confirm that these grants won’t be limited in any way

based on whether a daycare is a non-profit, public or private

organization?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: Just to clarify for the clause and what we are discussing here, it’s to

give the ministry the legal authority to be able to issue and broaden the scope

of grants and supports for providers and families. But in terms of eligibility,

that is really being established in policies. So eligibility funding is

established through policies.

K. Kirkpatrick: I understand that that will be done through policy, but I would like to

understand what the act envisions in terms of that policy — what the intent

will be and whether there is going to be a change in who will be eligible for

the existing programs such as the ECE wage enhancements and CCOF and

those.

Hon. K. Chen: I think, again, it’s important to note that this legislation really

gives us authority to broaden our work and ability to support providers and

families. But of course, a lot of the eligibility for funding and all that is

established in policies.

As I’ve always said publicly, through our Childcare B.C. plan, we will

continue, and we have been continuing, to work with the very diverse sector and

providers. There is a place for all providers in our child care system right

here in B.C.

The intent of this legislation is really to make sure we support the

work that we’ve done since 2017 to invest in child care: supporting the

principle of an inclusive, universal early learning and care system, including

equitable access; supporting parent affordability, inclusivity of child care;

and also supporting the delivery of high-quality early learning and care

systems through social, cultural, educational, emotional, physical development

of children.

[2:10 p.m.]

It’s supporting the relationship between child care and

kindergarten-to-grade-12 education and also the transition between child care

and K to 12; and of course, very importantly, also working, collaborating with

Indigenous communities and peoples, including in relation to child care

matters, and also putting the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous

peoples into consideration. So we’ll continue to work with our very diverse

sector, Indigenous communities, along this journey.

K. Kirkpatrick: My final question on this section. The minister, in the introduction of

this bill, talked about its ability to build the sector, to increase spaces and

to make it a better quality, more inclusive system. I would just like to ask

the minister: with the changes in these grants that are going to be supporting

child care providers, how will it be different? How will this act support

growth and increase the number of spaces available in the province of

B.C.?

Hon. K. Chen: Again, the intent of this legislation is to broaden the support that we

have for families and providers. It will also help to improve access, for

example, by expanding the purpose for which a child care grant may be paid to

include establishing a child care facility or improving inclusivity in child

care.

I know the member cares a lot about inclusion, which is a key part of

this legislation — for example, to provide more access for children who require

extra support and also facilitating the design or delivery of Indigenous child

care programs.

E. Ross: To follow up on one of the answers, we’re talking in general about

working with First Nations communities. It’s become such a politicized, vague

topic nowadays, given the UNDRIP bill.

When you talk about consultation…. In the framework of rights and title

case law, for example, it has a very different meaning when you’re talking

about consultation, especially when we’re talking about the bill that was

passed here just recently in the Legislature, the United Nations declaration on

the rights of Indigenous peoples. But consultation, in a legal sense, is very

prescriptive and has been defined over the last 15 years, at least since 2004

on the Haida court case and the duty to consult and accommodate, especially

when we’re talking about the duty to the Crown. And that’s where I take my

definition of consultation.

In response to one of the answers that was given here, can I ask for the

minister to elaborate: how did the Crown consult with 203 First Nations

regarding this bill?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: I really appreciate the member’s question. We all know our government’s

commitment to continue this journey through reconciliation.

We have directly provided opportunities for the 203 First Nations to

provide feedback throughout this legislation. As I mentioned earlier, we have

been engaging with the Métis Nation, the First Nations Leadership Council and

the Aboriginal Child Care Society of B.C. during this process.

It’s important to note that this act requires regulations to be drafted

to come into force, so ministry staff and our government are very committed to

continue to work with Indigenous communities and the First Nations Leadership

Council to co-develop those regulations.

In the meantime, we have entered a letter of commitment with the First

Nations Leadership Council, for example, to confirm the principles, process,

roles and responsibilities of MCFD when it comes to this legislation and

working with Indigenous governments and the First Nations Leadership

Council.

We do appreciate this question, and we’ll continue to do the work. I

also want to end by noting that this legislation is really the first step, as

we have incorporated language to ensure that we support, for example, the

creation of Indigenous-led child care and being able to create more culturally

inclusive early learning and care services with Indigenous

communities.

E. Ross: Thank you for that answer.

The organizations you spoke of do not represent Aboriginal communities

in B.C. According to the UNDRIP document that was actually approved of in this

House…. It made no mention of the organizations that were just listed. The

UNDRIP document actually talks about First Nations communities and leaders and

talks about consultation. The framework of that was already set long before

UNDRIP was established in New York or wherever it came from, before it got

enacted by this Legislature.

Just to go back to the commitment made under the UNDRIP document, it

said that there would be full consultation from this government to the

communities and, more importantly, the rights and title holders of these

communities. It didn’t define that in the document, of course, but the

commitment was made to talk with and consult with communities.

[2:20 p.m.]

So a two-part question. Could the minister detail which communities in

question were consulted with? Not the advocacy organizations that don’t

represent communities. And if the communities were not consulted as per the

UNDRIP bill, did the Crown delegate its duty to consult to the organizations

that were just listed by the minister?

The Chair: Just a reminder to avoid talking directly to the minister by saying

“you.”

While we’re waiting for the minister to review the question and

answer, just for those of you in the gallery, thank you very much for being

here this week, our first week back in full session. We’re dealing with Bill

15, Early Learning and Child Care Act. We’re going through the bill clause

by clause. It’s 31 clauses plus the title. It’s also a learning opportunity

for yours truly, obviously. So bear with us. We go back and forth, and there

are some breaks as the minister discusses answers with the staff.

Hon. K. Chen: It is our belief that this draft piece of legislation supports the

province’s commitment under

section 3 of the Declaration Act. It is also

consistent with the following articles of UNDRIP, including articles 5, 14, 20,

21(2) and 22. We have engaged and provided the opportunity to hear from and

receive feedback from 203 First Nations.

Again, through the letter of commitment that we’ve made with the First

Nations Leadership Council and as this act will require regulations — as the

critic has mentioned about how a lot of the details are indeed in the

regulations — it will be drafted and co-developed with the First Nations

Leadership Council and also Indigenous communities throughout this

process.

E. Ross: To the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, I make mistakes too, but this

is the only way to learn. That’s exactly the way I learned, being corrected by

the Chair many, many times. I used “you” twice, which was actually pointed out

by the Chair. That was a mistake. I apologize.

To the minister, really what we’re talking about is consultation. It

seems to me we’re talking specifically within the confines of UNDRIP, the bill,

but there were hundreds of court cases before UNDRIP came to be that actually

defined “consultation” in the courts of B.C. and Canada. That seems to be

forgotten. The definition of “consultation” is well laid out.

[2:25 p.m.]

When we’re talking about this, we’re talking about the further

commitment under the UNDRIP document that said this government would consult on

every piece of legislation existing as well as proposed in terms of

consultation with 203 bands in B.C. I thought at the time that was

unrealistic.

I have yet to hear whether or not any piece of legislation has actually

reached 203 bands under the legal definition of “consultation,” because

consultation is pretty exhaustive in terms of what the duty of the Crown has to

uphold. It’s got to be meaningful. It can’t be just a notice of intention of

the Crown to do something and expect feedback from a First Nation that’s

probably got 20 different things on their to-do list.

When we were talking about consultation, I was really talking about the

commitments under UNDRIP to consult with 203 bands, as promised as per UNDRIP,

as well as upholding the duty of the Crown, not to organizations like the

leadership council. The leadership council does not represent communities.

They’re an advocacy organization. In some cases, they represent organizations

that you can join by just paying your dues. The representation of communities

actually boils down to who is representing that community in

question.

We haven’t heard a list of any communities that were consulted, so I

just want to be clear. Is it my understanding that there were no communities

actually consulted other than just notice of intention by the Crown?

Hon. K. Chen: I really appreciate, again, the member for your feedback and sharing

your thoughts, and I totally understand the feedback that you’re sharing

here.

I think it’s important, again, to mention that universal, inclusive

early learning and child care has never existed in this province before. This

legislation is the first step to pull that work together to ensure that,

through our work investing in early learning and child care, that investment is

going to be inclusive and that when we work with Indigenous communities, there

will be Indigenous-led child care, and there has been. There are some really

good examples across the province through the learnings that we’ve had and work

that we’ve done with and learning from Indigenous communities.

It is the first key step to be able to continue that journey, and we

will continue to learn and develop and improve along the way.

Again, this act does require regulations to be drafted to come into

force. Ministry staff, myself, our whole team, our government will be

co-developing those regulations and working hand in hand with Indigenous

communities and partners and stakeholders across the province, including

engagement, consultation. Opportunities for legislative co-development will

also take place if amendments to the act are required for the

future.

We’re really committed to this journey. We want to do this first step to

see how Indigenous-led child care can be done in this province and will be done

in this province, and it is our commitment to inclusion and to

reconciliation.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. Let’s avoid the “your” references and talk about

“his.” Again, through the Chair — this is a reminder to both

sides.

Before I recognize the member for Skeena, I’m about to be replaced at

2:30. So before I go, I just want to say thank you for the privilege of

being here for your first estimates, both of you. You did a great job.

Wonderful. Much better than I ever did when I had my first

estimates.

E. Ross: Well, thank you, Chair.

With all due respect, Minister — through the Chair, of course — that

wasn’t the question. We’re talking about inclusivity across the board in terms

of everything we try to do in this Legislature, including child

care.

[2:30 p.m.]

The question was consultation, not only as the commitments made under

UNDRIP but also the legal requirements made under case law that was established

long before UNDRIP was ever implemented. The question was: how many communities

did you actually consult? There are 203 communities, complete with their own

leadership structure. They all want some form of child care, right? We all know

that. But that’s not the question that I’m trying to ask here.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I’m trying to follow up on the commitments made under the UNDRIP bill

that actually has a foundation of rights and title case law, including the full

definition of “consultation.” That’s what I’m asking. I’m going to presume,

based on the non-answer I’m hearing, that there was no consultation with one

band, let alone 203, in B.C. and that this government actually reneged on their

commitment to consult with these bands by delegating the consultation duty to

advocacy groups like the leadership council, which doesn’t represent

communities. They’re an advocacy organization.

Given that we haven’t heard one mention of one community, let alone 50

percent of the 203 communities in B.C., am I to presume that this will be the

standard going forward, given what we’ve heard in this Legislature in terms of

how this government refuses to consult with 203 bands in B.C., as previously

committed under UNDRIP, and that this is just another example of how this

government will actually bypass the consultation with 203 communities and

actually just go to groups like the leadership council to fulfil that

duty?

Hon. K. Chen: I want to reiterate again that the Ministry of Children and Family

Development is committed to support and uphold Indigenous inherent and human

rights and to implement and meet the objectives of the UN declaration on the

rights of Indigenous people. It is our understanding that the draft piece of

legislation supports the province’s commitment under

section 3 of the

declaration act.

Again, this is the first time that B.C. is introducing universal,

inclusive early learning and care. It opens the first step and the door to

ensure that we can work in partnership with Indigenous communities hand in hand

on Indigenous-led child care. It is a historic move, and we’ll continue that

journey and co-develop the regulations with Indigenous partners and

communities.

[2:35 p.m.]

E. Ross: Well, we’re not going to get anywhere with this. We’re not going to get

any mention of a yes or a no, whether or not this government actually consulted

with 203 bands in B.C. as per their commitment under the UNDRIP

bill.

Can the minister name either one community, just one, or one

representative of a community that actually responded as per the consultation

this Crown promised to deliver in the first place? Just name one person from

one community or name one community that actually fulfilled the back-and-forth

process that follows the definition of “consultation” that had actually been

decided upon through the courts of B.C. and Canada.

Hon. K. Chen: We have reached out and connected with 203 First Nations, and we will

continue to do this engagement again, like I mentioned. We’ll continue to work

hand in hand with First Nations and Indigenous communities to co-develop their

regulations.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

K. Kirkpatrick: Will the benefits under this legislation, under this clause, replace the

affordable child care benefit and other supports that families are currently

receiving?

Hon. K. Chen: This clause will enable us to continue with the affordable child care

benefit. It will not change the affordable child care benefit. But it is also

important to note that we are aligning our public communication with the

legislation to make sure that the “child care subsidy” term is now replaced

with “child care benefit.”

K. Kirkpatrick: Does the minister anticipate there will be any means-testing for these

benefits?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: This actually allows us to continue to deliver the income-tested

affordable child care benefit. In terms of the details, it will be done through

policies and regulations.

K. Kirkpatrick: How do the benefits under this

section relate to the commitment to

Hon. K. Chen: This clause supports the work we do to ensure that while we deliver

inclusive, universal early learning and care services to families, the most

vulnerable families and children are getting the extra support that they need,

including families who are now receiving $10-a-day or no-cost or low-cost child

care at this moment and in the future as well.

The other parts of this legislation — for example, through the child

care grants — will cover on our commitment and our work to implement universal,

affordable, high-quality early learning and care services.

universal child care is used. I would like to ask if the minister can define

for me in the spirit of what the ministry refers to with inclusive and

universal child care.

Hon. K. Chen: The policy intent behind the word “inclusive” can be understood through,

for example, our Childcare B.C. plan. At the most basic level, inclusive means

that all children deserve to be respected and fully included by those who are

caring for them and teaching them and nurturing them. It also recognizes and

addresses the needs of children who may be experiencing vulnerability and those

children with extra support needs or diverse learning needs.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

K. Kirkpatrick: If the Chair will indulge, I have a general question on division 2,

“Child Care Strategy,” before I address 5.

This division is called the child care strategy. It entails the

Provincial Child Care Council and the annual report only. Does this child care

strategy replace the Childcare B.C. plan?

Hon. K. Chen: The answer is no. This clause actually supports our Childcare B.C. plan.

On this particular clause, it actually continues the Provincial Child Care

Council from the Child Care B.C. Act under the Early Learning and Child Care

Act.

[2:45 p.m.]

It also expands the matters that the Provincial Child Care Council can

make recommendations on to align with current practices and also with

government’s direction to implement inclusive universal child care.

K. Kirkpatrick: This might sound like I’m digging too much into the meaning of a word,

but when we use the word “strategy….” I have heard this minister refer many

times to multiple strategies, so the Childcare B.C. plan I understood to be the

child care strategy. What is the meaning of using the word “strategy” then,

again, within this act?

Hon. K. Chen: Just to explain, I am personally ESL. So this is good learning for me on

the word “strategy” as well.

This actually talks about the strategic vision — for example, our child

care plan. So I will raise an example on this clause that talks about how the

recommendations are made to the government to go towards that vision through

our strategic plan. On clause 6, it is also on how we can achieve our strategic

objectives through, for example, reporting and the commitment that we’re making

through this legislation.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I will now address clause 5, “Provincial Child Care Council.” How will

the Provincial Child Care Council be constituted, and is it different than how

the current one is constituted?

Hon. K. Chen: First of all, there is no change to the current process. At this moment,

the practice is that a member of the Provincial Child Care Council is

identified through an application process, which is administered by the Crown

agency and board resourcing office, which is responsible for public sector

organization governance support, including recruiting and recommendation for

candidates for appointments to agencies and boards.

[2:50 p.m.]

Vacancies on the Provincial Child Care Council are posted for the public

to access and for all interested parties that are welcome to apply, which is a

standard practice for appointments for B.C. agencies, boards and commissions.

At the same time, we do have a very diverse group of Provincial Child Care

Council members that bring a lot of expertise from different sectors and

experience and knowledge to our Provincial Child Care Council.

K. Kirkpatrick: What remuneration is expected to be paid to council members?

Hon. K. Chen: This legislation does not address the remuneration of the Provincial

Child Care Council. It is addressed through the CABRO, the Crown agencies and

board resourcing office.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m looking at how we’re going to determine that we have appropriate,

adequate breadth of experience on this provincial council. Questions I’ve got

are very specific to all of the different requirements and things that this

Provincial Child Care Council is going to have the ability to make

recommendations to the minister on.

I’m wondering if there is a competency grid that’s being used to ensure

that appropriateness of breadth of representation on the council. I look

forward to hearing about that. Then if I may, I may go back and ask specific

questions about certain areas of expertise.

Hon. K. Chen: The Crown agencies and board resourcing office establishes the criteria

to follow in compiling a pool of prospective eligible members for the

Provincial Child Care Council. This currently includes child care providers

with experience in various types of care; people with experience with various

community groups, such as advocacy groups, business, local government, labour,

post-secondary, education; and also those who represent different regions of

the province and the diversity of our province.

The ministry is currently looking into amending the existing terms of

reference to building greater Indigenous competency, based on the feedback from

our Indigenous partners and the First Nations Leadership Council on this

legislation. This legislation does not include regulation-making authorities

relating to our Provincial Child Care Council members.

[2:55 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for that.

I’m going to ask a few more questions in this particular area, because

my understanding from reading this act is that the majority of input into

regulation and input into how this act will be administered is the

responsibility of the Provincial Child Care Council. They play a significantly

central and important role to this. There have been additions in terms of the

types of responsibilities that they have.

I’m concerned. I’m not totally sure about the process, but the board

resourcing office developing a competency framework…. The minister may have

alluded to this a bit in the last answer, but do they meet with you and go

through the requirements of this legislation to make sure that they’ve got

people on that provincial council that have experience, for example, with the

social, cultural, educational, emotional, cognitive…? There’s that behavioural

component as well.

What I heard you mention were various geographic areas and different

professional groups, but the question is: how does the resourcing office or

that competency framework…? How do you ensure it aligns with the depth of

expertise required to undertake all of these responsibilities?

Hon. K. Chen: Just to make sure it is more clear and clarified, we consult with a wide

range of professionals, families and stakeholders from the sector and outside

of the sector. We do need a lot of expertise into building an inclusive,

affordable, high-quality early learning and child care system. It is a huge

undertaking, and we have been learning along the way since 2017.

Of course, the Provincial Child Care Council is an important group of

leaders and professionals and, really, people with so much expertise in the

child care sector and also from other sectors as well. We also have people from

education sectors, our Indigenous representatives and people who understand the

needs of young children or children who require extra support.

I do really appreciate the work of our Provincial Child Care Council

members. They are volunteers who do so much to provide a lot of technical

advice and support for our child care plan.

Again, it is important to know that we do engage with many other

providers through different ways of engagement that we’ve touched on earlier.

Actually, in the coming weeks, we’re going to do more engagement. I would

definitely love to share that opportunity with all members from this House to

encourage more diverse voices and more experience coming in to shape the plan

for our future child care system.

The Provincial Child Care Council is critical to provide, for example,

technical support. If there is an area that we need to look into on how this

would impact specific providers, for example, then we would have a provider or

a professional who has that experience or knowledge and maybe also have someone

who is a stakeholder that could be impacted by a certain decision to be able to

get some quick and also important and technical feedback.

[3:00 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

There is a part here…. One of the responsibilities that this group has

is recommendations with respect to the role of — there’s a whole number of

things in this one clause, which I started to say: “…social, cultural,

educational, emotional, cognitive and physical development of

children.”

If I could ask, what are the requirements that you’re looking for? What

background do the people that have that level of expertise have? Do you already

have those people? Is that part of the competency framework?

Hon. K. Chen: I appreciate the member’s question.

For example, currently our Provincial Child Care Council does have that

diverse and wide range of backgrounds and expertise in a lot of areas. We will

continue to evaluate, when vacancies or opportunities come up, to make sure we

fill a certain gap or we’re looking at diverse experiences that can help to

shape our Childcare B.C. plan.

Currently, for example, we have representatives from the following

sectors and geographic regions across the province. That’s including family

providers, multi-age providers, licensed group child care providers, including

not-for-profit and for-profit providers. We have providers serving children

from birth to school age; child care providers offering inclusive programming

for children with additional support needs; and also Indigenous providers, on

and off reserve, with different expertise as well.

We also have Child Care Council members and professionals from different

advocacy groups, including labour and even the business community, to look at

the economic impacts and the benefits of investing in child care. We have local

governments, such as municipal and school district experience, post-secondary

experience. We also have providers from Vancouver Island, Vancouver Coastal,

Fraser, Interior, Kamloops, Kelowna, Kootenays, Northern. We do our best to

recruit members with very diverse experience and expertise.

K. Kirkpatrick: That’s good. What I’m looking for, with respect to these things in

particular, would actually be child psychologists, people that work with

behavioural issues, child kinesiology — all of those things that are directly

related to what is specifically laid out here.

Hon. K. Chen: I really appreciate the member’s input and recommendation. I think, as

our child care plan continues to evolve, that is definitely an area where we

are looking forward to recruit more diverse expertise and talents into our

Provincial Child Care Council.

[3:05 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: To the minister, can I have it on record, then, that there will be

positions on that council that will be dedicated to professionals who are

professionals with respect to child development, physical development and the

things noted in their responsibilities?

Hon. K. Chen: I want to share and clarify that currently we do have Provincial Child

Care Council members who are early childhood educators, who are professionally

trained and who are experts and also leaders in the sector, who have the

experience and who know how to support young children, their emotional, social

and psychological needs and development.

We do have some expertise on council, but of course, I really appreciate

the member’s feedback. We’ll continue to look for a wider range of expertise,

opinions and advice as we continue to evolve our child care plan and as we have

openings coming up on council. I really appreciate that feedback.

K. Kirkpatrick: I just want to differentiate that the work of an ECE worker and someone

who has expertise in ECE can be very different than what is required and the

level of responsibility in making recommendations related to young people’s

cognitive development. There are people with master’s degrees who are very well

versed in working specifically with young people on these types of things. I

just want to differentiate those.

Is there an understanding of that difference and a willingness to look

specifically at those professions that work with young people in that

way?

Hon. K. Chen: I think it is important to note that we do consult with a lot of

stakeholders and professionals, as the member mentioned, other than our

Provincial Child Care Council. Our Provincial Child Care Council members are

definitely critical to our child care plan, but when we do engagement, when we

consult, we are more than happy to learn from other professionals — including

the professions that the member opposite mentioned — to be able to help to work

and give us great advice on child care plans that are focused on a child’s

well-being.

On the Provincial Child Care Council, a lot of the stakeholders that we

engage with…. There are many professionals that are, for example, from the

supported child development program and that actually do have a lot of

expertise, including psychologists and child and youth counsellors who know and

have involvement and have the experience of working with children with diverse

needs.

K. Kirkpatrick: My understanding, what I heard the minister just say, is that there are

other stakeholders and people that are consulted with outside of the Provincial

Child Care Council. But it is in the mandate of the Provincial Child Care

Council to have the expertise in these areas themselves.

[3:10 p.m.]

It might help me to understand this better if I might ask the minister

if she could give an example of “social, cultural, educational….” What are the

kinds of recommendations that you would envision the Child Care Council making

with respect to these areas?

Hon. K. Chen: We do have, for example, Provincial Child Care Council members from

Indigenous communities who have the experience of working with Indigenous

children and families and, for example, would help us to support the work that

we do on quality and inclusive early learning and care services and would give

us the advice on what the member has asked about — the social, cultural,

emotional or educational support to address the diverse needs of

families.

We also have council members who are experts and leaders in providing

quality child care or to support other peers in the sector. For example, we

have a pedagogy program that we funded to support a lot of early childhood

educators, professionals and providers who may be working in silos — family

providers that want to connect with their peers to get some support and to

learn how to provide better quality, inclusive, early learning and care

services.

The council members who have the expertise in those areas, along with

other stakeholders that we do engage and learn from, can come together often,

to make sure we develop those programs with important front-line experience,

feedback and experts from the field.

The Chair: If I might step in for a quick moment just to remind folks, the COVID

protocols are that we’re to keep our own seats and not move between seats.

Also, of course, make sure your mask is over your nose and your mouth. Thank

you.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m going to try to use the actual

section numbers here. I keep just

using the terms and not telling you where they are.

Clause 5(6)(e), “any other matter related to child care,” seems a very

broad responsibility to have. Could I ask the minister to give examples,

perhaps, of what’s anticipated there and why that is left open-ended like

that?

Hon. K. Chen: I think that the important part of this is that, because the previous

legislation was very limited on what the Provincial Child Care Council members

could do and advise on, we want to make sure that we expand the scope of their

advice and their recommendations so that we don’t have to come back and make

amendments to our legislation every time that we want to expand their

scope.

[3:15 p.m.]

Other resources that are referenced here may include, for example,

physical facilities or items such as toys, crafting supplies, safety equipment,

child-appropriate furniture, which could be necessary to support a child’s

learning and development to ensure that safety is maintained in the learning

environment. That would be some examples of what we could do to expand the

scope of the recommendations.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I’ll just express a concern I have with any kind of open-ended

miscellaneous responsibilities and legislation, because it’s very unclear to

people, in terms of what that could actually mean. It could be something that

at some point is…. I’ll just move on from that, but that is a concern that I

have on that one.

A question I have: what is the process for making recommendations to the

minister? Will it be these recommendations that will then form

regulations?

Hon. K. Chen: The Provincial Child Care Council meet about, currently, three times a

year. They also have some ad hoc discussions and also subcommittees that focus

on different topics and sharing different expertise on different

issues.

Our ministry staff are a very dedicated team. They do attend all those

meetings, taking notes and bringing them back, sharing with me. I also

personally do my best to attend their meetings, and also engage with the chair

on a regular basis to learn from them — to hear their feedback, their reaction

or response to issues that we bring forward to them.

To the member’s second part of the question, they do not form

regulations, but their advice does inform us — the work that we do and the

regulations, which is also part of the broader stakeholders and communities

from child care that we consult with. Again, Provincial Child Care Council does

inform government’s directions and visions on child care, but we do consult

with a wider group of stakeholders, partners, providers, professionals from the

sector and families as well. B.C. families’ experience is definitely key to our

child care plan.

K. Kirkpatrick: Because making recommendations by this Child Care Council is so central

to the entire act, I’m wondering about the formality of those recommendations.

If I can just clarify, what I’ve heard is that recommendations come out of

discussions where staff are in the room, as opposed to actually having an

official recommendation, a written recommendation from the chair or the

council.

Did I articulate that, Mr. Chair, so it could be understandable? I

believe I did.

The formality of those recommendations…. Is there something somewhere, a

paper, that says to the minister: “These are recommendations” or “This is a

recommendation to the minister from the Provincial Child Care

Council”?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: The Provincial Child Care Council often has discussions with staff as

part of the meetings to take minutes of their discussions and notes, feedback

and thoughts on different issues. There is no requirement, under our terms of

reference, for the Provincial Child Care Council to produce a report to the

Minister Responsible for Child Care. Of course, we do communicate and connect

very actively, as we have been busy with our child care plan.

I personally attend their meetings. I engage with the chair most of the

time to make sure I’m on top of their feedback, issues, concerns and thoughts

about our child care plan. I also engage with members. A lot of the Provincial

Child Care Council members are professionals and leaders in the sector, and

they’re across the province. When I have an opportunity to engage with

different communities or on different topics about child care, I also do my

best to engage with Provincial Child Care Council members directly to hear from

them.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Are there subcommittees of the Provincial Child Care Council that deal

with certain areas of specialization?

Hon. K. Chen: Historically and currently, there are subgroups from the Provincial

Child Care Council members that could…. For example, currently we have focus on

“quality” as well, so they do focus on different areas, depending on a member’s

expertise. Of course, that could evolve and change, depending on the priorities

of the day and the issues that arise.

K. Kirkpatrick: Are these meetings minuted, and are those available to the

public?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: Historically, we don’t proactively release the minutes. They are

confidential advice to the minister.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for that, Minister.

A question, again, for clarity on responsibilities. I am focusing on

this because my understanding here is that there’s the child care strategy

section. This Child Care Council is basically 50 percent of what the two key

elements are. There’s accountability, and there’s the Child Care Council. Then

the number one obligation of the Child Care Council is

recommendations.

Not having a more kind of formal process for actually providing

recommendations — not having recommendations that are transparent to the

public, to child care providers — is a concern. Is there something that the

minister can tell me that will make me more comfortable in that there is some

public transparency with respect to the recommendations — maybe not providing

the minutes publicly but the recommendations that are coming out of those

meetings?

Hon. K. Chen: First of all, the member’s question is really outside the scope of this

legislation, but I’m happy to provide some clarity.

I can see how the member is really focused on the word “strategy.” So I

just really want to reaffirm that when we talk about our child care strategy,

our consultation, our engagement, the Provincial Child Care Council is a part

of it but not all of it. There is so much work that we do, for example, through

our surveys, engagement, correspondence and either in-person or virtual

consultation that we do.

In the coming weeks, I’m more than happy to share with the critic the

work that we will be doing when it comes to engagement and the opportunities to

engage with the diverse sector. That actually happens all the time outside of

the Provincial Child Care Council. When the Provincial Child Care Council does

provide advice on an issue — for example, when we announce a decision on moving

forward on a program or a project — we often will release and inform the

public, in a transparent way, that this decision is informed, supported by the

Provincial Child Care Council and, potentially, other stakeholders, especially

including Indigenous communities.

K. Kirkpatrick: I don’t believe it’s outside the scope of the bill. I’ll stop using

references to the word “strategy.” But looking at recommendations, which are

key to the work of what the Provincial Child Care Council is doing, is

certainly within the scope of this legislation.

What is the minister’s obligation, if any, to accept recommendations of

the council?

[3:30 p.m.]

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. K. Chen: There is no legal obligation for the minister responsible for child care

to receive the recommendation or to implement a recommendation, but personally,

I value our Provincial Child Care Council and other stakeholders’ expertise

when it comes to building inclusive, affordable, high-quality early learning

and care services because, again, this is the first time our province is doing

that, and we do need to count on a lot of expertise and feedback from the

stakeholders.

The Chair: West Vancouver–Capilano.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome back to the chair.

Thank you to the minister. I appreciate that there is no legal

requirement for the minister to take a recommendation from the Provincial Child

Care Council. My concern is that the recommendations are foundational to this

entire legislation. I’m hearing that there is not a formal way to document

recommendations coming out of the council and that there is no obligation or

process for the minister to consider those recommendations, yet it’s a huge

component of what this legislation is.

In my experience with most advisory committees and bodies, things are

minuted, and the minutes would contain something that would say that the board

or the council recommends to the minister that, you know, A, B, C happens. That

would actually be formalized, and that would go to the minister.

If I’m understanding correctly — again, I’m coming back to it — it

sounds like there are discussions that happen. Staff are in the room, and notes

are taken, and then somehow, in some format, the minister becomes aware of

that. But there is no process for going through that, putting an actual

recommendation in front of the minister and the minister reviewing that

recommendation and perhaps having a conversation with the council to get

clarity on it.

Am I correct that there is not a process like that in place?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: I think it is important to maybe make a correction to the member’s

statement about the bulk part of the legislation. Actually, it is part of the

legislation that will support our work to build inclusive, affordable,

high-quality early learning and care for all British Columbians.

This legislation is actually focused on providing a strong legislative

foundation to do that work. This clause and this

section and the work of the

Provincial Child Care Council of course supports that, but it’s not the big

part of the intent of this legislation. I think it’s important to kind of

verify that.

The purpose of the legislation, of course, is really focused on how we

build a strong foundation and legislative framework for the universal early

learning and care system, which we are working hard on, that’s going to be

inclusive, affordable and high quality.

In the meantime, to also answer the member’s second part of the

question, there is no requirement — and historically, there’s no requirement —

for the council to produce a report or submit their recommendation.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I find it somewhat puzzling that the minister is maybe downplaying the

importance of the wording in here and the structure of the act. The minister is

referencing that the purpose of this is for inclusive, affordable, universal

child care. It’s difficult for me as a critic and for the public to know what

that means because the majority of the work is being deferred or pushed over

into regulation, but the bulk of the conversations and content, based on how

this legislation is written, is really contained in that Provincial Child Care

Council. So that’s why I’m continuing to ask about that.

Now, I see that the minister has shaken her head to disagree with that,

so I am going to go back to her and ask. I am perhaps not articulating this

clearly enough. But to the minister, why is this Provincial Child Care Council

piece such a prominent part of the legislation if I’m told here that it’s not

as critical to the act as I am suggesting it is?

Hon. K. Chen: I think it is important to inform the critic that this

section on the

Provincial Child Care Council is actually a carryover from the previous

legislation. So for this new Early Learning and Child Care Act, it is combining

the previous Child Care B.C. Act and also the Child Care Subsidy Act together.

This

part is actually a carryover.

Of course, we have to carry on a lot of the work that we’ve been doing.

We need to update this, so we’ve updated the

section on the Provincial Child

Care Council to make sure they can expand their scope of recommendations. But

that being said, this whole legislation…. I’m not trying to downplay at all,

because the Provincial Child Care Council’s work is critical to our vision

because of their recommendations and the work they do, along with all the other

stakeholders and partners that we have through our journey to build an

inclusive early learning and care system.

[3:40 p.m.]

The intent and the major purpose of this legislation, and also pulling

the two legislations together into one, is to really fix the current broken, I

would say…. Not the current — it’s been there for a long, long time.

We’re trying to address a child care system. We’re pulling things

together to start this legislative journey and also to enshrine the work that

we’ve done, the investment that we’ve done through child care grants and

lowering parent fees, accelerating the creation of spaces, supporting early

childhood educators. We need to pull all that together into one piece of

legislation that can enshrine the principles and the vision for inclusive,

early learning, affordable, quality services for all British

Columbians.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate the answer and the clarification

on that.

I think that we just go back to the challenge being…. The minister is

saying…. I understand. I’m excited about potential. If this is what is

happening — creating inclusive, affordable child care — it’s very hard with

what is the content in this bill for me to understand what that looks like and

how it’s actually happening. This is very much just a very sketched-out

framework with not a lot of detail. But I trust and believe that the minister’s

intent is certainly what we want to have here, which is to create a better

child care program in British Columbia.

You’ll be happy to know that I have one more question on this

section —

based, of course, upon the answer from the minister. But I do believe it is

just one more question.

To the minister, when will these roles with the Provincial Child Care

Council be posted on — I’m old-fashioned; I keep calling it BRDO, as I’m not

sure what it’s called anymore — the board resourcing office website?

Hon. K. Chen: Is it possible to have the member reiterate her question? We’re making

sure that we get the right answers to her as clear as possible.

The Chair: Would the member like to repeat her question, please?

K. Kirkpatrick: That was the shortest question I asked all day. My question for the

minister was: when will these available roles on the Provincial Child Care

Council be posted publicly to the board resourcing or CABRO or whatever it’s

called?

Hon. K. Chen: Thank you to the member for clarifying her question. I apologize that we

had a little bit of confusion about the question here.

Whenever there is a vacancy, the vacancy is posted on CABRO. CABRO also

has a list of provincial council members.

For the member’s information, each member of the Provincial Child Care

Council is normally initially appointed to council for a one-year term. They

may be reappointed for a second two- to three-year term and a third two- to

three-year term. So generally, the maximum years on council will not exceed six

years. Extensions are at the discretion of the minister.

Clause 5 approved.

The Chair: Before we start with clause 6, just for the enlightenment of our new

critic and our new minister, there are breaks allowed. You’ve been going

almost as long as a James Bond movie. So why don’t we just take a

five-minute health break right now.

We’ll be in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:45 p.m. to 3:56 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

On clause 6.

The Chair: Shall clause 6 pass?

Member, did you have a question on clause 6?

K. Kirkpatrick: No. I’m sorry.

The Chair: Okay. So ordered; clause 6 passes.

Shall clause 7 pass?

K. Kirkpatrick: Mr. Chair, I made a mistake. I’m still learning this. I don’t know what

I ask. May we have leave to go back to No. 6? I do have questions on No. 6. I

apologize.

The Chair: Oh, you do have a question on 6. No problem. Go ahead and ask the

question. I’m sure the minister will accommodate you.

Yes, she will.

K. Kirkpatrick: I was doing so well while you were away.

To the minister, this

section is about accountability. Accountability is

great. Transparency is great. I think that’s very important.

When I was a kid and I would get a report card from the teacher, the

teacher would say all those great things like: “Gee, she really tried hard.”

Unless there was actually a grade or some kind of quantitative measure attached

to that, really my parents had no idea how I was doing in school. I’m going to

take that same analogy, and I’m going to apply it to the annual reporting under

this act.

In this section, government is committing to report out on actions

rather than outcomes, and we know there can be a big chasm between actions and

outcomes. Additionally, governments make commitments outside of this act in

terms of the number of child care spaces it’s going to be providing, talking

about how many ECE workers are coming into the sector.

I’m just asking: why are there no quantitative measures in annual

reporting? How will we know if government has accomplished the things that

they’re setting out to accomplish?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: Just to respond to the member’s question about the report cards, I have

to say, our education system has been evolving, and now there are no grades for

report cards. I actually love it this way because you’re no longer labelling

our kids with A, B, C, Ds. Instead, you’re measuring the outcomes. As a parent,

I totally value that change.

I want to say on the reporting, of course, that it is a new commitment.

This is part of a new commitment through this legislation that we’re really

proud of — to make sure we can hold the government accountable on making the

progress on investing in child care and to track the outcomes and track the

progress.

Possible metrics that could be reported on could include, for example,

reductions in the average price of licensed child care, which could be broken

down in different various ways, such as by age group, geography or, for

example, new child care spaces being created within a fiscal year or new

$10-a-day sites that are opened within the specific year. There are different

ways that we could potentially do the metrics.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m still not sure how kids are applying to university if they’re not

getting grades in school, but that is outside of the scope of this

legislation.

A question. I’m still finding the idea of accountability a bit of a

struggle with respect to this, because you can do as many things as you want,

and you can spend as much money as you want on things, but unless you’re able

to actually measure something, it’s very difficult.

The minister has said that there are things that are measurable that

they could be looking at. But if we’re looking at accountability, should those

not be actually enshrined within the legislation itself, having the government

make a commitment to setting targets for new spaces and reporting out

specifically on how they’ve done with respect to those targets?

Hon. K. Chen: This act does not provide the regulation-making authority related to the

annual reporting requirement because it would provide some flexibility as the

key metrics may likely shift as the provincial government advances on

inclusive, universal child care.

For example, how do we fund spaces, or how do we make child care more

affordable? What type of child care? That could all evolve as we develop this

new social program. This clause actually sets an obligation that the government

must adhere to, which holds the government accountable for making measurable

progress on the creation of an inclusive, universal child care system that also

supports Indigenous-led child care in B.C.

That’s the reason why this is not in the legislation, because the system

will continue to evolve, and we may have to change the metrics along the way.

It provides greater flexibility to allow more evolving as we continue to invest

in child care.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Can I just confirm that the minister is saying there will be

quantitative measures included in the, I guess, performance metrics — what we

want to call it — under the annual report? There will be qualitative measures

that we can hold government to account for.

It’s just simply that they’re not contained within the legislation now,

because they want some flexibility as the programs roll out to know what

exactly those metrics are that they should be measuring.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: We will be using data and also metrics to report on the progress we’re

making on building an inclusive early learning and care system.

The Chair: Member.

K. Kirkpatrick: Actually, I’m satisfied with the spirit of the answers on this section.

I am fine until clause 10 at this point.

Clauses 6 to 9 inclusive approved.

On clause 10.

K. Kirkpatrick: I have a simple question on this. I believe it’s simple.

Under overpayments, and generally under recovery of financial supports,

I’ve heard from a number of child care providers that they have alerted the

ministry to some challenges with some providers, where they understand that

there have been overpayments made. Two and three years have gone by before

these have been investigated.

My question is: how will these overpayments and false reporting be

monitored? How are they investigated? Will there be additional staff? There are

two or three questions there, but they’re all really about how they are going

to manage overpayments and reporting.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: I would say that I think the question may interact with a few clauses

here. We’re flipping back and forth a little bit between clause 8 as

well.

I would say this clause and then the related clause actually broaden the

requirement that…. Now child care providers are also required to report

overpayment, not just on the parent’s part.

Then, on the other question about staff resources, that’s through our

annual resource planning, where we manage and look into staff resources that

are required to do this.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Can I just clarify? I’m just not as familiar as I could be with the

actual structure of staffing there. Are there actual investigators where that’s

their primary responsibility — doing investigations? I’ll give you an example.

For CCOF, where a provider has 100 children and is reporting 120 children, is

there a way under this for there to be some kind of physical investigation of

sites to ensure that these benefits are being administered

appropriately?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: What MCFD currently does and also how…. This legislation would include a

new audit authority applicable for child care providers in relation to the

administration of the affordable child care benefit, for example. It would

introduce new provisions to allow for the collection and verification of

information from child care providers related to the child care grant. Under

the MCFD, there is an audit branch that carries out this work at this

moment.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Chair, I’m satisfied here until clause 13.

Clauses 10 to 12 inclusive approved.

On clause 13.

K. Kirkpatrick: The heading of this

section applies only to benefits, not to grants.

Under clause 13, (2) refers to a child care provider, and this is with respect

to reconsiderations.

What is the process for reconsideration for a child care provider? Am I

understanding that this should be referencing grants as well as

benefits?

Hon. K. Chen: This legislation will continue the reconsideration provisions for

parents receiving a child care benefit, which is the affordable child care

benefit. Further, this legislation extends similar reconsideration provisions

to child care providers that are liable to repay a child care benefit due to an

error or omission on the child care provider’s part. So it protects the parent

as well.

There are currently no reconsideration provisions for child care

providers in receipt of a child care grant. This legislation does not introduce

new rights in this regard. It is intentional, because child care grant funding

for child care providers is not an entitlement for child care providers, unlike

the child care benefits, which are intended as an entitlement for eligible

lower- and middle-income families.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I understand what you’re saying here. It’s

related to whether a child care provider files something incorrectly, which

then allows a parent to get a benefit. They would have an ability to appeal

that. Okay, I understand that.

[4:20 p.m.]

I have no more questions for the minister and her staff. I accept the

rest of the bill as is.

Clauses 13 to 31 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. K. Chen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:23 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 15 — EARLY LEARNING AND

CHILD CARE

ACT

Bill 15, Early Learning and Child Care Act, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Mark: Hon. Speaker, may I request a 15-minute recess?

Mr. Speaker: This House will be recessed for ten minutes.

The House recessed from 4:24 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. M. Mark: Good afternoon, everyone. I call continued debate for the Speech from

the Throne.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

Hon. M. Mark: It’s my honour to rise here as the Minister for Tourism, Arts, Culture and

Sport and MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

I’m on the traditional territory the precinct stands on to do our important

business — that of the

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-​speaking people, members of

the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

First, I just want to pause for the record. We will look back at this

historic time when we think about our Speech from the Throne in the middle of a

global pandemic — how it has crushed us, how it has turned our lives around. As

the great Dr. Bonnie Henry has told us, we have been in this storm together but

not all in the same canoe. So it is indeed my honour to stand here and speak to

the Speech from the Throne and how it is about making sure that we come back

stronger than ever, that we build back better and that we continue investing in

people.

Speaking of people, I wouldn’t be here without my constituents. I want to

thank all of my constituents for believing in me and having a voice for them in

these chambers; my staff, who are representatives and ambassadors of my

constituency office; and, of course, my ministry staff.

You know, as the Minister for Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport, it used to

be the fun ministry. Everybody got to have fun and go to music festivals and art

shows and travel the province and fill their tank and get their mental health in

check because they had a chance to get off the grid and restore. We haven’t been

able to do that because of this global pandemic.

Today I am standing here while over 80 percent of British Columbians,

eligible British Columbians, have been vaccinated. We are in a historic moment in

time where people are getting their proofs of vaccination. They’re getting out

there. They’re showing one another that, again, we are in this

together.

But it’s been a while. When we first encountered this pandemic,

understanding what we didn’t know…. What would the future look like? Remember what

it was like in the early days. Again, it’s my honour to be here as things have

been moving forward.

When I think about tourism, on July 1, we were able to start travelling

across this beautiful province again. Instead of hearing complaints in my office

that we couldn’t travel, the complaint was: “Everything’s full. Everything’s

booked.”

When it came to arts, we were able to get out there and fill our tanks and

start to go to exhibits. I remember going down to the convention centre and

looking at the Van Gogh exhibit and how important that was and how I could have

stayed there all day, because it was a lot better than the screen time that we’ve

had. All of my colleagues here can appreciate how that screen time has been…. You

know, it’s a means to an end. It’s helped us through this pandemic.

Ultimately, what I’m most proud about, as minister, is that there are more

investments than ever for the B.C. Arts Council. We know that those performers had

to pivot. They had to take their shows online. They had to learn all about PPE and

going on screens and finding audiences through Zoom to fill their tank. They found

a way, because British Columbians are resilient. I mean, I’m from East Vancouver,

so I know all about resiliency. But the artists were resilient.

The tourism operators did everything they could to open up our doors so

that travellers could go across the province. It was great to be back in Haida

Gwaii with my family. I hope that members opposite and people across British

Columbia enjoyed travelling across B.C. because we all stuck together, because we

all were disciplined. We went out…. I don’t know how many of us got our selfies

with our vaccination cards and our ID that we had been vax’d. All of those

collective efforts have made an impact on people and jobs.

Because behind tourism…. People don’t understand tourism. When I see people

running around at the harbour here in Victoria, when I see a tourist, I see jobs.

When I see jobs, I see an economy. That is something that is really, really

important to us, because we know how many of these tourism operators run small and

medium, family-owned, mom-and-pop businesses that they’re entirely passionate

about.

[4:50 p.m.]

Our government has done our best to be there to support them with small and

medium business grants to stay open and a major anchor attractions announcement so

that we have the PNEs and the Butchart Gardens and anchor attractions for

generations to come.

It was awesome to be at the PNE over the summer. The only downplay of the

PNE was that they had to maintain the rollercoaster, and I wasn’t able to be there

to enjoy the historic rollercoaster that it is. The historic rollercoaster that

it’s been as minister of this file. But it’s been great to see that people are

returning to a sense of norm.

All I want to leave you with is that our government believes in investing

in people. People are our economy, as the Minister of Jobs is always

saying.

I know folks in my tourism file and the arts file may have been overlooked.

We didn’t see the value before COVID about how important it is to invest in

artists and how tourism operators have essentially been taking care of

themselves.

I’m proud of the work our government has been doing together — the ministry

staff who have been working around the clock through this pandemic for the last 20

months to get grants out the door. I’m so proud. Most of our programs have been

grants, not loans, so that people can get on their feet again.

I would be remiss to not talk about the importance of culture and how

important it is, the work that our government is committed to doing, and our

throne speech to have the Chinese-Canadian museum and the Royal B.C. Museum — both

very, very important projects identified in my mandate letter from the

Premier.

Finally, sport. I hope that some of my colleagues here had a chance to

enjoy the Rugby Sevens that was hosted at B.C. Place. To enjoy the B.C. Lions game

on September 24. There was a historic moment where Phyllis Webstad, the B.C.

Lions, B.C. Hydro, Fortis, Corrine Hunt came together to bring a partnership,

which was reconciliation in action.

Phyllis Webstad’s dream was to see fans in the stands, people honouring

residential schools survivors. That was a very, very proud moment as the Minister

of Sport, but I will also say, for the record, as, still, the first and only First

Nations woman to serve in these chambers.

How awesome it was to have that moment with these allies to support

Phyllis’ dreams and to embrace and invite that call to action for British

Columbians to roar and stand with and fight for Indian residential school

survivors, especially after what we’ve seen and witnessed and learned over the

last few months, which were truths to Indigenous residential school survivors for

years.

I have so much to say about the throne speech. Mostly, I’m proud that our

government is continuing to lift as we climb, to paddle together, to work with

experts in their industry. We can learn a lot from this pandemic, and that is to

not leave people behind and to invest in those that need our advocacy the

most.

With that, I will conclude my remarks.

A. Wilkinson: It’s been quite a year. Here we are in early October. If we took this past

12 months, with or without the election, and compared it to any other in our

lifetime, it’s our equivalent of World War II. It’s the changing scenario that we

couldn’t possibly have contemplated. It’s the grand unknown that landed in our

laps and that we’re having to manage.

The question is, for every level of government: how are we managing? We

have seen the federal government respond with massive infusions of cash — to

individuals, to businesses — to keep our economy afloat through this COVID

contraction. We mustn’t be naive. This has been a huge contraction of activity in

this province, whether we see it in airline schedules, in tourism activity, in

theatres and movies, in restaurants…. It has been a dramatic setback for our

people and our province.

[4:55 p.m.]

We have to think how we as legislators, jointly, no matter what party we’re

in, have addressed that. Have we done a good job? Notably, has the government done

a good job? Has it implemented a throne speech and a policy program that suggests

it actually has a plan?

I will be suggesting in the next 28 minutes that the answer is a clear no.

That this government is adrift. This government is lurching from crisis to crisis

with no clear plan of what happens to British Columbia and to British Columbians

in the next decade. We need guidance now, and there isn’t any.

I’ll begin by congratulating the members opposite on the election result. I

think we all know what happened. My dreams may have suffered a setback, but the

NDP were fortunate in taking another batch of seats. We now miss some of our

colleagues on this side and welcome a new round of colleagues for the NDP and a

handful of B.C. Liberals who are new to this chamber. They’re to be congratulated

for winning their seats. They’re to be thanked for putting their name forward for

public service, and they are to be charged with the task of making British

Columbia a better place.

This is not easy for any government anywhere in the western world or

anywhere in the world. But it’s a task that we have collectively taken on, and we

better perform. The public are counting on it.

The federal government acts largely independently from the province, as

I’ve said, and pumped a lot of cash liquidity into the economy to keep things

moving and floating along. That has kept Canada in a reasonably prosperous state

for the last year, but it cannot go on forever. This province needs to prepare for

the future when that federal cash flow winds down. It could be as early as October

23. We don’t know. But it’s going to stop, and we better get ready for

that.

That raises the concern of: what is this government doing? What we canvass

here day to day, the issues that come up in question period, what occupies the

news, is one crisis after another. I’m about to go into an unfortunate inventory

of what this government has failed to do. One crisis after another.

Let’s start with the opioid crisis, as was canvassed yesterday in question

period. These numbers are horrifying. They are the worst in North America. Rather

than claiming some special status that leads us to say that that’s okay because of

a toxic drug supply, we need to do something about it to stop these

tragedies.

I can name three young men who have died in the last two years, alone, from

taking oral narcotics that killed them. What has happened in our society that

people that we can name, people we know, people we thought we understood, are

found cold dead in their beds at home?

We have a whole range of issues that need to be addressed, and this

government is cherry picking one and saying they’re doing all that they can. It’s

not good enough. We have a duty to the people of British Columbia to make sure

that that young man in Williams Lake or that young woman in New Westminster is not

so desperate that they’re buying dirty little pills off the street and taking them

home and thinking: “I hope this makes me feel better. I hope this lets me sleep.

Maybe this will help my problems go away.”

This is a structural tragedy in our society. We’re not unique in the world,

but we’re doing the worst job of managing the result of anywhere in North America.

We have to focus, as a Legislature and as a society, on addressing this right now.

Talking about toxic drug supply and that’s the way we’re going to handle it and

the coroner says this and that…. We’ve got to address it substantively. Why are

these people in such desperate straits that they’re looking for relief through

street meds? Why is it that people are overdosing? And what can we do to prevent,

to treat and to get these people back into a meaningful life?

We all remember 15 years ago when the late Philip Owen pioneered the four

pillars program. Everybody bought into it. Treatment, prevention, enforcement —

which has been completely forgotten — being the pillars that we need to focus on.

Yet we’re not doing a good enough job.

[5:00 p.m.]

I’m not going to go into the fact that we have a sham ministry, now known

as the ministry of error, with a tiny little budget that’s pretending to address

this issue, when we know it’s all being done through the Ministry of Health. It’s

not going very well.

Perhaps it’s time for this government, under the NDP, to completely reboot

the approach to drug addiction, to completely reboot what they’re doing with

overdose deaths and say that this little experiment of having a nominal ministry,

with almost no budget…. Saying that addresses the problem is a farce. It’s simply

saying that here’s a piece of paper and a ministerial office, and if 7,000 people

have died in the last four years: “Don’t worry. It’ll get better.” It’s not

working. We have to do better as a society.

Let’s talk for a moment about another tragedy that’s being addressed these

days in this chamber and was, strikingly, the subject of a Human Rights Watch

report that came out this morning. I heard it on the radio. Human Rights Watch is

an international agency that does studies on things like genocide in Rwanda, like

mass slaughters in the Yugoslav civil war. They found the issue to focus on in

Canada was the almost 600 people who suffocated in a heat wave.

Let’s make no mistake. These people are our most disadvantaged citizens.

They are the poor people of British Columbia, the disabled people of British

Columbia, the elderly people of British Columbia.

The Premier of this province has the gall to stand up and say they should

take responsibility for themselves? I heard that, and I thought: did he really say

that people should take responsibility for being elderly, that they should take

responsibility for being poor, that they should take responsibility, above all,

for being disabled? That’s not just tone deaf; that’s crass. That’s cold. That’s

not becoming for a social democrat official of any level, let alone the leader of

their party and the Premier of this province.

There’s a huge amount of work to do. As soon as I heard about that heat

wave, I thought St. Louis, Chicago, France. There are abundant precedents for this

of what needs to be done. There needs to be a community-wide alert. If you know

anybody who doesn’t have a cooling system for where they live, who is disabled or

elderly and doesn’t have the option of getting out to a cooling centre or buying

ice water, you’ve got to go and find them and help them, because they are going to

die of heat stroke. That’s exactly what happened, and this government did

nothing.

There’s a 48-hour window. Those of us who live in Vancouver and the Fraser

Valley were baking and thinking: “Thank goodness I can go and sit in the

basement.” No air conditioning, but it’s about 22 degrees down there. My dog and I

spent two days in the basement because it was the only cool place we could find.

Even overnight it was 35 degrees.

What did this government do? Any community alerts? Any emergency

distributions of ice and ice water on the streets of downtown Vancouver? Nothing.

That’s what was learned in St. Louis. That’s what was learned in Chicago. That’s

what was learned in France, at the cost of tens of thousands of lives, and this

government did nothing — possibly the most shameful aspect of governance in this

province in the last year.

We look at the wildfire situation. We hear this constant story of how great

the management is. Let’s make it very clear: we are enormously thankful to those

people who are slugging it out in the bush of British Columbia, in staggering heat

on the edge of a wildfire, putting their lives at risk for us. We have to be

enormously thankful that we have those dedicated, skilled crews. They couldn’t

prevent every bit of damage.

What’s happened in the 2017, 2018, 2021 fire seasons is that it’s clear

that the response is structurally insufficient. Whether it’s climate change,

whether it’s accumulated fuel burden, whether it’s carelessness by people of

British Columbia — whatever it is, it has to be dealt with, because it’s coming to

a town near yours to burn it to the ground. That’s exactly what happened in Lytton

and shortly thereafter in Monte Lake.

[5:05 p.m.]

I know Lytton from my mountaineering days. I grew up in Kamloops. We used

to stop in Lytton for breakfast on our way to go up into the mountain ranges up in

behind and up the Stein River valley. It was a very compact railway town. It had a

real kind of spirit to it that you couldn’t really put your finger on, but you

knew that this was a town that was cohesive and had an identity, that knew who it

was. And it was burned to the ground.

Whether that could have been prevented under the circumstances will be the

subject, I hope, of some kind of judicial inquiry, if this government ever finds

the wherewithal to ask itself difficult questions. But what we’ve got now are the

citizens who used to live in Lytton left in indefinite limbo. There’s a fence

around the wreckage. They aren’t allowed in. What’s the plan? Yet again, we turn

to this government on almost every issue and say: “So what’s the plan? What are

you going to do about it to get some results?” The answer to the people of Lytton

is: “Don’t call us. We’ll call you.”

That is not good enough. This is not just their house, which the insurer

may replace. This is their whole way of life, their whole community that vaporized

in front of them in a wildfire, and we have seen this government completely avoid

the issue of what happens next. Compensation, restructuring the community. Does

the community have to move? Will it cease to exist? These people are desperate for

answers. It’s been 97 days now where they have been sitting in motels and the

living rooms of their relatives, wondering what’s going to happen to their

lives.

Give them the guidance and the hope that they need. That’s why we have

governments: to take care of people in extremes like that, to make sure that

they’re not stressed and worried and uncertain and facing a doom-filled future.

Give them the hope they need by saying: “There is a plan. We’re working with you.

We’ll show up. We’ll be there. We’ll come to you and listen to you and understand

your needs.” That has got to be the core of any social democrat movement, any NDP

government, any person who sits on that side of the House, yet they have dropped

the ball with callous indifference on all of these topics.

Something that’s less dramatic but related is the issue of child care. We

hear endless technical arguments from the other side about how wonderful things

are going to be, and what we hear on this side is one daycare after another

closing because the rules are so complex and arcane that they just can’t make it

work.

We hear stories like from the Cariboo, where one community, Quesnel, is

talking about seven spaces, yet it just can’t get off the ground. It can’t

function, because the rules are so complicated and the system is so bureaucratic

that those parents are just left adrift.

Once again, if this social democrat NDP government is not going to take

care of people who can’t find child care, whose home has burned to the ground in

Lytton, whose parents or relatives have died in a heat wave, whose brothers and

sisters are at risk of dying of opioid overdoses, what are they doing? What’s the

purpose of being elected as a social democrat if you’re going to neglect the poor,

the disabled, the elderly dying in a heat stroke?

Why are you here? Surely, this has to arise in NDP caucus meetings, where

the members are entitled to ask their leadership: “What on earth are we doing?”

Because I find this indefensible. It’s appalling how this province has been

managed on these issues in 2021.

COVID, we know, is the overwhelming issue in our society these days, yet it

does not provide an excuse for failing to address these issues. This government

still has a budget in the $60 billion range. That’s about $7 million an hour that

is being spent by this government. Some of it’s on COVID, and that’s a good thing.

That’s necessary. But all the rest of it is designed to address these issues that

I’ve raised. Yet we see all of these issues falling through the cracks, being

ignored, neglected in a way that is absolutely shameful.

[5:10 p.m.]

Coming back to things that affect a broader

section of our population:

housing. I remember, completely clearly, in the spring of 2017, being on a radio

interview with the now Minister of Housing, who also serves as Attorney General.

We sat a metre apart in a little radio station, and he told me that the NDP were

going to build 114,000 housing units, all new, all paid for by government, within

ten years — guaranteed.

Well, we’re four years into it, and we have about 4,000 modular housing

units. This, apparently, is the NDP’s 114-year plan for housing. It’s a joke. In

that radio interview, I turned to the now Attorney General and Minister for

Housing and said: “Well, how are you going to pay for these 114,000 housing units

in Vancouver? That’s about…. Be generous. Call it a quarter of a million dollars a

pop. That’s $35 billion you’re talking about. Where’s that coming from?” His

answer will stick with me for years to come. It was: “We’ll have lots of money

after we cancel Site C.”

Well, fast-forward four years, and look where we are. The Minister of

Housing certainly doesn’t have the $7 billion he claimed to have found in

cancelling Site C. In fact, he’s got a further $7 billion liability to pay for a

dam that has doubled in price since the NDP took office.

We delivered a project in 2017 that was on time, on budget, according to

the Utilities Commission and the Auditor General. What has happened since then?

The social democrats arrived, doubled the price, prolonged the delivery time,

created vast amounts of uncertainty. What are we left with? We sure as shootin’

didn’t get 114,000 housing units. We didn’t get a dam either, and we’re $16

billion into this. What has been accomplished with this colossal investment of

taxpayers’ money is delay, cost overruns and no housing.

I would be delighted to go back into that little East Vancouver radio

station with the Attorney General and the Minister of Housing again and say: “It’s

audit time. What happened with that housing plan and your Site C cancellation

program?” I’m sure what I would get from the social democrat government committed

to helping the people of British Columbia, looking out for the little people, is

an arrogant, dismissive, sneering response that has come to characterize this

government — obfuscation, evasion, promises of money to come. All we get from this

government are promises, promises — and no delivery.

It’s rather distressing to find ourselves talking about a throne speech

that is supposed to lay out a positive plan for the future of British Columbia,

that’s supposed to generate excitement, that’s supposed to guide people into where

this government is going with $60 billion a year, with the $170 million it will

spend in the next 24 hours.

Where is this government going? Technology — a pretty exciting sector. We

have AbCellera, which reached a valuation of $7 billion last December. We have

Clio. We have Copperleaf. We have a whole set of leading companies that are taking

on the world and becoming technology unicorns — that is, at a $1 billion

valuation.

Do we hear one peep from the NDP to say what a phenomenal success this is

and how proud we are? We hear nothing, because the NDP don’t like successful

businesses. They say: “Oh, dear. That’s not good. These are profitable companies.

How can that be a desirable thing? We’d better try and find a way to tax

them.”

We should be accelerating these prospects and making sure that we celebrate

the success. Instead, there’s nary a peep from this government, when every other

government on this continent would be delighted to have them there. As I have

found out in the past, as a minister and a deputy minister, those companies are

all being solicited today by economic development officers from half a dozen

states in the United States, offering them tax-free status, offering them zero

personal income tax, in states like Washington and Florida.

[5:15 p.m.]

It’s pretty attractive for those companies to just say: “This government

doesn’t care. They give us no support, no interest, nothing. Maybe we should just

talk about Oregon.” This government should be out there lionizing these companies

and saying: “We’re so glad that you’re here.” Instead, what do we hear from this

government? We hear this government say how great it is that American

multinationals are coming here to hire people for much cheaper wages than they

would get paid in the U.S.A. That’s why they’re coming here.

A great personal example that came up during COVID. A relative of mine, a

couple of levels removed, got her job in Silicon Valley with a major American

company — $92,000 U.S. a year. She was prepared to move there. COVID came along,

and they said: “Oh well. We’re moving that job to Vancouver where we have a branch

plant, but we’re paying you in Vancouver, at the going rate.” Not $92,000 U.S. but

$56,000 Canadian. That’s what this government is so keen to get: multinationals

hiring people here at below-market rates. Is that something to be proud

of?

Why isn’t this government saying: “Clio, AbCellera, Copperleaf, Stemcell,

we’re so excited that you’re here. What can we do to keep you here? You’re the

leading edge of technology in the world, and you can make us all proud, because

home office is in British Columbia.” We hear nothing from this

government.

We actually hear from this government that they are so lost, so

disillusioned, so lacking in insight and have so few contacts in the technology

community that they’ve decided to hire a professor from the U.K., called Mariana

Mazzucato, to come and tell them how to put together their economic strategy and

technology. Professor Mazzucato is well known. She’s of the belief that things

like pharmaceutical companies should have part of their equity owned by the state

— a classic kind of social democrat thinking that might have worked in Germany in

Tell me which companies you’re going to take over in British Columbia to

force workers onto the board and take their equity. Which ones are they? If it’s

any of these start-ups, they’re gone. They’ll be in Oregon or California next week

if you try that trick on them.

Apparently, this government is so bereft of ideas, so lacking in vision and

so completely hopeless in terms of what the future holds that they’ve hired an

the 2018 throne speech. They’ve finally figured out, after four years, that they

haven’t got any ideas at all, so they’re going to hire someone to make ideas for

them.

This is a sad comment on the state of the NDP, yet they’ve had cover with

COVID. They’ve had cover for things like the very able and formidable Sen. Lisa

Murkowski, from Alaska, putting out a bill in the U.S. Senate saying that they’re

going to have a temporary bypass of British Columbia for the cruise ship industry.

Blown off by this government: “It will never happen. These people are

lightweights.”

Well, guess what, folks. The United States Senate couldn’t care less what

the NDP have to say about anything. The bill went through in record time with

unanimous votes. Now the Alaskan state delegation — two senators and one

congressperson — are regrouping to make it permanent. This time the NDP are kind

of waking up and saying: “What do you mean, the Victoria cruise port could cease

to exist, the Vancouver cruise ship terminal could have two or three ships a year

instead of two or three ships a day? You’re not serious, are you?”

You’re absolutely right that they’re serious. This is American

protectionism at its finest. They’re going to modify the Jones Act from 1922, and

if they have their way, our cruise ship industry could be history. And the whole

time the NDP was asleep at the switch: “Don’t worry. It’ll never happen. It’s just

posturing.” Well, guess what. It’s not posturing. It’s real, and it’s coming to

us.

This government had better get its act together with the government of

Canada to do whatever it can in Washington, D.C. We’ve built up goodwill with

them, getting the two Michaels out. Now is the time to make sure that we don’t

lose our cruise ship industry because the NDP were asleep at the

switch.

[5:20 p.m.]

Endless further examples. What happened here yesterday was a passionate

protest about old-growth forestry, notably about Fairy Creek. What has this

government done? Fretted, moaned, made false promises, put out reports that were

ignored and commissioned further reports. This is a government that has proven

itself to be completely, utterly duplicitous and spineless when it comes to

dealing with the forest industry.

This government tells anybody whatever they want to hear and then figures

out: “Let’s try to reconcile it later.” Well, guess what, folks. Those folks on

the front lawn yesterday think that you have failed to reconcile it. So do those

people in the forest industry, so do the people that operate the forest company,

and so do the Indigenous groups who are so furious.

Now you have everyone mad at the NDP. So the chickens are coming home to

roost because this government, in its complete lack of planning, its complete

absence of a plan, is finally becoming accountable for its promises.

Speaking of promises, we sat in this chamber, the vast majority of us, in

November 2019, and in

an act of history-making goodwill and good faith, we

accepted the NDP’s legislation on UNDRIP. What has the NDP done with it since

then? At every possible turn, it has broken the trust of Indigenous people in this

province by ignoring the precepts of UNDRIP and acting in a high-handed,

unilateral way. It is shameful what this government has done.

We have great hopes for our experienced, thoughtful, diligent new Minister

of Indigenous Relations who comes to us from Ottawa with his impeccable pedigree.

He has been handed a very difficult task. We wish him well with that, because all

of us have a vested interest in successful reconciliation. But the file he has

been handed has become a poisoned chalice of broken promises and indifference from

his predecessors.

Minister, we wish you well and every success, but you’ve got a big task on

your hands.

More recently we saw this summer that the British Columbia Supreme Court

decided in the Yahey Blueberry decision that the cumulative effects of exploration

and development in the Peace country were a violation of treaty 8. For better or

worse, this government decided not to appeal. It’s the law now. Colossal

uncertainty. Will there be a gas industry in British Columbia? Will there be any

more forestry or other activity on the land in the Peace country? These are now

completely unknown.

The follow-on litigation is happening now, where the other First Nations

are starting to say: “Well, it worked for the Blueberry. I guess that’s where

we’ll go.” They’ll move beyond treaty First Nations. It will come out of the Peace

country into the rest of the province.

Once again, we give our very best respect and thanks to the minister who

has taken on the role of Indigenous Relations, because this is a colossal task,

which may have become almost insoluble, given the neglect of this government prior

to his installation.

We should talk about climate change. Again, streams of false promises from

this government, hopes developed, but it has all proven to be an illusion. Targets

missed. Lost opportunities. No real plan and British Columbians left wondering:

“What’s coming to me? Are we going to have a gas supply from the Peace country, or

am I going to be shut down?”

Perhaps the Speaker will take the liberty now of shutting me down, as the

time is up.

I think the concern is we all know we’re on this roller-coaster of COVID.

It doesn’t have to get worse because of government ineptitude and government

neglect. It’s time for this Legislature to pull itself together and do something

really productive to map out the future of British Columbia beyond this vacuous

throne speech and talk about how to solve problems for British

Columbians.

[5:25 p.m.]

B. Anderson: I am so absolutely grateful to be able to speak in this House and speak to

this budget. There is a tremendous amount of work that has gone into this budget,

and I am hearing from so many people in my communities that I represent how

grateful they are to have an NDP government.

You know, the opposition likes to speak about the ’90s. Well, I was a child

in the ’90s. I have fantastic memories of growing up in the Kootenays in the ’90s.

What I do remember is when the opposition got into power, and they decided to cut

jobs in my community. We had a lineup at the student phone — this was, of course,

before everyone carried a cell phone in their pocket — and there were students

waiting in line to call home to find out if their parent had lost their job. There

were unprecedented cuts that were happening by the opposition when they, of

course, were in government at that time.

I remember my friends. I was in that lineup. I was wondering if my dad was

going to be able to have his job. I would have friends that…. You would turn

around, and for some of them, their parents didn’t know yet. Others were saying:

“We don’t know what we’re going to do. My family now has to maybe move to

Kamloops.” These are students that are going to be graduating either that year or

in a few years, and because the government cut so many people off, laid off so

many jobs, it was devastating. It was terrifying for those students.

I know that there are so many people, so many British Columbians, who are

so grateful to have a government that they can trust, a government that is

investing in people. We know that we’re bringing health care workers back into the

government system so they can be paid properly. They can get proper benefits. That

means that they’re also going to be providing better service. You know, if you’re

not paid properly, it’s really hard to want to stay in that job. But when you’re

valued, you want to do a good job. You want to do a good job as you’re taking care

of these people at their most vulnerable moments in their lives.

I am so grateful that we have had this government through the crisis of the

pandemic. Has it been challenging? I would expect most people in British Columbia

have had an extremely challenging year. We know that people have lost their loved

ones. Things were changed. Businesses had to find innovative ways. But we have

seen so much incredible resilience. When we were faced with a crisis, our

government was ready. They were ready to step up and take care of

people.

There was a taxi driver. We have one taxi company in my whole riding. I was

able to get hold of his daughter and let him know that there was government

funding available for him and his workers so that they were able to continue. They

didn’t have to close down a service that’s really important to our community. We

have excellent public transit that’s integrated in the region and that we’ve been

really working hard on. But we know also that a taxi service helps augment other

types of public infrastructure, so it’s really important to keep those people

employed so that people are able to move around.

I’ve seen restaurant owners with incredible amounts of courage working with

their workers and trying to find ways to continue their service delivery while

keeping the public safe.

I would like to do a huge shout-out to our health care workers. They have

been working incredibly hard and have faced many challenges. Particularly in my

community, those challenges regarding COVID are happening more now than they were

previously in the pandemic, because really, COVID has started to hit the

Kootenays. We’ve had at least two doctors write their own columns. We’ve had other

doctors that were interviewed by one of our local reporters just explaining the

situation.

[5:30 p.m.]

Then we’re also seeing the community step up to support our health care

workers. These are all of our health care workers, from the people doing the

laundry, the people that are cleaning, the people that are cooking food,

nutritious food. Now we’re actually getting B.C. products into hospitals. When

you’re ill, when you’re sick, when you’ve had surgery, you need nutritious food to

heal. We are doing that in British Columbia with the Buy B.C. program so people

have nutritious food in hospitals again.

There are the radiologists and the cardiologists, the doctors, the

specialists, the family doctors. They’ve all been working incredibly hard to keep

our community members safe.

I heard the member talking about the toxic drug supply. I have a very good

friend who is a registered nurse that is now able to prescribe Suboxone for people

that need it. She is literally saving lives every single day because of decisions

our government made.

Are the opiate crisis and the poisoned drug supply impacting our

communities? Absolutely. I spoke about it in the Legislature yesterday. I

mentioned an 18-year-old woman that passed away due to the poisoned drug supply.

Then I received a letter from her mother after my speech. Someone had sent it to

her. She is absolutely heartbroken.

There are also community services — ANKORS in Nelson and the Hub, run

through Nelson CARES. They are doing incredible work. We have a spectrometer.

We’re a town of 10,000 people, and we have a spectrometer so people are able to

anonymously bring substances. They can get tested so that people know if this is

something that is going to potentially harm them or kill them.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

I went to a local restaurant one afternoon. She had just done a call-out on

come.” There were about a dozen community members that wanted to come to see how

they could learn how to use naloxone so that they can save peoples’ lives in our

community. You’re really seeing people step up, and they want to be there. They

want to take care of each other.

That’s also what our government represents. Our government is taking care

of people through this budget. We are supporting small businesses. We’re

supporting the tourism sector. I don’t know if you’ve ever been to the Kootenays,

but it is an absolutely spectacular place to live and to come and visit. I think

we’re the cat-skiing hub of either North America or the world. You can go and do

wine tasting down in the stunning Creston Valley. You can go hiking in the

mountains. You can get up into the alpine.

We have a lake, Kootenay Lake, that really connects and is the heart of all

of our communities. We have the Friends of Kootenay Lake Society that is working

hard to make sure that the ecosystem is protected, and they’ve been working with

various community groups. They do things like beach cleanups. We’re seeing all

different people in our communities stepping up.

During the beginning of the pandemic, when we were all faced with this

question of what our future is going to look like, immediately this group popped

up on Facebook called Nelson Helps. It was just simply neighbours helping

neighbours. Then we were able to see our government turn around and support people

incredibly quickly. They were able to make sure that businesses were able to stay

open.

I have spoken with the chamber of commerce, Tom Thomson, and he has been

incredibly happy with how our government has been able to support our local

businesses. We know those businesses employ people, and we know those businesses

provide critical services to our community.

I mean, Nelson would not be Nelson if it weren’t for Baker Street, if it

weren’t for all of the amazing shops and restaurants that are open there that not

only tourists enjoy but locals. We have, I think, some of the best shopping, and

we’re in a tiny little town. That’s because we have business people that work

really hard and care about their communities.

[5:35 p.m.]

Another thing that I am extraordinarily excited about is Kalesnikoff’s new

mass timber plant, their mass timber facility. What they’re able to do is create

beams and walls and floors and ceilings, all out of mass timber. What that looks

like is you’re actually gluing pieces of timber together, and then it is heated

up. It’s a strong material. It’s a fire-resistant material, and it has a lower

carbon footprint than things like concrete.

We’re seeing this innovation happening. We’re seeing job creation. What

these pieces are doing is also working hard to protect the environment.

I feel incredibly fortunate that our Premier asked me to be his special

adviser on youth. One of the reasons I got into this job was because I wanted to

see younger people’s voices heard in government, because I felt like that wasn’t

always happening.

I was watching senate debates about cannabis, really concerned with the

fear-based policy that was happening. I thought: “If there aren’t younger

people….” You want younger people. You want diversity of voices at that table.

What I’m going to be able to do is be that conduit between young people, who are

extremely passionate, and bring their energy and their ideas to our government so

that we can be the government that really supports them not only today but into

the future.

As I’ve been speaking with young people in this role, they’re concerned

about things like climate change. We had a fire season. Summer used to be my very

favourite season, growing up. You have Kootenay Lake there. It’s beautiful. It’s

pristine. You go down there. Your whole community is there. You see children and

grandparents and friends, and people are in the water.

This year it was different. It was scary. We had forest fires all around

us. I had constituents that were on evacuation alert. Thank goodness they didn’t

actually end up having to go on evacuation order. The firefighters, the fire crews

worked extremely hard to protect our communities, not only in my region, but

across the province.

We know there are things like the tragedies of Lytton that we hope we never

see again. But that’s why, when the Premier announced that we’re not only going to

be thinking of the forestry and the forest fighting season being just the summer,

the spring and the fall, the summer months…. This is a 12-month effort. Every

single year, 12 months of the year, we’re going to be working on protecting

communities. That is really important, I believe, not only to my constituents, the

youth, but people across British Columbia.

I’m also hearing from young people about concerns about housing. Our

government is building housing for people. In my region, we’ve gotten housing

built in Creston, and there are three new developments. We haven’t had housing

developments in our region for so long, and it’s tight. You know what it’s like at

a zero percent vacancy rate to actually try to find a place? I’ve seen people from

all walks of life scrambling, trying to find housing. Well, our government is

working hard to deliver that housing for people, because everyone deserves a

home.

When you fail to invest in housing and fail to invest in people like we saw

the previous government do, you’re really making a bad situation and turning it

worse. Our government has changed laws to make sure that people aren’t able to

commodify housing. We are working on making sure that there’s housing for

people.

I was a former city councillor, and speaking with the mayors particularly.

I’ve been connecting with them frequently, but of course, we all came together at

UBCM. We were virtual. We’re all excited to get back together, to get back in the

same room. I was hearing from mayors from across my region about how supported

they have felt with this government. They have had regular contact with the

minister. They do not think they would have had that if the opposition was in

power.

Our government is listening to the people. We’re listening every single

day, because we want to be here for the people and we want to deliver the services

that the people count on. We’re changing paramedics. We’re making sure that this

is a job and a career that people are able to stay in and support their families

with. That is going to impact my rural community in a really, really positive

way.

[5:40 p.m.]

I talk to parents. I mean, if we didn’t think that child care didn’t seem

important to the previous government…. Now our government is making it a priority.

I was absolutely thrilled to be able to see my friends and colleagues put bills on

this Legislature that are going to, in law, support families through better child

care delivery.

This is absolutely critical. We saw this with the pandemic. When people

don’t have child care, women — it tends to be women; sometimes it’s not just women

— tend to leave the workplace to care for their children. With the investments

that we’re making in child care, we’re able to give women the option — we’re able

to give families the option — to go to work, to be able to participate in the

workforce.

If there is no child care, you don’t have an option, as a family. I know

there have been lots of parents in my riding — but also, I believe, across British

Columbia — that have struggled with child care for too long. So when I see the

$10-a-day child care plan being rolled out and implemented, I know that my

constituents and also families across the province are absolutely grateful and

thrilled.

We, our government, are leading Canada. If it weren’t for our government’s

commitment and the people that were working on the $10-a-day child care, do you

think the federal government would be jumping on board? I don’t think so. It’s

because they see us as leaders.

We are delivering for people and are delivering for families every single

day we sit in this House but also every day that we’re in our communities and in

our constituencies. I have to tell you that for me, personally, it is a tremendous

honour and privilege to be ab