Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, March 4, 2020

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 323

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Britannia Secondary senior girls basketball team

championship win

Hon. M. Mark

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill 11 — Attorney General Statutes (Vehicle

Insurance) Amendment Act, 2020

Hon. D. Eby

Bill 12 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2020

Hon. C. James

Bill M203 — Name Amendment Act, 2020

M. Polak

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Coronavirus preparedness

J. Rice

Boundary Musical and Theatre Society

L. Larson

Groundswell alternative business school

J. Routledge

Tractorgrease Cafe in Chilliwack

J. Martin

Lorne Frame

A. Weaver

Addiction recovery

J. Thornthwaite

Oral Questions

Coronavirus preparedness and response

A. Wilkinson

Hon. A. Dix

N. Letnick

Care standards at Retirement Concepts seniors care

facilities

A. Olsen

Hon. A. Dix

Property tax assessment increases and proposed

legislation

S. Bond

Hon. S. Robinson

J. Thornthwaite

T. Stone

Tabling Documents

Liquor Distribution Branch, annual service plan, 2020-21–2022-23, February

2020 (revised)

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 3 — Environmental Management Amendment Act,

P. Milobar

Hon. G. Heyman

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Environmental Management Amendment Act,

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 8 — Education Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. R. Fleming

D. Davies

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Education Statutes Amendment Act,

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

Hon. S. Fraser

Hon. D. Eby

Bill 9 — Evidence Amendment Act, 2020

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

J. Johal

Hon. D. Eby

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family

Development (continued)

L. Throness

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. K. Chen

Hon. K. Conroy

S. Cadieux

T. Shypitka

D. Clovechok

D. Barnett

D. Davies

S. Bond

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2020

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: T. Stone.

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. Eby: I’m pleased to introduce today some special guests that we have up in

the gallery. We’re joined by Justina Loh, executive director of Disability

Alliance of B.C.; Tanya Fawkes-Kirby, managing director, Canadian

Association of Occupational Therapists, B.C. branch; Katie Eichar, who is a

student, also at the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists, B.C.

branch; Sarah Charles, as well, with the occupational therapists; Shawn

Fehr, past president at the Insurance Brokers Association of B.C.; Jessica

Asano of the IBABC board of directors; and David Black, president of MoveUP.

Would the House please join me in making them feel very welcome.

E. Ross: Today we have in the House Caroline Moore. Caroline has worked in the

area of Indigenous relations, consultation policy and negotiations for over

25 years. She holds a master of arts in conflict analysis and management, a

Royal Roads University diploma in public sector management and a bachelor of

social work, University of Victoria. Would the House please make welcome

Caroline Moore.

N. Letnick: Today we have Dr. Larry Goldenberg, who is in the gallery. I think

everyone around here and in British Columbia knows this famous urologist,

researcher and educator, a pioneer in the treatment of prostate cancer and

supportive care. Would the House please make Dr. Goldenberg feel very, very

welcome.

Hon. C. James: In the gallery today, we have B.C. Building Trades president Phil

Venoit, executive director Andrew Mercier and a number of other leaders in

the B.C. Building Trades from across the province.

The Building Trades, as people may know, are in Victoria to hold the

annual conference over the next few days. This afternoon they’ll be meeting

with MLAs on both sides of the House — for good discussions, I’m sure. I

know that everyone in this House will want to recognize the crucial

front-line roles that the various trades play, the expertise that they apply

in our building infrastructure, in our economy and in building our

communities.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

L. Reid: I’d ask the House to join me in welcoming Terra Munro to the chamber

today. Terra is with Home Health Care. She’s a manager with responsibility

for this part of Vancouver Island. We met under the auspices of B.C. Care

Providers. I’m ever so grateful for her tutelage, and I’d ask the House to

please make her very, very welcome.

S. Thomson: Today I had a wonderful visit from two friends and constituents from

Kelowna-Mission. Alan El­liot and Peggy Poole are here today visiting

the Legislature. Alan is up in the gallery. It’s Peggy’s birthday today as

well. I think she is out shopping for her birthday president. Alan is taking

in question period. I’d like the House to make them both very welcome to

visit here and to wish Peggy a very happy birthday today.

Hon. L. Beare: Joining us today in the House are some of the outstanding citizens who

serve my community of Pitt Meadows. Joining us today are Mayor Bill Dingwall

and Coun. Bob Meachen as well as city staff Mark Roberts, Samantha Maki and

Colin O’Byrne. The city of Pitt Meadows is an amazing partner to work with,

and I have the absolute privilege and honour of serving the citizens of Pitt

Meadows alongside these wonderful people. Would the House please make them

feel very welcome.

Hon. M. Mungall: Hon. Speaker, I’d like to introduce the House to a very remarkable

woman. Her name is Jill Tipping. She’s the president and CEO of the B.C.

Tech Association.

[1:40 p.m.]

One of the things that I really want to highlight about Jill, along

with her amazing work for the tech sector in her role, is that she has been

named as a finalist for the 2020 Connecting the Community Award at the YWCA

Women of Distinction Awards because of her work ensuring that all youth,

particularly young women, engage with technology and all the opportunities

that that sector has to bring.

I also want to let the House know and say a special hello to Wilma,

her mom, who is watching at home.

Wilma, you have a lot to be proud of. You have a wonderful daughter,

who I look forward to working with into the future.

May the House please make her very welcome.

I. Paton: I had the honour about an hour ago to speak to a grade 10 class from

South Delta Secondary. They’re in the precinct today, and they’re with their

teacher, who is no stranger to our side of the House, a young Gatlin Saip.

I’d like you to make the class from South Delta Secondary welcome here

today.

R. Glumac: I would also like to take this opportunity to introduce Dr. Larry

Goldenberg, someone who has had a very important impact on my life. In fact,

he saved my life. He’s a leading urological surgeon and an internationally

recognized clinical scientist, a member of the Order of Canada and named to

the Order of British Columbia and one of the founders of the Vancouver

Prostate Centre.

I just want to say a few words about the Vancouver Prostate Centre.

It’s a large patient clinic, a clinical trials facility, a patient

supportive care and basic science research program dedicated to answering

challenging questions of cancer biology and translating research discoveries

into treatments. It’s the largest program of its kind in Canada.

The impact of the Prostate Centre stretches far beyond helping those

battling only prostate cancer. Discoveries there have made a difference in

treating other cancers and tumours, including ovarian, bladder and kidney

cancers, as well as Alzheimer’s and dementia. With more than 300 people

working to improve lives for patients, the Prostate Centre has become one of

the largest health research organizations in western Canada.

Dr. Larry Goldenberg was there right from the beginning, and he’s

still continuing to advocate for the great work that they’re doing today.

Would the House make him feel welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’m going to break my own rule about multiple introductions. Dr.

Goldenberg, Larry, is a very good friend of mine, and he does amazing work.

I would like to personally welcome him to the House today. I think the words

that have been said have been truly inspirational, and I want everyone to

really welcome him.

N. Simons: This is the first time that Bailey Lalonde is being introduced, and

I’m asking the House to please help me in welcoming her. Bailey is an artist

who grew up in Cobble Hill. She is currently residing in Memphis, Tennessee.

She is an artist.

For those who recognize the name Lalonde, she is the daughter of Donny

Lalonde, WBC light-heavyweight champion from the late ’80s — if you were

following boxing, as some of us were, the Golden Boy, named after the statue

on the Winnipeg Legislature.

Through her, we can ask her to let her dad know that we remember that

fight against Sugar Ray Leonard, and although he might not have been

victorious in that particular fight, we did remember that he knocked him

down. Only the second time in Sugar Ray’s career, right?

Would the House please join me in welcoming Bailey Lalonde.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to welcome here grade 11 students from Sir Charles

Tupper High School. They’re accompanied by Mr. Auton Lum, teachers Jasmine

Nann and Taylor Micacchi, retired teachers Gina Main and Sally Ringdahl and

student teachers Aaron Weber and Nathan Cox.

I want to mention that coming into this weekend, many members will

know, we’ve got the provincial championships, the boys basketball that’s

going to be held in Langley. Looking forward to that. The Tupper Tigers are

ranked in the top five of the boys’ rankings. I’ll be cheering for them. I

don’t know if any of the members want to take any bets on that as well. I’m

up for it.

[1:45 p.m.]

As well, the Tupper Tigers have their rugby team. The boys rugby team

was the provincial champion last year. The season is kicking off again this

year. Mr. Auton Lum is the coach. And a great wrestling program that they’ve

got. They’re sending a wrestler who won silver in the provincial

championships to the national championships.

I ask everybody to please give a very warm welcome to everyone from

Sir Charles Tupper High School.

R. Leonard: Every day we come into this House and, particularly in the caucus

rooms, we have a face that greets us. That’s what starts our day. We’ve had

a lot of different changes over time, but I’d like to welcome Cailin

Tyrrell. She’s our new face in the east annex, and I really appreciate

seeing her every morning and welcome her to the team.

If everybody could please welcome her to this beautiful

place.

A. Weaver: I have two very special guests here in the gallery today. They are

Adele and Lorne Frame, accompanied by Perry Fainstein. Lorne Frame was

recently inducted as a member of the Order of the Legion of Honour, France’s

highest decoration. I’ll expand upon that a little more in member’s

statements.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome here

today.

A. Wilkinson: Since the rule has already been broken, I should introduce someone who

is my constituent, who taught me urology in 1985 at St. Paul’s Hospital and

who has never been anywhere near my prostate. That’s Dr. Larry

Goldenberg.

Tributes

BRITANNIA SECONDARY SENIOR GIRLS

BASKETBALL TEAM

CHAMPIONSHIP WIN

Hon. M. Mark: Joining my colleague from Vancouver-Kensington in her pride for

her high school, I used to go to Sir Charles Tupper. I know that it’s a

great east side school.

Speaking of east side schools, I want to congratulate the girls AA

team at Britannia, the only secondary school in my riding. They won the

provincials on Saturday in Langley. Those east side teams punch well

above their weight class.

Will everyone in the House please join me in congratulating the

senior girls.

Introductions by Members

G. Kyllo: I’d like to welcome all the B.C. building trades that are here today

and thank them for their work in helping to build the infrastructure in our

province.

I’d also like to recognize a good friend of mine, Doug Parton, with

Ironworkers Local 97.

Would the House please make them all feel very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

(VEHICLE INSURANCE)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Attorney General Statutes (Vehicle

Insurance) Amendment Act, 2020.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce the Attorney General Statutes (Vehicle

Insurance) Amendment Act, 2020. This bill amends the Insurance (Vehicle)

Act to introduce en­hanced care coverage for bodily injury and a

new type of first-party insurance coverage for vehicle damage, effective

May 1, 2021. These changes will bring down the average cost of auto

insurance in British Columbia by approximately 20 percent, an average of

$400 in savings per driver, helping reduce costs for British

Columbians.

Enhanced care coverage for bodily injuries significantly increases

the amount of care and recovery benefits and provides additional

benefits available to anyone injured in an auto crash, providing enough

care for a lifetime for those who need it, without the need for costly,

stressful, uncertain and time-consuming litigation.

The Insurance (Vehicle) Act is also amended to provide for

pre-litigation payments with respect to accidents occurring before May

1, 2021, to increase the portion of an award that goes to an injured

person rather than towards legal costs.

This bill also amends the Insurance Corporation Act, fulfilling

this government’s commitment to ban the transfer of ICBC profits to

government by eliminating the authority of government to direct the

Insurance Corp. of British Columbia to make payments to government from

profits from the corporation’s optional business.

This bill also makes consequential and related amendments to the

Civil Resolution Tribunal Act.

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

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 11, Attorney General Statutes (Vehicle Insurance) Amendment Act,

2020, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

[1:50 p.m.]

BILL 12 — SUPPLY ACT (N o . 1),

Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1),

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 12, Supply Act (No. 1), 2020, be introduced and

read a first time now.

Bill 12 provides interim supply for ministry operations and other

appropriations for approximately the first three months of the 2020-21

fiscal year. Bill 12 also provides interim supply for a portion of

government’s financing requirements for the ’20-21 fiscal year,

including one-third of the year’s capital expenditures, loans,

investments and other financing requirements and the full amount of the

year’s disbursements for revenues collected on behalf of and transferred

to specific programs and entities.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 12 be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 12, Supply Act (No. 1), 2020, introduced, read a first time and

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

sitting of the House after today.

BILL M203 — NAME AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

M. Polak presented a bill intituled Name Amendment Act,

M. Polak: I move that the bill intituled Name Amendment Act, 2020, of which

notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and

read a first time now.

Many people in British Columbia choose to adopt a hyphenated or

combined surname when they marry. Unfortunately, the act, as it is

currently worded, does not afford those individuals the ability to do so

without a formal name change. While this does affect men, the impact is

disproportionately felt by women, who must either struggle through

difficulties with their identity documents or face the time and expense

of a formal name change.

This amendment will mean that those who choose a hyphenated or

combined surname will be treated in the same manner as those who adopt

the surname of their spouse.

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

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M203, Name Amendment Act, 2020, introduced, read a first time

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

sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CORONAVIRUS PREPAREDNESS

J. Rice: As B.C.’s Parliamentary Secretary for Emergency Preparedness, I

encourage individuals to learn about the risks in your area, to make a

plan and build or buy an emergency kit, to always have a minimum of

three days — but preferably at least one week — of food and water and

other essentials such as prescription medications on hand. This is good

practice preparing for any type of hazard, whether that’s a power

outage, fire, flood, earthquake or disease outbreak.

I find myself in a bit of a dilemma when I see British Columbians

rush out in a flurry of fear-driven stockpiling because of anxiety

around the coronavirus. It’s always wise to be prepared, but the most

important measure people can take today to prevent the spread of

coronavirus, or COVID-19, is to proactively prevent the transmission of

respiratory illness, including COVID-19.

This includes washing your hands regularly. Avoid touching your

face, cough or sneeze into your elbow sleeve and dispose of tissues

appropriately. Besides health care professionals, masks should be only

used by the sick to prevent transmission to other people. It may be less

effective to wear a mask in the community when a person is not sick

themselves. Masks may give a person a false sense of security and are

likely to increase the number of times a person will touch their own

face — for example, to adjust the mask.

It’s also very important to stay home and away from others if you

or your family are sick. Travellers should monitor the government of

Canada travel site for the latest travel advisories. While the risk of

spread of COVID-19 within British Columbia remains low at this time, we

continue widespread testing by screening British Columbians and

travellers with symptoms, along with their close contacts, to identify

cases.

In B.C., we continue to be in active containment mode to detect

cases and respond to prevent the virus from spreading in the community.

The Ministry of Health and the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, working

with many partners, including EMBC, have plans in place and are prepared

to respond to new illnesses of public health concern.

[1:55 p.m.]

I always encourage people to be prepared, but this should be done

in a measured approach and not be panic driven.

S. Sullivan: I seek leave to make another introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

S. Sullivan: I see Ruby Ng, the head of the Disability Foundation, is here. She

runs a network of quality-of-life groups for people with significant

disabilities, whether it be kayaking in False Creek or going hiking in the

forest near UBC or music or assistive devices. She’s got it all. I’d like to

please welcome Ruby to this House.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

BOUNDARY MUSICAL AND THEATRE SOCIETY

L. Larson: The Boundary Musical and Theatre Society in Grand Forks is a

non-profit community theatre made up of volunteers who, for the last 14

years, have been producing top-notch musical theatre entertainment for

the people of Boundary. Previous productions have included Fiddler

on the Roof , Mary Poppins and Mamma Mia! ,

just to name a few.

This year’s production is Joseph and the Amazing Technicolour

Dreamcoat and is currently on stage at the Grand Forks

Secondary School. The production is directed by Deborah Baker and stars

Aaron Baker as Joseph, with over 80 cast and crew, including a live pit

band under the direction of Lorriane Barg.

Community theatre involves local volunteers in many capacities,

from sewing costumes, painting backdrops, building props and sound and

lighting. The list is endless, and community members with particular

skills willingly share their knowledge and craftsmanship with

others.

Last year the society started a Broadway Junior Players group for

youth from six to 12 under the direction of Shannon Wolf and Aaron

Baker. The stage develops confidence and responsibility within young

performers.

In 2017, the Boundary Musical and Theatre Society was presented

needs adults into their productions.

Whether you become involved as a director, a chorus member or a

stage hand, volunteering with a community organization like this musical

theatre society results in new friendships and a strong sense of

community pride. Congratulations to the Boundary Musical and Theatre

Society for their countless volunteer hours bringing great musical

theatre to Boundary.

GROUNDSWELL

ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS

SCHOOL

J. Routledge: Climate change. Artificial intelligence. Globalization. The gig

economy. These are trends that are transforming work as we know it. More

and more people are employed as temporary independent contractors

without prospect of benefits, job security or pensions. What are we

going to do?

Well, Groundswell may have part of the answer. Groundswell is an

innovative, alternative business school. It specializes in serving

diverse populations who are squeezed out of the job market or working in

marginal jobs and who are looking for agency and support in creating

their own self-employed livelihood and small businesses. At Groundswell,

students learn how to tap into their innate strengths, talents and

passions and turn their ideas into something at which they can make a

living while also addressing social problems.

I was introduced to Groundswell by one of my constituents, Gilad

Babchuk, the executive director and co-founder of Groundswell. I met

Irina, a graduate of Groundswell. She created Fabcycle, a business that

collects textile waste before it goes into the landfill and sells it to

artists, crafters and designers. I met Conlan Mansfield, who opened a

gym. His clients knowingly pay a little extra so they can sponsor the

training of Indigenous sports teams.

Groundswell was established in 2013. Since then, it has graduated

more than 200 students, created 140 jobs and more than 100 small

businesses with start-up capital of less than $5,000. Groundswell isn’t

likely to produce the next Bill Gates, just ordinary people who want to

make a living and a difference in a shrinking job market. The next

program starts April 3.

[2:00 p.m.]

TRACTORGREASE CAFE IN CHILLIWACK

J. Martin: I would like to take a moment and talk about a venue that is

putting Chilliwack literally on the international music map. I’m

referring to the Tractorgrease Cafe, a self-described folksy musical

restaurant with a cool studio next door.

Located in the spectacular Chilliwack River Valley, Tractorgrease

was founded by Jeff Bonner as a musical collective. It was Jeff’s vision

that Tractorgrease would be a place where like-minded people could come

together to make and to share music.

Artists such as Ridley Bent, Bill Bourne, 54-40, Steve Dawson and

many others have all recorded in the Tractorgrease studios. In 2014,

Tractorgrease expanded to a live music venue and hosts amazing solo

acts, duos and bands from all over North America and beyond.

Depending on the weather and the time of year, performances take

place either inside the cozy café or on an outdoor beautiful stage that

rivals anything I’ve ever seen in Austin, Texas. In fact, Tractorgrease

has become one of the most talked about live music destinations in

recent years.

A little while back, over lunch, I had an opportunity to ask Jeff

how he manages to book so many sought-after acts. He explained that

Tractorgrease has become such a popular and a respected establishment

that the artists literally call him seeking an opportunity to bring

their show to the Chilliwack River Valley.

In addition to rootsy-sounding blues, country, bluegrass, jazz and

folk acts, Tractorgrease hosts regular open-mike sessions where

musicians arrive from near and afar for the opportunity to be on the

Tractorgrease stage. There’s local craft beer. There’s a spectacularly

diverse menu. There’s one other thing, but I’m a little blurry. Can

anyone help me out here?

Interjections.

J. Martin: That’s right. There’s even an authentic wood-burning smoker for a

real, real barbecue. I encourage anyone with a passion for live music to

put Tractorgrease on their must-do list, support real people making real

music.

Thank you, Jeff, for creating such a special, multigenerational,

social and music community.

Never forget: #livemusicisbetter.

LORNE FRAME

A. Weaver: It’s a profound honour for me to rise in the House today to pay

tribute to Mr. Lorne Frame, a Canadian hero who resides in the riding of

Oak Bay–Gordon Head and is seated in the gallery above there.

In 1942, at the age of 18, Mr. Frame joined the Royal Canadian Air

Force. After further training in Britain, he became a pilot in the 419

Canadian bomber Squadron where he flew Lancaster bombers.

At the age of 20 and on his 13th mission, his plane was attacked

by German night fighters. His plane was shot down on the edge of the

Fontainebleau forest, south of Paris. As he fought to control the

descending plane, he ordered his crew to evacuate. He was the last

person out of the plane.

After walking all night, Mr. Frame found himself in the village of

Barbizon. There, he came into contact with an American woman by the name

of Drue Tartière. Mrs. Tartière spent the war years assisting the French

that he was a member of the Allied Forces and not a German soldier. Mrs.

Tartière hid Mr. Frame in the back of her house where he was eventually

joined by members of his crew. They stayed hidden for seven weeks until

Barbizon was liberated in August 1944.

As befits a true hero, Mr. Frame minimizes his contributions and

sacrifices. To this day, he praises the women and men of the French

underground and, in particular, Drue Tartière. He marvelled at their

bravery. In assisting Mr. Frame and his compatriots, they risked their

lives and the lives of their families and friends. Drue Tartière

documents Mr. Frame’s story, among others, in her book, The House

Near Paris , that she published in 1946.

I just recently ordered that from AbeBooks. I’m looking forward to

its arrival so I can learn more about Mr. Frame’s remarkable story and

the remarkable work of Drue Tartière.

In recognition of his sacrifice and his service in helping

liberate France from the Nazis, Mr. Frame has recently been selected to

be a Member of the Order of the Legion of Honour. Originally established

in 1802 by Napoleon Bonaparte, the Legion of Honour remains France’s

highest decoration.

We are privileged, hon. Speaker, to have Mr. Frame with us here in

the gallery tonight.

[2:05 p.m.]

I would like this House to join me in congratulating him on this

latest distinction. [Applause.]

ADDICTION RECOVERY

J. Thornthwaite: Mental health and addictions are complex issues that drastically

affect the way people live their lives, from work to one’s relationships

to one’s overall quality of life. These effects extend far beyond the

individual. They affect our communities and society.

Helping people out of addiction has obvious social and individual

benefits, but less is known about the financial benefits. Harm reduction

keeps people alive, but alone, it does not help them address the root

cause of their addiction or support them on the road to recovery. The

recent overdose rates, which have not decreased, prove we are not

getting to the root of the addiction, the why. Is it mental health?

Trauma? Adverse childhood experiences? Pain?

A repeated cycle of discharge and relapse is ultimately a greater

cost to society and the people and the families affected. A more

comprehensive approach to treating addiction requires a continuum of

care ranging from prevention and treatment to recovery and reintegration

into society.

Together We Can: Addiction Recovery and Education Society knows

this better than anyone. I quote Tristan Elliott: “For every chronic

addict you help recover and become a taxpayer again, there is a $500,000

to $720,000 savings if that individual remains sober for 20 years.”

Research suggests addiction costs Canadians between $20 billion and $40

billion a year in lost productivity, health care and the legal system. A

person struggling with addiction costs between $11,000 and $22,000 per

year. This can easily be over $100,000 in some cases.

Therefore, the success of addiction treatment should be measured

not just on not being on welfare, not being in a hospital, not being in

jail. What’s the contribution to society? The quality of life,

reconnecting with family, building social responsibility and optimizing

wellness. When we support people through a continuum of care, we save.

B.C. needs to rise up and help people trying to overcome addiction and

give them every opportunity to work through a full pathway to

recovery.

Oral Questions

CORONAVIRUS

PREPAREDNESS AND

RESPONSE

A. Wilkinson: We’ve seen the rapid progression of the case count of the novel

coronavirus that’s been now labelled as COVID-19. The obvious question

that arises is the preparation level in our society and our government

for a potential rapid expansion in that case count.

We’ve seen the reports out most recently from Washington state

where the death count, unfortunately, amongst our friends and neighbours

to the south is now up to ten. They’ve recorded a total of 28 confirmed

cases, but it’s widely known in the United States that the testing

program was far too slow to get going. The actual case count in

Washington state could be much higher. That will become clear in the

weeks to come.

The question for the Minister of Health is: can he tell us what

the plan is in British Columbia in the event that our case count rapidly

goes into the thousands?

Hon. A. Dix: First of all, I want to acknowledge the role played by all members

of the House in supporting public health during this time. I

particularly want to acknowledge the role the member for Kelowna–Lake

Country, the Green Party Health critic and House Leader for their role,

the Leader of the Opposition and many others who have spoken out

publicly against fear and in favour of science and public health

responses. I think that’s important. We are stronger together, and I

wanted to express that appreciation right off the top.

The Leader of the Opposition will know that because of

preparations and our excellent record in dealing with issues such as

SARS in the past, the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, our provincial

health officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry, and my deputy minister, Stephen Brown,

have acted, from the beginning, ahead of many other

jurisdictions.

[2:10 p.m.]

For example, we have been taking action — from the beginning,

before there was even a case identified in British Columbia — to test

people. We’ve tested now — or we had tested as of the last time we

announced the numbers, which was Friday — 1,425 samples and 1,012

people. This was significantly more testing — more than twice as much

than had taken place in the entire United States of America. This is our

plan, which is to contain — and if not to contain, to slow down — the

growth of the virus here in British Columbia. We are continuing to

energetically pursue that plan.

Clearly, we will need to prepare for other plans. We do have, in

British Columbia, a pandemic response plan, which has been updated,

which we’ll be briefing all parties in the Legislature on before we go

home for the spring break, and which is going to help respond to further

developments of COVID-19 in British Columbia. I think it’s important

that we continue to support our institutions and support one another in

these times.

If I may be allowed one last thing to say, everyone needs to wash

their hands regularly. This is important, and again, it’s something that

all members of the House have been communicating. I’m very, very

appreciative of that. Not touching your face. And when you’re sick, stay

home from school, from work and especially from visiting friends and

loved ones in long-term care and in hospital.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, thank you to the Minister of Health for that outline, but I

think the question is actually more pointed. He has set an example for

all of us in practical, personal terms about cleanliness and hygiene. We

thank him for that advice. The B.C. Centre for Disease Control is

remarkably well ahead of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control in test

capacity and surveillance systems for new cases.

The question remains. In the event that our case count goes,

sadly, from half a dozen to 5,000, what will be the next step after the

initial containment phase? Once we’ve now passed this point of saying

that perhaps people arriving from around parts of China should

self-quarantine, what is the next phase in the unfortunate event that

the events in Washington state carry over the border?

Hon. A. Dix: In January, prior to any cases coming to British Columbia —

indeed, coming to Canada — we set up an emergency response team,

co-chaired by Dr. Henry and Mr. Brown. Every health authority now has an

emergency operation centre specifically devoted to addressing this

question, which I think is important, because there are challenges at

every level. As we ramp up, we are preparing, of course, for a

governmentwide response. This, as it develops, will have implications

for all parts of B.C. life, not just the health care system.

That work is being done. We intend to fully brief the opposition

on that work in the coming days and the Green Party in the coming 24

hours so that they’re as informed as anybody here in the Legislature and

so that we can continue to work together to respond adequately to what

is a significant international health issue.

I want to say, finally, to our friends in Washington state — and I

know that the Leader of the Opposition would agree to that — that people

in public health in Washington state are working very hard and are doing

very diligent work. It is absolutely tragic that COVID-19 hit,

especially, a long-term care home in Washington, in the States. Our

hearts go out to all the families affected and to the people working so

hard now in Washington state to address this problem.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for his answer so far. If we can get

some clarity on one point. Right now we are in a containment phase. We

are trying to contain this. Hopefully, Washington state is able to do

the same, so we don’t have to have the impact of people travelling back

and forth. Obviously, the border is very thin between us and Washington

state.

Over the last week, we heard the federal Health Minister, Patty

Hajdu, recommend that Canadians stock up with enough supplies for a week

or so in case their family member contracted the coronavirus and had to

remain in self-isolation for 14 days. She said that it’s good to be

prepared, because things can change quickly. Canada’s chief public

health officer, Dr. Teresa Tam, echoed that message on Thursday in a

tweet urging Canadians to keep extra food and medication on

hand.

We’ve seen the run on things at our stores. We’d like to get some

clarity from the government and the minister. What can we do to ensure

that British Columbians get the right message today, since we’re still

in the containment phase?

Hon. A. Dix: Again, thank you to the member for his question. I think people in

British Columbia…. We have these preparations now. Many of us live in

earthquake zones, so we are expected and do have preparations in our

houses for those conditions now.

[2:15 p.m.]

I think the key, in this time, is to be prudent. I don’t think

there’s any need to hoard goods. But just like if someone in your home

was sick with the flu or anything else, it’s important to have food and

medication available, especially if you are in one of the categories

that has a more serious impact of COVID-19 and, indeed, of influenza.

For example, that people with chronic diseases, people who are more

elderly, be more prepared for what might happen. That is true in all

circumstances.

I think it’s really important that we understand that so far, in

British Columbia, the risk is low and continues to be low and that we

continue to support one another in these times.

One of the things that I admire most about what’s happened, for

example, in the Chinese-Canadian community — and members, including the

Leader of the Opposition, have spoken of this — is the willingness of

people to help each other, especially in self-isolation. There are

groups that spontaneously were created to support one another. This is

true, I know, in the Iranian-Canadian community, as well, which has

suffered — some now, and significantly — from the outbreak in British

Columbia.

I think it speaks well, and I want to express my appreciation to

the people of B.C. for their response to date. I think we have to

continue to be prudent, to be prudent when we make decisions to travel,

and to be prepared, but to be serene in our approach so that we support

one another when we need to be supported.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kelowna–Lake Country on a supplemental.

N. Letnick: I bring up the question because not only is the federal government

saying one thing, but we’ve got leaders from across the country saying

all kinds of things. We have all kinds of experts with differences of

opinion.

Look at Christine Elliot, the Health Minister for Ontario. She

said that she believes stockpiling is unnecessary and people should

continue to go about their lives while being cautious. So it’s very

similar to what the Minister of Health for B.C. has said. It’s obviously

juxtaposed to what the Canadian Health Minister has said. People have to

use their common sense. Given the current situation, I think it’s

probably the best thing.

To the minister, I only have one more question on this. I’ll save

some of these other ones for, hopefully, never, because the virus will

go away. What preparations are the regional health authorities taking to

help identify any outbreaks in their local areas — in particular, in the

Northern Health regional health authority?

I’m hearing stories that people who want to get tested are facing

a gauntlet of barriers to getting the testing done, because they believe

they have the virus. If the minister could outline what people can do

across British Columbia — especially up in the north, who are farther

away from services than people down on the Lower Mainland — to ensure

that we manage this outbreak and contain this outbreak as much as

possible so it doesn’t become a goal of stopping the spread versus

stopping the outbreak itself.

Hon. A. Dix: All of the regional health authorities have emergency operation

centres now. People in all of the regional health authorities are being

tested. The threshold for the test is lower than in other jurisdictions,

but there is a threshold. We believe that medical professionals are

making the right decisions about when people should be tested and how

they should be tested. In the last couple of weeks, we’ve changed our

testing regimen so that people who are tested for influenza are also

tested for COVID-19. I think that’s important.

We are preparing in every single health authority. As you know,

two health authorities, to date, have no cases of COVID-19. One of those

is the Northern Health Authority, and we hope that continues. The other

is Island Health. But all of our health authorities are preparing

equally and are fully evolved, including the First Nations Health

Authority, whose activities are fully integrated with ours.

have been working very hard and are in touch with us on a regular basis.

The federal Minister of Finance, Mr. Morneau, met with provincial

Finance Ministers on some aspects of this issue today and other issues.

The federal Health Minister has consistently reached out and done

that.

What we’re trying to be is, I think, supportive of this. There

will be lots of occasions to discuss what each of us might say or do

better later. But right now we’re working with the federal government,

with the Washington state government and other jurisdictions.

If there is anything about it, including the seven cases that came

from travel to Iran…. That tells us that this is an evolving situation

and that what happens in one place in the world can profoundly affect us

here.

CARE STANDARDS AT RETIREMENT CONCEPTS

SENIORS CARE

FACILITIES

A. Olsen: Last week the B.C. government took control of yet another seniors

home owned by Retirement Concepts. They were forced to do this because

of neglect of seniors.

[2:20 p.m.]

This is the fourth Retirement Concepts facility that authorities

have taken over, and there are serious concerns about others. One family

just filed a class action lawsuit against another Retirement Concepts

facility, citing negligence, emotional and physical injuries and

wrongful death.

Retirement Concepts is the largest provider of long-term care in

British Columbia, and it’s owned by a state-backed Chinese insurance

company. A foreign-owned, for-profit company is repeatedly providing

wholly inadequate care to our seniors. We are seeing a clear pattern

here.

It’s not enough to intervene in just the most egregious cases or

to react to whistle-blowers. It seems that for-profit care homes are

allowed to repeatedly put profit margins ahead of care.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Beyond simply responding

to these situations when they come to light, how is the minister holding

this company accountable and ensuring that our elders are not facing

inadequate care and neglect?

Hon. A. Dix: Indeed, the situation at Retirement Concepts is a serious

situation, but I want to put this very much in context. What has

happened at Retirement Concepts in Comox, in Nanaimo, in Victoria and

now in Summerland is a serious situation that comes through a very

formal process led by medical officers of health.

That process, and taking over a facility, has happened seven times

since 1990. Six of those are by Retirement Concepts. It’s very important

not to suggest that other care providers are in the same boat. This is,

in this case, a Retirement Concepts problem. We need to address it, and

they need to address it.

Last week they were called to a meeting — including the new parent

company, called Dajia — that was called with the Deputy Minister of

Health. We’ve clearly laid out our expectations that this situation

cannot continue.

Our administrators are doing, I think, an excellent job in

bringing these facilities up to standard. I think we have to continue to

do that work. It is unacceptable that the government of British Columbia

is running 511 of Retirement Concepts’ 1,641 beds. That’s 31 percent of

their beds. It is not good enough, and we are going to continue to take

action until they’re brought up to standard.

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

A. Olsen: To be very clear, this question is about Retirement Concepts and

Retirement Concepts alone. I’m glad to hear the response from the

minister. I’m glad to hear that his staff are taking action.

I’m really concerned about the situation that exists. There are

still a number of rooms that are controlled by this company. I think

that the concern continues to arise, knowing that there are seniors that

are still under the care of this company.

The minister said…. This was a few months ago: “Whenever there are

changes in ownership in care homes, we have to review to see if there

are changes required.” As the minister just noted, the former company

Anbang has been restructured, and now the company that controls

Retirement Concepts is under a new state-backed insurance group. It

could be argued that these are significant changes in

ownership.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Will the government take

immediate steps to take control of the remainder of the Retirement

Concepts homes to ensure that all seniors can rely on getting the care

that they need in our province?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, the takeover of Retirement Concepts occurred in 2016. The

review of such takeovers is made by Investment Canada. Concerns were

expressed, certainly by me and other British Columbians, about that

takeover at that time. But the federal government approved the

takeover.

I don’t want anyone at Retirement Concepts or anyone else to think

that people are going to take this responsibility away from them. They

have the responsibility to provide care. We have the responsibility to

regulate, and we will.

I think it’s an important consideration here, the company in

question. It is why, in this case — after Comox and after Nanaimo and

after Victoria and now after Summerland — we contacted and have met and

will continue to meet not just with Retirement Concepts as a company or

the operating company — which are the old owners, by the way — but the

holding company to make sure that everybody is held accountable here.

Seniors are in care right now. They deserve our support, and they will

have it.

[2:25 p.m.]

PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT INCREASES

AND PROPOSED

LEGISLATION

S. Bond: Last fall Gordon Bohlmann of Marpole Physiotherapy Clinic came

here to the Legislature because he was worried about the significant

pressure on small businesses that was caused by dramatically increased

property taxes.

Here’s what the Minister of Housing said to Gordon and the other

businesses that were here in the Legislature that day: “I want to say to

all the business owners here: ‘We have been listening….’ We are taking

action. We will be ready for the 2020 tax year.”

The minister hasn’t delivered. Can she explain to Gordon why she

has not followed through on the promise she made to them in the

Legislature that day?

Hon. S. Robinson: My words are true today, as they were back then. Small businesses,

non-profits and arts and culture organizations have been hurting for a

significant amount of time. We vowed to take action, and we did. We

worked with a number of local governments in the Metro region to look at

what a permanent fix would look like, and in May, we were presented with

a range of ideas. We explored them over the summer to take a look at

what would work for 2020.

In looking at those ideas that are absolutely worthwhile exploring

and doing some policy work on, it became really clear to us that it

wouldn’t work for 2020. There was still a significant amount of work

that needed to be done. So we brought in an interim program that would

provide the relief that those businesses are desperately

needing.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, the minister knows full well what the reaction to the

so-called action that she took has been. In fact, this minister made a

promise. She made a promise to Gordon and to other small business owners

across the Lower Mainland. She said they would get relief this year, and

she simply hasn’t delivered.

It’s not the opposition, just the members on this side of the

House, that are saying that. It is mayors from across the Lower

Mainland. In fact, she knows that 11 mayors have written to this

minister this week to tell her that her plan is simply unworkable.

Here’s what Coquitlam mayor Richard Stewart says: “It’s not that we’re

not going to do it. It’s that we just can’t.”

Will the minister admit that her plan is a mistake and that it

doesn’t work for anyone?

Hon. S. Robinson: It became really clear to us that doing nothing or doing something

was really the choice that was before us. So we did do something for

2020. We brought in some legislation that, of course, will work for

municipalities. In fact, in developing the interim solution, we were

working with municipalities. They were helping to give us some feedback

about how to best proceed. We made sure that we were hearing their

concerns. In fact, some of the feedback they gave to us said having a

March 31 deadline to pass this bylaw was not reasonable. So we changed

it based on their feedback.

Staff have already been in contact with a number of municipalities

interested in using this tool. And there is work for municipalities. I

understand that. I absolutely understand that. We’re there to support

them. We have staff committed to working with them. We have B.C.

Assessment available to generate the kind of data that they need in

order to make their decision. We’ve given them advance notice of this

legislation.

This is an opportunity for municipalities to work with the

provincial government in order, again, to give relief to the businesses

and to the non-profits in their communities. It has been an issue for

well over a decade. I’m very proud of the fact that we got to work right

away, and we’re continuing to deliver for those businesses and those

non-profits.

J. Thornthwaite: This issue is just another NDP broken promise.

Also sitting in the gallery to hear directly from the minister

last fall, right here in the Legislature, was Dr. Gianni Pisanu. He’s

the owner of Granville Dental Wellness Group. He was reeling from a 60

percent increase in his taxes in just three years.

The minister told Dr. Pisanu: “We’ve heard you loud and clear, and

there will be a tax fix for the 2020 tax year.”

[2:30 p.m.]

What does the minister say now to Dr. Pisanu after she has failed

to provide any of the promised assistance?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, I have to say that we passed third reading of a bill that I

am sure will receive royal assent very shortly. That’s what I have to

say.

The other thing I have to say is that municipalities now have a

tool that they can….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. We shall hear the response.

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, it will receive royal assent shortly, and it will be law.

It will be an opportunity for local governments to deliver, with us,

this tool to the businesses in their communities.

You know what? Local governments have been saying for some time

that these businesses are stretched, that they’re challenged. They know

their communities really well. They know which businesses need it. Now

they have the ability to identify those businesses. They have the

ability to identify those cultural groups so that they can get to work

so that we can continue to work together to deliver for the people of

this province, for the business people and the non-profits and the arts

and cultural sector, because they deserve that.

J. Thornthwaite: This is just part of the pattern of the NDP. They’re just not

listening to the experts.

There are ten Metro mayors — ten — including the city of North

Vancouver, plus the UBCM president, who have rejected her plan —

including the mayor of her own community, the mayor of Coquitlam. “We

have some small businesses that are really hurting. I would do anything

to help them, but this is really, really unworkable.” That’s what the

mayor of Coquitlam said about this minister’s bill.

Why won’t this minister adopt our split assessment bill, which is

exactly what the mayors want?

Hon. S. Robinson: The mayors proposal is on the table for a permanent fix. It is. We

are considering it. But like I said, when it was presented to us in

May…. We looked at it over the summer, and the analysis demonstrated

that it wouldn’t be available for 2020. So that left us with a choice:

continue to do the work, the important work…. We’re committed to

continuing to do that. But what it meant is that it would not be ready

for 2020.

We made the commitment to do both at the same time, because we

know how to do that. We can work on a permanent fix and an interim fix

at the same time.

T. Stone: Well, the problem is that the mayors of Metro Vancouver sent a

letter to the minister just the other day, and in it, ten Metro mayors,

plus the UCBM president, say very, very clearly that the solution the

minister has brought forward is unworkable, and these municipalities

have no intention whatsoever of using it. That’s the bottom

line.

In fact, in 2½ years, the NDP have perfected the art of putting

together reviews and consultations only to not then follow the

recommendations that flow from them. How did the caribou file go? Not

very well.

Interjections.

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

T. Stone: They did it with the caribou file. They did it with the

implementation of the employer health tax. Now they’re doing it again.

They’re doing it again here by refusing to implement the proposed

solution, the priority solution, of the intergovernmental working group

and the Metro mayors in Vancouver.

The mayors want split assessment classification. In their letter,

they actually say: “Struggling businesses and organizations will end up

paying higher taxes.” That’s in reference to the minister’s

solution.

My question to the minister is this. Will she take the advice of

the Metro mayors, scrap her plan and bring forward a solution that

embodies what they’ve been asking for all along? That’s split assessment

classification.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s amazing that they finally are listening to Metro mayors.

They’ve never listened to Metro mayors. Wow. All the years that they

fought them on investing in transit infrastructure, and they finally are

recognizing that they have a role to play in the regional transportation

network. I find it, actually, very enlightening. I’m thrilled to hear

that they’re finally listening to mayors, because they certainly ignored

them when they were on this side of the House.

In fact, we’ve been working with the mayors, and we have been

working with them on the split assessment tool. We’re going to continue,

because that’s how we roll. We’re going to continue to work with them on

the permanent solution. The idea is a worthwhile idea, of the split

assessment. It would be impossible to implement it in time for 2020. So

we developed an interim solution. It’s a solution that I do know and I

do appreciate is going to take a bit of work for local

governments.

We’ve drafted a model bylaw for them. We have B.C. Assessment at

the ready to generate the data that they need, because we know that

that’s important in terms of the decision-making that they have to do.

B.C. Assessment is certainly answering any calls that they have. They’re

answering questions that they have about how to move forward.

Also, we’ve put together a whole handbook on how to use this

interim solution. It’s a real opportunity for local governments and the

provincial government to work together to make sure that the businesses

and non-profits and art and culture organizations have the relief that

they need.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a

supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, the minister looked small businesses in the eyes last year.

She looked the local governments in the eyes, and she said that she

would bring forward a solution. And you know what? She has failed those

local governments and failed those small businesses.

The letter, which, by the way, is dated February 27 — so,

literally, just a few days ago — says: “While the interim solution put

forward by the province may satisfy the desire to put a mechanism in

place for the 2020 tax year…the undersigned mayors do not support the

interim permissive property tax exemption legislation. Further, we

respectfully request that the province continue to work with the

Intergovernmental Working Group on implementing split assessment through

a new commercial subclass.”

Because this minister has failed to act, countless small

businesses have had to close their doors across Metro Vancouver. Sadly,

more are making that painful decision as we speak. After 35 years in

business, Bishop’s Restaurant in Vancouver just announced that it’s

closing soon. Why? Because of soaring costs, including property taxes

above their heads. Owner and legendary chef John Bishop says: “I don’t

want to retire, but I don’t want to get to the point where I would have

to declare bankruptcy.”

The question is this. If an entrepreneur like John Bishop, who has

worked his tail off for 35 years to build a renowned restaurant in

Vancouver from scratch, can’t make it due to the skyrocketing taxes

above his head, who the heck does the minister think has a fighting

chance to start and grow a business in Metro Vancouver?

Hon. S. Robinson: My father was a small business owner. I do understand how tough

things can be for small businesses and for the families that are

supported by the small business, and I do understand the hardships of

being under a triple-net lease and having the burden of skyrocketing

property taxes. I also need to remind all of the members of this House

that this has been going on for well over ten years.

The CFIB identified it and said that no government has ever paid

attention to it. Our government paid attention. Our government heard. As

I have mentioned before, to previous questions by the members opposite….

I explained how we work together with local government….

Interjections.

[2:40 p.m.]

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

Hon. S. Robinson: It seems that they have lots to say, but their time at the

microphone is over.

I’ve explained in this House how it came to be that we needed to

do the interim solution in order to have something available for those

businesses that have been struggling. This isn’t about the members

opposite, it’s not about us, and it’s not about local

governments.

Interjections.

Hon. S. Robinson: They continue to be very chippy. I think I’ll just sit down.

Clearly, I can’t even hear myself speak.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Eby: I stand to table a revised Crown agency annual service plan for the

B.C. Liquor Distribution Branch to replace the version tabled on budget day

2020. This amended version corrects an entry error in the debt line of the

financial

summary table on page 22. A note was added at the bottom of the

financial

summary on page 22 explaining this correction from the originally

tabled version on budget day.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee on Bill 3, the Environmental Management

Amendment Act. In Committee A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued debate on

the estimates for the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

[2:45 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 3 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 3;

S. Gibson in the chair.

The committee met at 2:47 p.m.

section 1.

P. Milobar: A couple questions for the minister, overall, on the bill in

itself. I’m hoping, with a bit of his indulgence here…. I have one

question around

section 1 that probably relates more to

section 8, but I

just want to make sure that I cover that off. Then when we get to

section 2, I’ll have quite a few questions that might interrelate with

some of the further sections, but I’m letting the minister know that

once that they’re covered off, we can breeze through the remaining

sections, if that’s all right with him as well. Anyway, I’ll jump into

it.

Section 1 is just repealing the definition of “contaminated soil

relocation agreement.” I know it’s touched on in

section 8 as well,

about transitional provisions. Does this mean that any…? It does not

look like it in

section 8, but I’m just wanting reassurances that this

does not change any existing soil relocation agreements that are out

there and that it’s meant more as a move-forward piece.

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. I’d first of all like to

introduce the staff that are with me today from the environmental

protection division. On the far right is Kevin Butterworth, and next to

me is Valentina Yetskalo.

The answer to the member’s question is that those agreements that

are currently in place, the soil location agreements, will continue

until they terminate, and other transition measures will be governed by

transition regulations.

The Chair: Any further comments on

section 1?

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

[2:50 p.m.]

P. Milobar: This is section (1.2)(c). How far in advance will the notice be

required to be given? The policy direction paper was talking about two

weeks, but we’re wondering what the actual notice time frame will

be.

Hon. G. Heyman: The notice period will be two weeks, and it will be prescribed by

regulation.

P. Milobar: Thanks for that. Will there be any fees attached to the notice

when that’s being provided? If so, will it be a cost recovery or a

source of revenue?

Hon. G. Heyman: We are not planning to impose any fee at this time. In other areas

where the ministry does have fees, the principle is cost

recovery.

P. Milobar: Local governments get notified. They raise concerns. What will be

the process if there’s a concern raised about an application? Will it

still proceed, or will local government objections automatically make

the application not applicable?

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s no longer an application. It’s a notification. But the

two-week notification period is intended to give municipalities and

local governments a chance to ensure that their bylaws are being applied

appropriately. If they had any additional concern that they believed was

covered by the Environmental Management Act or Environmental Management

Act regulations, they would notify us, and environmental protection

division staff would attend.

P. Milobar: I guess why I’m asking this line of questioning is because

typically, when local governments or First Nations hear of a change, the

anticipation is usually that they will have more say into a matter or

not. So is the minister saying, then, that if a municipality has

objections, they’ll be taken under advisement, but it is not a stop to

the soil relocation happening simply because a local government might

have objections to what is being proposed?

Hon. G. Heyman: To be clear about the process, municipal or local government

bylaws exist to control aspects of soil relocation. The two-week notice

period is there for the municipality or local government to ensure that

their bylaws are being obeyed or adhered to, or potentially, a local

government could introduce new bylaws if they felt the ones they had

were insufficient.

If they felt there was an issue of pollution or a violation of the

Environmental Management Act or the Environmental Management Act

regulations, or a potential one that they wanted us to closely monitor,

they could notify the environmental protection division. The

environmental protection division, if there was a complaint that there

was a potential violation of the act or regulations, would determine if,

in fact, that was the case and take appropriate action under the act and

regulations.

[2:55 p.m.]

If there was a concern that that might happen and the

environmental protection division thought the circumstances indicated

that that was a valid concern, we would monitor and take action if it

was indicated.

P. Milobar: I think it’s obvious why I’m asking questions around this. I think

it’s fairly safe to say that the House Leader for the Third Party has

quite a community interest around soil movement and whether it’s

appropriate or not appropriate and public input or not and municipal

government input or not. Post Bill 41, what types of notifications will

be needed, if any, once notice is given? Or will notice also have to

include notification to area First Nations?

Hon. G. Heyman: The member makes an important point. It gives me the opportunity

to distinguish this part of the Environmental Management Act from the

part of the Environmental Management Act that specifically addresses

contaminated soil — moving and dumping. That is covered under the act

but under a different section. The regulations that cover that will

apply. Part of the requirements are when a permit to handle contaminated

soil is applied for, which is under another

section of the act, then

this one…. First Nations are consulted.

With respect to this amendment, the purpose of this amendment is

to ensure that there is notification when soil is being moved. The

regulations will require the person moving the soil to notify local

government, the provincial government and local First Nations. So that

notification will take place.

The movement of soil that could potentially be contaminated from a

commercial or industrial site will require that that soil be properly

characterized. So if it is in fact contaminated, that will be known, and

then a proper consultation process around the handling of contaminated

soil under other sections of the act would take place.

P. Milobar: Just to be clear, then, on the notification provisions.

In Kamloops’s case, I know that when we would have drainage works

to be done, just in terms of storm sewers or drainage ditching, not even

a pipe, we would have to send notification out to, I believe it was, 14

area First Nations around Kamloops to get sign-off on those works. They

would usually defer to the TteS, as the overarching impacted First

Nation.

You would go through the steps. It would take quite a while to get

notification back. Many bands, just out of sheer capacity issues,

especially with the sheer volume of referrals that will start coming

their way, especially on the heels of Bill 41, take some time to process

the work that’s in front of them. As I say, it’s simply because they’ve

got a big stack of referrals to have to try to churn through and,

essentially, a very small operation to deal with them.

[3:00 p.m.]

This is a two-week notification, and then it looks like once the

two weeks’ notice has been given, the person can continue on with the

soil movements. Is that the case? Regardless of whether they’ve heard

back in that two-week window or not, if no one has gotten back, the

person can then proceed with the soil relocations, under this

bill?

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s a good question, and it’s an opportunity to offer some

clarity.

Currently these amendments replace the soil relocation agreements

which exist now and do not require consultation and, frankly, in many

cases, don’t exist. The amendments to the act do two things. The first

thing they require is notification of movement of clean soil below a

certain quantity, which, in a sense, is no different than moving lumber

or anything else. But it does ensure that local government, First

Nations and the provincial government are aware of the

movement.

The other really important thing that the amendment does is to say

that soil that comes from a commercial or an industrial site must be

characterized properly, scientifically, in a technically sound manner.

Or that if soil exceeds a certain volume, it is covered, as would soil

that was found to be contaminated — through the characterization — would

be covered by a different process under this act, different regulations,

with a full consultation around what happens with it.

The process, if the soil is found to be contaminated or if the

soil exceeds a certain volume, would be different than simply a two-week

notification period. It would require review under regulations for

contaminated soil, and a more robust consultation with everyone,

including First Nations, would take place.

P. Milobar: So 2(d), I guess it is. It’s bolded: “in subsection (5) by

striking out ‘from depositing soil from a contaminated site at another

site’ and substituting ‘from depositing soil at a site.’”

I’m just wondering, given that this is to deal with contaminated

soils: why the need to remove “from a contaminated site”? I would assume

that’s where most of the soil being moved is coming from — a

contaminated site to a different site. So does this mean it’s any soils?

Or is it still strictly contaminated soils that this

section is talking

about?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: For clarity, as I’ve stated, now the words “from a contaminated

site” are struck because it is covering all soil. Soil from a commercial

or industrial site will be characterized to determine if it’s

contaminated — here’s the difference — and then if it is, it will be

dealt with as contaminated soil has been dealt with in the past under

the act.

P. Milobar: So if it’s all soils that count, are agricultural operations part

of these changes and have any impact with this bill at all?

Hon. G. Heyman: The definition of “commercial” and “industrial” will take place.

It’ll be strictly defined in the regulation. The intent, to date, has

not been to include agricultural operations in that. We believe that

other acts and regulations cover what happens on agricultural soil, in

the first place, because it’s used for growing food or feeding animals

that become food. Therefore, there are a number of other provisions that

apply. It’s generally not the case that soil is moved from an

agricultural operation.

In the course of consulting on the regulations, which we will do,

if a gap is identified, we’ll certainly consider prescribing coverage of

that gap, either here or in another appropriate act or

regulation.

P. Milobar: I’m curious about mining as well, if it’s already been

contemplated or not. The reason I asked specifically about agriculture —

but the same would hold true with mining — is that most of those

operations have several different parcel identifiers within the

operation themselves. You can have several different titles that make up

a ranch. Several different titles will make up a mine site. Those types

of scenarios.

What’s envisioned here to be defined as “a site”? In other words,

is the movement on the same legal parcel going to be considered the

same? Or if it’s the same entity that owns both parcels side by side and

they decide to drive it from one side of their operation to the other,

is that now a movement of soil? In terms of that, there are even large

gravel pit operations or anything like that that you could technically

see where they would be going across property lines, but it’s all still

one big corporate entity.

Could we get some clarification of how this envisions the

classification of a site versus just internal operations for large-scale

operators?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Firstly, much handling of soil or material on an industrial site —

a mine, for instance — would be covered, in all likelihood, by the

conditions on an environmental assessment certificate.

To the member’s question, the site is defined by parcel

identifier. If you’re moving from like to like — for instance, if you’re

moving from one part of an industrial operation to another part of the

industrial operation — and they both have contaminated soil, both have

potential contaminants, then the answer would be no, you wouldn’t be

required to.

If, however, it was one operation and part of the site was

industrial and another part of the site was, say, for the sake of

argument, residential or, I guess, residences for people who worked on a

mine and you were moving soil from the industrial part of the

potentially contaminated part to a part where people were living, then

yes, a notification would be required.

The fact that there is more than one parcel identifier on an

industrial operation where you essentially have contiguous operation

across a boundary and contamination in each, then no.

P. Milobar: Just a couple more questions, and then we’ll probably be able to

breeze through the nine sections pretty quickly.

Just for some other clarity, then, around forestry. They go in.

They build the roads. They have to start doing some remediation work and

things after they’re done in their cutblocks. Will the forestry industry

be required with this, as well, if they’re hauling in dirts and soils

and that? Or are they part of their own separate area, and this is

nothing for them to be worried about?

Hon. G. Heyman: There will again, in the regulation, be a list of prescribed

activities. Forestry specifically isn’t one of them. But if it’s a site

or a yard where there’s equipment and potential contamination from fuels

or other materials used in a machine shop or somewhere else, then yes.

It would be covered if they were moving the soil somewhere other than

the site.

[3:15 p.m.]

P. Milobar: I recognize this has been ongoing since, I believe, 2014. We have

the final policy direction paper as well, but there’s still a fair

amount left for regulation once this bill gets passed. I’m just

wondering: what’s the timeline for finalizing the necessary regulations?

Is there going to be any more consultation before the finalization of

the regulations? Overall, what’s the way forward with regulation and

timelines?

Hon. G. Heyman: The intention is to work to finalize the regulations by fall 2021.

There will be intentions papers published on the development of

regulations, with lots of time for comment and extensive consultation on

the regulation proposals.

P. Milobar: I know existing permits will be held, as we talked about at the

very beginning. Does that mean, then, that between now and whenever all

the final regulation is brought in, all the existing processes stay in

place? It’s status quo until we see those final regulations in the fall

of 2021?

Hon. G. Heyman: That’s correct.

Sections 2 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:17 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 3, Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2020, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 8, the Education Statutes

Amendment Act, 2020.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 8 — EDUCATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 8;

S. Gibson in the chair.

The committee met at 3:21 p.m.

The Chair: Hon. Members, I will call the meeting to order, but we will

take a recess of approximately five minutes in order to be

prepared.

The committee recessed from 3:21 p.m. to 3:27 p.m.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

Hon. R. Fleming: I’ll just begin by introducing some staff who will help me with

committee stage of the debate this afternoon. To my right is Deputy

Minister Scott MacDonald, to my left is Assistant Deputy Minister Keith

Godin, and directly behind me is Assistant Deputy Minister Reg

Bawa.

We’ll certainly look forward to questions from the members on the

various sections of the bill. With that, I’ll take my place.

D. Davies: Ready to begin. We can go into the bill. I’m looking forward to

asking a number of questions, as we raised in second reading

yesterday.

Sections 1 to 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

D. Davies: I do have a number of questions around

section 15. Of course, as I

mentioned yesterday in second reading, most of our questions are going

to come around the child care, the before- and after-school care piece

of this legislation.

[3:30 p.m.]

Just wondering if this bill in any way limits a school board from

continuing to enter into contracts with other providers for children

under six on school grounds.

Hon. R. Fleming: The answer is no.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

Regarding impact with child care being provided in communities

right now, the bill mandates boards to charge their own costs. There

will be no profit allowed. Their costs will be basically rock bottom, as

I mentioned in second reading yesterday.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

A lot of these subsidies will be borne by the taxpayer. Just

wondering what the transparency piece is going to be around letting the

public know the true costs that are going to be borne by the school

district so that there is some transparency in place.

Hon. R. Fleming: As the member will know, this legislation enables school districts

to pursue this. Some will; some will not. It will allow districts that

do wish to directly provide child care to operate on a cost-even, a

break-even, basis. We expect that their fees will recover the costs

associated with providing new child care services that they will now

directly administer, and therefore, the subsidies, if you will, that are

already provided for the K-to-12 public education system will not be

directly used to cross-subsidize the extracurricular programs of before-

and after-school care.

D. Davies: Will the costs around this…? And just to get on the record, will

they include…? What are we looking at being included in the cost? Is it

heating? Is it all those costs around that? Is it going to be looking at

a square-footage piece? What is the cost that they’ll be looking at?

When school districts need to be looking at trying to come up with a

cost to charge the user, what are the costs that are being looked at in

regards to coming up with this formula? Or what is the formula, I

guess?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: I imagine this won’t be the last question the member has on this,

but just to begin, there is no formula that is prescribed. Bearing in

mind that if a new before- and after-school care service is being

provided by a school district directly, what we’re actually talking

about is incremental costs in addition to what is provided during the

school’s regular operating hours. So one would imagine that would be

additional staffing hours, additional facility costs that can truly be

ascribed to that operation, to that program, cleaning costs and those

sorts of things.

The member will know that boards are already required to follow

financial audit requirements that delineate expenses for various

programs. So it would be up to districts to fulfil the requirement to

report and provide the transparency that he is asking about, whether

it’s through annual reports or audits or those sorts of

things.

The district will recover the costs. So it won’t require an

additional taxpayer subsidy. They will recover the cost of these

programs through fees that are paid by the parents.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister. Presumably, there’s going to be extra wear

and tear on the school itself — I mean, we have extra kids now; there

are longer hours — ranging from just the building maintenance required

to school playground equipment. Just wondering if that’s going to be

within the mandate, I guess, of the board to also be looking at coming

up with charging out this wear and tear to the users?

Hon. R. Fleming: The short answer is that boards may decide that. But I would

remind the member that we’re talking about programs that are typically

operating an hour before school already and a couple of hours after

school. Many schools have third-party partnerships already. So this

isn’t new terrain, new territory, to operate this kind of service.

They’ll have their own arrangements.

I suppose what this legislation enables, though, is…. Districts

were seeking clarity on whether they can operate child care services,

specifically before- and after-school care, which currently the School

Act is silent on. These amendments are the answer to that question: yes,

they can.

I think what we heard from many in the early childhood education

community and others who operate on a non-profit basis already,

community-based services, was that this is something that they very much

want to do. This is something where the school facility can more

efficiently be used to help accommodate the needs of parents, many of

whom sit on wait-lists.

We expect that what you’ll probably see is more diversity of

programming and of models of delivering before- and after-school care.

The member will know that while there are demands in many communities

for additional services, there are tens of thousands of kids who will be

utilizing after-school care in about half an hour’s time, on our time

zone, right across the province.

D. Davies: Great. Thanks for that.

In regards to transparency, of course school districts having to

report revenues and such, what if there is a profit generated by the

school board through whatever…? Certainly, early on in this program,

it’s going to be new and such. Are those profits, then, going to have to

be turned over to the ministry, or will the school board be able to

decide where those funds go?

Hon. R. Fleming: Just to be clear, the intent of the legislation is to ensure that

boards are able to charge adequate fees to cover their costs and ensure

that the provision of child care is, in fact, not a profit-making

venture. So they would have to report, as I mentioned earlier, what fees

or revenues they collect and what expenditures are associated and offset

the fees that they collect from the parents.

[3:40 p.m.]

D. Davies: Okay, just to clarify, then. If there is additional revenue left

over, the school boards then would be allowed to utilize those funds as

they see fit?

Hon. R. Fleming: I think the answer to the question that the member asked is in the

legislation before him,

section 15, where the School Act amendment to

section 85.2(2) inserts new text into the act. It directly provides

clarity in law to the point that I think the member is trying to make.

I’ll just quote it. “If a board provides a child care program referred

to in subsection (1), the board may charge fees to a student to whom the

child care program is provided if the fees are not more than the direct

costs incurred and to be incurred by the board in providing that child

care program.”

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister. That does make sense, but it kind of opens up

the question, then, if school boards deem appropriate. There is a best

guess, I guess. When they look at the cost of heating the building and

the cost of staff, those other costs, then they will come up with a fee.

They’re not going to back-charge a year of fees. It’s obviously going to

be upfront.

I’m just curious to see…. We could be in a situation where there

could be profits made. I wouldn’t say significant, but…. I guess my

question still remains. Deemed appropriate. Is there a limit on what’s

deemed appropriate? If there is a show of profits in regards to

delivering the before- and after-school care, what is done with those?

Is the school district then able to just utilize those as they see fit,

within making the improvements around the school care program? I just

want to get clarification on that.

Hon. R. Fleming: Well, just a general comment. I think we have a long experience

that gives us a lot of faith in school districts to follow the law. The

School Act has a very sophisticated number of clauses that contemplate

how a public expenditure is both used and reported. For example, the

member will know that deficits are illegal in school districts, and

districts rarely miss on that projection.

What I would say, in the hypothetical situation that the member

presents, is that if a district slightly overcharges its calculation of

fees — for example, maybe it has more kids, and more fees are collected

as it relates to the staff ratios or those sorts of things — those would

become retained earnings, and they be would reinvested back into the

program.

[3:45 p.m.]

The school district, as I mentioned earlier, has to report out on

the program’s revenues and expenses, and transparently so, to parents

and others. The expectation and, in fact, the law, should this bill

pass, will oblige them to do just that.

D. Davies: Great. Thanks. That helps clarify the question.

Previously, under the current system, boards would basically have

a provider, a contract that would come in and provide a service that was

licensed. I’m just wondering now if these new programs that are offered

by school districts are now to be licensed under the regular licencing

act through the Ministry of Health as well.

Hon. R. Fleming: Yes.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister, for that. With these now being recognized as

child care programs that are running within school districts, would they

then be eligible to apply, through provincial care programs that right

now providers can apply for, for grants and additional funding and

programming?

Hon. R. Fleming: Yeah. I think, if the member is referring to things like the

Ministry of Children and Family Development’s new spaces fund, the

answer is yes.

D. Davies: Does this not seem like a double subsidy, then, definitely, for

school districts? I’m just wondering. It seems like it’s already a

provincial asset, and now the province can apply for a grant from the

province. I’m just wondering if that has been taken into account and

what the minister’s thoughts are on that.

Hon. R. Fleming: I want to be discerning about operating fund programs that the

member may be referencing and capital funds that I referenced in my last

answer to his question. Where a school district may now want to apply as

a licensed child care operator for an MCFD capital grant to buy a

modular space or refit a classroom, the school district would be able to

do that in exactly the same way that other providers currently can, and

they would have to meet the same criteria. Then that would become an

asset specifically for child care purposes.

You could get the situation where that space, which would be used

for an early childhood education or preschool program between the hours

of 9 and 3 p.m., let’s say, could otherwise be available to a

district-administered early and after-school care program. But that

wouldn’t be double-dipping for an additional subsidy. That would be

taking an asset paid for by the province and maximizing the hours of its

use by having two programs in a space that was originally assigned for

one program. So it would be an efficiency, if I can put it that

way.

[3:50 p.m.]

D. Davies: We’ve already established that the school boards will now be

recognized and licensed under the Ministry of Health and the health

authority. Now, this might be a loaded question. I assume it would be

required to meet all the regular requirements. But will it be required

to meet all the exact same requirements as the child care programs —

staffing ratios and everything else? Would that be required?

Hon. R. Fleming: Well, the answer to the member’s question is that the regulations

that currently exist…. They have different staffing ratios depending on

the age of the child. The ones that are issued…. The licensing would be

the same regime for a school-based, district-administered before- and

after-school care program as it would be currently for a not-for-profit

or community partner model.

D. Davies: Has the minister taken into consideration, regarding…?

This is now government competing in a free market, and it does run

the risk…. I know in my riding, there already is a challenge to have

spaces, a challenge to get ECE folks. With poaching already rampant in

regard to taking employees and such, I see there being a problem with

the private care providers. As you move over here into the school

districts and you provide some seats, we run the jeopardy of having

maybe private operators close.

I’m just wondering if the minister and the ministry itself have

taken that into consideration and what preventative measures have been

put in place to stop this poaching of ECE workers and this direct

competition with the private sector.

Hon. R. Fleming: I would say, as a general comment, we’ve consulted widely with the

child care community, including a very well-attended early learning

summit that was hosted by the Ministry of Education in partnership with

MCFD and, in fact, the Minister of State for Child Care, and we didn’t

hear any such concerns. I don’t think that the boys and girls club is

concerned that the member’s school district in Peace River North could

be in competition with one another. I think what we’re seeing is that

they’re complementary, not in competition with one another.

Parents will be able to choose which service they want. School

districts will be able to choose whether they wish to offer these

programs or not. We are not seeking to push a particular model on them.

They may wish to continue the partnerships they have. They may wish to

begin their own operations. They may wish to have both, depending on

which part of the community they’re representing.

I think actually contrary to what the member has suggested, there

are some school districts who may wish to enter into a relationship

where they are the direct licence holder and provider of before- and

after-school care, where they see this as an advantage to retaining

their own staff currently. I’m speaking specifically to educational

assistants, who often do not have full-time hours. They would obviously

be the workforce they may wish to look to, to work a longer day, often

with the same kids, it would be, either in a before- or after-school

care setting.

We’ll let the field, the school districts, look at those things.

What we’ve committed to as a government is to enable this to happen, to

bring clarity to the School Act, to not have barriers and impediments to

these kinds of organic developments that might be the right fit for

their community. That’s what this legislation does.

D. Davies: Thank you for that. Since this bill was introduced, I have reached

out to some of the private daycares. There is some concern, I know, in

some of the rural places I’ve reached out to, regarding feeling that

there could be an unfair advantage with the private sector.

You had mentioned a moment ago about consulting widely, the summit

and such. Can the minister take a moment to explain what the

consultation process did in fact look like, who it included? Was it

urban versus rural? Both, I presume. Did they look at far north,

northeast, northwest? If the minister could provide the House with kind

of a snapshot of what that consultation looked like.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Maybe just to go back to the member’s previous question. He was

concerned about competition, I think he said, with private child care

operators.

I think you need to understand that when we’re talking about

before- and after-school care, we’re talking about five- to

12-year-olds. These are children who attend school between the school

hours of a given district. I don’t know of many private operators that

have businesses that operate for two or 2½ hours a day strictly as

before- and after-school care providers, so I don’t think there is a

situation where there’s any competition at all.

The member will know that the reality is that there’s significant

demand for before- and after-school care and child care, more generally,

in communities right around British Columbia. We need to be able to

build capacity.

The intent of this bill is to allow districts — not to force them

— should they wish, to address the wait-lists and expand the child care

opportunities that they may already be providing or to provide it for

the first time. They can now do this. They can, in fact, become the

licence holder if they want to move beyond just having a landlord-tenant

relationship with the community providers that they may currently house

in their school or in facilities that are on the school

ground.

They can use the rest of the school or portions of the school

facilities that already exist that generally lock their doors at 3:05 in

the afternoon. They can use it for a longer period of the day to provide

a different program for the convenience of families who are looking for

this.

Speaking of the advantages of what we’re trying to do here, the

points that the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale made at second

reading debate are not insignificant — to reduce some of the

transportation and stress to families that comes with multiple drop-off

and pickup locations, often with multiple siblings. You can have them

involved in the same school community now. That has an advantage to all

kinds of things for the community around reducing congestion during the

peak periods, both in the morning and in the afternoon.

This is about helping parents be able to keep jobs that, quite

frankly, don’t allow flexibility to leave work early or arrive late.

This is about extending the hours that more accurately align with what

are typical employment terms for most British Columbians in their

workday.

D. Davies: Thanks for that. Appreciate it. I don’t think you got to my second

question, about explaining to the House the consultation

process.

Hon. R. Fleming: Quite correct. Let me address that part of the question from the

member.

On and off, there have been conversations for years and years and

years about how schools can be more integrated and involved in early

childhood education.

[4:00 p.m.]

I would go to our government’s larger vision. To promote student

success in K-to-12 education, we need to make additional resources into

early childhood education. That’s why we’re investing $1.1 billion over

the next three years in child care services. That’s why we’ve created

tens of thousands of spaces already, many of which are on school

grounds. I think it’s over 3,000, just in the last couple of years, of

new, high-quality early childhood education spaces.

Now we want to help alleviate the child care situation for parents

whose kids who are little bit older, between five and 12. The

consultation, therefore, has been going on for some time. We have worked

very closely with the B.C. School Trustees Association, who were

consulted on this legislation and consulted long before the legislation

about how we might be able to respond to demand and how we might be able

to use the school communities to meet the needs of families that they

serve — yes for educational instruction but more for the life of the

family more broadly in their community.

We have consulted specifically with the First Nations Education

Steering Committee, Métis Nation B.C. and the entire child care

community. Of course, we capped that off with the Early Learning Summit

that had representatives from all 60 school districts invited to it. We

have regularly liaised with the B.C. School Trustees Association

some of the ideas that have been generated during the consultation

engagements. It has resulted in the legislative package that’s for

consideration before the Legislature today.

D. Davies: I think I have a question later on, but I’ll save it till

then.

With the new employees, the ECE instructors that will be required

under the school district program, will they be required, then, to be in

a union of some sort?

Hon. R. Fleming: I would say this. I’ve been consulting about this legislation.

It’s most likely based on the indication of what school districts have

told us. Many of them will retain the current partnership model they

have with third parties, which may or may not be represented by a union.

I’m not sure we have statistics on that. But those community

organizations are likely to be able to expand provision of services if

that’s the direction the district wants to go.

[4:05 p.m.]

I want to stress this: it’s up to school districts to decide. And

if they do want to directly license their own in-house before- and

after-school operations, one would think that it would raise questions

around who the workforce is and how they will staff that model as an

employer. They would likely look to their existing employee

groups.

I mentioned earlier this afternoon, in debate, that it may be that

some districts — and I’ve certainly heard this anecdotally — would look

to solve an underemployment problem they have with educational

assistants by perhaps involving them in the provision of a new program

of before- and after-school care, which would be great. It would help

solve two problems at once: the retention issue they have with

educational assistants and the parent wait-lists for before- and

after-school care that are irksome to families and the

communities.

I think another aspect of the member’s question was around who

would staff these operations. I mentioned that the child care licensing

regulations will be the exact same, whether it’s a district-run program

or a third-party program.

It’s very specific in the licensing regulation who can and cannot

oversee the provision of those kinds of services. It defines a

responsible adult as a person who is at least 19 years of age, able to

provide care and mature guidance to children, has completed a course or

a combination of courses in child development, child guidance, health

and safety, nutrition and has relevant work experience.

D. Davies: Thanks, Minister. I just want to confirm that it will be up to the

school districts, then, if they wish to unionize their child care

workers or not. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Fleming: The short answer is yes. It’ll be up to the school district, and

I’m sure they have contractual relationships and other obligations, as

an employer, to talk to all employee groups if they’re represented by a

union today. I imagine in that situation, the employer will engage with

unions if they are certified at a school. But this legislation before us

is not prescriptive on the question that the member asks.

D. Davies: Obviously, one can see that providing non-unionized employees

within the union work environment would be unique, so it will be

interesting to see how that moves forward. That moves into the next

question, then.

In the event of job action that might happen within a school,

whether that’s teachers or support staff, would there be provisions

then? Could there be or are there provisions, I guess, that have been

looked at in regards to this? And what would happen with the before- and

after-school care programs? I’m saying this could all of a sudden, in a

quick hurry, leave a lot of people without child care in this

model.

Hon. R. Fleming: I think the answer to the member’s question is that this

legislation touches or changes in no way the labour code that governs

what a work stoppage looks like and what the parameters of a work

stoppage, if it were at a school or any other workplace, would involve

in terms of the use of a property that’s behind a legal job

action.

D. Davies: Okay. Just another question around, I guess, if this could mean….

We’ve got quite a few portables already throughout the province in

different school districts — some worse than others, obviously. Could

this mean more portables that may remain on school grounds with this

before- and after-school care coming into place?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Again I go back to a previous answer where I characterized what

this is going to do and why this is, potentially, a game-changer for the

school system. It allows them to be directly involved in maximizing the

space that they already have.

This isn’t about adding portables, per se. That space could

already be in portables, or it could be in a school building. It’s

really about expanding the hours beyond 8:40 to three o’clock — before

school, after school. Where we have early childhood education programs

or preschools that are run by third parties, it could be about adding

yet another program provider — before- and after-school care. This is

about drawing the school district community in to help us, as a

government, work with parents to create more before- and after-school

child care spaces, because we know there is demand, using a greater

portion of the building, perhaps.

In some instances, where the district, if they’re merely in a

landlord-tenant relationship with a third party, became a direct

provider themselves, they might a little bit feel more comfortable using

atriums and libraries and other school spaces that typically get locked

up shortly after three o’clock and use them for a longer period of the

day. That would be great. We expect to see a lot of that. It’ll allow us

to deliver enhanced child care spaces and reduce those wait-lists much

more quickly than waiting for something to be built.

I think that’s really…. For the member’s benefit, one of the main

intents of this legislation is to allow districts to see themselves as

having a greater stake in the provision of these services — they’ve

become somewhat of a community standard and expectation — and be able to

use the facilities that the taxpayer has already built in the community

and use it for longer hours than, as I said, between 8:40 and three

o’clock.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister, for that. I certainly understand maximizing

the use of a public building. It makes a lot of sense.

Just to follow up a little bit on the portables. I guess the

scenario that could play out is…. Many school districts — I’ll use

Surrey as an example — are in dire need of working toward removing

portables. We start seeing other school districts where they, for

whatever reason, have made more room or there’s been an expansion,

maybe, on the school or loss of students — the numbers have gone down —

and they don’t require a portable on that site. Would there be…? Now

we’ve got a portable that’s empty on a school district piece of

land.

Would school districts be encouraged to either, “Hey, let’s get

rid of the portable,” or now that we’ve opened up space, even though

it’s in a portable, would that…? That’s an opportunity to put a child

care space in there, or child care spaces.

Is there going to be encouragement from the ministry to continue

with removing portables, or are we going to start seeing our portables

on our schools now becoming before- and after-school care

programs?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: I think the member is asking me to go down a whole bunch of

hypothetical, very granular situations. The short answer is that the

school district will retain a huge degree of autonomy for what they want

to do.

I think, in the scenario that he just described, it would be up to

the district to decide what they wanted to do. In a situation where they

had, I think, in his example, fewer students, less enrolment, and

therefore a surplus portable, whether they wanted to engage with an

early childhood education provider in addition to before- and

after-school care would be up to the district to do that.

What we don’t want to see — and, I think, is a stronger outcome of

this legislation in terms of our public policy goals — is child care

spaces evicted that have been paid for, with the funds of government,

specifically to become child care. The school districts understand that.

We have a very strong partnership and agreement with them on

that.

I would go back to my earlier answers about the intent of this

legislation. It’s about maximizing the efficient use of existing space.

We’re only talking a few hours here — that align with their parents’

hours at work, before school and after school.

D. Davies: I appreciate that. It sounds like a lot of this will be placed on

the school district on how they want to see it best benefit their

communities, which is good.

Just a couple of quick follow-up questions just to get on the

record and to clear some things up. Would it then be up to the school

districts, or are there some limiting pieces of this legislation that

require how long they could possibly provide daycare or after-school

care? Could they go to nine o’clock at night, or would that still,

again, be up to the individual school districts to decide

that?

A second question would be: what things are in place regarding…?

Coming out of the system myself as a school teacher, the classroom that

I was in — that was my classroom. I spent a lot of time setting the

classroom up. It’s my office space. I’m just curious as to what it looks

like as school districts now are opening up the schools to provide

after-school care and utilizing maximum space of the school. I suspect

there’s going to be, probably, a little bit of conflict that’s going to

come from, you know, “What do you mean you want to use the classroom?”

and what that’s going to look like.

I’m just wondering if the minister has a way to deal with some of

these things. Is that, again, going to be thrown back to a union issue

that’ll need to be dealt with, or is that going to be up to the school

principal to deal with?

Hon. R. Fleming: The hours of operation would be a board operating decision. They

would decide whether they wish to have it past 6 p.m. Then it would be

subject to the licensing regulations, so they would have to have that

inspected and signed off. I think that’s the best answer I can give him,

and that’s current practice in the sector.

In terms of whether a teacher might not like to have their

classroom used before and after school, it’s going to be up to school

districts to lead those kinds of discussions in school communities. We

trust them to do that on virtually everything to do with their facility

management today.

[4:20 p.m.]

It’ll be no different after this enabling legislation allows them

to pursue the discussions and the local policies on those sorts of

things. I’m sure there will be some teachers who don’t want their things

disturbed at all, and there will be other teachers that would welcome it

because they’re currently using the classroom space in a manner

identical or similar to the one that we’ve been describing this

afternoon.

I think the most important thing, though, is to give districts the

time to figure those kinds of operating decisions out. We trust them to

do that in so many instances on so many parts of the scheduled day that

happen each and every day in our school system.

Section 15 approved.

section 16.

D. Davies: Just a few questions on

section 16 here. First question: I’m just

wondering what initiated the minister’s decision to remove reference to

the learning improvement fund from this existing legislation.

Hon. R. Fleming: I would describe this as a housekeeping amendment that the

legislative drafters flagged for government. It refers to, in

legislation, in law, a fund that is defunct and no longer exists. The

member might recall that the reason why it doesn’t exist was outlined on

March 3, 2017, in a memorandum of agreement that was signed by the

then government of the day with the B.C. Public School Employers

Association that transferred the learning improvement fund into the

classroom enhancement fund. That was about $80 million at the

time.

I would add that the classroom enhancement fund is now in excess

of $400 million annually, so the learning improvement fund has been

substantially overshadowed by the classroom enhancement fund in terms of

the funding it provides to the school system. There is no LIF anymore.

LIF has become CEF. It’s a good idea to not have, in your statutes,

references to things that don’t exist anymore.

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister. I’m not sure if I missed it quickly. The

classroom enhancement fund. How much is the funding for that fund

now?

Hon. R. Fleming: The classroom enhancement fund is currently approximately $465

million per annum.

Section 16 approved.

section 17.

D. Davies: Regarding

section 17, another consultation question. Can the

minister identify and explain to the House who he consulted with and

what the consultation process looked like regarding his position on the

board surpluses?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for his question. The genesis of this

discussion that led to this section, I should say, of the legislation

goes back some time. These have been active discussions in government

with sector partners for many years. The member might recall there was a

financial health working group that was struck in 2016 under the

previous government that looked at the issue around reserves and reserve

policies on the use of what are accumulated surplus funds from the

operating grants of the Ministry of Education.

Then there was a funding model review, which looked at the

entirety of how public education is funded in British Columbia. It

delivered 22 recommendations. It had 350 to 360 submissions from all the

sector partners. All 60 school districts participated in that funding

model review. Of the 22 recommendations, the one that reflects

section

17 of this bill most closely is recommendation No. 20 of that

report.

The member will recall that we have sought to implement the

recommendations through two phases. The financial management one was

something that all the stakeholders agreed should be pursued

immediately, at the first opportunity.

Just to give the member an idea of who has been involved in the

financial model review, as well as the financial management working

group, which was one of the four working groups that flowed out of that

review, we have the B.C. association of school board officials; B.C.

Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils; B.C. Council of

Administrators of Inclusive Support in Education; Distributed Learning

Administrators Association; Principals and Vice-Principals Association;

B.C. School District Continuing Education Directors Association; B.C.

School Superintendents Association; B.C. School Trustees Association;

B.C. Teachers Federation; BCEdAccess, which is a special needs parent

advocacy organization; Canadian Union of Public Employees B.C.; the

B.C.; the First Nations Education Steering Committee; Inclusion B.C.;

Métis Nation B.C.; and the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and

Training.

The Office of the Auditor General was involved. The Representative

for Children and Youth and the Rural Education Advisory Committee were

part of the funding model review. Many of those partners directly sat at

the financial management working group.

D. Davies: Great. Thank you, Minister, for that. Does this enable the

minister to require school boards to spend the existing reserve prior to

spending funds allocated by the ministry in that current

year?

Hon. R. Fleming: The answer to the member is that this enables the Minister of

Education, whomever that may be, to consult and develop policies with

the school sector and set out what those policies look like,

understanding that they’ll look different in different parts of the

province. And to make that development or co-development of what the

policies will look like on the use of reserves, we developed a

memorandum of agreement between both the Ministry of Education and the

B.C. School Trustees Association that establishes a protocol for school

district reserves.

[4:30 p.m.]

We have the support of the B.C. School Trustees Association in

this work. They understand what the intent of the legislation is.

There’s no confusion about that. We also have a comprehensive agreement

that outlines how we will consult them and by what deadlines.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

D. Davies: Just on your last comment there, Minister. This enables the

ministry to consult to develop policies with school districts in how

they can use the reserves? I was understanding that. From what I

understand, they cannot keep the reserves. So they can indeed keep

reserves, as long as they develop policies around spending

them.

I know there are a number of school districts that already have

policies in place in dealing with moneys left over, if there are some —

to special projects and such. For school districts that already have

these in place, are they okay, then? Or is this around maybe some of the

school districts…? I’m not sure, all school districts, if they have

policies in place. Is this just allowing the ministry, then, to go out

to these school districts and develop policy?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. R. Fleming: Chair, thank you very much. Good to see you.

Let me address the member’s last question maybe by just quoting

from the memorandum of agreement that is going to outline the process we

use to determine some the policies around reserves, which, right now,

are under-sophisticated, if I can put it that way.

In terms of the purpose of the memorandum we have with the B.C.

School Trustees Association, I will quote from this document.

“The purpose of this memorandum is to outline how the B.C. School

Trustees Association and the Ministry of Education will work together to

co-develop a provincial protocol for school district financial reserves

in a manner that is consistent with the Auditor General report on school

district budgeting and expenditure” — it’s 2016, for the member’s

reference, that report — “the Financial Health Working Group report of

2017” — under the previous government, I would add — “and the financial

management working group recommendations regarding the funding model

review panel recommendations, 2019, as well as recognized best

practices.”

I know that the member will know that the reserves, which are

really operating dollars meant for student services and supports, go

unspent at the end of each year. In some districts, they’re

accumulating, and too much so. We have some districts that have reserves

that are 145 percent of what their annual operating budget is. That’s

really, really significant. But we also have some districts where their

reserves are way too low, some districts with only 1 percent cash on

hand in reserve of what their annual operating budget is.

What we have signed with the B.C. School Trustees Association is

an agreement to come to a set of policies that make sense, that avoid

the problem of having too much in reserve and too little, that keeps the

school districts financially healthy and keeps the dollars that were

originally intended for classroom investments used for an education

purpose that is wise and beneficial to that school district in the

community.

[4:35 p.m.]

D. Davies: Just looking at the Auditor General’s report, best practices, it

all sounds good. I recognize some districts probably are doing this

really good already, and some maybe are not. I guess it comes down to

the school districts that have worked very hard. I know a number of the

school districts that work really hard to make sure that the books are

in order and they’re doing the best they can with the moneys that they

receive from the government.

I can’t help but think that as this policy comes forward — this

change in allowing school districts to have some autonomy over, control

of, their surpluses and how they’re used — this seems like a control

measure that the ministry is taking over. I just want to clarify, then,

if that is the case — and it looks like it from within this bill — that

anything districts do have, whether it’s from operating or otherwise, as

far as a reserve, they have to seek the ministry’s permission to decide

what to do. If the minister can clarify that.

Hon. R. Fleming: In terms of answering the member’s question, I would suggest that

those districts that do manage their reserves well and manage to spend

the annual allocation from the Ministry of Education on student services

will probably see no change. In fact, I’m certain of that, because they

will continue to be able to do that.

The changes that are contemplated are yet to be decided. They will

be done not through prescriptive, unworkable legislation, potentially,

where you try to guess what the right policy should be. They will be

co-developed, instead, with the B.C. School Trustees Association to land

at practical, realistic and fair sets of, for example, reserve fund

policies.

The current problem that has been described over and over again to

the previous government and to this government, indeed by the

independent officer of this Legislative Assembly responsible for

monitoring and overseeing public expenditure, is that the absence of

policies is a problem. We need to fill that vacuum with good policies so

that we avoid the situation I described to the member

earlier.

If we have school districts underspending the funding for

classroom learning supports, teachers and the provision of programs in

their district — in other words, the money intended for kids is instead

going into a bank account and piling up and accumulating at too high of

a rate — that’s a problem. That’s not what it was intended for.

Similarly, we want to work with districts that are too light in terms of

their fiscal planning on having some level of reserve to buffet them

when they might need it or to plan and pay for local improvements they

might want to pursue autonomously.

Again, I’ll go back to this memorandum of agreement document with

the B.C. School Trustees Association, because we have already agreed on

what the consultation looks like and what the set of principles are,

what the problem we were trying to solve together is. Let me just quote

from this document. “The parties agree that system resources should be

focused to the greatest extent possible on programs and services to

students, with a focus on improving student achievement.” That’s the

first principle that we’ve agreed to.

[4:40 p.m.]

“We agree that there is a shared responsibility for establishing

purpose, transparency and accountability for the use of all resources to

support student achievement.” That’s something that the member has

undoubtedly heard from parent advocates. That’s something that school

districts have said they’re not afraid of. They want to be able to do

that as well. In fact, that’s why they’re embracing the strategic plans

that are now required of them by government to be more accountable and

transparent to their constituents.

Another principle that we’ve agreed on is that the boards will

maintain the ability to establish financial reserves, noting that they

should be adequate to meet identified needs and utilized as per their

strategic plans.

Finally, we have already agreed on this principle, that boards

will maintain their ability to set local programming and spending

priorities in alignment with their strategic plans. In other words, this

is not the ministry attempt to u