Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, May 27, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 262

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

Jack Doan

M. Stilwell

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Alex Ewashen

Hon. M. Mungall

Brandon Bassi

R. Kahlon

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Brandon Bassi

Hon. H. Bains

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill M218 — Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Protection Act

A. Weaver

Bill M219 — Adoption Amendment Act, 2019

D. Barnett

Bill M220 — Homeowner Protection Amendment Act,

L. Throness

Bill M221 — Preserving Brunswick Point for

Agriculture and Migrating Waterfowl Habitat Act

I. Paton

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

disabilities

M. Elmore

Prince George Spruce Kings

S. Bond

Tourism industry

R. Singh

Richmond Caring Place

L. Reid

Comox Valley Ground Search and Rescue

R. Leonard

Child care providers

L. Throness

Oral Questions

Action on gas prices and court case on transport of

diluted bitumen

A. Wilkinson

Hon. G. Heyman

Action on gas prices and B.C. Utilities Commission

inquiry

A. Wilkinson

Hon. G. Heyman

T. Stone

Government approach to teachers’ collective

bargaining

A. Weaver

Hon. R. Fleming

Government response to allegations regarding

Citizens’ Services Minister

S. Bond

Hon. J. Sims

Communication practices of Citizens’ Services

Minister

M. Polak

Hon. J. Sims

Tabling Documents

WorkSafeBC, 2018 annual report and 2019–2021 service plan

Orders of the Day

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Heritage Conservation Amendment Act,

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 8 — Employment Standards Amendment Act,

J. Martin

Hon. H. Bains

J. Thornthwaite

M. Bernier

S. Bond

T. Stone

I. Paton

A. Olsen

S. Chandra Herbert

Point of Privilege (Reservation of

Right)

R. Chouhan

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 8 — Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2019

(continued)

M. Bernier

Point of Privilege (Reservation of

Right)

M. Bernier

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 8 — Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2019

(continued)

M. Bernier

Hon. H. Bains

S. Bond

J. Thornthwaite

J. Martin

Personal Statements

Clarification of comments made in the

House

I. Paton

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 8 — Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2019

(continued)

J. Martin

Hon. H. Bains

S. Cadieux

A. Weaver

Reporting of Bills

Bill 28 — Zero-Emission Vehicles Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 8 — Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2019

(continued)

J. Martin

Hon. H. Bains

Reporting of Bills

Bill 8 — Employment Standards Amendment Act,

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 15 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment

Act, 2019

L. Larson

Hon. L. Popham

M. de Jong

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 28 — Zero-Emission Vehicles Act

Hon. M. Mungall

P. Milobar

Bill 22 — Forest Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. D. Donaldson

J. Rustad

S. Bond

C. Oakes

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General

(continued)

J. Yap

Hon. D. Eby

T. Shypitka

D. Barnett

D. Ashton

S. Thomson

J. Thornthwaite

M. Lee

MONDAY, MAY 27, 2019

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

J. Yap: All members know of the very good work that Rotarians do around the

world, and certainly here in British Columbia, through their Rotary Clubs.

They’re in every community represented here in this House.

I’m delighted to welcome to this House a group of visiting Rotarians.

There’s a group from the Lower Mainland that are part of the Rotary

Friendship Exchange team from district 5040. There’s also a group from the

Philippines, who are visiting here for the Rotary Friendship Exchange from

district 3810 of Rotary.

With us today from the greater Vancouver area, including my community

and my riding of Richmond, are Elena Agala, Davinder Grewal, Bridget Jacob,

Elizabeth Scott, Joyce Alisharan, Kathy Moir, Ajit Thandi, Lorna Simms.

Also, visiting from the Philippines, some for the very first time to Canada,

are the following Rotarians: past district governor and team leader Josie

Ang, assistant team leader Eric Co, Mylene Co, Mark Co, Aida Go, Leslie

Rivera, Emily Sy, Ruby Bairan and Armie de Castro. Would the House please

offer a warm welcome to these Rotarians.

L. Reid: I have the absolute privilege to talk about an organization that only

brings joy into the lives of British Columbians and Albertans today. It’s

the B.C. and Alberta Guide Dogs. We’re joined by Bill Thornton, the CEO;

Mike Annan, who leads the Vancouver Island Compassion Dogs, which is now a

division of B.C. and Alberta Guide Dogs; and Cathy Nidoski, who’s the

development officer. I’d ask the House to please make them very, very

welcome.

Hon. A. Dix: You know, of course, that in an emergency, every second counts and

that paramedics face challenging situations every day, not only providing

amazing care in times of emergency but are important parts of our community

care system, highly trained and skilled.

This week is Paramedic Services Week, May 26 to June 2. I want

to introduce paramedics in the gallery with us today: Jon Deakin, Scott

Swake, Anna Stefuk, Paula McTaggart, Brad Cameron and the communication

representative, Kathryn Alverson. I know everyone in the House will want to

wish all these amazing ambulance paramedics welcome.

R. Coleman: Joining us in the precinct today are 27 grade 6 students and 13 adults

from Topham Elementary School, along with their contact, Ms. Allison Black.

They will be in the gallery somewhere around 2:10 p.m., so be on your best

behaviour for the latter half of question period. Would the House please

make them welcome.

Hon. K. Chen: I’m very, very thankful to have the opportunity to introduce two very

special people in my life: my husband, Sky, and my five-year-old son, Yoann,

who are joining us for question period today.

I know many, many members in this House work very hard and are

dedicated to the work we do. In order to do the important work we do here,

sometimes we sacrifice a lot of time away from our family and loved

ones.

During the past two years, I’ve been really, really thankful — and

thanks to my husband, especially — that they’ve been travelling back and

forth, between Burnaby and Victoria, with me. But this is going to be their

last week to do this regular travel. My son is going to go to kindergarten

in September, which is really exciting. It also means that I’m going to miss

him, not being able to see him ride his scooter around the Legislature,

popping up outside of my office window. Also, my husband’s homemade lunch

won’t be available anymore. And they’re probably going to miss the ferry

ride home with my Surrey and North Delta colleagues every Thursday after

work.

I want to really take this opportunity to thank them for supporting

the work I do every single day. I love you so much. Welcome. I hope all the

members will make them very welcome, and hopefully, my five-year-old will

behave during question period.

Tributes

JACK DOAN

M. Stilwell: It’s with a heavy heart today that I share the news of the passing

of a devoted volunteer and dear friend, Jack Doan. Jack passed away on

May 16 at the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital after a short battle

with pancreatic cancer.

Jack created many lifelong friendships and acquaintances through

his worklife as a welding instructor and dean of vocational programs at

Malaspina University College as well as his participation in sports as a

competitive curler, an avid golfer and his volunteer work. He devoted

more than 20 years as an active member and volunteer with the B.C.

Liberal Party, serving as a regional organizer for many of those years,

assisting ridings in the north Island region.

Jack was actually the first person I met who officially talked to

me about what my life in politics would be like. Jack went on to be my

campaign manager, my riding president and the dearest of

friends.

[1:40 p.m.]

He was supportive of all things positive, a family man and a

thoughtful and caring friend. He believed in community and giving folks

a hand up.

I hope that the House will join me in passing on condolences to

his wife, Jean, his children and his grandchildren. He was truly one of

a kind, and he will be greatly missed and fondly remembered by all those

who knew him.

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. Eby: Joining us today is Mark Stockbrocks. He’s a really neat guy that’s

event out on the front lawn. He’s from Vancouver–Point Grey.

In his non-profit, he visits local businesses, and he has two

stickers. One is “Access hero,” and one is the sticker you wouldn’t want,

which is “Access zero.” His approach in engaging businesses around

goes.

I wonder if the House would join me, first of all, in welcoming him

but also congratulating him for his work on behalf of all people with

disabilities.

J. Thornthwaite: I have some special guests I’d like to welcome to the Legislature on

behalf, also, of my colleagues from Columbia River–Revelstoke,

Parksville-Qualicum as well as Surrey–White Rock. They will be meeting with

them later. From the Canadian Media Producers Association are Liz Shorten,

who’s the senior vice-president of operations and member services; Joely

Collins, who is branch council member and founder of Million Faces

Productions; and Kim Roberts, who’s also a branch council member and

producer at Sepia Films. Could the House make them welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: I see a friend up in the gallery today. He’s rather subdued, I must

say. His purple-sequined suit — really, I’ve never seen something so drab.

No, just kidding.

I want to welcome Yogi Omar to the House. He’s here with a group of

sorts of different ways. He works in the film industry, providing talent to

all those folks who need talent. I just want to welcome him and everyone

else here today.

Hon. C. James: I have two guests in the gallery today. The first is Caitlin Croteau.

I knew Caitlin as a volunteer extraordinaire, but she’s also very active in

the arts community here in Victoria. She has a friend with her today, Jack

Hayes, who is visiting from Toronto but originally from Ten Mile Point.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

Tributes

ALEX EWASHEN

Hon. M. Mungall: Well, Creston lost one of its great citizens on May 20. At the age

of 87 years old, Alex Ewashen passed away. Along with his wonderful

wife, Julie, and his large family, Creston and all of the Kootenays will

be mourning this very happy and vibrant man.

He was born to a Doukhobor family on a farm in Nanton, Alberta.

Alex was a long-time auctioneer and business person who worked with

people throughout the Kootenays after he and Julie settled in

Creston.

He eventually wrote and published his memoirs for his

grandchildren, titled Rags to Riches…My Way . One of his most

wonderful stories and experiences, as told in the book, was joining a

peace caravan in 1984 that travelled 50,000 kilometres throughout

Western Europe and the communist bloc.

Over the past 11 years, I got to know Alex through his political

activism, and everyone in Creston agrees that Alex knew the best spots

for campaign signs and was always the first to get there. He also taught

me many good auctioneering tips as we sold homemade pies for many good

causes.

He is going to be very, very missed. I ask that the House join me

in sending condolences to his family.

BRANDON BASSI

R. Kahlon: I, too, rise on a sad note. A few days ago we lost a young man in

our community of North Delta, a young man named Brandon Bassi, age of 19

years old. He passed away in a single-car accident.

Brandon Bassi was a real soccer talent. He graduated from North

Delta just last year, a basketball champion. He got a full scholarship

for soccer at SFU. Just last week he had won the provincial

championships with his Coastal FC club, and he passed away in a car

accident.

The community, the family, everyone is quite shook up about the

passing of Brandon. The Whitecaps posted a message. Soccer Canada and

SFU have all been sharing their condolences.

I ask that the House please join me in sending condolences to the

Bassi family.

[1:45 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

S. Malcolmson: On a happier note, I’m glad to have two leaders from Vancouver Island

joining me in the House, shadowing my work today, Ella Van Horne and Sophie

Steele.

Both are involved in student council and the ME to WE movement in

their high school. They’re now both heading to university in the fall, one

in environmental science, hoping to be involved in protecting our marine

environment, and the other to Guelph for a bachelor of commerce, hoping to

be involved in public service and possibly in the law.

I particularly want to recognize Ella Van Horne as a recipient of

Zonta’s Young Women in Public Affairs Award. That is a Nanaimo organization

that is supporting young women moving into higher education.

Also in the gallery is my friend Janina Stajic from the central

Vancouver Island

chapter of Equal Voice, a group committed to seeing more

women occupy the seats of legislatures and parliaments like this. It’s due

to Equal Voice’s work that I have two present and future leaders shadowing

me today in the House.

Would the House please make them welcome.

Tributes

BRANDON BASSI

Hon. H. Bains: I also would like to add my voice to the member for Delta North’s.

I had the opportunity to meet with Brandon and his older brother

Derrick, who is a star in his own right. A huge loss to sports fans,

especially to the soccer community. Brandon was, in a true sense, a hero

and a role model for many younger people coming behind him.

He went in a very untimely fashion, and his parents are

devastated. The whole community is devastated. I think that after

helping win provincials, he was on to the nationals, as was mentioned,

and many, many, young stars looked up to Brandon. I just want to say

that people like Brandon come only once in a while. He was a rising

star, and he will be sorely missed in the sports world but also as a

true human being.

I just want to add my voice, and I’m asking the whole House to

join with us. In one voice, we send our deepest condolences to the Bassi

family and hope that they will find the courage to carry on with the

legacy that he left behind so that other stars will follow in his

footsteps and continue to become role models.

I personally would like to say how sorry we are to see such a

rising star leave so early in a single-car accident. It’s hard to find

words to describe the loss of this young man. Beautiful family. They

provide so much support to the community and to the other players. I

just want to say our deepest condolences to the family.

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. Donaldson: Joining us in the gallery today is Christine Anonuevo. She’s the

executive director of the Upper Skeena Development Centre in Hazelton. Very

nice to have a Hazelton person here today. The Upper Skeena Development

Centre works on the local economy, provides employment services and works

towards defining what sustainable employment means for remote, rural

communities and people who live in those communities.

She’s here to meet with the Minister of Social Development and Poverty

Reduction and to take in — what shall we call it? — the proceedings today in

the Legislature. Would the House please join me in making Christine

welcome.

S. Furstenau: I rise to acknowledge and recognize two extraordinary Cowichan Valley

women. First of all, it’s Tricia Datene’s birthday today, the constituency

staff person in my office. She is nothing short of a superhero for the

incredible work she does in Cowichan. I wish her a very happy

birthday.

[1:50 p.m.]

Secondly, in the gallery today, we have Sandy McPherson. I recently

spoke about her, but I’m going to go into a bit more depth. Sandy has worked

on at least a dozen different non-profit organizations and government

committees. She’s been a municipal councillor in Highlands. She puts her

efforts into organizations that work to connect neighbours, support women

and create food security and waste management in Cowichan Valley.

She and her husband, Alan Philip, who is also here today, walk the

talk in sustainable living, having installed energy alternative systems on

their property, from a solar system to heat pumps to a biodigester. And if

that’s not enough, Sandy and Alan have created local investment support

through small loans in the Cowichan Valley to what one of the recipients of

their funding now says must be in the millions of dollars.

Perhaps most significantly, Sandy does this without looking for

recognition, which is why it’s even more special that a few weeks ago she

was one of the 24 recipients of the B.C. Community Achievement Awards,

hosted at Government House by the Lieutenant-Governor of B.C. She was

selected out of 150 applicants across B.C.

I am so proud to know Sandy, to live in a community with her and to

marvel at the extraordinary work that she does to make Cowichan a better

place.

A. Weaver: I have a number of guests in the House today. First, I’d like to

welcome Stuart Cameron, a former head boy from Glenlyon Norfolk School and a

student at UVic. He’s joined, as well, by Andrea Piccinin, who’s a professor

of psychology at the University of Victoria, and her daughter Emma Hofer.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome here today.

I’d also like to thank a few people who are here to support a bill

I’ll be introducing shortly. They are: Nicola Spurling, president of the

Tri-Cities Pride; Christina Winter, chair of the B.C. Green Party equity and

diversity committee; Peter Gajdics, a conversion therapy survivor and author

of the book entitled The Inheritance of Shame .

My friend from Vancouver–West End mentioned Yogi Omar, a queer

activist and vice-president of the Vancouver Men’s Chorus, and LGBTQ2S+

advocates Sabine Möller, Bob Warwick, Matt Watson, Jade Lacosse, Alexa

Powell and Ryan Clayton.

Thank you all for your courage and your tireless advocacy. The work

you do is important, and I am so humbled and honoured to be in your company

today.

I’d also, and finally, like to welcome two federal Green candidates,

David Merner and Racelle Kooy, both of whom are in the gallery

today.

Would the House make all these wonderful people feel

welcome.

A. Olsen: I also would like to make an introduction of a number of young leaders

who are joining us in the House today and who are here in the gallery

somewhere. They’re here to learn about campaigns and to be involved in the

upcoming federal election. They also wanted to see the B.C. Legislature in

action, so they’re here today.

Today in the House we have Elyse Robinson, Kevin Fran­ceschini,

Maddie Turenne, Kiara Nazon, Sara Merner, Samantha Burns, Sierra Harvey,

Karli Mann, Leah Friedman, Emma-Jane Burian and Mackenzie Kerr.

I’m inspired by these young leaders. I had the opportunity to meet

them before lunch. It was a great conversation. Would the House please make

them all feel very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M218 — SEXUAL ORIENTATION

AND GENDER IDENTITY

PROTECTION ACT

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Sexual Orientation and Gender

Identity Protection Act.

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled Sexual Orientation and Gender

Identity Protection Act, of which notice has been given in my name on

the order paper, be now read a first time.

Conversion therapy is an abusive, dangerous practice that must be

banned to protect the safety and health of British Columbians — children

and youth, in particular. This is, fundamentally, an issue of human

rights. Medical and scientific associations, including the American

Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization, condemn the

practice, but it continues to this day, and it continues to this day in

British Columbia.

It’s particularly important and timely to be advancing this ban

today, as we hear news that the United Conservative Party of Alberta is

walking back the previous government’s commitment to end the practice

there.

This bill seeks to ban the practice of so-called conversion

therapy by prohibiting the provision of the treatment to minors and the

payment or reimbursement of conversion therapy through health insurance

or MSP. All British Columbians deserve to be loved, supported and

accepted, not persecuted for who they are.

I’m honoured to be standing alongside LGBTQ2S+ advocates,

including survivors of conversion therapy, as we reaffirm the rights of

all British Columbians to be who they are and to live in safety. It is

because of your advocacy that we are here today.

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

Motion approved.

[1:55 p.m.]

A. Weaver: 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 M218, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Protection Act,

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

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M219 — ADOPTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

D. Barnett presented a bill intituled Adoption Amendment Act,

D. Barnett: I move that the bill intituled Adoption Amend­ment Act,

2019, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be

introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to stand in this House to reintroduce the Adoption

Amendment Act. I first brought this bill forward on November 21, 2018.

This bill removes the legislative stipulation that disqualifies adults

over the age of 19 from formally being adopted if these individuals were

not supported as children by their prospective adopter during their

youth.

It increases the ability for consenting adults to have the freedom

to define their family relationships and have them recognized by the

state without the unnecessary and arbitrarily restrictive legislation

exclusions currently present in the Adoption Act.

If passed, consenting adults who enter into adoptions will have

the ability to have equal access to state benefits afforded to families.

This will align British Columbia with other Canadian jurisdictions that

already have allowances to adulthood adoption in place, such as

Manitoba, Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan, among others.

This bill will allow for the same protective safeguards against

abuse of the adoption process that are already granted to the adoption

of minors to remain in place for adults by allowing the courts to

determine the validity of the motivations of prospective adult

adoptions.

Finally, and most importantly, this bill has been brought forward

due to the fact that in my constituency, I have adults who wish to be

adopted, and under the current system, it is difficult. I see no good

reason that these individuals should not be allowed to define and have

recognized their consenting familial relationships.

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

Motion approved.

D. Barnett: 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 M219, Adoption Amendment Act, 2019, 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 M220 — HOMEOWNER PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

L. Throness presented a bill intituled Homeowner Protection Amendment

Act, 2019.

L. Throness: I move that a bill intituled Homeowner Protection Amendment Act,

2019, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be

introduced and read now for the first time.

Police have estimated that there are 20,000 grow operations in

B.C. With the legalization of cannabis, there will be many thousands

more. This causes a problem for home­owners, because most banks

will not provide a mortgage for a home that has previously been used as

a grow op. Home­owners also have difficulty getting insurance.

This all makes selling a former grow op very difficult for any buyer who

cannot pay cash for a house.

My bill would task an existing government office, the new homes

registry, to develop remediation standards in consultation with

industry. After remediation work is done at the owner’s expense and

inspected by a provincially licensed home inspector, the office will

certify that the home has been safely and completely

remediated.

This will give comfort to lenders and insurers, allowing them to

mortgage and insure these homes at prevailing market rates. This will,

in turn, have a positive effect on the availability of housing, as

thousands of previously inaccessible homes across B.C. are brought onto

the market for new homeowners to enjoy.

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

Motion approved.

L. Throness: 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 M220, Homeowner Protection Amendment Act, 2019, 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 M221 — PRESERVING BRUNSWICK

POINT FOR AGRICULTURE

AND MIGRATING

WATERFOWL HABITAT ACT

I. Paton presented a bill intituled Preserving Brunswick Point for

Agriculture and Migrating Waterfowl Habitat Act.

I. Paton: I move that a bill intituled Preserving Brunswick Point for

Agriculture and Migrating Waterfowl Habitat Act, of which notice has

been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read for

the first time.

[2:00 p.m.]

The history of Brunswick Point has been a long and painful one for

several Delta farm families. In 1968, the proposal to build a coal

terminal at Deltaport and a railway line through Delta farmland began,

and with it came the expropriation of 4,000 acres of prime farmland in

west Delta.

Many years later, after realizing this expropriated land was not

necessarily needed as part of the port expansion, the government offered

to sell most of these farms back to their original owners. However, just

over 600 acres of Brunswick Point farmland was held back by the Crown

and not sold back to the original owners but rather leased back to the

farm families with short-term leases.

Brunswick Point is a triangular-shape piece of land that borders

the ocean, the Fraser River at Canoe Pass and has seven kilometres of

dike walking trails. This farmland boasts exceptional class 1 soil that

grows B.C.’s very best potatoes. Most importantly, this particular area

is world-renowned as a resting stop for migrating Canada geese, snow

geese, swans and snowy owls. The leftover morsels of potatoes, grain and

corn make excellent feed for these resting birds. This parcel of land is

also only two kilometres away from the Reifel Bird Sanctuary.

Being precariously close to Deltaport coal and container terminal

and a massive warehousing development next door at TFN, it is vitally

important that this precious 600 acres of farmland continue to be held

by the Crown, be kept an agriculture and wildlife habitat in perpetuity

and be offered back to local Delta farmers with long-term leases. This

bill aims to protect the Brunswick Point farmland and bird habitat from

any future economic development.

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

Motion approved.

I. Paton: 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 M221, Preserving Brunswick Point for Agriculture and Migrating

Waterfowl Habitat Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

FOR PERSONS WITH

DISABILITIES

M. Elmore: I rise today to acknowledge B.C.’s second annual AccessAbility

Week. May 26 to June 1 is a week to cele­brate diversity

inclusion, to recognize the people and organ­izations who work to

make B.C. a better and more inclusive province and to raise awareness

about what each of us can do to support the right and opportunity of

every person with a disability to live in an accessible and inclusive

community and pursue the life they desire.

I want to thank all of the self-advocates and representatives who

joined us on the front lawn of the Legislature today to share their

work, experiences and ideas for a more accessible B.C. Throughout B.C.,

we’re seeing improvements in accessible tourism, schools, workplaces and

public spaces. We are collaborating with the disability community, First

Nations, the business community, individuals and families. Our shared

goal is to make B.C. the most accessible province in Canada, but there

is still much to do so that everyone can fully participate with dignity

in society.

I want to recognize organizations such as the B.C. Aboriginal

Network on Disability Society, Disability Alliance B.C., the Neil Squire

Society, the Rick Hansen Foundation, the presidents group, Inclusion

B.C. and so many more with a deep commitment to access and inclusion in

our province.

I hope you’ll join me with a renewed commitment to create and

support more accessible, inclusive and welcoming workplaces and

communities in B.C. Together, let’s celebrate the significant

contributions of British Columbians with disabilities.

PRINCE GEORGE SPRUCE KINGS

S. Bond: Well, it was a season for the record books. The Prince George

Spruce Kings made history and created incredible excitement in our

community and beyond. For the first time in franchise history, the Kings

became the B.C. Hockey League champions. The Kings went 16 and 1 in the

playoffs, and no other BCHL team has won the title playing just 17

games. Their only defeat came on March 5 in the third game, when they

lost 3 to nothing to Coquitlam.

They went on to eliminate the Express in five games and then won

back-to-back sweeps over the Chilliwack Chiefs, Victoria Grizzlies and

Vernon Vipers. The Kings then went on to Alberta and won the Doyle Cup

championship by defeating the Brooks Bandits. That intense rivalry would

continue, as these two teams faced each other in the national junior A

hockey championship game.

[2:05 p.m.]

Our team played an incredible game and made an epic comeback. In

fact, they scored with less than a minute to play to make the score 4-3.

But that is where the scoring ended. While the Spruce Kings didn’t end

their history-making season with a national championship, we could not

be more proud of them.

Perhaps the best part of the story is that they were a

fan­tastic team both on and off the ice. They would regularly

attend community events and even served the tea at my annual seniors’

Christmas celebration.

This team was a success for a lot of reasons, including a

dedicated GM, Mike Hawes; head coach, Adam Maglio; assistant coach, Alex

Evin; and the entire Kings organization. Special thanks to the billet

families and the volunteers who provide support for the players every

day and at every game.

Congratulations, Prince George Spruce Kings. What a ride. We can’t

wait to see you hit the ice again in just a few short months.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

R. Singh: It’s Tourism Week in B.C. and Canada, giving us all a chance to

reflect on the contributions this industry makes to life in B.C. British

Columbia is a top vacation destination, welcoming 6.1 million visitors

from across the globe last year. The industry is an economic engine,

with $18.4 billion in revenue in 2017. It is the third-largest employer

in B.C., providing 137,000 good-paying jobs.

All of this is possible because of the incredible people who are

at the heart of B.C. tourism — people who are passionate about sharing

beautiful B.C. with visitors and helping them create memories that last

a lifetime. As locals, tourism gives us the opportunity to experience

things people travel from all over the world to see and do right here in

our own backyard — things like community and Indigenous arts and culture

festivals, opportunities for outdoor recreation through world-class

trails and ski hills, major sports competitions like the rugby sevens

and beautiful parks, gardens and public art displays.

The province is also working to grow this sector even further. The

new strategic framework for tourism in B.C. sets out a vision for a

prosperous and sustainable tourism sector over the next three years. I

would like to thank everyone in the tourism industry for their work in

growing the sector and sharing its benefits with all of us. As we

celebrate Tourism Week in B.C. this year, I encourage everyone to get

out and explore everything that beautiful B.C. has to offer.

RICHMOND CARING PLACE

L. Reid: Richmond Community Services Centre Society was established in 1985

with the intent of establishing a purpose-built community services

building as a permanent, cost-efficient home for health and social

service agencies serving Richmond, where they could share services,

programming and meeting space.

Many communities had converted spaces in buildings to share space,

costs and services, but this was the first group in Canada and North

America to actually enter into a fundraising program to design and build

a purpose-built facility to meet the needs of these agencies. Louise

Young, representing the then Richmond information and volunteer centre,

was elected as president. Office space was donated by a local accounting

firm, Leversage and Co. Strong support and advocacy was provided by

councillor Bob McMath and MLA Nick Loenen.

At this point, however, there was only $100 in the bank. Caring

Place ended up with a $5.3 million campaign, including all the agencies

and even high school students Khalil Shariff, who’s now the CEO of the

Aga Khan Foundation Canada, and Shachi Kurl, who’s the executive

director of the firm Angus Reid.

Professional fundraisers Mitch and Liz Karris were brought on

board in the early stages of fundraising and guided the fundraising

program through to the end. Major donors to the campaign were Maureen

and Milan Ilich of Progressive Construction, Helmut and Hugo Eppich of

Eppich Industries, the McPhail family and the province of B.C. through a

community grant.

It took this group of dedicated individuals seven years to raise

the funds, design and build the building, opening the doors in May of

1994 with cost-sharing arrangements similar to how a strata corporation

works. It was decided to officially call the building the Richmond

Caring Place, as the campaign was so successful. Thus, the name of the

society was changed to the Caring Place Society.

The experiment has proven to be very successful with the majority

of tenant agencies in the building today being the original tenants. The

Richmond Caring Place has been their home for the last 25 years. Happy

25th anniversary, Richmond Caring Place. Your agencies make a difference

every day.

COMOX VALLEY

GROUND SEARCH AND

RESCUE

R. Leonard: This spring I had the pleasure of meeting with Paul Berry and

Bronwen Beedle, two well-respected leaders with Comox Valley Ground

Search and Rescue.

[2:10 p.m.]

They invited me and legislative intern Gagan Lidhran, who has a

particular interest herself, to tour their impressive base of

operations.

As the weather gets warmer and more people head out to the back

country, we recognize the hard work, dedication and skill that the Comox

Valley Ground Search and Rescue team puts into making sure people in our

community are safe. Like all 80 ground search and rescue teams across

B.C., the Comox Valley SAR team is on call 24-7, 365 days a year to

respond to calls. They hone their skills in weekly trainings and are

involved in outdoor education programs. In 2017, 60-plus Comox Valley

SAR volunteers contributed over 12,000 hours to search and rescue

operations, educational programs and community events.

At the time we met, they had just aided in rescuing a stranded

photographer from the Courtenay estuary when the tide rose and he was

stranded, perched on a log in the water. Next thing you know, members

attended in the rescue of an injured mountain biker on Forbidden

Plateau. Their equipment and expertise were critical in bringing the

biker down through the rugged terrain.

These are some of the many stories that make up the community of

Comox Valley Ground Search and Rescue. They impressed upon us that

people need to reach out and not fear that they can’t afford to be

rescued. To support ground SAR’s best efforts everywhere, more

provincial resources on top of the base funding, $16.9 million to be

exact, have been dedicated over the next three years. So when recreating

in the Comox Valley, be prepared, have fun and know that the brave men

and women of our ground search and rescue have your back if trouble

hits.

CHILD CARE PROVIDERS

L. Throness: In 2012, the government proclaimed the month of May as a time to

celebrate those who care for children in our province. May was a time

for me to visit with providers and listen to their stories. I hear often

from people like Amanda, who said: “We have created child care spaces

from our hearts and are driven by the passion we have for the education

of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens.”

Corinne writes: “I love my role as a caregiver. We have raised

three wonderful children, who are loving, kind, contributing, productive

members of today’s society. The same skills that raised my family have

kept me employed in this industry for years.”

Early childhood educators also expressed to me their

enthu­siasm for their often difficult work. Last week the Standing

Committee on Children and Youth travelled across B.C. to hear from

agency providers and parents who care for children with special needs.

During our hearings, we heard from many, like Bernadette O’Donnell, who,

on a volunteer basis, founded and still leads the Okanagan Valley

Assessment and Support Society, advocating for people, including

children, with FASD.

Parents, many of them lone parents, told stories of personal

sacrifice. For decades, they forgo their own well-being in order to

provide a happy and secure environment for their children, who suffer

from multiple and profound health barriers. My heart went out to them,

in particular, but I was also inspired by their passion, dedication and

love for the most needy children in our society.

I was reminded that there are many problems to solve in this

field, and we have a responsibility to find new ways to help. But I’m

also filled with hope at meeting so many wonderful people doing amazing

things every day, not just for children in their care but for all of us,

because children are the future of B.C.

Today, near the close of Child Care Month, we recognize, thank and

pay tribute to caregivers and children, and we renew the commitment of

this House to them.

Oral Questions

ACTION ON GAS PRICES AND COURT CASE

ON TRANSPORT OF

DILUTED BITUMEN

A. Wilkinson: It’s no secret that British Columbians will be spending this

summer paying the highest gasoline prices in North America. Meanwhile,

this government is spending tax dollars on an apparently futile lawsuit,

which went down to a 5-nothing defeat in the Court of Appeal on

Friday.

This is all an attempt to block a pipeline that is 65 years old,

that supplies the vast majority of fuel in British Columbia, the

replacement of which would improve our fuel supply. The Court of Appeal

decision was a total defeat for this government’s agenda.

The obvious question is: is this government prepared to admit

defeat and move on or continue this futile fight at British Columbia

taxpayers’ expense?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: The people of British Columbia expect, as all Canadians do, to

have a government that will stand up and protect their environment,

their economy and the interests of the people of the

province.

We have always said that this was a question that we believed

would end up in the Supreme Court. In fact, we invited the government of

Canada to do a joint reference to the Supreme Court. They,

unfortunately, declined. This case will go forward because it’s

important to all British Columbians.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please.

The Leader of the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

ACTION ON GAS PRICES AND

B.C. UTILITIES COMMISSION

INQUIRY

A. Wilkinson: This debacle in the courts has proven to be a big humiliation for

this government. No dissenting judgment. The unanimous judgment of five

Court of Appeal judges who told this government that it’s barking up a

dead tree.

At the same time as the Premier tries to block pipeline capacity

to relieve the high gasoline prices in British Columbia, he has told the

B.C. Utilities Commission to investigate…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Wilkinson: …the issue of gasoline prices but not including provincial policy

or taxes or anything to do with the pipeline. We couldn’t have that. The

quote: “The commission may not inquire into the effects of provincial

enactments or policy….”

This commission is a sham. Why is that?

Hon. G. Heyman: As I’ve said before in this House and as the opposition leader

should clearly know, the expansion of the pipeline is not intended to

transport refined product. In fact, in a submission…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: …to the National Energy Board, Trans Mountain stated clearly that

refined product shipments would not increase as a result of the Trans

Mountain expansion project.

The opposition can try to whip up hysteria among British

Columbians because they’re facing very real challenges. What the

opposition apparently is not willing to do is to stand up to the big oil

companies that have been gouging British Columbians for

years.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: The Minister of Environment clearly doesn’t want to address the

issue of this commission of inquiry because he knows it’s a sham. It’s a

stall tactic to get this government through the summer and pretend the

problem is going to go away. Well, it’s not going to go away.

We have the highest fuel prices in North America for good reason,

and this government doesn’t want to talk about it. This government has

been all over the map about the reason for those prices and has no

answer.

Will the minister or someone on the government side finally put

the truth forward and say that they have no plan, no goals, no purpose

in trying to manage fuel prices? They are simply trying to buy time and

hope for the best.

Hon. G. Heyman: The opposition leader’s conflation of different issues is

astounding. It has always been astounding, and it astounds us to this

day.

Are we talking about an expansion of the transport of diluted

bitumen, which would put tens of thousands…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: …of jobs in British Columbia at risk and billions in the British

Columbia economy at risk? Or are we talking about the highest margins

for refining of anywhere in Canada, which has nothing to do with the

Trans Mountain expansion project? The Premier has rightly asked the B.C.

Utilities Commission to investigate the impacts on the prices of

gasoline in British Columbia so we can get a clear answer.

What the opposition won’t do is tell British Columbians just what

would be sacrificed through their facile and disgraced solution of

cutting taxes to turn even more profits over to gas companies. And take

away from what. Do they want to give up road construction in rural B.C.?

Do they want to give up transit in the Lower Mainland? Do they want to

give up taxes that go to health care in British Columbia?

We will continue to stand up for British Columbians, because

that’s what they deserve after 16 long years of neglect.

[2:20 p.m.]

T. Stone: Well, unfortunately for British Columbia’s taxpayers, this

government is going to continue to lose in the courts. The Trans

Mountain project is both federally and provincially approved. It does

offer a safer alternative to more oil by rail. If the Premier was

actually genuine in his promise of a year ago that he would provide that

relief at the pumps, then he should end his opposition to this pipeline

expansion and he should cut taxes.

Now, instead, he continues to pursue these losing court cases.

There wasn’t even one jurist that was willing to side with the

government’s position at the Court of Appeal — not one jurist. The

Premier continues to pursue these losing court cases. He raises gas

taxes. He asks the BCUC to look into all of the reasons why fuel prices

are so high here in British Columbia and then bans the BCUC from looking

at his own government’s policies and taxes. That would be like trying to

figure out why you’re going broke without looking at your

expenses.

How does this government explain blocking the commission from

looking at the government’s own policies and taxes when it comes to high

fuel prices?

Hon. G. Heyman: How does the opposition explain all the years they spent in

government blocking the BCUC from looking at anything at all?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: The Premier has referred the question of gasoline price gouging to

the B.C. Utilities Commission.

We continue to stand up for British Columbians, as they expect us

to do, by referring the very, very important question of a provincial

government’s ability to regulate impacts to our environment and economy

to the highest court in the land. British Columbians expect and deserve

a provincial government that will continually defend their interests,

that will leave no stone unturned. To use the courts to determine what

is provincial interest….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: After 16 years of the opposition being in government, doing

anything but looking after British Columbia’s interests, they finally

have a government that will.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a

supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, it takes one to know one.

This Premier and this government continue to make it up as they go

along the way, blaming everything, blaming everyone around them for

record-high gas prices here in British Columbia, instead of actually

taking action. The Premier has offered a long list of excuses for doing

nothing to ease pain at the pumps. His farce of a BCUC review is a

cynical delay tactic that does nothing for British Columbians paying

these record-high gas prices. We’re heading into summer, so British

Columbians can expect that gas prices are likely going to

increase.

As analyst Dan McTeague told the media, “He’s short-circuited” any

thorough study, “and as a result, the outcome is going to be predictably

useless, irrelevant and…lead to even further questions as to what the

Premier has to hide.”

My question is this. Why is this government afraid to let the BCUC

look at the government’s taxes and policies as key reasons why fuel

prices are as high as they are in British Columbia?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, we’ve raised gas prices 2.2 cents per litre since we took

office.

What did the opposition do?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: The opposition did what’s expected of British Columbia’s

governments, and that’s to ensure that we have the resources for health

care, for road construction, for transit.

No less an authority than the Sauder School of Business termed the

opposition’s plan to return taxes by saying it wouldn’t really change

the prices. It would boost the profits of the oil companies, and it

would do absolutely nothing for consumers.

In our opinion, we have a plan to look at what’s happening to gas

prices, and it doesn’t include a discredited suggestion from the

opposition that would cost British Columbians in every corner of this

province in terms of public services, while simply adding to the profits

of oil companies.

GOVERNMENT APPROACH TO

TEACHERS’ COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING

A. Weaver: Last week we heard from the BCTF that this government is putting

forth essentially the same proposals in contract negotiations that the

former government did in 2014. In particular, government has tabled

larger maximum class sizes and fewer specialty teachers.

In 2014, the now Minister of Education stated that class size and

composition was a “central issue” in the ongoing teachers strike at the

time and that it was “critical” and that “class size and composition do

impact learning outcomes.”

My question is to the Minister of Education. Starting in 2002 and

culminating in the landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision on November

10, 2016, the BCTF fought hard to restore provisions regarding their

ability to bargain class size and composition. What was government

thinking when they tabled their class size and composition proposals,

and what does he think this will do to the morale of B.C.

teachers?

Hon. R. Fleming: I thank the member for the question. He did indeed go through a

litany of damaging years in public education in British Columbia that

stand in stark contrast to the record of our government over the last 21

months. Let’s remember that for 16 years, that government over there,

the opposition now, fought with teachers, ripped up

contracts….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, the Minister of Education has the

floor.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Fleming: I think they’re a little sensitive, Mr. Speaker, about losing in

court…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Fleming: …three times. Three times, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister of Education.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s really sensitive, because they lost

three times in the Supreme Court.

The point is that they wasted 12 years. They ripped resources away

from kids and families, they demonized teachers, and they lost. We’re

taking a different approach.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Fleming: I think the member who asked the question would like an answer. I

think he would appreciate it, and here’s what the answer is. In 21

months, our government has added $1 billion of annual

resource….

Interjections.

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: We’ve hired 4,000 new teachers and 1,000 education assistants.

Funding for students with special needs is up 23 percent. Rural

education funding is at a record high and up under our

government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Fleming: I would ask the members opposite to read some headlines they might

not want to read — the Delta Optimist , the Kelowna

Courier . Each one of them is saying that for the first time in

15 years, they don’t have to cut budgets. They don’t have to fire

teachers. They’ve got funding and a government that’s on their

side.

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

A. Weaver: I thank the minister for the answer to the question. I’m not sure

it was the question that I asked, but at least there was a long answer

there. I do appreciate the words and the facts being brought

forward.

In 2014, the current Minister of Education spoke passionately

about how the B.C. budget of the day “robs from the pocketbooks of

ordinary British Columbians and fails to invest in the future.” He was

talking about the lack of education supports, specifically the lack of

school support workers at the time.

According to the BCTF president, Glen Hansman, the new position of

the B.C. government would “wipe out each and every word that teachers

got back through the Supreme Court of Canada decision and replace it

with watered-down language that’s worse than what exists in most school

districts across the province.”

On March 17, the Minister of Education told the Globe and

Mail this: “The table is set different than any set of

negotiations in the last 16 years. Our government is not seeking any

concessions. We are seeking changes that will benefit teachers and

students.”

My question is to the Minister of Education. How does he reconcile

this quote with the claims of the BCTF president?

Hon. R. Fleming: I thank the member for the question again. He’ll know, as somebody

who was a former negotiator himself for labour, that bargaining is best

done at the table. What I’m proud of, as our government, is that we have

gone to the table in this round of negotiations earlier than ever

before. We have set the table with record levels of funding. I can go

through that list again for the members present. They’ve all been at

school announcements in their ridings, so they know about it

firsthand.

We have also demonstrated respect to the teaching profession. We

have now, I’m pleased to say, 197,000 public servants in British

Columbia who have signed on with tentative agreements under the

sustainable services mandating agreement. We have 25,000 CUPE K-to-12

education workers who are included in that group.

I would say to the member to also listen to Mr. Hansman. He said,

going into the weekend, and I would echo this message with him: “We’re

still optimistic that there will be a deal. We have five weeks until the

end of the school year. The good news is that both sides have scheduled

a lot of dates, so there’s a lot of room to talk. That’s positive. We

didn’t have that in the last few rounds.”

I will respectfully allow elected trustees, who we restored

democratically to the bargaining process, to do their work. They

understand teachers. They work alongside teachers. The previous

government fired them, and I think that was a huge mistake. That is the

stark contrast that we have here.

If members want to think back exactly five years ago, they locked

out teachers. They cut their pay. They provoked British Columbia’s

education system, and it was a disaster. It led to the longest shutdown

of schools in British Columbia history. We’re in a vastly different

place, where we want to work with teachers and school districts and get

a good deal that’s good for everyone.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS

REGARDING CITIZENS’

SERVICES MINISTER

S. Bond: The Attorney General is developing quite a record of not knowing

what he’s talking about. One has to look no further than a 5 to 0 ruling

at the B.C. Court of Appeal. But let’s take a look at another example.

The AG’s response to very serious allegations against the Minister of

Citizens’ Services is a perfect example.

[2:35 p.m.]

On May 14, the Attorney General stood in this House and lectured

us. “I can’t think of a better place to look at these concerns.” The

Privacy Commissioner has “all the tools necessary.” Well, the AG was

wrong, and he obviously had absolutely no idea what he was talking

about. Three days later the commissioner said not only does he not have

the tools to investigate, but he’s actually been asking for

them.

It’s time someone on that side of the House stood up and made sure

that these incredibly serious allegations against the minister are

properly investigated. Will the Attorney General do that

today?

Hon. J. Sims: I have spent the last two weeks fielding questions and unfounded

accusations from the members opposite. The opposition plays an important

role, but they have a responsibility to base their work on facts and not

carelessly make unfounded accusations.

This morning my former employee’s lawyer received a letter from

the B.C. NDP caucus lawyer outlining the unfounded and defamatory

allegations that the members opposite have been helping to spread. That

includes the claim that three of the ten visa applicants were on a

security watch list. We have followed up with the Member of Parliament’s

office. They have verified that, in fact, there was never any reason to

believe that the visa applicants were on a watch list or subject to any

security concerns. This is yet another unfounded allegation that the

opposition has been spreading.

What they claimed was a cash-for-access event was a charity

fundraiser for the Vancouver Children’s Hospital. They talked about

donations that don’t exist. An invoice was supposedly for work on a

website, but the invoice shows that’s not true. The registrar of

lobbyists found that the claims were not true. Other independent

officers have responded that there is no evidence of anything for them

to look at. Even the Information and Privacy Commissioner said that no

evidence has been provided of an issue around freedom of

information.

I have spent the last two weeks taking questions on this and have

demonstrated that there is no evidence to support these unfounded

claims. As I have said before, this was an extremely difficult human

resources situation in my constituency office with a staff member who

only worked for me for six weeks. The opposition keeps grasping for a

gotcha moment, but repeating false accusations is

irresponsible.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: What’s irresponsible is this government failing to do what they

should do for the people of British Columbia, which is challenge a

minister who has constantly flaunted the rules and done exactly what she

knows she shouldn’t have.

She can stand in this House….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Bond: This minister can stand in this House and read from a prepared

script, but let’s just review what’s led to the concerns that we

have.

On Monday, May 13, the Premier claimed there was no investigation.

On Tuesday, the Attorney General incorrectly said that the Privacy

Commissioner was the only one who could investigate. On Wednesday, the

Minister of Citizens’ Services finally admitted that Geoff Meggs had

investigated two months ago but didn’t bother telling anyone, apparently

including the Premier. By the end of the week, the commissioner was

compelled to announce that he wants to investigate but lacks the

authority.

The responsible thing to do today would be to give the

commissioner the tools he needs to investigate the serious allegations

against this minister.

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Sims: The opposition also has a responsibility to the people in our

communities. Today’s letter to Mr. Sorochan outlines that his client and

the members opposite have carelessly helped share unredacted documents

with private personal information, including full names, email

addresses, birth dates and passport numbers. These people did not ask to

have their names dragged into gotcha politics and shared all over the

Internet.

Even worse, the member for Richmond-Queensborough chose hate and

division when he made deeply offensive comments in this House. I have

been told….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister.

Hon. J. Sims: I have been told he tried to explain his com­ment at a

community event before being forced to apologize…

Mr. Speaker: Minister, the member has withdrawn his comment.

Hon. J. Sims: …as if there is an explanation for something that is so

inexcusable.

The Leader of the Opposition then told the Pakistani-Canadian

community that the member regrets his comment but only because they

distracted from their political games.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, thank you.

COMMUNICATION PRACTICES OF

CITIZENS’ SERVICES

MINISTER

M. Polak: Perhaps a straightforward question might get a straightforward

answer.

Does the minister still maintain that she never uses WhatsApp or

iMessage to conduct business with her government staff?

Hon. J. Sims: I’ve been very clear that these claims that have been made over

the last few weeks are unfounded. I follow the rules and use government

accounts for government business and document government decisions

appropriately.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

M. Polak: Well, unfortunately for the minister, the evidence suggests

otherwise.

One of the things that the Privacy Commissioner outlined is that

to use personal communications platforms like that instead of government

is what he calls “extremely poor practice” when dealing with government

business and urges all ministers not to do so.

What I have are screen grabs from a WhatsApp group that was

actually put together, it looks like, by the minister’s executive

assistant, perhaps ministerial assistant. The team is actually named

after the minister. There are quite a number of messages back and forth

dealing with just that — government discussions or discussions she’s

having as a minister with her staff.

In addition to that, what’s maybe even more alarming and

concerning is that there’s also a group that has been set up on

iMessage. In this case, not only are there some screenshots of what are

communications back and forth with her EA and MA, but in the upper

left-hand corner, it actually indicates how many more messages there are

on there. There are 99.

We’ve spent two years asking for any messages that the minister

has between her staff on WhatsApp with her, and we’ve received

nothing.

How does the minister explain this?

Hon. J. Sims: I follow the rules and use government accounts for government

business and document government decisions appropriately. I do not use

WhatsApp for government business.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. H. Bains: I have the honour to present a report, the WorkSafeBC annual report,

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call third reading, Heritage Conservation Amendment Act.

[2:45 p.m.]

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 14 — HERITAGE CONSERVATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 14, Heritage Conservation Amendment Act, 2019, read a third time

and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill 8, Employment

Standards Amendment Act. In Committee A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call

committee on Bill 28, Zero-Emission Vehicles Act. And in Committee C,

the Birch Room, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry

of Attorney General.

[2:50 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 8 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 8; R. Chouhan

in the chair.

The committee met at 2:54 p.m.

section 1.

J. Martin: Welcome, Minister and staff, as we explore Bill 8 in a little

greater detail.

[2:55 p.m.]

Section 1. This amendment act defines “temporary help agency” as

“an employer whose employees work on a temporary basis for or under the

control or direction of another person, but does not include a farm

labour contractor.”

Can the minister tell us what actually it means by temporary? What

length of time does this encompass? Is this less than a year, less than

a month, a week? What is temporary?

Hon. H. Bains: A temporary help agency employs people to assign them to perform

work on a temporary basis for clients of the agency. The temporary help

agency includes agencies that provide unskilled casual day labour,

office or administrative services and health care and social assistance

services. These are employees that are supplied by the temp agency and

that come in to provide temporary relief, based on a number of days or

longer.

J. Martin: Thank you for that, Minister. Has there been an increase in the

occurrence of these temporary help agencies that are operating contrary

to the Employment Standards Act and that prompted their inclusion

now?

Hon. H. Bains: The employment standards branch has heard a number of times that

these are employees that, right now, we have no record of. No one knows

how many and who. I think the whole idea here is to have these temp

agencies registered or licensed so that we know who they are, we know

where they employ those employees of theirs, who their clients

are.

It’s no different, I think, in a sense, than right now we have

contractors for farm labour. They are actually required to be licensed

so that we know that they follow the rules. We know who they are. We

know where they work, where their employees are working and for which

client. I think it just will be able to give employment standards the

tools to know where those employees are and if they follow the

law.

J. Martin: Based on the definition of “temporary help agency,” does this mean

that projects built under community benefits agreements, whose workers

would be employed by B.C. Infrastructure Benefits Inc., would make B.C.

Infra­structure Benefits Inc. a temporary help agency?

Hon. H. Bains: The example the member used — I don’t believe it fits the

definition here, because what the member has described is: you have a

company, they have their employees, and they are actually working on

that project in an employer-employee relationship.

[3:00 p.m.]

Here what we are talking about is if employer A needs some

temporary help because of a surge in production and this temporary

agency has some employees to fill that gap, they would contact this

temporary agency, and they’re working for that employer for that day.

But tomorrow they could be working for another employer, once this

employer doesn’t need their services anymore.

It’s quite a different situation — what we are talking about here

and what the member has described.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

J. Martin: Under the definition of “gratuity,” there’s the option to add

other payments by regulation in the future. Can the minister tell us

what other payments are being considered that may be added in the near

future?

Hon. H. Bains: We have tried to come up with a definition of gratuity, and that

definition will apply. We don’t have any other situations, at this

particular point, or an intention to move into different areas. We have

given us enabling language in the event that we have missed

something.

I think the idea, again, here is that the servers work, and they

are given a gratuity or tips as part of their service. It becomes part

of their income. The idea is to protect that income from an employer who

wishes to hand over the tip or gratuity to the employer or have a share

in the gratuity. There are exceptions. The employer can participate in

the tip pool if they are working similarly to the work that the

employees are working.

J. Martin: I’m curious about some of the protocol around this. My father

spent his entire life working in the hospitality industry. Whenever he

pays a restaurant bill, he uses his credit card, and he tips with cash.

The cash is never included on the actual receipt.

I’m wondering how this is going to be tracked and how the

legislation is taking into account the different ways people show their

appreciation for service.

Hon. H. Bains: I think nothing has changed in that situation. What we are trying

to do with the change here is…. The tips that are left behind stay with

the servers or the employees. Whether it’s the situation that the member

described, we expect that that money will be transferred over to the

employees. The employees who receive that tip in cash…. It would become

part of their tip, and if there is a tip pool, they will be dividing

among themselves, rather than the employer requiring them to share that

with the employer or hand over to the employer.

The whole idea here is that the tip that is left behind for the

servers is for the income of the servers. So the employer does not take

that away from them.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

J. Martin: Can the minister explain, please, why special clothing has been

added to the list in

section 3?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think when you compare the last changes made in 2002 to the

employment standards, special clothing was missing. But if there’s a

collective agreement that mentions all of those areas — hours of work,

statutory holidays, annual vacations, seniority retention, recall — and

if there’s special clothing mentioned in the collective agreement, this

means that that collective agreement must meet or exceed the requirement

of the employment standards.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

J. Martin: Under this section, “Promoting awareness of employment standards,”

the director “must develop and carry out policies to promote greater

awareness of this act.” So wouldn’t an employee be aware of their rights

under the Employment Standards Act through the efforts of the director

under this

section 5? And therefore, isn’t the addition of

section 6,

“Informing employees of their rights,” somewhat redundant?

Hon. H. Bains: I think this is a very important section. If employees understand

their rights and if employers understand their obligations — this

section is a requirement that the employment standards, rights and

obligations are made available to employees and employers — there will

be a chance of less violation of the employment standards and also

resolving the problems before they even become problems or

disputes.

The employees will know whether what they’re asking or demanding

is according to the employment standards, and the employer will know if

they’re denying the employee certain things that they know are in the

employment standards. If they have that information available readily, I

think it helps both parties and helps the whole system. I think that’s

the whole purpose behind it.

The member knows…. Let’s take an example of students coming out of

high school or college. It’s not necessarily that they have a copy of

the employment standards in their hands or that they study the

employment standards requirements and they know what their rights are,

but I think through this…. This will be a form that will be approved by

the director so that it is non-biased and it is something that is truly

factual so that the employees will have that information.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

J. Martin: Can the minister tell us who he has consulted with, to date,

regarding the change of allowing 14- to 15-year-olds to engage in light

work?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Two things. So how we arrived at this. A lot of work was done by

BCLI. And we also did our own work, looking at what the United Nations

convention calls for, international labour organizations and all other

jurisdictions. They’re all right here. And going forward, how do we

define what is “light work,” what is “dangerous work”? It’s something

that we would be, again, engaging all those who are involved or affected

by these changes going forward — employers, workers, other

jurisdictions.

I think that’s how we will be defining what light work is and what

dangerous work is and where a 14 and 15 can work.

J. Martin: I think the minister has to acknowledge there’s a certain level of

subjectivity here. I mean, I was at an event with the cadets on the

weekend, and there was a 12-year-old, 6-1, 205 pounds. I think the

definition of what constitutes light work might be very different for

that individual than other 12-year-olds.

I’m just wondering how the minister and the ministry are going to

actually determine what light work will be defined as for this

particular age group, 14- to 15-year-olds.

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member needs to understand: we’re not reinventing the

wheel here. All of the jurisdictions already have that. They already

have a definition about what light work is for 12, 14 and 15 years. They

know what dangerous work is, and they have already defined it within

their jurisdictions. International labour organizations have already

talked about this, and other countries have done this.

Now, I understand their economies are different and the jobs are

different, going from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I understand that.

That’s why the consultation with all stakeholders, the workers, the

industry and those who are active as the parents. I think that work will

take place so that that work and that consultation will guide us. What

is defined as light work, as the member has just talked about? What

about someone working in their parents’ grocery store, stacking the

shelves, or working on a farm?

I think all those things will be considered, because others have

already done that work in Canada. I think that’s what we will be looking

at and taking guidance from — other jurisdictions and, again, consulting

our own. We are different in British Columbia, different industries

here. We are going to talk to different stakeholders to make sure that

we do it right.

J. Thornthwaite: I have another question specifically to the light work, because

this has come up with some of my constituents. I’m wondering: does the

minister have a definition of what light work is?

Hon. H. Bains: The definition of “light work,” if I could read it to the member,

means “prescribed work or a prescribed occupation that the Lieutenant

Governor in Council considers is unlikely to be harmful to the health or

development of a child who is 14 or 15 years of age.”

[3:15 p.m.]

Now, I could give you some examples that come to mind quickly. For

example, a clerk in an office or retail store; a delivery person for

small goods and merchandise for a retail store; delivering flyers,

newspapers, handbills; certain duties in the restaurant food service

industry — a host, hostess, cashier, dishwasher, busing tables, a server

or waiter, providing customer service, assembling food orders and

cleaning. And there will be some others, as I said. Someone is going to

bring us something, “But what about this? You missed that,” during the

time of the debate. “What about that?”

I think that’s what we will be working on. We will work with the

industry. We will work with the workers and all of the advocates and

look at the other jurisdictions. And then that’s how we are going to put

that list together.

J. Thornthwaite: Well, the minister probably knows that when second reading came up

on this bill, I mentioned some key stakeholders that were very concerned

about this bill and this particular

section with regards to ages. These

are the referees, the youth referees, in all sorts of sports — the

soccer community provincewide, referees for hockey, etc.

They were very, very concerned about that, and that’s why I was

looking specifically at what the definition of light work is, because a

referee is sometimes going to get jostled around. He’s running back and

forth. He’s making calls in the game. Sometimes parents aren’t too happy

about that. That might not be classified as light work.

I’m very much concerned about that. I actually have an amendment

that I’d like to present to the minister. The amendment is for

section

SECTION 6 is amended by striking the words

“ 14 ” and “ 15 ” and substituting

“ 12 ” wherever it appears. ]

[3:20 p.m.]

The Chair: Members, we are getting the copies made of the signed

document, and then we will proceed with it. Give us a few

minutes.

Members, on the amendment proposed on

section 6, it reads:

“Section 6 is amended by striking the words ‘14’ and ‘15’ and

substituting ‘12’ wherever it appears.”

Interjection.

The Chair: Do you want to speak further on that, Member?

J. Thornthwaite: I’d like to speak to it.

The Chair: Absolutely.

On the amendment.

J. Thornthwaite: Just to reiterate, the issue here is for referees for youth

sports. I’ve got a letter here that is supported by numerous

organizations. The North Vancouver Football Club, the North Shore Girls

Soccer Club, West Vancouver Football Club, Bowen Island soccer, Sunshine

Coast Youth Soccer Association, Whistler soccer, Pemberton soccer and

many soccer associations actually are supportive of this

amendment.

The reason is because a lot of these youth are 12 years old. My

daughter was also a referee for North Shore Girls Soccer when she was

12. I’d like to read a little excerpt from the president of the Sunshine

Coast Youth Soccer Association. He has said: “Our support for the

valuable skills the kids learn as referees and the benefit they bring to

youth sports…. This is not an exploitation of child labour but a really

great opportunity for young people to learn responsibility and

leadership while supporting effective youth sports in the

community.”

As I said, most of these kids start when they are 12. The

associations are very, very concerned that this bill, in this section,

will negatively affect these youths’ opportunity to not only get

employment and employment skills but also will negatively affect the

organizations because they won’t have any student referees.

[3:25 p.m.]

That is the reason why I requested that the years 14, 15 be

changed to 12, because that’s the age where the kids in youth soccer

start refereeing. I would hope that the House would support my

amendment.

Hon. H. Bains: First, I firmly believe that this amendment should be ruled out of

order because it does not meet the House rules. The legislative counsel

is available to all members to draft proper language. The way it’s

written, it is not going to serve the purpose that is in the bill. For

example, I’ll read you one line here: “(2)(b),” where it says “who is 14

or 15 years of age.” And with this amendment, it will read “who is 12”

or “12 years of age.” It does not make sense, so I think it should be

ruled out of order.

They had all the time. We had a whole week last week to come up

with an amendment and do the proper language.

The concern that the member brought up — I understand that, and

that’s what the consultation process is going to be. We will be

consulting all of those people who have written to the member, and we

will be making the appropriate

definitions at that particular

time.

I think this amendment cannot be accepted as it is

written.

J. Thornthwaite: Well, we were under the impression, this side, that this bill was

going to be coming up tomorrow. We were told at 11:45 this morning that

— uh-oh — this bill is now coming up today. I was preparing the

amendment, but because the government decided to fast-track this bill,

that’s the reason why I had to come up with the amendment very, very

quickly. So I would very much hope that the government and all sides of

the House would support this amendment.

Interjection.

The Chair: Okay. Member for Peace River South.

M. Bernier: Thank you, Chair. There are quite a few people that might want to

speak to this while a determination is being made.

As the minister knows, there are numerous examples in this House

where amendments have been made in the House without notice after

discussions that have occurred on the floor of the House. That’s the

whole point of committee stage, where we get to hear things moving

forward. Typically, if there’s a situation when we’re looking through

this, we can do some amendments. And there has been an amendment — I

know it will be discussed a little bit later — that is like that. But

this is not precedent-setting by any means, and the member will know

that when he was on this side of the House, numerous times they made

amendments while they were over here as well, based on

discussion.

Speaking to this amendment, I think the minister has to

acknowledge what this is doing for a lot of the people in British

Columbia. If it’s that much of a concern, this whole

section could be

struck right out, because what the minister continuously says is that

decisions will be made at a later date. There’s a reason why so many

people are contacting us and saying they can’t support this

section

because there are too many unknowns. And every time the minister has

been asked publicly, he keeps saying that this will be done by

order-in-council, be done by cabinet at a later date. Businesses can’t

function that way.

I’ll give you an example. What happens in — maybe it’s all

communities, but I’m going to reference what I know — small northern

communities that are struggling already to find staff?

Now, let me put the caveat there. Of course, every employer and

every person in this House wants to have a safe working environment for

anybody of any age. This is not just about anybody under 16. It’s

anybody. There are examples when I was an employer, when I was hiring

people who would be 40 and 50 years old and moving into a new

profession, who might not know that profession, that you had to spend

the time with to make sure they were adequately trained for the safety

requirements of that job. So it doesn’t matter whether you’re under 16

or whether you’re over 16. The safety requirements and training need to

be there in place.

I look at the minister, and I look at the government. I’m trying

to think of examples like myself — my children, so many children I know

in small northern communities who look for opportunities to get some

experience in life. By the minister’s own wording here, if I was to

understand this correctly…. When I was 12, 13 years old, I was actually

helping out at construction sites. I was working, packing lumber. I was

working, hammering in nails. I was doing a whole bunch of odd

jobs.

[3:30 p.m.]

Under this, it might not be considered light duty, but what it did

was it inspired me into a profession that I thought I’d like to take

some day, at 12 or 13 years old. I ended up talking to my parents. I

ended up going to BCIT and doing my carpentry apprenticeship, based on

experiences in my youth. That’s what I think should be

allowed.

More importantly, it should be up to the parents, not the

government, to tell people that your child is not suitable to be working

in the province of British Columbia. The government — and this minister

— is trying to hide this whole notion of under-16 around safety. Again,

this is not that we’re against this. We’re against the fact that the

government is trying to dictate to people, to employers and to parents

what their kids can or cannot do, which is inappropriate.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

In my riding, again, in the service sector — now, the minister

said it might or it might not be — I look at a place like McDonald’s or

A&W or KFC. Three of my children worked at those organizations under

the age of 16 to earn a little bit of extra pocket money. If there was

something that they wanted that I wasn’t able to afford, they could buy

it.

I got contacted last week by a couple of single parents who said:

“Is this government now going to help me, then? I’ve got my 13- and

14-year-old daughter and son who are working part-time after school in

community jobs, and this government has not been able to put forward and

confirm whether they will still be allowed to do that.” This single mom,

and in one case a single dad, said: “How am I now going to be able to

help, under my limited income, my kids, when they’re working not only

getting experience but also working to help afford the little extra

things that I, as a single parent, can’t afford?”

These are stories that we’re hearing right across the

prov­ince. The reason why we’re hearing them is because under this

bill, there has been not enough information put forward to answer the

questions. I’m sorry, to the minister, but people aren’t going to, in

this case, say: “Trust us. We’ll make the right decision

later.”

My colleague, who put the amendment here on the floor, has a valid

point. Is this going to be considered? We don’t know. Is McDonald’s

going to allow the 14- and 15-year-olds who maybe only work a couple of

hours a week? Well, the minister is saying yes, but he hasn’t been able

to stand in this House…. He keeps saying maybe those decisions will be

made afterwards. Has the minister stood here and said what is not light

duty? Maybe after we’re finished this debate, he can sit there and maybe

put the whole list of things that won’t be allowed, because right now

all he’s saying is maybe it will be allowed.

Right now that’s why this amendment is being put forward. The way

things are working right now in the province, parents have a say. I, as

a parent with five kids…. If my child wanted to work at 13 years old,

and I chose that I thought they were able to, if I looked into it and I

figured they were going to be safe, if I looked at it and said: “Here’s

an opportunity for my child to get inspired into something that might be

a career opportunity when they go forward….”

I mean, I see the Minister of Education. He and I, I think, will

agree on this. We’re doing everything we can — and when I was the

minister — to try and instil in our youth what they might want to do

when they grow up. We have jobs plans. We have career fairs. We have all

these…. Why do we do that if we’re going to tell kids they can’t work

anymore until they’re 16 or older?

I think this is a very reasonable amendment, because it’s going to

what the crux of the issue is. It’s putting the decisions back with the

parents. It’s putting the decisions with the youth in those discussions

with the parents. And it also allows the organizations to ensure they

have the safety mechanisms in place for all those students.

I know some of our colleagues have talked about what this is going

to mean for the agricultural industry. There is going to be a whole

bunch of different sections that this minister has been unable to

answer, and that’s why this amendment is important, with the lack of

details.

With that, I’ll take my seat.

S. Bond: I want to stand and support the amendment that my colleague has

introduced. The minister sits and says: “Don’t worry about this one.

Don’t worry about that one.” What we’re worried about are the words in

this legislation. What it says, and we should be clear with British

Columbians what it says….

It says: “In this section, ‘light work’ means prescribed work or a

prescribed occupation that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers

is unlikely to be harmful to the health or development of a child who is

14 or 15 years of age.”

Let’s translate that language for British Columbians. What that

says is the cabinet of this government is going to determine the list of

occupations, prescribed occupations, that are unlikely to be harmful to

the health or development of a child.

[3:35 p.m.]

We should be clear about what we are arguing on this side. The

section 7 explanatory note points out that the bill,

section 9.1, “sets

out rules respecting the hiring of children in a hazardous industry or

hazardous work.” There is not a single MLA in this Legislature that does

not agree that that is unacceptable — having children in hazardous

workplaces. But what we want to argue is the fact that this government

has decided, arbitrarily, that 14- and 15-year-olds need to be treated

differently, that they’re going to decide with a list of some gigantic

list of occupations.

Does the minister honestly expect us to believe that the cabinet

of British Columbia is going to sit down and they’re going to talk about

referees? I’ll tell you, my colleague has introduced that issue. That is

an enormous issue. She’s listed groups in her constituency. But I can

assure the minister that that is a concern felt across British

Columbia.

The issue isn’t whether you’re 14 or 15 years old, in our opinion.

The issue is: is it a hazardous workplace? The minister hasn’t defined

that. I heard the minister muttering over there: “Well, mining.” There

are jobs in the mining industry that are not hazardous that would allow

for young people today to begin their work careers at an earlier age.

And I happen to believe that, actually, parents should have a say about

whether or not they have a role to play in deciding.

Is the minister going to allow cherry-picking? Heaven knows, they

may have to stand on a ladder. Is that considered unsafe? Who is the

government of British Columbia to decide the development of a child?

These are legitimate concerns. The minister can shake his head and be

concerned about what we’re saying, but there are no

definitions in this

bill. He continues to reference light duty. That can mean just about

anything. It’s open to

interpretation. It’s open to creating regulations

behind closed doors.

Once again, we see employers and families being left out of this

discussion. I would urge the minister to actually listen and take the

advice related to the amendment and spend some time talking about this.

I’ve actually been the Minister of Labour, and I can assure the minister

that we looked very seriously at the age limit.

We’re talking about, for example, children who participate in the

film industry. Not all of them are in hazardous situations. But how is

that classified in the minister’s list? This bill has zero definition

when it comes to the prescribed occupations.

I just think that when we live in a province where there are all

kinds of opportunities for young people that are 14 and 15 years old, we

suddenly have a government who thinks they know that they can have a

definitive list. How’s that going to work? Every time another suggestion

comes up — whether it’s cherry-picking, whether you’re a referee…. Who

knows how many occupations there are for young people who are getting

their first paycheque or getting some degree of work

experience?

This is about the legislation. It’s not about: “Well, the

opposition’s just standing up to complain.” There is a lack of

definition. And rightly so. Legislation should not contain prescriptive

lists because every time the government has to amend that list or change

it or add another one, it would require it to be done in the

Legislature.

So what does that mean? That means this government is going to go

back, and they’re going to do what they’ve done with all the other

bills. They’re going to start creating regulation. I don’t think that’s

fair. I don’t think it’s fair to business owners who encourage young

people to work for them.

The minister may not know this, but in many of those small

businesses, or even in larger businesses, those owners check to see how

kids are doing at school. They ask for copies of their report cards.

They see it as part of their

part in developing young people in British

Columbia.

Now, arbitrarily, this bill says: “We’re going to sit behind

cabinet doors, and we’re going to come up with a list that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council considers is unlikely to be harmful to

the health or development of a child.” The last time I checked, and

certainly when I looked at the qualifications of cabinet ministers, who

over there is going to be able to decide what is harmful to the

development of a 14-year-old?

All we’re asking is for this to be a pragmatic approach. In our

view, there has been zero discussion about changing the age range. What

we need to do is to take a step backwards.

[3:40 p.m.]

If the minister would like to go and start talking to the people

who are going to find themselves on one list or another…. They’re either

going to be on the permitted list or the not permitted list.

From our perspective…. If the minister can stand up today and tell

my colleagues that referees are going to be considered light duty, then

we’d be relieved to hear that. I’m sure that my colleagues can all get

up, and we can all give the minister an example. Hopefully, today he can

give us an answer. “Yes, MLA, that one will be okay.”

When you stop to think about the process that’s implied by this

bill…. From our perspective, it makes absolutely no sense. The amendment

makes sense, and I think it’s time the minister took a step back and

supported the amendment of my colleague.

T. Stone: I, too, would like to take my place here today and support my

colleague from North Vancouver–Seymour in her amendment, which I believe

is very reasoned.

I do find it concerning that the minister would just make an

outright suggestion that it is inappropriate and out of order and that

this is not the place or the time to be moving these kinds of

amendments. If I was paid a dollar for every time, as a former minister,

I stood on the other side of the House and had members of the minister’s

party move amendments, maybe I actually wouldn’t have sought re-election

last time around.

This is exactly the place where we should be discussing these

issues. This is exactly the time, in committee stage, where we should be

discussing this very important issue. I’m proud of the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour for moving this very reasonable amendment.

The issue is this. We are all hearing from lots and lots of

British Columbians in our respective constituencies who really believe

that this particular provision of Bill 8 is completely and totally

misguided. It’s unreasonable.

Now, I haven’t had a single parent call me up and say: “I don’t

believe that there should be protections on industrial worksites or

worksites where there’s significant potential for physical harm or where

you really are required to exert yourself strenuously. There shouldn’t

be protections in place to ensure that children, let alone any…. British

Columbians shouldn’t be protected in those situations.”

This provision sets up that false dichotomy, which essentially

goes to saying that…. If you’re under the age of 14, you must not be

able to work on any particular worksite and do anything work-related

around the province, unless the NDP government, in its infinite wisdom,

with its deep wells of intellectual capabilities, decides that that

worksite is an acceptable worksite for a kid.

I speak, as I say often in this House, as a parliamentarian. I

also speak as a dad. I have three daughters. I have my middle daughter,

who is a soccer fanatic. If she can’t be playing in a game on her team,

she wants to be at a practice for her team. If she can’t be at a

practice for her team, then she is happy, as a 12-year-old, to be a

referee for younger kids in the Kamloops Youth Soccer

Association.

She doesn’t do it because she’s desperate for the $18 per game

that she’s paid. She does it because she wants to be in the game. She

wants to be in the middle of the soccer match. She loves it and breathes

it. So do so many other kids, not just in soccer but in all kinds of

sports around this province, whether it’s hockey, lacrosse, football.

Pick a sport. Children — 12 years old, 13 years old — yes, are often

engaged in refereeing.

[3:45 p.m.]

Now, as my very able colleague from Prince George–​Valemount

just mentioned moments ago, certainly, we would be thrilled to hear the

minister state very clearly on the record that refereeing in youth

sports will be one of the exempted situations for employment for those

under the age of 14. But it’s not here. He hasn’t said that to this

point, and simply nodding as we are talking is not good enough. So we

would challenge the minister to be very clear, in this particular

example that I’m citing, that when it comes to refereeing in youth

sports, our kids will still be able to do it.

By the way, these parents who have contacted us — and I say this

as a parent as well — are also quick to point out that it’s hard to get

enough referees as it is. You take the 12-year-olds and the 13-year-olds

out of the mix, and we’re going to have serious issues in ensuring that

youth sports are properly and adequately refereed or staffed from a

referee perspective. That is very, very concerning.

For goodness’ sake, we train kids as young as 11 to babysit. We

say to that 11-year-old, that 12-year-old: “Go and take a course. Here’s

the course that provides you with the life skills. Here’s what to do in

the case of a health issue with the child you’re looking after. Here’s

what to do if there’s a fire in the house. Here’s what to do to keep the

home safe while you’re looking after the children under your care.” We

say that to kids who are as young as 12 years old — in some cases, 11

years old. My two older daughters have been through those programs, and

they’re entrusted with looking after, in many cases,

newborns.

By the way, the going rate is about ten bucks per child for

babysitting. No one is getting rich, but as refereeing is, it’s an

important opportunity for our children to learn about responsibility, to

learn what it means to actually give your word and show up on time and

do what’s expected of you and to actually earn a few dollars along the

way. Are parents now expected to wait with bated breath, to hope that

the NDP cabinet excludes babysitters from this provision? Or will they

be included as well?

My colleague from Peace River South mentioned the challenges

related to finding workers in the hospitality industry and restaurants.

I hear that, too, in Kamloops. I hear from not just the big chains but a

lot of the ma-and-pa shops as well, and little cafés.

A sporting goods store owner came to me the other day. He’s really

concerned, because he has a couple of kids who are under 14 who work a

couple of hours a week. What do they do? They make sure that the right

shoes are in the right boxes. They clean up the showroom in the store

after hours, put everything away, put things back on hangers. Is that

considered a hazardous work environment for those 12-year-olds, those

13-year-olds? Is he now going to have to wait for the NDP cabinet,

again, in their infinite wisdom, to deliberate over this and determine

whether or not that’s an acceptable exclusion to this new provision that

the government wants to bring in? We wait with bated breath.

How about the folks in the agriculture industry? I’ve got folks in

my constituency — and I know in other constituencies — where it’s very

much a part of growing up, the family farm. Going out and picking

berries and getting paid for picking those berries. Going out and

helping with chores around a cattle operation. No one puts their kids in

with the actual cattle, which comes back to a point that’s been made a

few times.

That’s: where did we lose faith and trust in parents to make

decisions for their children, to understand what’s right and what’s

wrong, what’s an acceptable level of risk and what’s not an acceptable

level of risk? Where did that responsibility that parents have go? Since

when does government always know best? Since when is it the NDP cabinet

that knows better than the parents of British Columbia as to what an

acceptable level of risk is for their kids?

[3:50 p.m.]

I will circle back to my opening point. That was — as the member

for North Van–Seymour indicated in moving this amendment, which I

support — that I also really want this minister and this government to

hear loud and clear that we’re very concerned about this

section.

We’re very concerned about increasing the age limit to 14, in

particular, from the perspective of youth sports and our kids being able

to step up, often in what is their first job, and get paid 15 to 20

bucks per game to run up and down the sidelines of the soccer pitch.

It’s, frankly, no more strenuous than actually being on the soccer pitch

in the game in the first place.

It’s an opportunity that I know with my daughter has taught her

tremendous responsibility and discipline. It’s something that she

enjoys, that she looks forward to, and it is certainly not a hazardous

worksite for her.

With that, I wholeheartedly endorse the amendment that my

colleague from North Van–Seymour has moved, and I would encourage all

members of the House to do so as well.

I. Paton: I’d like to speak in favour of the amendment, that ages 14 and 15

would be substituted with 12 wherever it appears.

Being from an agricultural background, I believe that the

government in place in this House right now has already made enough

mistakes with the agriculture community in this province with overhanded

rules and regulations that are falling into place regarding agriculture

in this province.

It always amazes me, since I’ve come here to Victoria to take my

role as an MLA, the amount of red tape and bureaucracy that’s being

created in this country, not only in B.C. but in all of Canada — how big

a house you can build, what you can do with your land, what you can do

as a landowner, how old your kids need to be to work. I cannot get over

some of the bureaucracy and red tape that we’re thrusting upon people in

this country. We’re apologizing for just about everything.

I am not going to apologize for the way I was brought up. I’m not

going to apologize for the fact that my son and daughter both started

working when they were 11 or 12 years old. That’s the backbone of the

agriculture industry in this province.

The people in Surrey that we fought for with Bill 52 and now we’re

fighting for with Bill 15…. Yet the minister here is going to the people

of the agriculture community in Surrey and Langley and Abbotsford and

all over this province, saying: “We’re going to tell you, we know better

than your mom and dad and we know better than your grandfather and your

grandmother about how old you should be to be able to work in

agriculture or in the sports industry.”

I grew up playing my first hockey game at age six. I’ve pretty

much played hockey my entire life right up until now. I still play on an

old-timers team. My children went through minor hockey. It was always so

good to watch the kids — my son growing up playing minor hockey. The

neat part of it was that you could never find enough adults, people in

their 30s or 40s or 50s, that could come and referee hockey games at six

o’clock on a Saturday morning. Same with soccer.

The beauty was that the young kids that were aged ten, 11, 12

learned to become referees, whether it was hockey, whether it was

soccer. This was a big deal for them. Somebody actually gave them a

uniform with black-and-white stripes and said: “You’re the linesman.

You’re the referee. You are only 12 years of age, but we’ve got you

refereeing the peewee hockey game on Saturday morning at eight

o’clock.”

[3:55 p.m.]

These kids were so excited. To get your first paycheque, whether

you’re refereeing soccer or whether you’re refereeing hockey, is a big

deal. And it’s a big deal to the associations, because they can’t find

people that are 18 or 19. They’ve got better things to do on a Friday

night than get up on Saturday morning to referee games. So it was great

to see these young people given the opportunity to become referees of

ice hockey, ringette, soccer and all these different sports that we’re

involved in.

Growing up on the farm, as I did — I’m still living on the farm

that I was born and raised on — we had dairy cattle, we had sheep, and

we had a huge chicken operation. My dad, my grandfather, were in the

layers. We produced eggs. The next-door neighbours, right across the

street, were dairy farmers. Literally, as a farm kid — that’s what’s so

great about growing up on a farm — we were driving pickup trucks when we

were 12 and 13 years old. I think we put blocks on our shoes so we could

reach the gas pedal.

This is what we need to get back to. Quit creating bureaucracy and

red tape and more rules about how big a house you can have and all these

different things.

Surely the minister understands, from an agricultural background….

Look at the families of the South Asian community that go out in the

summertime — grandma and grandpa that go because they enjoy picking

berries on the blueberry farms. They take their grandsons and their

granddaughters with them to earn a few bucks. Getting your first

paycheque at age 12 or 13 or 14 is so important.

Think of the things that kids are getting into nowadays who aren’t

getting their first jobs. Look at the gangs we have in this province.

Look at the social issues we have with kids that are sitting around on a

Friday night and a Saturday night and that have never even contemplated

getting a job. What do they do? They get mixed up with some kids that

are maybe into the bad end of town. “Let’s go do this. Maybe we’ll do a

B and E at a local convenience store or something.” This is where kids

get into a bad way — by not getting into the fact that they have a job

at a young age.

We’ve talked this afternoon about kids getting their first job at

McDonald’s or at a fast-food restaurant, but today I want to talk a bit

about children and agriculture.

When I grew up, as I said, we learned to do a lot of things at a

young age. We were proud to have that opportunity. I remember at age

ten, 11, 12 years old, we were always out picking potatoes for the

neighbours. My parents taught us how to milk cows, how to do chores.

Then as time went on, the neighbours would come and say: “Hey, I need

some extra help. Would you come and work for me?” It was so cool to have

the opportunity to have a job at a young age, well below the age of 16,

and to be able to get that paycheque.

As a farm kid, that paycheque meant so much. You’d open up your

bank account. I don’t know if some of you remember before ATMs and

whatnot. You’d go to the bank on Friday afternoon with your little book,

and you’d check to see how much money you had in your bank

account.

It was so important to have that opportunity, when I was a kid

growing up, to have all these different jobs before I reached the age of

16. It just gave you such a good feeling to be able to earn a paycheque

at age 12 or 13 or 14, when you’re on the farm picking berries, picking

fruit, milking cows, doing chores. All those different things were so

important growing up.

I’ll give you a good example. A couple of summers ago I went to

FCM in Saskatoon. A good friend of mine had moved out to Saskatoon from

Abbotsford. He’d bought himself a dairy farm just outside of town in

Saskatoon. We travelled on a long, dusty road to get to this dairy farm.

I brought the mayor of Delta with me and a couple of other councillors.

We got out there, and we had a little tour of this dairy farm. A bus

started coming down this long, dusty road. Off the bus came three kids

that belonged to this family.

I said hi to the kids, and they went into the house with their

books and their school clothes on. I’ll never forget the look of the

people that I was with from the city of Delta when these three kids,

about seven minutes later, came out of the house with their coveralls

on, their boots on, and they went straight to the barn.

That’s what good farm kids do. They put down their books. They

changed their clothes. They went to the barn, and they started getting

the cattle ready for milking time. The kids started doing chores. I

thought: “Wow, that’s what made this country great.” That’s what we need

to do to keep this country great, giving young people an opportunity to

work on the farms.

[4:00 p.m.]

Another example. Farming families are one of the last bastions we

have in this country of self-employed businesses that are actually owned

and run by the farm, by the farm family. I can tell you that even all

over the Fraser Valley, and in my riding of Delta, farmers that grow

potatoes and vegetables…. I’ll just explain how it works.

BCfresh is a huge company that you ship all your potatoes and

whatnot to, to be shipped out. Farmers will get a call at four o’clock

at night from BCfresh and say: “Look, we’ve got an emergency order for

six tonnes of russet potatoes, and we could use them tomorrow morning.

Can you help us?”

As a farming family, you’re not going to call up your contractor

at 4:30 at night and say: “Hey, I need a crew to dig six tonnes of

potatoes. I’ve got to have a load tomorrow morning to take to BCfresh.”

What do you do? You grab grandpa and grandma. You grab your kids. You

grab your niece. You grab your neighbour — whatever. You need eight

people to work on the harvester. One guy drives the tractor. Somebody

drives the truck. You’ve got six people on the potato harvester, and

that’s how you get that load put together to go to BCfresh the next

morning.

You don’t have time to run around looking for kids that are 16

years old or phone your contractor for contract help. That’s where

family members get involved. That’s where kids that are 11, 12, 13 are

part of the family. They get on the harvester, and they help pick that

load of spuds that are needed for the next morning.

Even as a kid growing up, not only did I work lots on the farms,

but I had all sorts of different jobs. It was fun. I mean, I did so many

different things. It’s unbelievable. I built fish boats on the Fraser

River when I was in university — wooden hulled fish boats. I worked as a

greens keeper on a golf course because not too many guys knew how to

drive a tractor. Also, my dad was the auctioneer at a stockyard in

Vancouver.

A lot of people will never believe this. At the foot of Fraser

Street, there was an old bridge called the Fraser Street Bridge. It went

from No. 5 Road over to Fraser Street.

There was a stockyard called McClary Stock Yards. My dad was the

auctioneer. At age ten, I would go with my dad, in the summertime, into

the stockyard. They actually gave me — I think it was — my first job. I

would help to hustle the cattle out of the auction ring, after they’d

been sold, and down into the correct pens they had to be in, into the

pen of the new owner of the livestock. That was kind of cool, working

with my dad at a stockyard in Vancouver, believe it or not. That

stockyard, in about 1967, finally folded up and moved to Abbotsford.

It’s still out there today, called McClary Stock Yards in

Abbotsford.

One other thing I did that I’m pretty proud of, besides all the

different jobs I had…. Growing up in a farming community, we had a

volunteer fire department in east Delta. It just kind of served all the

farmland, but it also served the George Massey Tunnel and Highway 99

almost right to White Rock.

Talk about growing up fast. We had a beeper that went off in the

house when there was a fire call. As volunteer firemen at age 16, we’d

jump in the truck and go to the fire hall. They weren’t always burning

buildings. We saw some pretty horrific stuff. It made you grow up to be

a man real quick when you attended horrific car accidents at age 16 at

the volunteer fire hall. You saw some pretty gruesome stuff that made

you become a man quite quickly.

Without too much further ado, I want to say that this country has

got to get back to some realistic initiatives. Cut red tape. Cut

bureaucracy. Quit making new rules. Quit making it tough for everybody

in agriculture, especially for the South Asian community. This is

something that…. I cannot believe the minister would not stand behind

this amendment with the South Asian community that knows it’s important

to keep their kids out of the bad end of town, keep their kids out of

gangs and whatnot, to give them the opportunity to work and get a job

even at age 12, 13, 14 and 15.

A. Olsen: I stood and intended on speaking to this. The previous comment

there is just absolutely offensive. I just can’t even believe that those

kinds of words are being spoken in this House. We’re talking about how

we need to get this country back to the way it was, make it great again.

That rhetoric is just absolutely absurd. The comments that were just

made from the member for Delta South — offensive.

The fact of the matter is, I have a 12….

Interjection.

[4:05 p.m.]

A. Olsen: It’s disgusting? Really?

The reality of this is that to pick out a community in this

province and suggest that they….

The Chair: Member, are you speaking to the amendment?

A. Olsen: Yes, I’m speaking to the amendment. I’m speaking to the comments

that were about this amendment. I’ll not be supporting this amendment.

It’s absurd. The fact of the matter is that the official opposition has

pulled out aspects of this, and they’re trying to rile up the tensions

of this place.

The fact of the matter is that this province has been called a

pariah by those around the world for moving the age of work so low. We

are a pariah in the world because of that. The rules that are created

here, the official opposition would like to pretend that there aren’t

conditions….

Interjections.

A. Olsen: An outcast. The fact of the matter is, here, there are

ways….

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

A. Olsen: There are ways, for the options that are outlined here, for kids

under the age of 14 and 15 to be able to do the things that they said

that they are not going to be able to do. The reality of it is that

while the former government was in, they created a bunch of laws that

then were regulated. That’s what’s happening here. What’s happening

here….

Interjections.

A. Olsen: It’s all good. It’s fine.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, come to order.

Proceed.

A. Olsen: The fact of the matter is that what’s being changed here is not as

the members of the official opposition are suggesting that it is. It’s

very similar to the way that they used to create legislation. They’re

legislating the age, and then they’re going to regulate certain aspects

of the industry.

I’ve got a 12-year-old son. I trust him. He’s a smart kid. He can

operate very, very well in this world. There are certain things that I

think…. When I think about him working in a restaurant, for example,

when I think about him working in some of the places of work that have

been raised here, I have got serious concerns. So as an active parent,

I’ll be able to work with my son to be able to pick the kinds of things

that he can do and that he can’t do. That’s what’s being allowed in this

legislation.

In this world over here, they pretend like that’s not even part of

the conversation — completely recreating a whole world over here that is

just not even existing. The reality of it….

Interjection.

A. Olsen: It’s not ridiculous. The amendment here is to change the number to

12. Well, our labour laws are already being criticized for being 12. The

fact that this government is trying to strengthen the laws to allow for

parents and for there to be more protection for our children should be

celebrated, not amended to younger, not amended to 12.

Then to pretend like we can come into this place and we can raise

an issue of umpiring, which is something that I did, or refereeing,

which is something that I did, and pretend like that’s not going to be

considered as something that a youth will do. That’s ridiculous. How

do…?

Interjections.

A. Olsen: Fire it up.

The Chair: Members. Members will come to order.

Interjections.

A. Olsen: It’s right in front of me.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. Members will come to order.

A. Olsen: Yeah, it did hit a nerve. That’s right.

Anyway, I’m going to leave it at this. The arguments that I’ve

heard coming from the official opposition in support of their amendment

are absurd, and I will not be supporting them.

[4:10 p.m.]

S. Chandra Herbert: We have legislation…. The Minister of Labour is proposing

legislation which seems to follow the actions of such radical outliers

as Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward

Island, even Alberta and Saskatchewan as well, so most of Canada. But

the Liberal opposition seems to suggest any restriction on somebody

working at the age of 12, 13, 14 is somehow ridiculous. Oh, sorry — 13,

14, 15.

Interjections.

The Chair: Member, could you pause for a moment. The House will come to

order.

Proceed.

S. Chandra Herbert: It just bothers me that such outlandish claims have been made by

the opposition about legislation which, on the face of it, makes it

clear that what we’re trying to do is protect kids, trying to give

parents rights, trying to give involvement of facilities, and making

sure that we actually consult the public, something which I know the

government, anytime I asked them when they were on the government side…

But they’ve forgotten so soon. I guess they’re getting used to life in

the opposition, and I wish them many happy years there.

I get it. It’s their job to criticize in opposition. But when you

actually have consultation processes to set the terms of how legislation

is going to go, that’s what regulations are for, and that’s how

legislation and regulations get crafted.

But to suggest, as the opposition does, that any job should be

done by a 12-year-old, any job should be done by a 13-year-old…. That’s

just fine by them. The amendment here suggests that anybody is

here….

Interjections.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’m going based on the amendment. I know the member is speaking

not from his seat, but he never follows the rules in this case anyways.

It’s better to just bark out unfounded arguments.

Reading the amendment here, what this suggests is that somebody

who was under…. Now, they changed the legislation here to basically say

that there could be no rules for anybody who is above 12 years old.

That’s what the amendment says. I know it’s a badly crafted amendment,

and it’s not one that’s gone through legislative counsel. It’s not

something that’s been done in a good way.

I understand the opposition is concerned that while we were in

opposition, we didn’t go through legislative counsel. To put it on the

record, they never offered us that opportunity. I’m glad that the

Attorney General has offered that opportunity for people so we can get

better laws, but I understand they want to go to the “make it up, write

it, scratch it down quickly and pretend you’re a lawyer,” pretend that

it’ll just somehow work.

I worked when I was 13, I worked when I was 14, and I think it

worked out pretty well. But that was with restrictions. That was with

things. Suggesting that a 12-year-old should be able to do any

construction task…. There’s a reason why so many young people ended up

getting hit, injured, damaged at work and in front of the Workers

Com­pensation Board.

Unfortunately, the opposition seems to be so keen to just allow a

process, which almost nowhere else in Canada follows, to continue here.

That’s children getting injured. That’s children being impacted by

dangerous, hazardous work. And they want it to continue. I think it’s

shameful. I’m supportive of the minister’s approach here. And I think

that ensuring that we can find good ways that young people can work in a

safe way, where we consult parents, we consult employers…. I think that

would be a more sensible approach than just the Liberals’ knee-jerk

approach to say, “Let’s just keep doing what was the process before,”

which led to children getting injured across British

Columbia.

I don’t support kids getting injured at 12 or 13 or 14 on a

construction site, and I don’t know why anybody else would. Let’s make

this clear in the law as opposed to the anecdote.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. Members, come to order.

Earlier the Minister of Labour raised a point of order and

maintained that the amendment moved by the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour was out of order, that the amendment was defective

and did not achieve the desired effect. As members know, an

amendment can strike out words and substitute words or simply strike

out certain words or add words.

It is not the role of the Chair to determine if the amendment

achieves its intended legal