Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, May 5, 2022

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 198

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Statements

Walk in Esquimalt for missing and murdered Indigenous

women, girls and two-spirit people

Hon. M. Dean

Introductions by Members

Statements

Princeton and Hockeyville competition

Hon. R. Kahlon

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Hilliard Clare

S. Bond

Role of midwives

J. Rice

Community awards recipients in Kelowna

R. Merrifield

Comox Valley Transition Society

R. Leonard

Kimberley and Best Small Town competition

D. Clovechok

Watershed and wetland restoration projects in Cowichan

Valley

D. Routley

Ministerial Statements

Red Dress Day and remembrance of missing and murdered

Indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people

Hon. M. Rankin

M. Lee

A. Olsen

Oral Questions

Crime in communities and handling of cases by justice

system

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. D. Eby

Action on gas prices

P. Milobar

Hon. B. Ralston

Natural gas fracking and environmental impacts on

Indigenous communities

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Rankin

Conditions at hospitals and whistleblower protection

for health care workers

L. Doerkson

Hon. A. Dix

T. Stone

Health care issues and role of urgent and primary care

centres

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2022

(continued)

S. Bond

M. Lee

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education and Child Care

(continued)

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. J. Whiteside

B. Stewart

THURSDAY, MAY 5, 2022

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: S. Chant.

[10:05 a.m.]

Statements

WALK IN ESQUIMALT FOR MISSING

AND MURDERED INDIGENOUS

WOMEN, GIRLS AND TWO-SPIRIT PEOPLE

Hon. M. Dean: Today we honour the memory of missing and murdered Indigenous women,

girls and two-spirit people.

Just a few minutes ago the first Our Womxn Are Sacred Walk has begun in

my community of Esquimalt-Met­chosin, at the corner of Admirals and

Hallowell.

To people in my community, I encourage you to join your neighbours,

family and friends to heal, to celebrate and to hold each other up.

I’m honoured to stand today in this House and raise my hands to the

organizers: Surrounded by Cedar Child and Family Services, in partnership with

Songhees and Esquimalt Nations, Victoria Native Friendship Centre, South Island

Indigenous Authority, Indigenous Perspectives Society, Hulitan Family and

Community Services Society, NIȽ TU,O Child

and Family Services Society and Island Métis Family and Community Services

Society.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Osborne: None of us is able to do our jobs without the support and the teamwork of

dedicated staff. Of course, for members of cabinet, that includes the

communications and public affairs professionals who support each minister’s

office.

Today in the gallery, we are joined by four of these individuals from the

team that supports my office in the Ministry of Land, Water and Resource

Stewardship. They are Tania Venn, communications director; Nova Pierson,

communications manager; Tom Winterhoff, senior public affairs officer; and Chitra

Arcot, public affairs officer.

I want to thank them for the work that they do and ask the House to please

help me make them welcome today.

C. Oakes: In our community of Quesnel, we have a monument that pays tribute. We

reflect, especially today, on the 28 missing and murdered women from our

community. I want to acknowledge all of the families who have been impacted and

all of the community organizations.

There are a number of events that are happening over the next couple of

weeks, and I just want to acknowledge everyone.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I have two introductions. First, on behalf of my colleague the Minister of

Transportation, who I know will be coming in any minute, I want to recognize the

young students that are here in the gallery today. They’re here from Central

Middle School, and they are the students of colour association.

I reflect on my time in high school. I wish I had an association like this

where I could get together with people to talk about our hopes and dreams and

opportunities and challenges that we face. I’m looking forward to seeing them at

lunchtime to talk about any topic that they want to discuss.

I want to welcome them and hope the House can please join me in welcoming

them here today.

Statements

PRINCETON AND

HOCKEYVILLE COMPETITION

Hon. R. Kahlon: I do want to make one more recognition today.

Most of us that are ice hockey fans will know of the Hockeyville Canada

competition. It’s advertised quite broadly. There are four cities that have

been chosen across the country as the final four. Princeton, B.C., is one of

those communities.

I know that my colleague from Fraser-Nicola and I are excited to hear

that they’re the only city in the province that’s in the final four. Mayor

Coyne, I know, is very excited. I saw a video he posted the other day promoting

this important event. The winner of the competition gets not only some dollars

for their rink but also the ability to host a high-level hockey game in their

community.

I want to share, on behalf of Mayor Coyne and my colleague from

Fraser-Nicola, that people can go online and vote. I encourage all British

Columbians to go online and vote, starting tomorrow. Ontario and Quebec are our

competition. If we all unite, we can get this one through.

The message is: let’s bring this home. Vote for Princeton in this

important competition.

Introductions by Members

A. Singh: Today, May 5, would have been my mother’s 82nd birthday. She passed away

from breast cancer a few years ago. Much of who I am is because of her.

Happy birthday, Mom, wherever you are.

[10:10 a.m.]

R. Singh: I’m also going to join the member for Delta North in welcoming the students

from Central Middle School, the students of colour association. I’m really looking

forward to having a conversation.

Thank you for taking the time to meet with us. Really looking forward to

the conversation.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

HILLIARD CLARE

S. Bond: A 2016

article in the Prince George Citizen called Hilliard

Clare a keepsake of Prince George, and that he was.

Born in 1929, Hilliard moved to Prince George with his parents in 1930

to live in the Cache with other railroad families. Hilliard was a Mason and

served in the Shriners. He was an alderman of the city of Prince George, a

Jaycee senator, an associate member of the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 43, and

he was also known to play Santa Claus for the Elks organization.

In his youth, Hilliard was a hockey goalie and a long-time director of

the Prince George Mohawks hockey club. He received the prestigious Centennial

Medal in 1967 for his community service and was Citizen of the Year in

While Hilliard’s dream was to go to law school, there was no money for

continuing education at that time. He went to work full-time at the iconic

Northern Hardware store, and there he stayed for decades — more than 70 years,

in fact. During his career, he drove the delivery truck, repaired bicycles and

eventually moved into the office. He said he enjoyed his job and all the people

he worked with.

Hilliard was an incredible part of the history of our community and, in

particular, Northern Hardware. Hilliard said that he had established many good

and long-lasting friendships and that the people of Prince George are friendly

and helpful and that it was indeed a great place to live.

Hilliard passed away on April 26, 2022. He will be deeply missed by his

loving family and, of course, by our community. Hilliard Clare was a father and

a grandfather and someone who was, in the words of writer Kathy Nadalin, a

keepsake of the city of Prince George.

We will miss you, Hilliard.

ROLE OF MIDWIVES

J. Rice: On International Day of the Midwife, I rise to celebrate and honour the

midwives of British Columbia. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the

International Confederation of Midwives, and the theme of this year’s

celebration is “100 years of progress.”

Midwives play a critical role in progressing our own health care system

here in B.C. and effectively provide primary maternity care to over 10,000

families across the province each year. Not only can midwives provide families

the opportunity to access primary maternity care from the comfort of their own

home, but they specialize in healthy and low-risk pregnancies, effectively

reducing the pressure put on hospital resources.

In British Columbia, we are fortunate enough to have over 400 highly

trained midwives accredited through the B.C. College of Nurses and Midwives,

who provide trauma-informed, culturally safe, inclusive and effective services

to families across the province. These incredible caregivers work diligently

and sensitively to ensure the health and well-being of newborns and mothers

before, during and after delivery. This care gives strength and support to

parents who experience the significant physical and mental challenges that come

with bearing and delivering a child.

Improvements are being made, but there continues to be a challenge of

supporting midwives in rural and remote communities, where health services are

often limited and midwifery is, in fact, an ideal service. I’ve been working

with local advocacy group Prince Rupert Advocates for Midwifery. This is a

group meant to bring together people in the Prince Rupert community who would

like to see midwifery as an option for maternity care.

Whether a pregnant woman wants to have a hospital or home birth, a

vaginal or planned Caesarean birth, maternity care with a doctor or a midwife,

it should be her choice. Currently in Prince Rupert, we don’t have many of

those choices, but collectively, along with local physicians and Northern

Health, we’re working on changing this.

Today I invite you all to join me in celebrating, appreciating and

honouring midwives.

[10:15 a.m.]

COMMUNITY AWARDS

RECIPIENTS IN KELOWNA

R. Merrifield: Resilient. Innovative. Tenacious. Courageous. Strong. Optimistic.

Excellence. Service to community. These are words that have been repeated

through­out the recent celebrations in Kelowna at the Kelowna Chamber of

Commerce’s Business Excellence Awards, the Southern Interior Construction

Association awards, the Okanagan Housing Awards of Excellence and the city of

Kelowna’s Civic and Community Awards.

Yes, April was a busy month, celebrating the businesses and community

that makes Kelowna so exceptional. It was a joy to be able to participate but

mostly to be in person with so many from our city and reconnect after the

pandemic. I wish that I could celebrate every single winner. I will acknowledge

as many as time allows.

Know that you are all celebrated. Congratulations.

For the Business Excellence Awards: HUB Office Furniture Inc., Festivals

Kelowna, CrAsian Foods Corp., Secure-Rite Mobile Storage, TKI Construction,

Ecora, Courtney Koga, Habitat for Humanity Okanagan, Flora­Maxx

Technologies, O’Rourke’s Peak Cellars, Acres Enterprises Ltd.

For the 47th annual Civic and Community Award: Edna Terbasket; Mike

Sodaro; Kelowna Senior Secondary Owls boys volleyball team; Malindi Elmore;

Jerome Blake; Tatum Wade; Everett Schmuland and Nathan Loo; Dryden Bennett;

Jennifer Money; Canadian Mental Health Association, Kelowna; Toyota Kelowna;

Don Dobson; Lloyd Nelson; David Withler.

Okanagan Awards Housing Excellence. I’ll just list the grands. Acorn

Communities, Dilworth Homes, Edward West Luxury Homes, Norelco Cabinets, Hannah

Katey Interior Design, Bercum Builders and Gord Turner for a lifetime

achievement award.

And for SICA: Emil Anderson, Plan B Construction, John Bachelder

Construction, Traine Construction, Houle Interior, Acres Enterprises,

Highstreet Ventures and Flynn Canada.

Congratulations to all the winners. Thank you for all you do for our

community and through your service.

COMOX VALLEY TRANSITION SOCIETY

R. Leonard: Growing from a safe home network 35 years ago, welcoming women and

children fleeing violence into families’ homes, the Comox Valley Transition

Society today provides many vital services for our vulnerable neighbours and

continues to cultivate a supportive community, from the thrift store to events

like Coldest Night of the Year, where we’re No. 6 in the country for money

raised. Thank you very much.

In 1992, the transition society bought Lilli House, with 11 beds and six

bedrooms. Today Stasia Hasumi is the manager extraordinaire of this women’s

shelter. Last year 111 women benefited from this safe haven, which is dozens

less than before the pandemic.

Finding housing for transitioning out of Lilli House and for those who

are stranded with no shelter, the transition society has gone on to operate 23

subsidized homes through provincial rent supplements, and they’re planning for

more housing. They opened Amethyst House, now operating 13 beds of social detox

and supportive recovery for women. Praise goes to Tonya Edwards, who

effectively collaborates with Island Health, Coastal Health and CMHA to provide

this valuable service. Forty modular units of second-stage housing are going

up, ready in the next month.

Recognizing that men who are supported result in women being safer, they

operate a men’s group to address violent behaviours. Applying a gendered lens,

the transition society has taken on co-ed programs for the homeless, including

sheltering and the Connect day program, managed by Diana Murton.

Deb Prain provides remarkable advocacy as she manages 64 beds at the

Travelodge, working collaboratively with Health to provide supports as this

transitional housing helps bring stability to people’s lives.

Heather Ney, the executive director, steers the ship and is proud of her

team, and we are all proud of them.

KIMBERLEY AND

BEST SMALL TOWN

COMPETITION

D. Clovechok: I’m so proud to stand here today to recognize a community in Columbia

River–Revelstoke for being the declared winner of the CBC search for the best

small town in British Columbia.

To begin, I want to acknowledge Revelstoke, Invermere and Golden,

communities also in my riding, that were in the hunt as well.

[10:20 a.m.]

In March, the CBC search launched its seven-week competition and

garnered participation from 128 communities with a little over 850,000 votes.

The final vote took place on Monday, April 25, and I’m proud to say that

Kimberley was crowned the best town in B.C.

In the words of Mayor Don McCormick, this recognition of Kimberley

couldn’t come at a better time. “The past winter was hard not only due to the

pandemic, but also, they experienced two significant arson events, one at the

Gymnastics Centre and another that took out the main ski lift for the entire

season. This contest became a rallying point for the community. It’s not only

great for Kimberley; it’s great for the Kootenays.”

Kimberley is known for many things. It’s the highest city in terms of

elevation in Canada and has more than 300 days of sunshine. It’s known for its

outstanding facilities, venues and small businesses that range from incredible

restaurants; the underground railway; the Kimberley Heritage Museum; the

Cominco Gardens; the solar park, which powers 200 homes in Kimberley; of

course, the MLA’s office, which is net zero as well; the Kimberley ski resort;

and the Kimberley Nature Park, to mention a few.

Then there are the people. There is a distinct vibe about this amazing

place, this amazing community, around the locals who are fun-loving,

hard-working and passionately committed to their community. They love where

they live and would love to show you around. The people of Kimberley make it a

place that is hard to leave and even harder to forget.

Thank you to the CBC.

Congratulations to all the amazing small communities who

participated.

I’m so proud of Kimberley and believe it’s not only a great place to

live, but now it’s the best place to live.

WATERSHED AND WETLAND RESTORATION

PROJECTS IN COWICHAN

VALLEY

D. Routley: Through the healthy watersheds initiative, our government has invested

$27 million into more than 60 projects aimed at restoring and preserving

watersheds and wetlands, including two projects in the Cowichan Valley.

Cowichan Tribes has received $2.8 million to lead two projects, which are also

supporting 53 jobs in our community.

The first project includes extensive work to rehabilitate the Cowichan

and Koksilah Rivers by focusing on sedi­ment management and habitat

rehabilitation. Work in­volves removing 90,000 cubic metres of sediment

across six sites, repairing the hatchery and old south side dikes, excavating

and reactivating side channels and monitoring of sites for flood and drought

management.

The second is funding to help build a water sustaina­bility plan

for the Xwulqw’selu Sto’lo’, the Koksilah River watershed. In recent years,

summer flow rates have been exceptionally low at times when demand is at its

highest. This funding will be used to conduct technical work and analysis to

support sustainable long-term land and water management in order to restore

water flows for fish and water users.

With Budget 2022, we are continuing to build on the success from

projects like the ones led by Cowichan Tribes, with an additional $30 million

investment for restoration and preservation of more wetlands and watersheds

throughout B.C.

I’d like to use the remaining moments of my time to remember and honour

the missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls from the

Hul’q’umi’num’-speaking territories which I represent: lost to the Cowichan,

Lake Cowichan, Halalt, Penelakut, Lyackson, Stz’uminus and Snuneymuxw

people.

May their memories be a blessing.

Ministerial Statements

RED DRESS DAY AND REMEMBRANCE OF

MISSING AND MURDERED

INDIGENOUS

WOMEN, GIRLS AND TWO-SPIRIT PEOPLE

Hon. M. Rankin: I would like to draw the House’s attention to an important event in our

calendar. Today, May 5, is Red Dress Day in Canada. This is a national day of

awareness to remember and honour murdered and missing Indigenous women, girls

and two-spirit-plus people and their families.

You may have noticed red dresses and ribbons pop up across this province

in windows and on trees and balconies. You may have also noticed the red dress

hanging from the inner balcony of this House. The red dress is a symbol for the

movement and is linked to a 2010 art installation by Jaime Black, called the

REDress project.

Ms. Black chose the colour red after speaking with an Indigenous friend

who told her that red is the only colour that spirits can see. It is a way of

calling the spirits of missing and murdered women and girls back to their loved

ones.

The project has sparked a grassroots movement that has now grown to

unify us all in the fight against gendered violence. Each year individuals

across the country wear red. They post videos and photos of red dresses. They

hang red dresses in locations across this country.

[10:25 a.m.]

Scott Fraser, my predecessor, started the symbolic hang­ing of the

red dresses here, and today our Legislature has been lit up in red in honour of

missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people.

Marches, gatherings, ceremonies, webinars raise awareness of this

tragedy, and they demand continued action. This includes the Our Womxn Are

Sacred Walk that’s hosted by the Songhees Nation and is happening in Esquimalt

as I speak.

Red Dress Day continues the important work of honouring lost loved ones

and the lives of all women and gender-diverse people. Together we can support

healing, and we can end gender-based violence.

Let’s take this opportunity to recognize the family members, Indigenous

community members and concerned citizens across this country. They are

demanding change. They are demanding safety. They are supporting the healing so

desperately needed from the scourge of this systemic violence.

M. Lee: I stand here today with all colleagues in this House, in a good and

humble way, to acknowledge the National Day of Awareness for Missing and

Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

Across Canada and here in British Columbia, Indigenous women and girls

experience an extreme amount of violence and systemic racism. As the minister

just referred to, in 2010, Winnipeg artist Jaime Black began hanging empty red

dresses, one for every missing and murdered Indigenous woman who has

experienced racialization and sexualized violence. Twelve years later we

continue this tradition to symbolize the Indigenous women, girls and two-spirit

people who never came home.

B.C. has the highest number of cases of murdered or missing Indigenous

women in Canada, particularly in the Downtown Eastside community and the

Highway of Tears. As members of this Legislative Assembly, we all have a

responsibility to use our voices to bring forward meaningful systemic change,

provide resources to communities to end the cycles of trauma and violence,

create healing and bring justice to their families. We have a duty to educate

ourselves on the dark history of our country: the appalling acts committed in

residential schools, the Sixties Scoop, the millennial scoop and the continued

intergenerational trauma experienced by Indigenous communities

today.

Over 2,000 people — the families and survivors as well as

knowledge-keepers — have shared their stories with the national inquiry into

missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. Three years after its

conclusion, families are still experiencing heartbreaking loss and are waiting

for meaningful action.

There are concrete actions that we can take towards protecting our

women, girls and two-spirit people, and we expect this government to do so. Our

mothers, grandmothers, daughters, sisters, aunties and cousins are all so

precious to us, and now is the time to ensure that all Indigenous women, girls

and two-spirit people are treated with dignity and respect.

I also wish to acknowledge the work of the countless advocates and

organizations who have raised our consciousness on these issues. I hope that we

have the wisdom and the humility to listen to those same voices as we move

forward with solutions. We raise our hands to you all.

Oh sea em, Hiy hiy, Miigwech . Thank you.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the Minister of Indigenous Relations and to the member for

Vancouver-Langara for your thoughtful comments on today.

[10:30 a.m.]

Today is the National Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered

Indigenous Women and Girls, Red Dress Day. I wish I could stand here and read

into the record all the names of the missing and murdered Indigenous women,

girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ peoples.

To the matriarchs, the future matriarchs, my grandmother, mother,

aunties, sisters, cousins, nieces, to my daughter Ella, I love you, and I raise

my hands to you for your power and your strength.

It’s Mother’s Day weekend. This weekend there will be too many members

of our families who will not be with us. There are going to be too many empty

seats around the table, too many candles burning solemnly on the mantle. I wish

I could say to our relatives that their Crown governments have been inspired to

ensure that every case is investigated and solved, that this institution is

sparing no resources to find the perpetrators of these crimes and bring them to

justice. I can’t. We can’t.

When I hear that the transformation of policing services is too

expensive or too difficult, that governments don’t like expensive or difficult,

it comes from a more privileged reality than that of the families of the

missing and mur­dered. As we become more comfortable acknowledging our

inadequate and fragmented police services built on institutionalized racism,

stigma and discrimination, where there is a distinctly lesser value placed on

the life of Indigenous women, where we hear that Indigenous women in

communities are both underserved by police and overrepresented in our justice

system, transformation is not only necessary, but there is no other choice than

to change this culture.

I read the headline this morning. “‘Shocking and shameful’: for the

first time, Indigenous women make up half the female population in Canada’s

federal prisons.” Let’s put that into context. One out of every 20 women in

Canada is Indigenous.

When I sat on that Police Act committee, I held close in my heart the

missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people who died

because our police services, structures and institutions made them vulnerable

to exploitation and death. We must do better than we have. We must do better

than the national action plan, much better than our meagre commitment in A

Path Forward: Priorities and Early Strategies for B.C. Today we must do

better than perform for those who are missing or murdered.

I hope that just as we paused for a moment of silence on the Day of

Mourning for injured and killed workers, we do the same for our

sisters.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM .

Oral Questions

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND

HANDLING OF CASES BY JUSTICE

SYSTEM

K. Kirkpatrick: Yesterday we learned a woman was randomly attacked in James Bay, almost

directly behind this Legislature, when a man pushed her into the corner of a

building face first, cutting her face and giving her head injuries.

Despite denials by the Attorney General, random as­saults in our

communities have increased dramatically.

When will the Attorney General end his catch-and-release and get

prolific offenders off our streets?

Hon. D. Eby: My sincere sympathy and empathy to the victim of this horrible random

assault. I imagine she and her family are going through quite a difficult time,

and the broader community, in the feelings of safety and security.

The Minister of Public Safety and I take this issue very seriously,

despite what the member suggested in her question. It’s not correct. We take it

very seriously. I’ve been on my feet saying that for a couple of weeks

now.

I look forward to making an announcement this afternoon with the

Minister of Public Safety and mayors of our province about how we’re going to

wrap our hands around this issue and address it. That’s what our government

does. When we see a problem, we move to solve it.

[10:35 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Member for West Vancouver–Capilano, supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: Nobody has confidence in this Attorney in whatever he will announce,

given his terrible track re­cord for five years and his past statements.

In 2011, he said: “We have serious concerns with the results of the prolific

offender program and are continuing to investigate aggressive policing

tactics.”

Will the Attorney General end his catch-and-release system and take

action to protect British Columbians so they can feel safe in their

communities?

Hon. D. Eby: I think the police themselves will tell you that when it comes to issues

of mental health and addiction and wherever those issues overlap with

behaviours that are criminal in nature, police need more than just the criminal

justice system. We need mental health and addictions supports. And for some

people, those need to be compulsory, because they will not take up the

voluntary supports we offer. We’ve been meeting with police. We’ve been going

over these issues in relation to random stranger attacks as well as prolific

property crime.

The member says in her question that she doesn’t appreciate my track

record on these issues. I’ll point out two similar issues that came to my

attention. One was the financial crisis at ICBC. We now have the best insurance

rates and the best benefits in Canada, following my work and carried on by the

Minister of Public Safety. The second. We had widespread and rampant money

laundering in our casinos. I took on that issue. We no longer have that

problem.

Just like that, we’ve identified this issue. We’ll address this issue,

and I assure the members of the public who’ve been victims of crime that we

take this very seriously.

ACTION ON GAS PRICES

P. Milobar: Well, this government’s empty rhetoric and lack of results are failing

British Columbians on a wide range of issues. Whether it’s the

catch-and-release system of this Attorney General and spiking crime rates, the

crumbling of our health care system in front of our very eyes or the lack of

any measures around affordability, this government is failing by every

measure.

Gas prices are expected to hit an all-time high of $2.17 per litre

tomorrow. This means it’s going to cost some families upwards of $200 just to

fill up their family vehicle. It’s been 215 weeks since the Premier first

promised action if gas prices stayed high, but today life is more unaffordable

with sky-high gas prices, soaring inflation and no help in sight.

How much longer will families have to wait for a real, long-term

solution and relief on gas prices from this government?

Hon. B. Ralston: I think everyone recognizes that the war in Ukraine has dramatically

shifted energy markets not only here in British Columbia and not only in Canada

but around the world. As a provincial jurisdiction, we do not control the world

price of oil. But here within British Columbia, we do have jurisdiction that’s

exercised through the B.C. Utilities Commission. That’s why we created the Fuel

Price Transparency Act and empowered the energy watchdog to investigate fuel

prices here.

In addition, thanks to the work of the Attorney General while he was

responsible for ICBC, we are now going to be able to rebate to drivers the sum

of $110 per person. That is beginning this week through the process of rebates

by either mail, by credit card or by cheque. So there is some relief on its

way.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Kamloops–North Thompson, supplemental.

P. Milobar: Sadly, this minister and their cabinet has got their retroactive pay,

likely, in their bank accounts long before people are going to see any relief

from this government when it comes to gas prices.

The war in Ukraine is affecting everybody. Yet in Washington State,

right across the border, gas is $1.50 a litre today — Canadian. In Alberta,

it’s 40 to 50 to 60 cents a litre — depending on the day — cheaper than in

British Columbia. We have the highest gas prices with the highest gas taxes in

North America.

[10:40 a.m.]

Despite five years of empty NDP rhetoric, B.C. continues to have that.

Two weeks ago the Premier said he directed the Finance Minister to “bring

forward initiatives” to assist with inflation. We’ll see how that goes. And 215

weeks ago the Premier said he had a plan for high gas prices. Two weeks ago he

said he was still working on inflation.

When are we going to see any type of discernable action, from this

government, to help people with their inflationary costs at the

pump?

Hon. B. Ralston: I want to congratulate Kevin Falcon on his victory in the by-election.

No doubt he will be here very soon in the Legislature, and he will have an

opportunity to explain this statement that he made back in 2008: “I don’t want

to…pretend that there’s any magic solutions to the fact that fuel prices have

doubled in the last 12 months.”

He was asked about this statement just recently on The Mike Smyth

Show , and he said: “This is what I said, and it’s true.” We’ll await

his solutions, perhaps next week.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shall we continue?

Member for Saanich North and the Islands.

NATURAL GAS FRACKING

AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES

A. Olsen: Today is the National Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered

Indigenous Women and Girls, also known as Red Dress Day. Earlier this week this

assembly celebrated a new anti-racism data collection initiative, a new bill.

Yesterday afternoon I celebrated that initiative.

I wish that this B.C. NDP government’s commitment extended to

environmental racism. In northern B.C., spurred on by this government’s

record-setting investment and subsidization of the liquefied gas industry,

fracking is widespread.

We are learning about the tragic and deadly conse­quences of

fracking. We’re learning more and more about it every day. Emissions of

chemicals that cause and exacerbate birth defects, rare cancers and asthma are

disproportionately impacting Indigenous communities. One study from the U.S.

found that children born near fracking sites were 25 percent more likely to be

born at low birth weights, or less than 5.5 pounds. They found an increased

risk of childhood mortality and poorer educational outcomes.

A lead author from the Nobel Peace Prize–winning group called Physicians

for Social Responsibility called fracking “the worst thing I’ve ever

seen.”

To the Premier, does he care that his government is actively engaged in

environmental racism against Indigenous communities, particularly Indigenous

children and pregnant people?

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands for the

question.

In the northeast of British Columbia where the fracking activity to

which he refers primarily occurs, we are engaged in addressing a historic

decision of the B.C. Supreme Court — namely, the Yahey decision. We are doing

so with all the Treaty 8 Nations which, the judge concluded, had had their

treaty 8 rights violated through oil and gas activity.

We are engaged in a series of initiatives to heal the land and to do

some of the things that the member suggests need to be done. We are doing that

in close collaboration and negotiation, not with the victor in that litigation

— namely, the Blueberry River First Nations — but all the other Treaty 8

Nations. We are consulting widely with industry, and we are working with local

governments to make sure we get it right.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Saanich North and the Islands, supplemental.

A. Olsen: There is nothing ethical about LNG development. Neither the government

nor the official opposition grasps that. Not only is LNG Canada going to be the

single largest point source of emissions in this province, undermining any

efforts that this government is making to combat the climate crisis. It’s

disproportionately impacting Indigenous people. It’s environmental

racism.

Researchers at the University of Toronto are undertaking further study

of the direct impacts of fracking on fetal health, and more research is needed.

Instead of contributing to that, the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission just

criticized the existing study.

[10:45 a.m.]

Nobody seems to care about the fact that this study of pregnant people

found higher contaminant levels in homes near fracking sites and that the

highest levels of exposure were found among Indigenous pregnant people who

participated. Indigenous participants’ homes showed notably higher

concentration of chloroform, acetone and decanal. There were higher levels of

trihalomethane in their tap water.

My question, again, is to the Premier. How does the Premier reconcile

his commitments to Indigenous people, while ramping up this fracked gas

development that is clearly putting the lives of Indigenous children and

pregnant people at risk?

Hon. M. Rankin: I think it is true that there has been a disproportionate impact on

Indigenous peoples in the northeast. That, of course, was the conclusion of

Madam Justice Burke in the Yahey decision, to which I previously referred. That

is why — because of that treaty having been violated over 100 years or more —

we are rolling up our sleeves and doing what the court asked that we do. In

doing so, we will address the impacts that the member refers to. These impacts

are real. We are not shying away from that.

Indeed, we’re taking the kinds of steps — in partnership with industry,

in partnership with local government — to make sure that we have a viable

northeast economy but that the balance is restruck in a way that works for

everyone — for those of us who benefit from that activity, in the south, but

particularly to address the impacts on those who suffer, in the northeast, from

those consequences.

It’s not going to be a simple solution, but it’s an overdue one. We’re

rolling up our sleeves and doing that hard work now.

CONDITIONS AT HOSPITALS AND

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION

FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

L. Doerkson: Our health care system is in crisis. Despite NDP gag orders, doctors and

nurses who are so committed to their patients are speaking out.

In my community, a very respected surgeon, who has practised for 28

years at Cariboo Memorial Hospital, has resigned. Dr. Dan Brosseuk says:

“There’s a constant push to cancel or delay surgeries without consideration of

patient care or needs. Patient care has been continuously eroded to the point

where I can no longer participate in good conscience.” This morning I’ve been

told that there’s at least one more doctor who will be resigning.

Will the Minister of Health act now to stop the crisis at Cariboo

Memorial Hospital?

Hon. A. Dix: With respect to surgeries in British Columbia, the member will know that

I gave a comprehensive report yesterday on surgery in the province. He will

know.

This has been disruptive everywhere in the province. The COVID-19

pandemic led to the cancellations of surgeries in Interior Health in March of

2020, and again, significantly, in 2021. These were decisions, reluctantly

taken, because of the circumstances of COVID-19.

Notwithstanding that, because of the outstanding work of doctors

everywhere in B.C., we set a record year for surgeries in British Columbia last

year, reflecting the commitment of our surgical renewal plan to patients in

B.C. — a record number than ever before, 84 measures to increase surgeries and

working with doctors and surgeons everywhere in B.C.

We are always concerned when doctors express concern about issues in the

system. Our commitment to Cariboo Memorial Hospital and the standard of care

there could not be higher. That’s why we engaged, in 2018, in a major capital

rebuild of the hospital, ensuring our long-term commitment to the people of

Williams Lake and region, and why we’ll continue to work with health care

professionals everywhere to ensure the quality of the system, even in these

very challenging times.

Mr. Speaker: A supplemental.

L. Doerkson: Concern and action are two different things. What the residents of

Cariboo-Chilcotin need is action, and they need it right now.

The minister can try to dismiss what is happening in our health care

system, but as I said, our residents are concerned. Honestly, they’re afraid.

I’ve heard from multiple doctors and nurses at the hospital that they are

subject every day to a toxic workplace, with harassment, bullying and worker

intimidation. They are gravely concerned about declining patient care, but

they’re afraid to speak out “due to fears of vengeful behaviour, retaliation,

persecution for coming forward.”

[10:50 a.m.]

Just this morning three more staff have reached out to me and contacted

me with respect to concerns for patient care that is diminishing.

Will the minister end his gag order on concerned health care workers,

listen to them and act now to stop a collapse at Cariboo Memorial

Hospital?

Hon. A. Dix: I appreciate that in this Legislature, there is the use of rhetoric. I

appreciate that. I appreciate that, and it’s used on all sides. But I think

there is a certain duty to accuracy.

Last week the member from Abbotsford and other members of this House

referred to an Interior Health document that they said was evidence of what the

member talked about — that document. They quoted extensively from that

document. In fact, the document in question dates to March 2004. March

Now, I know the members are honourable, and that would have been an

unintentional misleading of the situation. But it’s a serious situation. It’s

been a code of conduct that’s been in place since 2004.

There are whistleblower policies in the Interior Health Authority and

everywhere else to protect people, to ensure fair access to the public to

information. This House passed, in 2019, the Public Interest Disclosure Act.

That applies to public servants. It will apply and take over from those

policies in the coming year. The importance of whistleblower protection is

fundamental. It’s something that has been supported by all members in this

House.

When they cite evidence from 2004 suggesting that, when they ought to

know where those documents came from…. The Minister of Health in 2004 was the

hon. Colin Hansen, the Leader of the Opposition. When they use that as

evidence, that is simply misleading and not appropriate to the

debate.

Our health care workers have been through everything in the last two

years. They deserve a serious debate. They deserve our support. They have it on

this side. They have it, I think, all over the House, and that should be

demonstrated every single day.

T. Stone: With all due respect to the Minister of Health, it’s 2022. Our health

care system…. Hospital after hospital after hospital is in near collapse due to

the challenges that are taking place within those hospitals.

The members of the opposition are simply bringing forward the stories,

the testaments, of front-line health care workers who are demanding action.

They’re demanding that this minister actually step up and take action to

improve the dire situation in our hospitals.

I will highlight another hospital, the one in Kamloops, Royal Inland,

where the situation is dire. Nurses are speaking out in record numbers, despite

the concerns that they have about potentially being dismissed or having other

types of actions taken against them. One nurse had this to say the other day:

“What little staff we have is redeployed throughout the building. Medical

units, which should have eight nurses, very often have shifts where no nurses

are booked to work.”

This is against the backdrop of reports that the nursing complement

right now at Royal Inland Hospital on most days is often at 50 percent of what

a normal complement would be. That is unacceptable.

Again, the question to the minister would be this. Will the minister let

these nurses speak, and will he fix the crisis at Royal Inland

Hospital?

Hon. A. Dix: The member may think asserting that policies in place in 2004 were put

in place by this government is just par for the course in his conduct of his

role as an MLA, but I don’t agree with it. The policy is the same.

[10:55 a.m.]

There is whistleblower protection and policies in place in the Interior

Health Authority and everywhere else. They continue to be in place, in

addition, in this House in the wake, frankly, of the Health firings matter,

which I will not go into here. We put in place public interest disclosure

legislation and unanimously passed it in 2019, which will also be in place in

health authorities.

The members refer, and the member from Williams Lake, Cariboo South,

referred, to the record around surgeries. Well, we’ve added 299 net new

surgical nurses since we put in place the surgical renewal plan in March and

May of 2020. That’s action. The 84 measures to expand services. That’s action.

The best year in the history of British Columbia in terms of surgeries, in one

of the most complicated and difficult health years. That’s action. The fact

that more than 200 nurses have been hired at Royal Inland Hospital since

January of 2021 is action. The fact that we have a dedicated staff of

recruitment at that hospital is action.

Look, I have visited Royal Inland Hospital. I have met with nurses. They

have gone through the wringer and more over the last two years. I respect the

work they do. They’ve communicated directly to me, and I’ve listened directly

to them, their concerns. We’re going to continue to take action to support

them, because they deserve it.

Our public health care system has done a remarkable job in dealing with

this extraordinary period in the history of health care, in the history of our

province. We’ll continue to support our health care workers as we move forward

through this year, 2022.

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, what nurses are saying at Royal Inland, what they’re saying at

Cariboo Memorial, what they’re saying at hospitals all across this province is

that these hospitals are on the verge of collapse. That’s what’s happening

today. The reality is these nurses are coming forward in record numbers. They

are saying that, but they are worried about action being taken against

them.

Now back to Royal Inland Hospital for a moment. Leaked data shows that

there are up to 30 nursing shifts unfilled on any given day in the ICU and ER

departments — on any given day. But instead of getting the needed support,

nurses face discipline, up to and including dismissal, for violating the NDP’s

gag order.

This is what the B.C. Nurses Union president, Aman Grewal, has confirmed

with respect to this discipline. “All that they’re doing is advocating on

behalf of their patients, letting the public know the reality of what public

health care is like right now.”

Again, will the minister drop the gag order? Will he act to end the

health care crisis at Royal Inland Hospital so that patients and health care

workers can go in and know that safety is not being compromised?

Hon. A. Dix: The member has done it again. I won’t characterize what he’s doing, but

when he refers to an NDP gag order…. And they quoted from a document from March

A policy, a code of conduct has been in place, since that time, in

health authorities that have whistleblower protection, from a government that

brought in the Public Interest Disclosure Act to protect whistleblowers and

that would protect them everywhere, from a Minister of Health who did raise

issues around health employees in the Ministry of Health for years, yes, and

brought in changes to ensure things were better. You bet, hon.

Speaker.

As well, there are significant issues facing health care professionals

and health care workers everywhere, and I expect to hear from them when there

are issues. They actually have a duty to report issues, and they do. I would

say that the efforts and the work done by everyone to support health care

workers in primary care, in long-term care, in acute care, to ensure our

long-term-care homes, 88 percent of them, are not below standard in terms of

staffing…. That was the situation that existed when I became Minister of

Health. Changes…. It’s my responsibility, and you bet I’ll exercise

it.

[11:00 a.m.]

HEALTH CARE ISSUES AND ROLE OF

URGENT AND PRIMARY CARE

CENTRES

S. Bond: Well, the minister can get up and say what he wants. But by every single

measure, British Columbia is in a health care crisis.

One in five British Columbians can’t get a family doctor. They are being

forced to rely on emergency rooms and walk-in clinics. Wait times are the worst

in Canada in those clinics. On top of that, we have health care workers that

are frustrated. They are angry, and they are burned out. What does the minister

say? He gets up regularly, “All is well,” and points British Columbians to an

urgent and primary care centre.

Well, you can imagine our shock when we received a leaked internal

document, “Urgent and Primary Care Centre Dashboard.” That dashboard laid out

just how ineffective those clinics are. In urgent and primary care centres

across the province, according to the leaked document, the average number of

patients per practitioner per day is 4.6. That’s right: five patients a day or

less.

It’s time for the minister to end the empty rhetoric, get up in this

House, acknowledge that British Columbia and its health care system is in a

crisis and do something about it.

Hon. A. Dix: British Columbia has been in a public health emergency with respect to

the overdose crisis since 2016. British Columbia has been in a public health

emergency with respect to COVID-19 since March of 2020. You bet I have been

reporting every day, virtually every day, on the challenges facing that system,

which are exceptional.

We talk about primary care. I’m happy to talk about primary care. In the

year 2018-19, on the fee-for-service side, there were about 17.8 million

fee-for-services visits. In the most recent year, there were 19.5 million — the

year ending March 31, 2022. But what happened, of course, in the meantime, was

the most radical, the most revolutionary set of changes to the system that had

ever taken place. Of those visits in 2018-19, 97 percent of them were in-person

visits. When the COVID-19 pandemic was proclaimed, substantive and fundamental

changes were required to deal with that.

A very significant number of those visits, in fact…. We went from about

600,000 virtual visits in the first year — in the previous year, the

pre-pandemic year — to 13 million, in order to provide primary care to

stabilize the primary care system in what was a public health emergency. That

occurred to ensure an increase in the number of visits and to ensure people got

primary care in the best way they possibly could in a public health emergency.

That’s what occurred.

Now, in the 2021-22 fiscal year, that went from seven million to five

million. I want to assure the opposition I’m going to sit down so the member

will have her supplementary. That number moved…. The in-person visit moved back

from five million to seven million. It will be moving back this year. This is

the most fundamental change the system has ever seen, and our primary care

teams have done an exceptional job of dealing with it.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, again, the minister can stand up and…. Let’s talk about the here

and now. Let’s talk about British Columbians who are desperate for a family

doctor in this province. Let’s talk about health care workers who are afraid to

speak up and talk about the situation in their particular hospitals. And let’s

talk about the dashboard.

Let me read to the minister exactly what the dashboard says. For his

benefit, I want to be clear. This is a here-and-now document leaked to the

opposition. Here’s what it says: patients per day per practitioner, 4.6. That

is a shocking number. And the minister knows what’s even worse is that British

Columbians are telling him and this government, on a daily basis, that the

system isn’t working. They can’t get in.

[11:05 a.m.]

It’s no wonder that the Esquimalt and North Quadra Urgent and Primary

Care Centres were both at capacity by 8:30 this morning. Family doctors see up

to 40 patients a day, but the data in the leaked dashboard shows three patients

per day in Fraser Health, 3.1 at the Surrey-Newton clinic and 0.9 patients per

day at the Abbotsford clinic.

It is absolutely no wonder that we have a crisis in confidence in the

health care system in British Columbia. That is on this minister and this

government’s watch. Will he stand up today and acknowledge the challenges that

health care workers and patients and British Columbians are facing, admit that

it is a crisis and do something about it?

Hon. A. Dix: I would say…. This is something — I think I said it in my first answer —

that I’ve said every day. We’re in two public health emergencies, and they have

a significant impact on every health care worker in our system.

On the issue of primary care, as the member knows — I just told her

this, and the data is readily available — we went from about 17.9 million

in-patient visits in 2018-19 to between five million and 5.5 million visits in

2020-21 as a result of the pandemic. That meant that a lot of people — a lot of

people, the majority of people — who would typically visit family practice

doctors did so virtually, in what I think was an extraordinary change that

happened in a matter of a couple of weeks.

Billing codes were put in place to protect the family practice system

and ensure that people continued to have access to care through virtual care.

In addition to 27 urgent and primary care centres, the 53 primary care

networks, the new community health centres…. The primary care networks have 27

new funded employees. The Prince George one alone is doing their work to

contribute to the implementation of team-based care, a necessary prerequisite.

In addition, we’re taking steps to give, particularly, doctors other options

and dramatically expanding, doubling, the number of nurse

practitioners.

The member may feel that the one million visits to urgent and primary

care centres at a time when in-person visits were at a premium were not the

right ap­proach. I think that for those one million people, it was a

pretty good result.

[End of question period.]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I would like us to observe a moment of silence to remember

all lost sisters and missing and murdered Indigenous women, please.

[The House observed a moment of silence.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate of Bill 10, Labour

Relations Code Amendment Act.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates debate for the

Ministry of Education and Child Care.

[11:10 a.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — LABOUR RELATIONS CODE

AMENDMENT

ACT, 2022

(continued)

S. Bond: I’m really delighted this morning to be able to take my place in the

chamber to make some remarks about Bill 10.

One of the things that I have learned in my time in this place is that

the title of the bill may not necessarily address the seriousness of what is

contained in it. In fact, this bill, Bill 10, is entitled the Labour Relations

Code Amendment Act, 2022. The average British Columbian — or even, perhaps, the

average legislator — may look at that and think: “Well, it’s just a minor bill.

We’re having an amendment to the Labour Relations Code.” In fact, nothing could

be further from the truth in the case of this bill.

I know many speakers, particularly opposition members, have spoken to

the bill. My comments will, obviously, echo some of the concerns that have been

outlined.

I do, however, want to build a little bit on the leader of the Green

Party’s comments that she delivered yesterday, because one of the reasons this

bill is in front of us today is, frankly, because it can be. We saw the

government make a determination to call a snap election during a pandemic in

order to gain a majority, which means that this government will be able to

introduce legislation and it will pass — unless, of course, there’s something

fairly revolutionary occurring on the other side of the House, which I highly

doubt will happen.

This is a critically important amendment. There are a number of pieces

in the bill that should cause everyone in this House some degree of concern. I

think all of us, especially those of us who have put our names on a ballot,

some of us more times than others…. One of the things that we rely on — British

Columbians, Canadians — is the right to keep your voting preference secret. In

fact, it is a critical guarantee of free expression, and it is necessary to

protect voters from potential consequences, voting one way or

another.

It seems like a pretty fundamental right to be able to make a decision

and make that decision privately, personally. We know that the secret ballot

was actually introduced to ensure that an individual is free from intimidation

or influence, and today the right to a secret ballot is core to the voting

process.

[11:15 a.m.]

We’ve all experienced that. Everyone in this chamber has spent time

talking to voters, knocking on doors, calling. I can assure the members that my

experience is probably no different than theirs. In many, many cases, British

Columbians will tell you that how they vote is their decision, and many people

are unprepared to share that information. We accept that as part of the voting

process. Apparently, though, not in this case.

When we look at the secret ballot…. You’ve heard my colleagues list

numerous places that a secret ballot is utilized — as I’ve mentioned —

certainly provincial elections, municipal elections, provincial referendum,

student council elections. I’m sure many members in this House participated in

that process when they were much younger. Strata council elections. The list

goes on and on.

Perhaps most notably — and again, this has been referenced earlier —

even the NDP party outlines the use of the secret ballot. Where? In their

constitution, guaranteeing members of the NDP party the right to a secret

ballot. “The leader of the NDP,” it notes, “shall be elected by a secret

ballot.”

Well, apparently it’s good enough for the NDP party, but it’s not for

workers in British Columbia. As individuals in a democracy, we should all have

the right to make our decision, without influence or intimidation, with the use

of a secret ballot. That should be the case whether we are choosing our elected

representative here in the provincial Legislature or when we choose, or not, to

join a union.

Perhaps the most hypocritical thing of all is that this government has

done everything possible to keep information about their work secret. How do we

know that? They have earned the title of the most secret government in Canada,

and certainly from my observations, it is well deserved.

When transparency and data-sharing are critical and British Columbians

deserve to have access to that information because, essentially, it belongs to

them, this government does everything possible to ensure that barriers are put

in place, including, as we witnessed over a number of months and days and

weeks, creating a fee to access information that we know belongs to the public

— freedom of information. Yet when it comes to the most fundamental rights of

British Columbians — to have their voter preference protected — this government

is only too eager to remove those protections.

The Premier and his government have made conscious decisions to keep

information that belongs in the public domain secret and inaccessible. At the

same time, they refuse to protect one of the most basic principles of democracy

— the secret ballot, leaving the secret ballot in place. The irony of the

situation? That the most secret government in Canada has suddenly decided that

it is unacceptable for workers in British Columbia to be able to make their

choice with the use of the secret ballot.

What led to the introduction of this legislation? Well, it certainly

wasn’t because there was extensive, exhaustive consultation and a groundswell

of calls for the changes included in the bill. In fact, since the introduction

of the bill, one of the most significant concerns has been the criticism about

the lack of consultation with key organizations in our province.

Think about that for a moment. A decision that’s going to impact one of

the most basic and fundamental principles of democracy, the right to make your

choice with a secret ballot, and the government decides that they’re simply

going to do it. Why? Because they can, as a majority government. Why bother

consulting? In fact, the government didn’t. Those aren’t my words. Those are

the words of dozens of organizations across British Columbia who have

registered their concerns with this government. But once again it has fallen on

deaf ears.

The criticism related to consultation has, frankly, be­come a norm

for this government. There is a growing list of decisions made without

meaningful consultation and, in some cases, no consultation at all.

[11:20 a.m.]

In the last week, we saw parents of children with autism protesting at

NDP MLA offices because of a decision made without consultation that will

impact services currently being provided to their children. The NDP response is

just to ignore those concerns and press on. In the case of the labour changes,

zero consultation.

Parents of children with autism have been pleading with this government

to listen, to engage in a meaningful way. The thing that is most disappointing

about that is that if the change is so beneficial for families in British

Columbia, what on earth is the government afraid of when it comes to actually

talking to parents in a meaningful way?

Same for the decision to remove the secret ballot. If it’s so important,

and if this government can demonstrate that there was a need to make that

change, they should have no hesitation in actually going and talking to the

people who have concerns about it. But no, let’s just move forward, because we

can.

Add to that policy decisions related to the ALR, independent distributed

learning funding, the recovery plan for mountain caribou. The list goes on —

significant decisions made without consultation and an absolutely stubborn

refusal to engage in what is necessary and meaningful conversation. It’s not

about ticking boxes. It’s about having the courage to stand up, lay out the

vision, lay out the changes and then receive the feedback. Yet, once again, no

consultation.

Another pattern that has emerged, which we see again in this

legislation, that this government is now using as a matter of course is the

tabling of legislation that includes as little detail as possible, with the

vast majority of work being left to regulation. What does that actually

mean?

British Columbians are busy trying to figure out how to feed their kids

or fill up their gas tank today, so they’re probably not worried about

regulation and what that means for them. But what it means is that the

fundamental details of how something is going to work or be implemented are

done behind closed doors, out of the public domain and certainly with no

opportunity for debate in this chamber.

In fact, recently we saw Bill 12 introduced in the House, and it had

virtually no detail at all. Our Housing critic, the member for Peace River

South, described it perfectly when he said it was virtually “a blank piece of

paper.” British Columbians and the democratic process deserve better than

that.

When a government makes commitments to British Columbians, and when it

decides it’s going to take significant policy action, it is incumbent on them

to have the conversations with the people who it will impact. Again I go back,

for example, to the decision related to the funding model for parents of

children with autism. Parents have used words that include the word

“traumatized.” A decision that will change the lives of their families is

simply done, announced, not unlike what’s happening with the secret ballot. And

the consequences are not up for public discussion. That’s simply not good

enough.

The secret ballot has existed for decades in this prov­ince. As I

noted, it is in place to protect the privacy and democratic right of every

worker to make their independent decision about whether they want to be

represented by a union. The secret ballot remains in place in many other

jurisdictions in Canada, including Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia

and Newfoundland, and in most industries in Ontario.

[11:25 a.m.]

It’s not like British Columbia is trying to modernize, update, keep up

with other jurisdictions. In fact, no — taking a step backward. I think the

thing that I find interesting is that we haven’t heard one single other member

on the government side of this House stand up and talk about the democratic

process and the loss of the secret ballot. It’s a pretty fundamental right.

Ironically, the majority of B.C. workers strongly support retention of the

secret ballot, just like parents of children with autism support maintaining

the model and building on it, not taking it apart.

Who was demanding that the secret ballot be eliminated? Well, certainly

not the expert panel that the NDP put in place to provide them with advice. In

the 2018 Labour Relations Code Review Panel report, they made a recommendation

about the secret ballot. It is worthy of directly quoting their advice to this

Premier and minister. They said that “the secret ballot vote be retained,

providing there are sufficient measures to ensure the exercise of employee

choice is fully protected and fully remediated in the event of unlawful

interference.”

That’s exactly what the process that we currently have in place is

designed to do. Even the minister himself, when he got up to speak about this

bill, could not articulate or outline the enormous surge in demand related to

removing the secret ballot. He couldn’t do it.

This decision is being made because it can be. We all know the tortuous

journey that this particular amendment has been on. In fact, when the balance

in the House was much more precarious — a minority government — guess what

happened. The amendment was set aside. But here we are, back at it. Why? They

can do the amendment, and they are guaranteed that it will pass.

Well, if this was the only time the government ignored the advice of

their own appointed panels, that would be one thing. But like the other

patterns that have developed, that is simply not the case. We have another

pattern. Appoint an expert panel, ask for advice, ignore it, and do exactly

what you planned to do anyway. That’s exactly what has happened, not once but

over and over again.

Tragically, we don’t have to look back far to find other examples.

Here’s one. The devastating opioid crisis in our province means that six people

a day are dying. Yet when provided with recommendations from death review

panels in 2018 and 2022, recommendations have been, for the most part, left

undone.

The government appointed an MSP task force and promptly ignored the

advice that they were provided. The chair of the task force noted that the

government did not heed its advice and, when describing the action that the

government took, said: “This is not the direction we were going.” Another

pattern. Appoint an expert panel, receive the advice, ignore it, and do exactly

what you planned to do in the first place. Advice provided; advice

ignored.

That’s even in the cases where the government created the very groups

with a specific mandate. To do what? Provide advice. That was certainly the

case with the secret ballot. The government’s own expert panel recommended that

the government keep the secret ballot. Pretty astounding, when the government

handpicked their own experts for the panel and then still chose to ignore the

advice it was given.

Let’s look at how we got here. There was no groundswell of demand for

the bill. Experts said the secret ballot should be retained, and the majority

of workers and British Columbians favour maintaining the secret ballot. What

did the minister and Premier do? March ahead and remove the right for workers

to make their actual wishes known without being pressured or

intimidated.

[11:30 a.m.]

It appears that there is very little empirical evidence to support the

minister’s assertions that the card-check system is needed. It seems to me that

all of us — every single member in this Legislature — should be concerned about

the loss of employee rights in this province after the arbitrary decision to

move ahead with this legislation.

The second issue that has been raised is specific to the construction

industry. Now unions will be able to raid unionized construction employers

every year during a defined open period, and in this case, those months are the

months of July and August. Of course, most people, or many people, would know

that raiding is of course a process by which one union replaces another one at

a workplace.

Prior to this change, such raids were allowed once every three years

depending upon the length of the collective agreement. This time period was

consistent with the expert panel’s recommendations because of the disruption

that a raid can have on any workplace.

So here we go again. Once again, we’re moving from a process that was

supported by an expert panel to a raid period that seems to have little

evidence of the need to make this change other than the government wanting to

support trade unions who want increased opportunities to raid other unions who

may seem to be more employer friendly.

One of the most difficult conversations to listen to in this chamber was

the implication that members on this side of the House don’t care about

workers’ safety and don’t care about all kinds of things. From my perspective,

that does an enormous disservice to this place and to the people who actually

are sent here. I can assure you that there are people in every seat in this

chamber who respect the right of workers to make a decision about whether or

not they want to be a part of a union, and that’s an important

principle.

So here we go, moving from a process, again, supported by an expert

period to a raid period that seems to have little evidence. Think about the

reason that the panel supported the raid period at once every three years: to

avoid disruption. I’m not sure how many people in the chamber take a moment to

think about the fact that the construction window, where some of us live, is

extremely short. It is compressed. It is complicated enough to get projects

completed. And now what do we introduce? Uncertainty. Additional cost. For what

reason? Because the government can do it.

While there seems to be little evidence that this change is necessary,

we can certainly expect that construction employers should be prepared for this

change to potentially impact existing projects this summer. These are the

busiest months for construction. It isn’t hard to imagine that there is the

potential for labour strife during the most critical season for projects in our

province. What that will mean is the potential for increased cost and

delay.

At a time when, now more than ever, we need to expedite investments in

housing and infrastructure projects right across this province, we have the

introduction of significant labour changes that have the potential to create

instability and disruption. How on earth does that make sense? No clamour. No

enormous demand to make these changes. Expert panels that say: “You shouldn’t

do that.” And the government stubbornly presses on.

The proposed amendments will have significant impacts on British

Columbians and on employers. The continued pattern of a lack of meaningful

consultation with the business community — once again ignoring the advice of

their own hand-picked, expert panel.

When we think about the people who spoke up to say how concerned they

were about this, 23 organizations wrote an open letter to the Premier. I know

that it’s easy in this Legislature to dismiss the words of the opposition as:

“Well, that’s their job. They can say what they will.” These are not the voices

of opposition members.

[11:35 a.m.]

The open letter is written directly to the Premier of British Columbia,

and it begins by saying: “On behalf of 23 organizations and our collective

membership, we write to express our dismay with changes your government has

proposed to the certification provisions of the Labour Relations Code.” This is

something all of us should be concerned about.

“These changes will have economic repercussions across the province as

businesses work to recover from the impacts of COVID-19. They will also

needlessly destabilize the labour relations balance in British Columbia.” The

key word: needlessly.

There was no pressing demand. There was no ground­swell calling on

the government to make these changes. We have seen this in a number of areas,

but let me conclude my remarks by referencing Bill 10 and again continuing with

the remarks that were provided in the open letter. Ministers in this

Legislature have mandate letters. I know about that, having been a minister for

a significant part of my career.

The minister’s mandate letter related to this bill says…. By the way,

the mandate letter directs a minister in terms of what they should be doing.

The mandate letter for the Ministry of Labour says: “Engage employer and worker

representatives in consideration of any changes proposed to workplace

legislation to ensure the widest possible support.”

That wasn’t a passing reference. It was an expectation of the Minister

of Labour. It says — let me remind the members opposite — that they need to

have meaningful conversation, engage with employer and worker representatives.

Why? To ensure the widest possible support.

The letter goes on to speak about the other, additional concerns. But

for me, the

summary that speaks most clearly about the patterns that have

emerged with the government relates to consultation, sharing of data,

transparency, creating legislation that amounts to being a blank piece of

paper, making sure that regulation is the majority of how business is

conducted.

Let me quote the letter again.

“Regrettably, this is not the first time that members of the business

community have expressed frustration about how consultations are conducted on

employment legislation. It is now a pattern that is extremely concerning,

especially given your instructions in the minister’s mandate letter to consult

widely in advance of making changes to workplace legislation.

“The secret ballot is a fundamental component of a democratic system. It

is a standard that should apply in all of our workplaces, just as it does in

other facets of public life.”

We have expressed over and over in this House, in this chamber, our

concerns about not only the content of Bill 10 but, equally as importantly, the

process and how the government got to this place in Bill 10. There was no

groundswell of support for this change. The government created its own expert

panel and said: “Give us advice.” The government received the advice and

promptly de­cided to ignore it.

There has been a lack of meaningful consultation. Again, when you have a

majority government, you still have a responsibility to have meaningful

dialogue about policy changes that will impact the lives of British

Columbians.

For the reasons that I have noted today, and those that my colleagues

have articulately laid out, we call on this government to think about not just

Bill 10 but the processes that continue to emerge: lack of consultation, lack

of transparency, lack of detailed information when legislation is being brought

forward. It’s not just this bill. It’s over and over and over again.

[11:40 a.m.]

I will conclude with just this remark. The fact that not only do

ministers’ mandate letters — and in this case, specifically, the Minister of

Labour’s — say that you must go and talk to people about these changes so that

you can garner the widest support possible. The Premier also said to every

single cabinet minister in his cabinet that they have a responsibility to

listen and to take good ideas wherever they come from. In my view, that

includes in this Legislature, from other legislators who have been elected and

sent here by the people of British Columbia to have their voices

heard.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you. We will not be supporting this piece of

legislation. We urge the Minister of Labour to go back, take a look at his

mandate letter and, perhaps, ask himself whether or not this bill should be

given reconsideration.

M. Lee: I also rise to join my colleagues in the official opposition to speak

against Bill 10. The Leader of the Official Opposition has just reminded this

House how we got to this place with Bill 10 coming forward, despite the fact

that it was not so long ago when we had the Third Party holding the balance of

power supporting this government when they brought forward Bill 30.

It was a time where Bill 30 was being considered, and of course, there

were concerns and discussions around the secret ballot review. That is

something that when the minister asked for recommendations for amendments to

the Labour Relations Code as submitted by the expert panel with Michael

Fleming, Sandra Banister, QC, and Barry Dong submitted on August 31, 2018,

there was consideration.

I would say that having participated in the Bill 30 de­bate,

certainly, I had understood, by the former member, the Leader of the Third

Party, his and the Third Party’s caucus’s understanding of the importance of

maintaining the secret ballot.

We’ve heard many in this House speak to how the secret ballot has

existed for the last 38 years in this province. By definition, the secret

ballot helps to protect the privacy, the independence and the democratic right

of every worker to vote either for or against union representation without

coercion, intimidation or harassment.

The secret ballot is the norm in most of our country, including in

Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and most industries

in Ontario. And as has been noted by others in this House, the secret ballot is

also strongly favoured by the majority of B.C. workers. A recent poll has

showed that 79 percent of British Columbians oppose doing away with the secret

ballot, and only 9 percent support card checks.

On the face of this, when we look at the report itself, which the

Minister of Labour had asked for and that had underpinned most of the

amendments that are brought forward in Bill 30, there was an acknowledgment in

the report that there are concerns regarding the potential for misinformation,

peer pressure and even coercion that may arise in a card-check system — that

the secret ballot is the best indication of employee choice and enables

employees to change their minds in the anonymity of a voting booth.

This was noted in the report by the experts that this government and

this minister retained. You would have thought, Mr. Speaker, particularly as

British Columbia continues to recover and focus on the recovery from the

pandemic, the focus of the members of this Legislative Assembly needs to be on

labour stability and balance and not the kind of divisiveness that Bill 10 will

bring.

[11:45 a.m.]

When you look at the protections of the rights of workers to choose

union representation under the Labour Relations Code and the Charter of Rights,

workers in this province clearly have that right — that right to choose union

representation under the current code, that right under our Charter of Rights

and Freedoms here in Canada.

It was the mandate of the Labour Relations Board, as well, that is in

place. It is an independent tribunal whose mandate is to ensure the fairness in

the certification process. That’s the reason why it’s understandable that when

the 2018 Labour Relations Code Review Panel came to the recommendation —

recommendation No. 5 — they recommended that “the secret ballot vote be

retained providing there were sufficient measures to ensure the exercise of

employee choice is fully protected and fully remediated in the event of

unlawful interference.”

I know that the Minister of Labour, in introducing this bill on second

reading, in terms of his further comments after first reading, talked about the

concerns around workers’ safety. And I know that other members in this House

certainly share that concern, like the member for Kootenay East. He talked

about the tragic history of mineworkers and safety on the worksite in the

history of this province.

We know if this minister is particularly concerned about ensuring worker

safety, he should look at other legislation, including the Workers Compensation

Act. We’ve heard other members with the official opposition talk about the

slowness of this government to deal with exposure to asbestos and worker safety

in that regard. That’s where the focus should be. It’s not the secret ballot.

There are other mechanisms, legislatively, that this government should be

focused on if they have further concerns about that. We all share the

importance of our workers being safe.

Furthermore, there certainly are other rights and protections against

employer interference in the certification process. That’s what’s called an

unfair labour practice. It’s set out in the code. There are protections. Where

the board can go so far as automatically certifying, regardless of the actual

vote. This is a protection of the workers’ rights.

The Minister of Labour talked at length about his concerns about

employer interference. The member from Langley talked about the same. They seem

to disregard the existing protections that are already under the Labour

Relations Code.

Furthermore, interference, if it happens before the cards are even

submitted for counting…. What the code can do, once again, currently protects

all interference, whether before or after the application is made. I know that

there’s been some consideration — and certainly that was a topic of review by

the review panel in 2018, in the recommendations — to look at increasing the

length of time for which a union certification card would be valid from three

months to six months. That was done under Bill 30.

What was also done under Bill 30 is the reduction of the time from ten

days to five days in terms of between the time of application and the time of

the vote. That was intended to lessen the opportunity and the time period for

any consideration of employer involvement or any concerns around employee

intervention or interference. It was on these bases that, presumably, the panel

was considering why a secret ballot vote should be retained.

[11:50 a.m.]

Again, that panel…. I do recognize the debate that has been going on in

this House, as noted by the members of the Third Party. There is this pendulum

swing, back and forth, as they called it. But we’re talking about 30 years out

of the last 38 years. I appreciate that we continue to ensure and want to have

stability and balance between the employer and the employer relationship in our

province, union or non-union workplaces.

That’s the reason why, I think, you rely on an expert panel. This

government is not doing that. This government is ignoring that recommendation,

as much as the Minister of Labour will say otherwise. He has not demonstrated,

and he has not shown any evidence, since…. Bill 30 was adopted by that minority

government and supported by the Third Party in this House, extending the time

period from three months to six months for the length of time for which union

certification cards would be valid and reducing the time period from ten days

to five days between the time of application and the vote.

Those are two important measures — measures, I would expect, that the

panel was referring to when they made the recommendation to keep the secret

ballot. Where is the evidence? This government has failed to provide the

evidence. I know that members on this side of the House will hopefully take and

have the opportunity to question the minister about something as simple as

this. Since the passing of Bill 30, with those amendments that I mentioned,

what are the instances of interference which have occurred? What are the

concerns?

This amendment won’t change that. We have the protections under the

Labour Relations Code. Certainly, we know now that in the process, the reason

why we have the opportunity to have a secret ballot…. It gives workers and

employees the opportunity to consider — consider their own decision.

We know that in our democratic process, here in our province and in this

country, throughout many organizations, including the political party which the

government represents, there are secret ballot votes. The importance of

ensuring that individuals have that right…. Now, this government doesn’t seem

to have any hesitation to step on people’s rights.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We saw that with the way they stripped away the rights of injured

British Columbians. We saw that with the Attorney General, when he expanded the

“minor injury” definition to include brain injury and concussion by way of

regulation, even though the Attorney General said he wouldn’t do that. We know

there are concerns in terms of the types of legislation that come through the

House, including the bill that dealt with FOI fees — the blatant disregard by

this government for presenting legislation that is done strictly for political

reasons.

Noting the hour, with that, I would like to reserve my place and move

adjournment of the debate.

M. Lee moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted

leave to sit again.

Hon. A. Dix: We’ll see everybody back at one o’clock for more debate from the

member.

Hon. A. Dix moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

EDUCATION AND CHILD

CARE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); B. Bailey in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:13 a.m.

On Vote 22: ministry operations, $8,178,585,000

(continued) .

The Chair: Good morning, everyone. We’re meeting today to continue consideration

of the estimates of the Ministry of Education and Child Care.

K. Kirkpatrick: Last year’s Education estimates outlined that, initially, there would be

five school districts with integrated child and youth mental health teams. The

goal was to get 19 districts this past fiscal.

Can the minister confirm how many of the 19 integrated child and youth

teams, or ICY teams, were operating in school districts, in which school

districts, and were they fully staffed? If not, how many vacancies

remain?

[11:15 a.m. - 11:20 a.m.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: With respect to the five that we were discussing in estimates last year,

the Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows and the Comox Valley teams are the ones that

were announced earliest and are the furthest along in the

implementation.

The Comox Valley team has begun staff orientation and training and

recruitment, and they’re working on reviewing their local processes to ensure

smooth operation of the teams. In Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, that team is in

initial operation. The program leads are working with MCFD, the school district

and the health authority to connect young people and their families and to

provide service. We also have Okanagan-Similkameen on the way. Job positions

are posted. They’re in the process of forming the team, and Richmond is also on

the way.

With respect to the precise staffing, we would defer to the Ministry of

Mental Health and Addictions on that question because those teams really sit

with MHA, and they’re responsible for the administrative coordination of those

teams.

K. Kirkpatrick: Did the ICY teams receive full operational funding this year. If so, how

much? How much operational funding is allocated this year? If not, why

not?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Maybe I could just start by saying again — I think this has been said

before by my colleague — that this is really a transformational approach to how

we are addressing the mental health needs of children and youth through our

K-to-12 system.

[11:25 a.m.]

This is part of our mental health in schools strategy, and it really is

transformational to look at how we can pull together resources and services

from a number of different ministries to try and integrate. That’s the

integration piece in the child and youth integrated teams.

Of course, any sort of transformation of this scale, when we are dealing

with implementing a new model, comes with lots of learnings, which is a process

that the teams in all of the ministries are engaged in. I can say that

Education and Child Care has committed our portion of the funding for the

positions to all of the five school districts, so those funds are with the

districts. I am not able to speak to funds that rest with other

ministries.

K. Kirkpatrick: As we have really confined time re­maining, I may come back to

that and just read a question into the record.

Quoting from the B.C. School Trustees report submitted to the Select

Standing Committee on Finance: “Technology is now part of every student’s

curriculum and requires constant upgrading of both hardware and software. The

planning and purchase of such large infrastructure projects must be dealt with

through a multi-year plan. Building and grounds maintenance has not been

ade­quately funded in recent years and now necessitates a significant

investment by school districts to ensure the future safety and comfort of

students and staff.”

The question. Can the minister break down the current number of

portables in Surrey and tell us what the timeline is to fulfil the promise to

eliminate portables in Surrey?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: I thank the member for the question. There is no question that we are in

a unique time where we’ve experienced, over the last number of years, increased

enrolment. Certainly, with 100,000 people having come to British Columbia last

year, we are working harder than ever to ensure we are expanding the learning

environments and learning spaces for children.

I want to say that, particularly with respect to Surrey, there were some

significant challenges with Surrey when we came into office in 2017, because

between 2014 and 2017, no new schools had been built in one of the

fastest-growing communities in our province. There had been one addition

opened.

We were in a situation where we had a significant deficit of classroom

spaces in Surrey. Our government got to work and made the investments,

purchased the land and supported the school district to turn that tide

around.

Indeed, I’m extremely proud of the work the ministry does in

collaboration with the Surrey school district and the city of Surrey through

the project office that has been established, to ensure we are taking the most

efficient, productive approach to coordinating permitting and building out our

very ambitious capital plan for Surrey. It is a model that is really delivering

results. We’ve approved over $475 million in new schools, expansions, seismic

upgrades and land purchases for future schools in Surrey.

Those investments have already put thousands of students out of

portables and into classrooms, and that number will be 9,500 by the time all of

the current projects are completed in 2025. That is the equivalent of 380

portables.

I’d note that in the previous two budget years, for the first time in

recent memory, the Surrey school district did not need to purchase new

portables. That was a significant achievement. I will say, too, just with

respect to the question of portables, that that was a solution that was in

place for a long time, under the previous government, where the use of

portables doubled, which contributed to the backlog of projects that we had to

actually build up schools.

I think that all of those, that work, those efforts — the number of

schools that we have opened, the number of projects that we have had, the

investment that we made — have been really important.

Certainly, there are still portables in use in Surrey. That number

fluctuates depending on where we’re at. Because we have such an ambitious

capital plan and a set of projects in Surrey, it depends on where projects are

at and what stage of construction that they’re at, because classes may shift

into portables for a time — to be used, essentially, as swing space while we’re

waiting for completion. So that number does fluctuate.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Immigration is not a surprise. There has been long-term planning in

terms of population growth, and government knew the situation in Surrey when

the promises were made to eliminate portables. Again, it wasn’t a surprise,

when that promise was made in 2017. I understand — just to clarify that I heard

this correctly — that there continue to be 380 portables in Surrey, which will

lead into my next question.

School portables exist throughout British Columbia — Abbotsford, Prince

George, Kelowna, greater Victoria, to name just a few of them. A question to

the minister is: when will school portables in British Columbia be

eliminated?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: Again, thanks to the member for the question. I think I would maybe just

preface my answer, though, by suggesting that I think it would have been very

difficult for anyone to forecast that 100,000 people were coming to British

Columbia at the height of a pandemic.

I think, no question, districts do very diligent and complex work in

forecasting what they think enrolment will be. There’s enormous work that goes

into that process. But I think we’ve all been a bit surprised by just the

degree to which our province is attracting people from other parts of the

country and from around the world. We’ve certainly had discussion about the

pressures that that puts on us in a number of different ways, to ensure that

there are services for these people that we are welcoming to our

province.

[11:40 a.m.]

It’s always an important process and a challenging process for districts

to look at, to try to figure out how to skate to where the puck is going to be

a couple of years down the road, given the amount of time it takes to actually

build out projects.

Having said that, just to correct — and I apologize if I wasn’t clear

about the situation in Surrey with respect to portables — the 380 portables

that I referenced is the number of portables that have been avoided by the

seats that we are creating. According to what the Surrey school district has

reported in to the ministry, they have 301 portables currently in use. Again, I

would caution that that number is a little bit on the higher end. It has been

on the lower end in the last couple of years. It goes up and down, really

depending on what the cycle of construction projects is across the

district.

Further to that, in terms of the provincial picture, we have, through 72

expansion projects — that’s only expansion projects, not the many other capital

investments that we’re making — we’ve avoided 620 portables across the

province. Just to break down the investments that are being made in this next

three-year budget cycle, that really is about targeting where we know high

growth is occurring and where we know enrolment growth is happening.

That investment of $3.1 billion over the next three years includes $1.3

billion for expansion and replacement projects to address precisely this issue

around where we are seeing extraordinary enrolment growth and looking to reduce

the use of portables. It includes $793 million to accelerate our seismic

program to create safe seats for students and $554 million for routine capital

to maintain and improve, which is for the work that districts do maintaining

other infrastructure.

K. Kirkpatrick: I would like to pass for a question from the member for Kelowna West at

this point.

B. Stewart: I want to bring up a letter that was sent to the minister on April 29.

It’s about the Central Okanagan school district’s annual facility

grant.

The district is projecting that the deferred maintenance cost in the

Central Okanagan this year will be $9.828 million. This includes vital

electricity facilities, site mechanical upgrades, as well as roof replacements,

etc.

The district’s annual facility grant of $3.8 million has not been

adjusted in the past 17 years. The district has increased the space that it has

to operate by over 17,000 square metres or approximately 170,000 square feet.

I’m just wondering if there is consideration for an adjustment in that during

this particular fiscal year.

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: Sorry. It was just taking us a little bit to put it together because I

haven’t actually seen the letter yet. It hasn’t made it to my team, but we’ll

certainly go and have a look for it so that we understand precisely what the

district is putting forward.

I would note that if it is the facility condition index that they’re

quoting, that’s not really a costing. That’s an assessment of what maintenance

may be required, but it’s not a business plan for a project. But having said

that, just to note that the annual facility grant really is one of a number of

minor capital funds that are provided to school districts that support the

maintenance of our school infrastructure.

There are a number of others. There’s the school en­hancement

program, the building envelope program, the carbon neutral program. Funding for

all of those has been increasing, but specifically with respect to the annual

facility grant, that overall fund has increased over the last five years from

$89.3 million in 2016-2017 up to $97 million in this year’s budget.

We’re certainly happy to take this away and check precisely on what the

allocation this year is for Kelowna. We’re happy to follow up on more details

once we’ve had a chance to review the letter.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.

Copyright © 2022 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.