Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, May 2, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 194

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Blessings and

Acknowledgments

S. Alphonse

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill 24 — Anti-Racism Data Act

Hon. D. Eby

Bill M208 — Defibrillator Public Access

Act

S. Bond

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Mental Health Week and role of empathy

N. Sharma

Asian Heritage Month and anti-Asian racism

T. Wat

Neighbourhood houses

K. Greene

Aerial spraying of glyphosate on forests

M. Morris

Mother’s Day and role of MLA’s mother

H. Sandhu

Fundraiser for BIG Little Science Centre in

Kamloops

P. Milobar

Oral Questions

Access to family physicians and impact on immigrants

to B.C.

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. J. Horgan

Access to family physicians and impact on hospital

staff and services

T. Stone

Hon. J. Horgan

Hon. A. Dix

Oversight of group homes for youth in

care

S. Furstenau

Hon. M. Dean

Access to family physicians and impact on hospital

staff and services

L. Doerkson

Hon. A. Dix

Hospital staffing and support for health care

workers

P. Milobar

Hon. A. Dix

R. Merrifield

M. Bernier

Access to family physicians and impact on hospital

staff and services

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 22 — School Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. J. Whiteside

K. Kirkpatrick

S. Furstenau

K. Paddon

Hon. R. Fleming

Hon. J. Whiteside

Bill 21 — Professional Governance Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Eby

M. de Jong

Hon. D. Eby

Bill 10 — Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2022

(continued)

P. Milobar

Hon. J. Whiteside

T. Wat

A. Olsen

D. Coulter

D. Davies

J. Routledge

M. Bernier

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy (continued)

R. Merrifield

Hon. G. Heyman

S. Furstenau

A. Olsen

MONDAY, MAY 2, 2022

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Blessings and Acknowledgments

Mr. Speaker: We are honoured this afternoon with T’Sou-ke Elder Shirley Alphonse to

offer a blessing in the chamber.

S. Alphonse: [SENĆOŦEN was spoken.]

[1:35 p.m.]

Creator, Great Spirit, we thank you for this day as we gather together

our members of the Legislature with our Premier, John Horgan, marking this

day as a day to work together as one — one mind, one spirit — walking side

by side, supporting each other, helping each other on our walk on this

earth.

That each new day we greet the day with kindness, care, love and

compassion in our hearts.

[SENĆOŦEN was spoken.]

To be as one people, honour our family, our parents, our children, our

friends. Honour one another and all life on earth so that we may live in

total peace and total harmony.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM .

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. H. Bains: It doesn’t happen very often. In fact, it may be the first time since

I was elected in 2005 that my wife, Rajvinder, decided to attend question

period today. I’ll check the record, but I think I’m correct. I just want to

say that all the good things in me are because of her.

Please help me give

her a warm welcome.

D. Coulter: I’d just like to make an introduction. I have a very special guest

here from Chilliwack. My constituency assistant has come to visit us. She’s

also the vice-chair of the Chilliwack school board and is the former chair

of the Chilliwack school board. So she’s in the trenches fighting the good

fight all the time.

If the House would please welcome Willow Reichelt to the

House.

N. Sharma: It’s with great pleasure that I introduce my parents, who have come

here — I’m sure the member for Kootenay East will agree; it’s a beautiful

part of the province — from Sparwood, B.C., to visit me. They’re up

there.

I just want to say to them: thank you.

I’m here because of them and all the sacrifices and all the

opportunities and love they provided for us growing up. Please make them

feel welcome.

R. Singh: As the Attorney General is going to introduce B.C.’s anti-racism act,

I want to take this opportunity to thank the staff from the Ministry of

Attorney General and the Ministry of Citizens’ Services.

This has been a hard process, Mr. Speaker. I just cannot tell you how

much hard work the staff has put into this legislation, and the 15 months of

hard work is coming to culmination today. Thank you so much.

I would like the House to please welcome them and acknowledge their

hard work.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I invite the House to welcome Upkar Singh Tatlay, who today is

representing the scien­tific organization Oxus Machine Works. Also,

he’s executive director of the Engaged Communities Canada Society. Both

organizations are working at the interface of data and health technology,

and particularly with my ministry, identifying vulnerable populations who

have not received the services that they needed to keep people alive during

the public health emergency. We’re very grateful for their work.

I encourage the Legislature to make Upkar Singh Tatlay very

welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, we’ll get to everybody. Don’t worry.

[1:40 p.m.]

B. D’Eith: It was a busy day in the D’Eith household this weekend. My youngest

daughter turned 20. I have five children. I have no teenagers anymore, and

they told me that I’m officially old. That was what I was told this

weekend.

Interjection.

B. D’Eith: Thanks, Dan.

I wanted to recognize Aryn, who is my daughter who turned

Also, my son Sheldon is in a band called Raincity. They just played in

Victoria. They started a tour for the whole of Canada, going out to

Montreal, representing this fine province, along with many artists in this

province who are starting to tour again. As Parliamentary Secretary for Arts

and Film, it’s wonderful to see that again — to see young folks and old

folks and all sorts of people in the music industry out touring again and

playing live music.

Then finally, my eldest daughter, Amy. She was a paid on-call

firefighter. She has worked very hard over the last two-and-a-half years as

a paid on-call firefighter, and I’m very, very pleased to say that she just

got hired full-time as a career firefighter in Maple

Ridge–Mission.

I wanted to say thank you very much to everyone in fire. Less than 5

percent of firefighters are women. To see Amy excel and be welcomed in the

way she has been by Maple Ridge fire…. I just wanted to say thank you to

Maple Ridge fire.

I’m so excited for my wonderful children. I wanted to thank everyone.

So please, if they could….

Hon. B. Ralston: I wanted to introduce today Lorene Oikawa, who is the national

president of the National Association of Japanese Canadians. She is a

constituent and a friend.

Hon. B. Ma: We are joined here in the gallery today — somewhere in the gallery,

maybe behind me — by someone who has travelled all across, over seas, from a

town known as North Vancouver to join us here. Here name is Aurelia

Ulanday.

She is the program and services coordinator of Lynn Valley Services

I know her as a wonderful neighbour, an amazing gardener, a devoted mother

of two beautiful, energetic and rambunctious children and, most of all, as a

friend.

Would the House please join me in welcoming Aurelia to the

gallery.

Hon. R. Kahlon: There are so many distinguished guests here, many of them sitting on

the floor and many above. Unfortunately, we won’t be introducing all of

them, but I do want to recognize…. I think it may be the first time in this

Legislature that the B.C. Human Rights Commissioner, Kasari Govender, is

here visiting us.

I want to make sure the House, please, welcomes our B.C.

Human Rights Commissioner.

S. Furstenau: I have two guests in the gallery today.

I’m pleased to introduce James Whitehead. He is a master’s student at

the University of Northern British Columbia studying wildfire risk and

community vulnerability to wildfires. He has spent seven years with the B.C.

Wildfire Service and is passionate about making our province and our

communities less vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Could the

House make James most welcome.

He is in the company of Hailey May, who is our policy lead on multiple

files, including emergency preparedness, education, Indigenous relations,

health and mental health, public safety. There are rumours that we get help

on our policy work, but it’s, in fact, that we have two superheroines on our

policy files. Hailey May is one of them, and it was her birthday yesterday,

which is henceforth known as Hailey May day for us.

Please make them both most welcome.

Hon. M. Dean: Angela Cooke is a staff person with the B.C. Public Service who did a

lot of work on the legislation that’s going to be tabled today. She’s

originally from the U.K., and her family in Bradford are watching and

observing us today online. Would you please make them very

welcome.

[1:45 p.m.]

B. Bailey: Many of our friends and neighbours celebrated Eid this weekend. I just

wanted to wish happy Eid to some very dear people in my life: Rumana Monzur,

her daughter Anousha Monzur and my adopted family member Aamrah

Khan.

Eid ul-Fitr Mubarak .

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — ANTI-RACISM DATA ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Anti-Racism Data Act.

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

now.

It is my great honour to introduce the Anti-Racism Data Act, in

alignment with government’s public commitment to paving the way for

race-based data collection, essential to modernizing sectors like

policing, health care and education. This act supports the collection,

use and disclosure of personal information for the purposes of

identifying and dismantling systemic racism and advancing racial

equity.

The Anti-Racism Data Act is about building and maintaining trust.

Due to historic and ongoing concerns about misuse of data, Indigenous

peoples and other racialized communities do not trust government to

collect, use and disclose information in ways that do not result in

further prejudice, stereotyping and stigmatization. At the same time, we

know it’s critical to understand whether our programs and services meet

the needs of all British Columbians, and that requires data.

To help build trust, the act sets requirements to identify,

prevent, mitigate and minimize community harm. It ensures consultation

and cooperation with Indigenous peoples and meaningful collaboration

with racialized communities on data initiatives that impact

them.

Importantly, the act introduces the ability to establish data

standards and directives that must support culturally safe collection,

use and disclosure and data directives that provide governance on topics

such as intersectional analysis. Understanding people’s lived

experiences is essential to providing appropriate services. This kind of

data, for example, has already helped inform B.C. Housing’s design of

housing programs.

For generations, Indigenous, Black and communities of colour have

been telling us about racism in our institutions. This act gives us the

tools to address their concerns, advance racial equity in the public

sector and deliver better programs and services for all British

Columbians.

Parliamentary rules require that a minister table a government

bill, and this is indeed a government bill. How­ever, as a result

of this procedural requirement, members here may get a mistaken

impression of how this bill came to be.

For the record, and with great appreciation for the work of the

public service, many of whom are here on the floor with us today; the

many thoughtful contributions of racialized community members and

leaders who are in the gallery; the co-development of this bill with

First Nations and Métis leadership…. At the political level, this bill

is the product of the work of the Parliamentary Secretary for

Anti-Racism Initiatives. [Applause.]

The Minister of Citizens’ Services and I have been honoured to

work with her. I can say with confidence that the Premier and our entire

government are grateful for her vision, which delivered on this bill on

this historic day in our chamber.

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

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 24, Anti-Racism Data Act, introduced, read a first time and

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

sitting of the House after today.

[Applause.]

BILL M208 — DEFIBRILLATOR

PUBLIC ACCESS

ACT

S. Bond presented a bill intituled Defibrillator Public Access

Act.

S. Bond: I move that a bill intituled Defibrillator Public Access Act, of

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

and now read for a first time.

[1:50 p.m.]

This year about 7,000 British Columbians will experience a sudden

cardiac arrest. This can happen to anyone, anywhere and at any time

without warning. Only one person in ten will survive their cardiac

arrest.

B.C. emergency health services says an out-of-hospital cardiac

arrest is the most critical and time-dependent emergency they respond

to. In a sudden cardiac arrest, every minute counts. For every

one-minute delay in defibrillation, the survival rate of a cardiac

arrest victim decreases by 7 to 10 percent. With CPR, the use of an

automated external defibrillator, or AED, can increase the likelihood of

survival by 75 percent or more.

This bill, if passed, would require AEDs to be available and

visibly located in public spaces, such as libraries, airports and

recreation centres. These AEDs would also be required to be registered,

regularly inspected and maintained so that in an emergency, a 911

dispatcher can direct bystanders to the nearest AED.

AEDs are safe, easy to use and will only shock if needed, but far

too many British Columbians are hesitant to use them if the need arises.

This bill would introduce clear civil liability protection so that no

one feels uncertain as to whether to use one in a cardiac

emergency.

Ready access to an AED could mean the difference between life and

death in sudden cardiac arrest. Building upon the important work done

through the B.C. public access to defibrillation program, together we

can save thousands of lives with a network of AEDs across British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Members, it’s the first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M208, Defibrillator Public Access Act, introduced, read a first

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

next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

MENTAL HEALTH WEEK

AND ROLE OF

EMPATHY

N. Sharma: Today I’m happy to rise and recognize the 71st annual Canadian

Mental Health Association Mental Health Week. Running today, May 2, to

May 8, it’s a time to celebrate, protect and promote mental

health.

Sometimes the best way to help is to make people feel seen and

heard. That’s why this year’s Mental Health Week is all about empathy.

CMHA describes empathy as the capacity we share as human beings to step

into each other’s shoes, to understand where they’re coming from and

what they’re feeling, to listen hard and refuse to judge. It’s also one

way to reduce and resolve conflict.

These last two years have been incredibly challenging for British

Columbians and, of course, have taken a toll on our mental health. When

times are tough, we need to acknowledge and take care of our mental

well-being. If you are struggling, you need to know that you are not

alone, and there is help.

This Mental Health Week I want to thank the Canadian Mental Health

Association for leading this initiative for decades while supporting our

communities and expanding our understanding of mental

wellness.

In addition, I want to make sure to thank the countless care

workers, mental health workers, peer workers and non-profits that work

hard to support people across this province, on a daily basis, with

their mental health needs. Whether it’s the new complex care beds in

Vancouver run by Lookout Society and Community Builders or PLEA

Community Services, which provides mental health services for youth in

my riding, government is committed to making sure mental health supports

are available to everyone who needs them.

If you or somebody you know needs help, take the first step and

reach out. I encourage everyone to visit mentalhealthweek.ca for more

information about this year’s focus or call 310-6789 for information and

tools on mental health and well-being.

ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

AND ANTI-ASIAN RACISM

T. Wat: This past weekend I had the opportunity to attend the opening

ceremony of explorASIAN, a month-long festival to celebrate Asian

Heritage Month. This was a fantastic event to celebrate the vibrant

history and rich diversity of our pan-Asian-Canadian communities. I

cannot think of a better way to mark this important month.

[1:55 p.m.]

Since the start of the pandemic, anti-Asian racism has surged in

British Columbia. A Bloomberg

article last year declared Vancouver the

anti-Asian hate crime capital of North America. Nearly one of every two

British Columbians of Asian descent experienced a hate incident between

2020 and 2021.

This racism is not new. Since the first arrivals in the 18th

century, Asian Canadians have continually experienced exclusion,

displacement and dispossession at the hands of discriminatory

policy.

Despite facing systemic racism at every turn, Asian Canadians have

continued breaking down barriers and making outstanding contributions to

B.C.’s economy, culture and society. Asian Heritage Month is an

opportunity to recognize these amazing achievements but also to

recognize that these experiences of discrimination must end now. This

month and every month we must commit to standing in solidarity with all

Asian-Canadian communities.

The fight against racism requires all of us, each one of us, to

work together. Whether it be supporting your local Asian-Canadian

businesses or partaking in a community event, there are many ways to

participate in Asian Heritage Month.

I hope you will all join me in celebrating our incredible

Asian-Canadian communities in B.C.

NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSES

K. Greene: I rise today to recognize May 1 to 7 as Neighbourhood House

Week.

Neighbourhood houses in British Columbia are warm and welcoming

places that are like a second home for people to connect with friends

and neighbours and where people can access daycare or take an exercise

class or learn how to cook new recipes. Neighbourhood houses are also

important places for newcomers to Canada where they can improve their

British Columbians have lived through challenging times, and it is

more important than ever to recognize the importance of connecting with

others in a supportive environment. Neighbourhood houses represent

diversity by providing services and activities that are sensitive to

local cultures. All ages and nationalities come together at

neighbourhood houses to make our communities strong and diverse places

to live — a place where we can celebrate our differences while remaining

true to who we are. There is room for everyone to contribute and

shine.

I’m also happy to note that neighbourhood houses are non-profit

organizations, offering leadership and volunteer opportunities. So

participants can engage while giving back to their communities.

Volunteers help run a wide range of classes to assist seniors with

day-to-day tasks such as getting to appointments. At the heart of every

neighbourhood house are volunteers who are giving their time and energy

to make sure people feel safe and included in the community.

That’s why I would like to invite all members to join me, and

everyone in British Columbia, to celebrate May 1 to 7 as Neighbourhood

House Week and welcome everyone to their neighbourhood home away from

home.

AERIAL SPRAYING OF

GLYPHOSATE ON

FORESTS

M. Morris: The aerial broadcast spraying of British Columbia’s provincial

forests with any product designed to eliminate or minimize broadleaf

plant growth, which is a vital food source and critical habitat for all

species of wildlife, has long-sustaining consequences. Current

silviculture practices in B.C. require forest licensees to kill or

impair deciduous growth to enhance the growth of conifers.

Aspen, as a deciduous species, is one of the main targets of

glyphosate aerial spraying. This practice eliminates a vital food

source. The seeds, berries, leaf matter, tree bark, etc., are necessary

for the survival of insects, mammals, from rodents to ungulates,

songbirds to raptors, salmon and steelhead trout. Our province is home

to more than 60 mammal species that utilize aspen tree cavities for

denning and nesting purposes.

B.C. government information confirms that moose, mule deer and

other ungulate populations have decreased in the interior of the

province, in some regions by as much as 80 percent. A recent moose study

in the central Interior of British Columbia has identified starvation as

a significant cause of that species’ mortality. Some fur-bearing species

are believed extirpated in several regions of the province due to the

loss of habitat, and many bird species have not been seen in some areas

for years.

[2:00 p.m.]

The value of deciduous growth is proven as an effective mitigating

factor in slowing the progression of wildfires. Studies show that aspen

and cottonwood can be 300 to 900 percent more fire resistant than

conifer species.

Of conifer species, pine is the most flammable, yet it’s planted

as a monocrop at a rate that saturates the landscape across the interior

of our province. Aspen and birch sequester up to five times the amount

of carbon than spruce trees, and recent science has proven that

deciduous trees and plants provide enormous benefit to conifer trees by

sharing nutrients and water.

Our forests are incomplete without biodiversity

balance.

MOTHER’S DAY

AND ROLE OF MLA’S

MOTHER

H. Sandhu: Sunday is Mother’s Day. I want to pay tribute to my mom and all

the incredible mothers. Mother is the focal point of our lives, the

greatest human being in the world or, should we say, divinity on

earth.

My dad lost his mother when he was a child. I always felt the

immense pain in his heart when he shared his childhood stories and

hardships about growing up without his mother. He was tremendously

grateful towards my mom for being such a great support in his life. I

soon realized how blessed I was to have my mom, who nurtured me,

protected me, supported me, showered me with all her love and made many

sacrifices, along with my dad, to give my two siblings and me the best

life.

If it was not for my mom, from my childhood to helping me with my

education and, more importantly, for being my rock during the most

difficult years of my life with my first husband’s journey of fighting

cancer and then us losing him, I don’t know where I would be and my two

daughters would be. My mom was always there for us 24-7, even to take

care of my children.

It was my mom who stood up for me when others were trying to make

decisions about my life once I became a young widow with two daughters.

It was my mom who reminded people that her daughter is not a ragdoll.

She is a human who is going through such a big loss, who first needs to

heal and then take care of her daughters, and then she will make her

decisions about her life. I would not be standing here today if it was

not for my mom.

Thank you, Mommy Ji, for helping me at every step of my life and

for teaching me to be a kind and caring human being.

Happy Mother’s Day to all the members of this House and everyone

watching and listening to this tribute.

FUNDRAISER FOR BIG LITTLE

SCIENCE CENTRE IN

KAMLOOPS

P. Milobar: Gordon Gore had a vision for Kamloops to try to provide a fun way

for youth in our community to learn about science and all the wonders

that come with it. In February of 2000, that vision was realized with

the creation of the BIG Little Science Centre.

Over the last 22 years, the BIG Little Science Centre has provided

educational supports and classes to 25,000 to 30,000 people a year,

coming through in summertime programs and the school district programs

during the school year as well. It’s a great conduit for TRU science

students as well as school district teachers that are

training.

However, over that 22 years, they’ve always struggled to find a

landing spot. With ever-changing enrolments, each school that they would

land in and have some space provided to them always seemed to then be

needed to be reinstituted as classrooms, and they’d have to be moving

again. When they thought they found a new home in downtown Kamloops,

with a generous landlord’s support, COVID hit. Just as they were getting

ready to reopen again with what they felt would be a semi-permanent

location, they’ve had struggles.

Today they launched their newest endeavour to fundraise, which is

a 50-50 raffle. It will be done on July 4, cutoff on July 3. I told them

I would try to let the House be made aware of it. It’s open to all B.C.

residents to try to help them provide the great program and supports

that they do throughout the year for all of the educational needs for

students in school district 73.

This raffle — they’re not short on marketing ideas — is called

“Keep your ion the prize,” being a summer raffle.

I would encourage anyone in British Columbia who likes to see

science flourish with our youth to see our equivalent of Science World

in Kamloops continue to be able to flourish the way they have and to

continue Mr. Gore’s legacy of such a vision, 22 years in the

making.

Please keep your ion the prize this summer.

[2:05 p.m.]

Oral Questions

ACCESS TO FAMILY PHYSICIANS

AND IMPACT ON IMMIGRANTS TO

B.C.

K. Kirkpatrick: One in five British Columbians are without a family doctor. The

situation is getting worse, and B.C. now ranks only ahead of Quebec for

the percentage of the population without a regular health care

provider.

Last week the Premier lashed out in his attempts to dodge

responsibility. He blamed Ottawa, he blamed the opposition, and he even

blamed newcomers. Mahnaz Gol­shekan says: “I’m 72 years old. I

moved to Victoria about two years ago, and I’m still searching for a

doctor.”

Why did the Premier blame newcomers like Mahnaz instead of helping

to ensure that all British Columbians can access a family

doctor?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her question.

I was attempting to respond last week to this line of questioning

by focusing on the challenges that all British Columbians are facing,

whether they live in urban centres or they live in rural British

Columbia. We have been uniquely challenged in British Columbia because

of the influx of people from across Canada and, indeed, around the world

who have come to British Columbia as a place to put down roots and raise

families. With that comes a requirement for services.

We have had questions raised by opposition members — appropriately

so — about the challenges of housing, the challenges of health care and

the challenges of child care — all a result of the desirability of our

province as a place to put down roots. I embrace and rejoice in that,

but we also have to acknowledge that there are downs with the ups. One

of them is providing the myriad of services that the member inventoried

and that I’ve just added to.

With respect to the federal government, at no time have I blamed

the federal government. Quite the contrary. I’ve appealed to the federal

government to join with provinces across the country to reimagine health

care, to make sure that we have the services people need now and in the

future. That is by making sure that our primary health care system, and

the network that we are establishing here in British Columbia, provides

services to people as they need it, where they need it.

That’s going to take a significant infusion of cash, which has

been lacking from successive federal governments, going back decades —

not days, not months but decades. This is acknowledged by Premiers

across the country. I am honoured to be the head of the Council of the

Federation today and for the next number of months. My obligation is to

continue to work collaboratively with my colleagues on behalf of all of

us so that we can address the challenges the member, quite rightly,

points out.

Mr. Speaker: West Vancouver–Capilano, supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the Premier.

This government knows that immigration is happening, that people

are moving here. We have those numbers; we have to anticipate that. That

can’t be an excuse or a reason for us not having enough doctors in

British Columbia. It’s time for the Premier to look in the mirror and do

something other than to deflect.

Immigrant women are particularly vulnerable. Yet shamefully, the

Premier chose to scapegoat people instead of helping them. Kashmir

Aolick writes: “My wonderful doctor will be retiring very soon, and I’m

terrified of not receiving proper medical care. Often women of colour

are not taken seriously, and their concerns are dismissed, leading to

more serious health complications.”

Will the Premier stand up today, take full responsibility and tell

Kashmir what he is going to do to ensure that hundreds of thousands of

British Columbians, and she, have a family doctor?

Hon. J. Horgan: At no time in my life have I ever, ever scapegoated immigrants.

I’m the child of an immigrant, and I’m proud to be part of a community.

I appreciate that the member is not wholly sincere in her desire to

denigrate me. She wants to draw attention to the issue, and I respect

that portion of her question.

With respect to taking responsibility and accountability as the

head of the government, I do so today. On behalf of all British

Columbians, the dollar stops with me, the Finance Minister and the

Health Minister, as well as all of us, working collaboratively to

provide the services our citizens want. What we have been doing is

trying to break the traditional mould of “You need a GP, or you can’t

get health care,” by putting in place primary care networks so that we

can provide the services people need, on a real-time basis, in

communities across British Columbia. It’s working; it will take more

time.

[2:10 p.m.]

The influx of people coming from around the world is exciting for

all of us, but it does have costs. We all, in this House, have to pass

budgets to make sure that we can provide the services for people. We’ll

be bringing forward those budgets, as we have since February. I look

forward to unanimous support when the Health budget comes forward in the

next number of days.

ACCESS TO FAMILY PHYSICIANS

AND IMPACT ON HOSPITAL

STAFF AND SERVICES

T. Stone: Only in NDP land would they say that presiding over an increase of

200,000 British Columbians who are no longer at­tached to primary

care physicians somehow reflects that the primary care network is

actually working in this province.

It has been an abysmal failure under this Premier and under this

government. For two elections, the Premier has actually promised British

Columbia that he would make health care better. Instead, the opposite is

actually true. Health care has been deteriorating day by day. It’s

worsening under this Premier.

Now, Alison Lee is a pediatric ER physician at B.C. Children’s

Hospital. She says: “The hospital is increasingly overwhelmed by

patients presenting with issues that could be better treated by family

physicians. It’s terrible for families who have to wait up to nine to

ten hours to get their non-urgent issues addressed, and it adds to the

burnout of health care workers.”

My question is this. Instead of blaming others, will the Premier

listen, will he take responsibility and will he take action now to

improve health care for British Columbians who need it?

Hon. J. Horgan: I don’t want to draw attention to the 16 years that the B.C.

Liberals had where they came up with not a solution for health care but

a bumper sticker: “A GP for Me.” That’s what they ran on in three

successive elections, and at the end of those three successive

elections, there were fewer GPs than there were when they

started.

If you’re going to be throwing rocks in a glass house, you should

check the fortifications before you start chucking.

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, 178,000 British Columbians were at­tached under our

former government; 200,000 additional British Columbians are now without

doctors under your government. What British Columbians need is less

empty rhetoric. They actually need results, with all due respect to the

Premier.

The crisis in health care isn’t just taking place at B.C.

Children’s Hospital. Over the weekend, Royal Inland Hospital was

operating at only 50 percent of normal nursing complements, putting both

patients and staff at risk. We only know that this is actually happening

because nurses are coming forward anonymously. One nurse describes the

situation like this: “Low morale. High stress. Toxic. Dangerously

short-staffed. Unsafe. I leave feeling defeated, hopeless and afraid

that we missed something and that we’ll be held responsible for poor

outcomes we have no control over.”

That’s one of the nurses under immense stress and pressure at

Royal Inland Hospital today. As the Premier knows, Royal Inland is one

of the only two tertiary referral hospitals in Interior Health, and it’s

one of the largest trauma hospitals in all of British Columbia. What’s

happening there is inexcusable, and it’s getting worse.

When is this Premier going to fix this?

Hon. A. Dix: First, I want to both acknowledge and recognize the extraordinary

work of everyone at Royal Inland Hospital and at hospitals across

British Columbia, who have done exceptional work over the last two years

of the pandemic. I think it’s important to note the exceptional efforts

that have taken place across health authorities to respond to what has

been a longer than two years now, and continuing, COVID-19

pandemic.

In that time, we’ve added 30,000 health care workers in B.C. —

30,000. The opposition on Thursday suggested that we lost 8,000 health

care workers. They’re wrong. We actually report on this every year. We

do it under the Ministry of Finance, and the fact that it was the

Finance critic of the opposition raising those issues shows that they

haven’t clearly seen that. Further, Statistics Canada shows that we’ve

led across Canada in the recruitment of new health care

workers.

Now, that doesn’t mean, in the midst of two public health

emergencies, that there are not exceptional challenges. We need to

continue this work on behalf of the health care system in B.C. to make

sure that we have the people in place to provide a high level of

care.

Members all around the House understand. If they visit hospitals,

they know this. Talk to nurses, talk to doctors, talk to health sciences

professionals, and talk to health care workers. They know the

challenges, but they also know the unprecedented investment by this

provincial government in supporting those health care

workers.

[2:15 p.m.]

OVERSIGHT OF GROUP HOMES

FOR YOUTH IN

CARE

S. Furstenau: There have been literally dozens of re­ports over the

decades identifying the systemic failures of the Ministry of Children

and Families.

In 2018, the then Representative for Children and Youth, Bernard

Richard, raised his grave concerns about group homes and called out the

Ministry of Children and Family Development’s lack of oversight as

leaving youth facing “unacceptable risk.” In 2019, the Auditor General

requested an audit of contracted residential homes and found the same

conclusion. The ministry was failing to provide effective oversight or

monitoring of group homes.

The Minister of Children and Family responded to these issues by

saying that her ministry is taking incremental steps. These reports,

year after year, call for urgent and transformative action, but what we

hear from the minister is incrementalism.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development.

Which is it? Is her ministry taking incremental steps, or are they

acting with the urgency that is necessary in this situation?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question.

There’s nothing more important than keeping the children and youth

in our care safe and making sure that they are well and healthy and well

cared for. Since forming government in 2017 — we know that there have

been many reports by the Representative for Children and Youth,

especially between 2014 and 2017 — the ministry did start work in this

area.

The ministry has actually already created an inventory of each

agency and service provider so that we’re better able to match those

resources to the needs of children and youth if they do have to come

into care. We’ve set clear standards and expectations for these homes

and for caregivers and a system of audit.

In 2018, we created a provincial placement process and a

centralized system for recruiting and screening potential caregivers.

That means that we’re able to do all of the criminal record checks and

other record checks that are needed as well. We imposed a moratorium so

that no new contracted agencies would proceed without the approval of

the provincial director of child welfare.

We will be taking more steps. There is more work to do. We will be

building a system of specialized homes and support services, making sure

that we match the services for children and youth who do have to come

into the care system with their needs and are helping them to

thrive.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.

S. Furstenau: It’s interesting to hear the minister talk about standards,

expectations and systems of audit. You can look at those practice

audits, and you can see the dismal failure rate — sometimes zero,

sometimes 14 percent, sometimes 30 percent — a consistently dismal

failure rate of those practice audits.

Where’s the accountability? What’s the expectation when a practice

audit has failed? Who’s held to account for that? What is the response

of the ministry?

On Friday, the coroner’s office announced that it would hold a

public inquest into the death of Traevon Desjarlais-Chalifoux, a Cree

17-year-old boy who died by suicide in an Abbotsford group home in

September of 2020.

In a statement to the Globe and Mail last week, the

Ministry of Children and Families indicated that it is “moving to create

an inventory of the agencies and service providers that deliver care.”

Moving to create an inventory. This government speaks of transforming

the system, but it does not even know yet all the contractors that they

have who are providing services.

The past five years have seen report after report on how this

government is failing to hold itself accountable for the state of group

homes in this province. In April of 2022, a month ago, the

Representative for Children and Youth released yet another report

detailing how little this ministry can account for its own spending,

particularly when it comes to Indigenous youth and families.

[2:20 p.m.]

My question is to the Minister of Children and Families. How can

the public and families trust her ministry with the lives of the most

vulnerable children in the province, and a $2 billion budget, when she

can’t even tell us where the money is going?

Hon. M. Dean: I’d like to start by recognizing that the death of a child is a

tragedy, and it’s heartbreaking. I offer my condolences to everybody who

knew the young person.

Nothing is more important than keeping children and youth safe and

making sure that we support them in fulfilling their potential. As the

member knows, I’m not able to speak to specific incidents, but what I

can say is that it is a priority for our ministry to make sure that we

keep children and youth safe and, wherever possible, that we keep

families together.

Our ministry has done a lot of work to improve the sys­tem,

particularly in response to Indigenous children and youth. We know that

they’re overrepresented in the child welfare system. So our ministry,

our government have been taking steps. We changed provincial legislation

to be able to, when significant action is being taken in the life of a

child or a youth, talk to community and to ask: “Is there an auntie? Is

there a grandma?” Somebody in the community to help and who can provide

supports and services for a child.

We raised the level of support for carers who are providing

out-of-care placements, and we’re now seeing fewer Indigenous children

and youth in care — the lowest number of Indigenous children and youth

in care in 20 years.

We have a lot of work to do, and we have continued every year

investing in my ministry. My budget has gone up every year since 2017.

We have a lot more work to do, but our government has shown our

commitment to improving the system in the interests of children and

youth.

ACCESS TO FAMILY PHYSICIANS

AND IMPACT ON HOSPITAL

STAFF AND SERVICES

L. Doerkson: One in five British Columbians doesn’t have a doctor. There is a

crisis in health care. It’s both for our health care staff, who are

exceptional, but also for our patients. A nurse, who fears being

identified because she would be fired, says: “I feel like the hospital

is on the verge of something tragic happening because we are stretched

too thin.”

Recently one of my constituents, with a life-threatening

infection, was left on a gurney for five hours with no water and no

food. At 90 years old, he was left for hours in pain, covered in his own

jacket for warmth, in a children’s playroom with sheets duct-taped to

the windows for privacy.

Will the Premier take responsibility and act to fix what is a

broken system so that British Columbians can get the care that they so

desperately need?

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for his question.

I think that the work done by health care professionals and health

care workers in B.C. over this period of pandemic, over this period of

overdose public health emergency, has been exceptional.

There are very significant challenges under those circumstances.

In that time, British Columbia has taken significant steps to support

the system. We’ve led the country in adding health care workers to the

system, led the country in adding LPNs to the system, led the country in

adding staff to the system to support long-term care and acute

care.

I’m happy to review any issue brought to my attention by the hon.

member. He will know that I don’t speak to specific issues in public —

and can’t — but I’m happy to discuss some specifics of the issue that he

raises with him at any time. He and his colleague know that I

consistently do that with all members of the House. I’m happy to engage

in that.

When you look at it…. You look around B.C., and you see the

improvements being made in health care facilities, in the investment in

those facilities, in the support of staff and in our overall response to

the pandemic. It has been excellent.

I’m happy to respond to the member and meet with the member about

any concerns he has with respect to his constituent.

HOSPITAL STAFFING AND

SUPPORT FOR HEALTH CARE

WORKERS

P. Milobar: Perhaps the minister needs to dig a little more into those

StatsCan figures he keeps talking about. StatsCan says B.C. is the only

major province to lose hospital employees during the pandemic, flat

out.

[2:25 p.m.]

The minister can say the system is getting better. It’s not. These

are people working in the system pleading for help from this

government.

Here’s another nurse who has come forward. I can’t name this

nurse, though, because of an NDP gag order. I will quote: “Morale is

terrible. Staffing is awful. We feel unsupported and unappreciated. We

feel abandoned. Never in my life have I felt as worthless and expendable

as I do now.”

When will the Premier stop pointing fingers at everyone else and

blaming other people and actually fix this crisis and, at a minimum,

maybe even acknowledge a crisis exists?

Hon. A. Dix: The member opposite is the Finance critic for the opposition. We

count the number of health care workers we have in B.C. since the

pandemic. We count them. It’s a report that he receives every year and

all members of the House receive every year.

In 2019…. I know the opposition prefers surveys to facts, but

there you go.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s hear the answer.

Hon. A. Dix: In 2019, 186,775. In 2021, 216,020. Those are just the

facts.

The member refers to StatsCan. I encourage him, actually, to read

the reports. What does StatsCan say? “B.C. experiences the highest

growth in health employment of any provinces during the

pandemic.”

The member is simply wrong on the facts. There’s actually…. This

is something StatsCan did. They reclassified employees. The numbers are

the same. You just have to read the whole report, and you’ll see what

the facts are. You’ll see what the facts are.

With respect to what the member refers to, the facts….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Dix: So 8,000, he says. It isn’t 8,000. It’s 30,000, the other way.

Last, he says. We’re actually first in Canada. Up is down.

I would say this. The member refers to a gag order. I just want to

read to him from the code of conduct that he’s referring to. “Interior

Health employees are free to comment on public issues.” I’ll just

repeat. “Interior Health employees are free to comment on public issues

but must exercise caution to ensure that, by doing so, they do not

jeopardize the perception of impartiality in the performance of their

duties.”

That is right in the document that they referred to, that they

quoted from last week.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. A. Dix: They didn’t quote the whole thing, and they didn’t quote the

facts.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Kelowna-Mission.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s hear the question, please. Members.

Member will continue.

R. Merrifield: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Here’s a fact.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Merrifield: Here is another nurse who could lose her job for coming forward if

I named her.

I’m going to quote: “Staffing is beyond horrific. I’ve been here

almost 30 years, and I’m beyond articulating how terrible I feel after

12 hours. On one of my shifts, an elderly lady waited in the hall for

seven hours before nursing was able to reassess her. No turns. No

fluids. No IV. No diaper change. I cried and then went home and cried

again.”

Will the Premier act now and stop our health care system from

collapsing?

Hon. A. Dix: I know the member talks to nurses, and I talk to nurses on a

regular basis. I know members of the opposition do as well. I know the

challenges that they have faced, in particular, in this extraordinary

period that we’ve been in and the exceptional work that they

do.

That’s why B.C. — these again, I know, may not fit the question,

but they are important — has added…. We were at the bottom of the

country in nurses per capita. We’ve added significant nurses, as you

know, in the last number of years, LPNs and registered nurses and nurse

practitioners and registered psychiatric nurses. Still, as the member

knows, there are, every day, extraordinary challenges when you’re in two

public health emergencies.

[2:30 p.m.]

We are with those nurses, and that’s why we are, as the member

also knows, making changes to make it easier, for example, for

internationally educated nurses to come into the system. We announced

those two weeks ago.

It’s why we continue to give nurses a greater role in primary

care, which is critical. You see that across the system.

It’s why we have twice as many nurse practitioners now as we did

when I became Minister of Health, and those nurse practitioners are

active in providing care in the community.

There is no question that there are challenges. There is no

question that there are challenges in the system. But what we have to do

is recognize that in this pandemic, the public health care system

responded in an exceptional way for people in B.C., and we’ve got to

continue to invest in it to ensure that it does so and continues to do

so in the future.

M. Bernier: Look, the words that we’re hearing today — that this government

seems to be dismissing — are actually the words of the health care

professionals themselves.

Here’s another nurse who has come forward. I can’t name them,

again, because they’re worried about the pushback that they’ll get and

the NDP gag order. “I often stay awake all night before a shift, having

panic attacks. I cry on my way to work, and then I cry again on my way

home.”

These are the health professionals’ words, what they’re talking

about. When is this government going to act to fix this crisis and help

these front-line workers?

Hon. A. Dix: That’s what we are working to do and have been working to do since

It means significant investment all over the province. It means

investment in the North to recruit and support nursing there and to deal

with what is a significant problem, as the member knows — we have met

and talked about it on a number of occasions — the attrition of health

care workers in the North. We just don’t need to recruit; we need to

ensure that people stay there.

That means addressing issues around the quality of work. It means

having outstanding health care facilities. That’s why I’m proud that

we’re building a new hospital in Dawson Creek that the member has

advocated for, and we’ve delivered on it. I think that’s a positive

thing to help, again, recruit people.

In other words, to continue to invest in our health care workers

and our health care professionals in order to support people who, when

they need the health care system, get the care they deserve and the care

that they need — that’s what we need to continue to do.

ACCESS TO FAMILY PHYSICIANS

AND IMPACT ON HOSPITAL

STAFF AND SERVICES

S. Bond: Again, today in this Legislature, we’ve heard the stories of

desperate health care professionals. Of course they’ve done exceptional

work. Not one person on this side of the House or any seat in this

Legislature is saying anything other than that.

But here are the facts. Almost one million people in British

Columbia do not have an attachment to a family doctor. Doctors are

closing their practices. Health care professionals that we’ve heard

today are exhausted and burned out — story after story after story in

this Legislature today, just a few of them. And I know this. Every

single person in this Legislature is hearing those stories — stories of

fear and desperation and frustration.

British Columbians would be shocked to know, despite what the

minister says, that in Ontario and Quebec, since 2017, hospital

employment went up by 14,000 people and, in fact, in Alberta, up by

6,000. Those same numbers point out that British Columbia went in the

opposite direction, down by 10,000.

The minister can dispute, and people can groan, about what nurses

are feeling. Let’s be clear. When people are told that they can’t speak

out for fear of consequences, that is described as a gag order and

nothing less. The minister knows it.

Here’s a quote for the Premier from another desperate nurse: “The

constant anxiety and feelings of impending doom due to our inability to

provide decent care and preserve dignity stick with us. We are

constantly fearful for our licences and afraid for our patients. We

aren’t sleeping. We aren’t coping.”

[2:35 p.m.]

If those words do not compel this Premier to get up and take

action, I don’t know what will. “We are not coping.” The words of a

desperate nurse in the health care system in British

Columbia.

To the Premier, will he get up today and acknowledge the desperate

nurses and health care workers in our province who have spoken out, who

want to be heard? Will he get up today, acknowledge their voices and

take immediate action?

Hon. A. Dix: The Leader of the Opposition has repeated something the Finance

critic said that’s simply wrong. The Statistics Canada numbers —

hospitals 2019, 112.3; 2020, 118.2; 2021, 137.

That’s what the numbers are, and that would be what you’d expect

them to be with the exceptional pressure on the public health care

system in two public health emergencies. I mean, what the member is

suggesting, that we’ve lost 8,000 workers, is preposterous on the face

of it, and it’s wrong. It’s simply wrong.

That doesn’t mean that the issues that are being raised are not

significant to me and to people. What it indicates is that through this

exceptional time, when the health care system in B.C. has been put under

exceptional strain, our system has responded with courage and

generosity. It needs support now, and it will have it from this

government.

[End of question period.]

Hon. K. Chen: Can I seek leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Chen: I would like to take this opportunity to introduce my dear friend

and sister, Jasleen Arora, who is visiting the Legislature today with

her partner, Justin Palmer. Jasleen Arora was a former member of the

child care team. I remember, just about over three years ago when she

left the job, I made a little introduction here in this House to wish

her and her partner getting engaged, and then three years after, she’s

getting married in June this year.

Congratulations, Jasleen. Thank you for your many

contributions.

My next wish is that they’ll make a lot of kids and benefit from

our Childcare B.C. plan.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading, Bill 22, the School Amendment

Act.

In

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

the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

[2:40 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Hon. J. Whiteside: I move that the bill be read a second time now.

This legislation amends the School Act to support the province in

addressing its constitutional obligations under

section 23 of the

Canadian Charter of Rights and Free­doms to meet the capital needs

of the Conseil scolaire francophone, or CSF, as defined by a 2020

Supreme Court of Canada decision.

The CSF is one of 60 public boards of education established under

the School Act, but has a unique and specific mandate to provide public

education in French. The CSF is the sole public francophone education

authority in British Columbia and provides francophone educational

programs primarily to students whose parents have constitutional rights

under

section 23 of the Charter to have their children receive education

in the French language.

From 2010 to 2020, the province and the CSF were engaged in

litigation primarily focused on the provision of land and facilities to

support the delivery of francophone educational programs. In that

litigation, the CSF alleged infringements of minority language education

rights under the Charter and sought systemic as well as specific relief

in relation to almost 20 B.C. communities. The case was ultimately heard

by the Supreme Court of Canada.

In June 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a judgment that

creates a new legal analysis for determining what

section 23 requires in

a given community and, in particular, when separate minority language

school facilities must be provided. The court specifically addressed the

province’s obligations in relation to the communities involved in the

litigation, increasing the number and scope of school facilities that

must be provided. The court also confirmed that its new analysis will

define the province’s

section 23 obligations and, therefore, the Conseil

scolaire francophone’s capital needs into the future.

Since the creation of the CSF in the mid-1990s, the ministry has

used several mechanisms to acquire school and lands for the CSF,

including having ministry staff dedicated to CSF capital projects,

informal negotiation with boards of education and leveraging the

ministry’s approval of boards capital project requests in exchange for

that board’s agreement to provide surplus land to the CSF, as well as

formal dispute resolution between boards and the CSF. But these

mechanisms have proven to be insufficient to meet the scope of the

province’s

section 23 constitutional obligations, as now defined by the

Supreme Court of Canada’s 2020 decision.

Under its newly defined CSF capital strategy, the prov­ince

will take a coordinated approach to meeting the CSF’s capital needs and

will build on existing mechanisms to do so by increasing its efforts in

collaborating with the CSF and exploring the creation of a CSF project

office, supporting the use of Crown land where possible and, if

necessary, transferring land held in fee simple by boards of education

to the CSF.

The proposed amendments to the School Act support the

implementation of the Crown land and land transfer elements of the CSF

capital strategy. In particular, the ministry is proposing a minor

amendment to permit the Minister of Education and Child Care to make

orders that will require boards of education and the CSF to report

information and records to the ministry respecting all lands that they

own and lease.

This reporting requirement will allow the ministry to create and

maintain an inventory of all lands used for K to 12 purposes to support

efforts to better inform capital planning to meet the CSF’s capital

needs over the long term.

[2:45 p.m.]

In regard to the proposed new authority to transfer property held

by boards of education, the ministry is committed to using all internal

and collaborative approaches to provide land to the CSF. However, we

recognize that there may be situations where a board is not in a

position to negotiate a transfer of some of its land, and all other

options that would allow the province to meet its constitutional

obligations have been explored and unsuccessfully exhausted.

To address this hopefully rare circumstance, the proposed

legislation includes a new two-part authority for the Minister of

Education and Child Care. First, an authority to designate land that is

held in fee simple by a board of education for a potential transfer to

the CSF and, second, an authority to apply to have title to the

designated land transferred to the CSF. The designation authority will

be exercised by order of the minister with prior approval of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and can only be exercised if the minister

is satisfied that transfer of the designated land is necessary to give

effect to

section 23 of the Charter.

As noted, after a parcel is designated, the minister may then

apply to the registrar of land titles to cause the title to be

transferred to the CSF. It is important to reiterate that this proposed

new power will only be used as a last resort, if and when the other

available mechanisms have been explored and have failed to provide the

school facilities for the CSF that are constitutionally

required.

The proposed new division that creates the designation and

transfer authority also allows the minister to take steps to protect

designated land before it is transferred to the CSF, by filing notice of

a designation in the land title office and permits the minister to make

regulations respecting compensation that is required to be paid if land

is transferred to the CSF under these provisions.

Finally, the proposed legislation also includes minor housekeeping

amendments to update the ministry’s name in the School Act.

I will leave my initial comments there.

H. Yao: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

H. Yao: Thank you so much. I apologize for that. I do have a friend who’s

actually in the building, in the House. She was actually in the chamber,

and I failed to introduce her. So I do apologize.

Her name is Reah Arora. She used to be a colleague of mine — I

used to work in a constituency office — a phenomenal individual who is

charismatic, caring and very progressive. She has done a phenomenal job

pushing along the community agenda to ensure that we’re creating a fair,

just and equitable society for all. So I’ll take a moment to just

recognize her.

Thank you for the introduction.

Debate Continued

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister and to your staff for the work that was

done to bring this bill forward.

I’m pleased to speak to Bill 22, the School Amendment Act. This

legislation enables British Columbia to fulfil its constitutional

obligation as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2020 decision,

which is to respect minority language rights and improve access to

French-language schools for francophone British Columbians.

Under

section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

minority language educational rights, Canadian citizens are entitled to

have their children educated in one of Canada’s official languages. The

provincial government is required to provide that education to Canadians

in the official language of their choice, even in areas where a minority

of residents speak that language.

Language, as we spoke about this morning, is more than a means of

communication. It forms part of the identity and culture of individuals

and linguistic communities in Canada’s multicultural society. We

acknowledge the im­portance of working with the francophone

community in British Columbia to ensure minority language education

rights are respected, and this amendment act is a necessary step to

fulfil the Supreme Court decision.

While this bill gives the Ministry of Education the authority to

collect land data from school boards, my concern is that there are no

limits placed on how and where such data are stored, accessed and

shared. We need to be vigilant to ensure that these data are not used in

scenarios unrelated to meeting

section 23 of the Charter. Boundaries

should be set for data usage, and the ministry has a responsibility to

be transparent on how these data are used.

[2:50 p.m.]

In addition, the bill gives the ministry the authority to

expropriate land from other school districts and transfer the ownership

to the CSF, which could potentially lead to the closing of a school on

the land and, effectively, require students to move. This poses a

legitimate concern to parents regarding how their children will be

affected in areas the court has listed, where the francophone authority

needs new schools to meet demands: Whistler, Chilliwack, west and north

Victoria, Burnaby, northeast Vancouver and the Central Fraser

Valley.

While we fully support CSF’s long-term capital strategy to deliver

projects in communities, it should not be at the expense of the

disrupted education of other students. With that, the official

opposition looks forward to exploring details in this bill regarding the

new power of data collection and the land transfer for the ministry

during the committee stage.

S. Furstenau: I rise to speak to the bill that proposes changes to the School

Act.

I think this is a step forward for our province and, particularly,

for francophone students in our province. It is encouraging to see the

province respond to the recent Supreme Court of Canada case and move

forward to ensure that

section 23 Charter rights are

protected.

These amendments give the province the ability to transfer land

from an education authority to the Conseil scolaire francophone for them

to build schools and increase access to French language instruction.

There are 6,500 francophone students in our province, approximately 1.5

percent of the school population. For decades, the provincial government

has been found to have underfunded French language education, and it’s

important that these inequities be addressed.

I hope to see this as, actually, a foundation for how this

government will also address other inequities that we see in our

province — that it is a hopeful sign for the thousands of students

wanting to be instructed in an Indigenous language or for the students

who are waiting to receive equitable instruction for their special

needs. There are 71,000 Indigenous students in British Columbia and

73,000 students with special needs.

The concern that was just raised by the critic for the official

opposition around what the implications might be for specific parents

and schools across the province exists in my riding as well. Parkside

Academy is a non-profit daycare in my riding in Cowichan Valley. They

have 127 children and are trying to grow more than 150 spots. Their

waiting list is over 250 children long. They’ve been based out of the

Somenos school for five years and provide excellent child care for the

community. Recently the CSF has sought to purchase the land they’re

on.

I think what’s going to be important as we move forward with this

legislation and with the required and essential accommodation of

francophone students is that others are not, in fact, losing access to

education or to child care spots — that this becomes an expansion of

what is offered in British Columbia as opposed to a contraction. I’m

also recently seeing a lot of school districts announcing that they are

having to cut funds in their budgets and cut programs like music or

positions like school counsellors and psychologists.

I think, in the context of this bill, it is important to recognize

the absolute necessity for equitable, universally accessible and

high-quality public education across the province.

I hope to hear more from the minister on that topic and will be

supporting this bill.

K. Paddon: I’m going to only take a few minutes. I couldn’t pass up the

opportunity, as somebody who attended a school that was run by Conseil

scolaire francophone in Chilliwack.

I’m an army brat, which is a loving term that I fully wear. When

we moved to British Columbia, I had the pleasure and ability to attend

École La Vérendrye for elementary school. As a matter of fact, my first

[2:55 p.m.]

I attended a francophone education, which is distinctly different

than French immersion. Both programs are really incredible, really

amazing and a wonderful way to share the French language. However, they

are very different. I appreciate the work that has been done by the

ministry and that will be done, enabled through this legislation, to

recognize the needs for CSF to be able to offer that kind of

education.

I’ve heard from several parents in Chilliwack-Kent who are seeking

to continue their children’s education, which is their right to do, as

they move into high school. Chilliwack still enjoys the ability to send

our children to École La Vérendrye for elementary school. However, when

it comes to the middle school or high school option, it gets very

difficult. Often the choice is French immersion, which comes with some

limitations as to which programming and which schools somebody can go to

and which spots are available. It isn’t the francophone education that

the parents are looking for.

I rise to support this bill fully and just to recognize that I’m

hearing, from across the way, concerns about contraction and whether

this will mean that somebody else is losing. What I would offer there is

that we have…. This ministry and the public service have been able to

grow the available courses and experience, the ways of learning and the

ways of knowing so much over the past years. I look forward to seeing

how having this kind of education truly available benefits

everyone.

Maybe I would still be speaking French if I had more French

students who were coming to my office to tell me about it. I know that a

lot of people in the House would probably agree that we lose our second

or third languages slowly over time if we don’t practise them. I know

that in Chilliwack and the Fraser Valley, where this is such an

important topic, I will be hearing positive things from a lot of the

parents.

To the parents who have given me their time, in Chilliwack-Kent,

to explain to me how important it is and the difficult choices and

decisions that are being made, and who have contacted me to let me know

that this is really just such a great, enabling way of moving forward

and that they appreciate that

section 23 is being recognized for them

and their children, I thank you for taking the time to share with me. I

thank you for allowing me to rise and just offer my support to this

bill.

Hon. R. Fleming: It’s a pleasure to rise to speak to this bill this afternoon. It

is a very important piece of legislation, one that is going to enable

the government to honour a lot of jurisprudence and a Supreme Court

decision of great significance, in 2020, that had been brewing for a

long time.

Really, this issue goes back to the modernization of our

constitution in Canada in 1980 and the explicit reference to the two

official languages of Canada and the right to have equivalent services

for the most important things in life, public services. And what could

be more important than, of course, education? What British Columbia is

trying to construct is something that has been a feature of life in the

education systems in Ontario, in Quebec and in New Brunswick, an

officially bilingual province, but is late coming out west.

When we look at the timing of this bill…. I think it actually

comes on the heels of a lot of positive mom­entum, where we were

able to work with the 59 anglophone school districts and the one

provincial francophone school district, on a basis where they are

working cooperatively in almost every instance. When the minister spoke

of how this bill was necessary but, hopefully, rarely, if ever, invoked,

I think it was accurate, based on the momentum that is positive and the

cooperation that we’re seeing between anglophone school districts and

the francophone district.

[3:00 p.m.]

However, having said that, there may be occasions where it is

necessary and where the province has a responsibility to respond to the

courts and to show progress on that decision that is instructing us. Of

course, we are showing tremendous progress, but there is urgency here. A

lot of people don’t understand that while there are a number of

fast-growing school districts in the province of B.C…. We can think of

Surrey. We can think of the Sooke school district here on the Island,

which is mainly growing very quickly because of the municipalities of

Langford and Colwood. We think of Langley.

Overall, though, there’s a very stable, manageable growth in the

school system in most regions of the prov­ince, but the

francophone school district is actually one of the fastest-growing

school districts in the province. So there is tremendous demand

here.

From my own experience in my own area, my own region, where I

represent a number of francophone constituencies, parent groups,

students, in the early 1990s when École Brodeur was established, it was

remarkable, first of all, how popular it was but also how quickly the

classrooms filled up in that district, and understandably so. This is

obviously the home to Canada’s Pacific Fleet. We have a historic

francophone community. We have a number of parents and families

stationed here who are serving in the Armed Forces, for example — where

that demand was coming from.

That doesn’t answer the question as to why a second school was

needed so quickly thereafter. Again, this is a success story that the

Minister of Education can be very proud of: that on a voluntary basis —

i.e., without needing Bill 22 or such legislation — recently there was a

transfer, at Lansdowne Middle School, of significant acreages, I think

seven or eight acres, to construct our second francophone public school

in this region, in the north part of Victoria, which I believe the

opposition critic referenced.

Soon that specific reference in the court document will be

satisfied by progress that is happening, thanks to the provincial

government and the very robust capital program, if I can put it that

way, that is enabling this to happen.

A few years ago, when I was Minister of Education, we were

grappling with previous decisions, prior to 2020. That was, really, a

result of another appeal. That isn’t so much important as it was that we

were under the same imperative: to provide better francophone education

in regions where it was warranted, based on the student numbers. I was

very pleased to work with members on all sides of the House to work with

francophone families in their constituencies to, in some cases, be able

to resolve that.

I can think of the Okanagan-Skaha district and of the member for

Penticton being a particular champion in working for the transfer of

lands and a school facility to the francophone school district, which

was successful and which was fairly done to the school district, as have

been the other examples. We’re talking about, basically, a market land

value that is properly assessed and that is transferred to the

anglophone school district. We’re not talking about taking land and

giving nothing to the district in exchange for that asset.

Very recently…. It’s fortuitous that I’m sitting next to the

minister for child care here. In Burnaby, just two weeks ago — I’m

reading from a press release here — the Burnaby school district was able

to work on a cooperative basis with the francophone school district to,

again, have another win, both for Burnaby anglophone students and

francophone families in Burnaby. There is a long, rich history of the

francophone linguistic community in that part of Metro

Vancouver.

The success was that the province of B.C. provided the Conseil

scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique with $24.5 million to

purchase the former Duthie-Union Elementary School site from the Burnaby

school district. Again, it’s a fantastic win, based on a negotiation and

based on both parties being able to share goals in that land transfer,

which will not require the bill that is under debate today. I want

members to be aware of that.

I think that going forward, there will be most instances, possibly

all instances, of land transfer, satisfying to the court, done without

this legislation. But this legislation must give us the tools, in

instances where that is not possible or that is not the case, or where

the negotiations are stalled out and we’re not meeting the timelines

that have been established by the court and, therefore, are in violation

of the court. That’s why we need this bill.

[3:05 p.m.]

I’m going to go back to this news release here, because I like the

quote from Jen Mezei, who is the chair of the Burnaby board of

education. She said this, speaking on behalf of the anglophone district

in Burnaby: “It was important to us as a board that the land remain in

the hands of a school district providing public education. We are

pleased that with this sale, there will be a francophone school in

Burnaby providing another learning opportunity for children and youth in

our community.”

Now, that is exactly the right attitude and positivity and

cooperation that we would expect to see and that we are seeing in

districts around the province. But I can tell you that there have been

instances, one in particular, where significant effort has been put

towards trying to create this similar dynamic, with fair compensation in

place.

The Vancouver school board, a district, by the way, that has

20,000 vacant seats and has significant excess lands compared to any

other district in the province — there is nobody that compares to that

particular situation — has been unable to work with the francophone

school district to identify sites on the west side of Vancouver where

they desperately need a school to serve the francophone community, which

was specifically referenced by the court.

The court, by the way, also said — this isn’t legally enforceable,

but they did note in the reasons for judgment — that anglophone school

districts ought to work side by side with the province to resolve the

conclusions of the court, which was that these language rights needed to

be satisfied, and that the public school system should work

cooperatively to find solutions.

While I think there have been a lot of well-intentioned people

that have put a lot of work in at the Vancouver school board to do this,

it has not been brought to any successful conclusion after years and

years of work. It may be the case that this bill is needed in that

instance, and it may not be. I don’t have full, up-to-date knowledge on

how well discussions are going in the Vancouver school board.

I can tell you that if we had had Bill 22 when I was Minister of

Education, I likely would have used it to come to a satisfactory

resolution that would already, probably, have produced a school building

and might have produced some benefits by providing fair compensation to

the Vancouver school board, which could have been invested in other

capital priorities in their long range facilities plan. Instead, there

was an inability to get to an agreement.

Unfortunately, nothing has been done for francophone students to

improve the situation, where they lack a school, or for kids in some of

the fast-growing areas — in a district that is otherwise continuing to

experience flat enrolment or even modest enrolment decline. I’m speaking

specifically of the community around False Creek.

I want to go back to Ms. Mezei’s point again. I think she has

displayed exactly the right kind of attitude that we should expect from

our education leaders and that MLAs in this House will

recognize.

We represent anglophones, francophones and all kinds of

communities. We have just introduced a bill a couple of hours ago —

which communities of colour, Métis and Indigenous peoples worked with

the government on producing — to counter discrimination, to hold

government accountable, to make sure that in employment, housing and

education there is no discrimination happening as we go forward, that we

measure that, that we report on that and that we stamp out racism in all

forms.

Indeed, it is in that spirit that this bill, I think, will enable

us to overcome any resistance, should there be any, to the linguistic

rights of the francophone community in British Columbia. There are some

voices, some influential voices, in the Vancouver education community

that have seen cooperation as a bad idea, that have seen it as taking

something away from the Vancouver school board in an area where — let’s

face it — land is hard to come by and land prices are amongst the

highest in North America.

They have seen the project of working cooperatively for the

betterment of public education in a city, a government and a local

situation that represents both the francophone minority and the

anglophone minority as: “It’s something that’s not our problem. That’s

up to the province.” Well, that’s the wrong idea if we’re going to make

progress, if we’re going to satisfy the court and if we’re going to

allow the francophone minority to have what the court has rightly said

is an entitlement to have the same type of high-quality education

facility and instruction in a community like Vancouver.

[3:10 p.m.]

I hope we don’t need Bill 22, but it certainly may be quite

helpful to have this law come into force and break a logjam if we can’t

do it on a voluntary basis together. But I think that we won’t need it.

I think that we’ll continue to do what Penticton has done. We will

continue to do what Kamloops school district has done and the Victoria

school district and so many others, and we’ll continue to make progress

in northern B.C., where there is a vibrant, growing francophone

community.

I want to thank, again, the minister for her work in moving this

forward and also in getting a number of positive agreements in very

recent weeks and months to satisfy the court decision that obliges us as

lawmakers to satisfy the court decision around this important language

right that is long established in Canada. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, does the minister wish to close

debate?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I would like to thank the member for West Vancouver–Capilano for

her comments. I look forward to our further discussion during committee

stage.

I would like to thank the Leader of the Third Party for her

comments and, of course, my colleagues for their perspectives on what is

an important step forward, certainly, in addressing our constitutional

obligations with respect to francophone students but also that really is

in the spirit of recognizing that we have really one educational system

in the province and a diversity of students and that we need to find

ways to work together to ensure that the needs of students are

met.

With that, I’ll close my comments there.

Deputy Speaker: The member moves second reading.

Motion approved.

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

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 22, School Amendment Act, 2022, read a second time and referred

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

the House after today.

Hon. R. Fleming: I call second reading of Bill 21, the Professional Governance

Amendment Act.

The Attorney General has brought the wrong binder. He will be back

in the House momentarily. I suggest that we recess until he appears to

begin debate.

Deputy Speaker: Very good, Minister. We will take a short recess.

The House recessed from 3:12 p.m. to 3:13 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

BILL 21 — PROFESSIONAL GOVERNANCE

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Bill 21 consists of amendments to the Professional Governance Act.

These amendments have been primarily driven by the operational

experience of the office of the superintendent of professional

governance and the regulatory bodies operating under it. They reflect

the requirement in the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Act to ensure that B.C. laws are consistent with the Declaration on the

Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Proposed amendments also draw from recommendations made in recent

reviews of professional governance models in B.C. health and legal

professions to reflect ongoing development in governance best

practices.

[3:15 p.m.]

The key amendments included in this bill will enable the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to set out regulations in respect of an

annual fee on regulatory bodies to fund performance management

functions; express confirmation that reserving professional practices to

register in civil professions does not impact Indigenous traditional

knowledge or practices; enable government to achieve flexibility in the

designation and amalgamation processes to reflect right-touch regulation

principles; enable regulatory bodies to address non-compliance with

administrative matters, such as completion of continuing education

requirements outside of the discipline process in a manner that is

procedurally fair; enable the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to set out

regulations to enact feasible requirements around declarations of

competence and declarations of conflict of interest and transition to

the terminology, which better reflects that regulatory bodies are not

membership organizations.

This includes transitioning away from councillor/president terms

to board member/board chair terms and from professional association to

professional regulator.

The regulatory bodies, which include the Applied Science

Technologists and Technicians of B.C., the Association of B.C. Forest

Professionals, the B.C. Institute of Agrologists, the College of Applied

Biology and the Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C., along with the

Architectural Institute of B.C., which will be transitioning under the

Professional Governance Act later this year, have been engaged on these

amendments.

The First Nations Leadership Council and the B.C. alliance of

treaty First Nations were also engaged in the development of the

amendment related to Indigenous traditional knowledge and

practices.

Since the Professional Governance Act received royal assent in

2018, the office of the superintendent of professional governance has

provided value in promoting best practices and holding regulatory bodies

accountable to performance standards while being responsive to their

operational needs. It has advanced transparency to and trust of the

public on professional governance matters and has demonstrated its own

accountability in its annual reports to the Legislature.

These proposed amendments reflect this government’s commitment to

administrative efficiency and will ensure the regulatory bodies continue

to operate under a modern governance framework that protects the public

interest.

M. de Jong: On Bill 21, my comments won’t be lengthy. We have just heard from

the Attorney General that what we are dealing with here is a piece of

legislation that is designed to draw on the experiences of the last 3½,

four years, since the passage and the enactment of the Professional

Governance Act. He has enunciated and summarized some of the proposed

amendments — changes and updates — included within this package, this

Bill 21.

The original act, of course, is a lengthy document, almost 110

pages of legislation, and it’s not terribly surprising, therefore, that

along the way, some issues may have arisen that require addressing in

subsequent legislation.

For the purposes of the debate that will follow, the discussion

that will follow, in committee, I can tell the Attorney General that a

general line of questioning will be to seek from the Attorney and the

staff that he’ll have with him an explanation for the experiences that

may have given rise to some of the changes that are being proposed. Some

of them are linguistic, as he’s pointed out. The shift from membership

language to regulatory language is reflected in a number of sections of

the bill.

He won’t be surprised to know that there will be an interest

expressed on the part of the opposition as it relates to the provisions

of the legislation that deal with the creation of a regulatory power

around the creation of a fee. We’ve had the benefit of a brief

discussion with the staff about what might be contemplated there, but

the Attorney will appreciate that we’ll seek some comment from him on

the record as part of the committee proceedings about what the nature of

those fees are likely to be, what they’re intended to cover, how they

might be applied, how they might be determined and subsequently

applied.

It’s a piece of legislation that, quite frankly, lends itself more

appropriately to a detailed discussion at the committee stage, and for

that reason, the opposition is content to facilitate passage through

second reading to the committee stage of debate.

Those are my comments.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Attorney General.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I always appreciate my critic, the member

for Abbotsford West, giving a roadmap of potential questions that assist

me and staff in being more complete in our responses. I’m grateful for

that.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole

House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 21, Professional Governance Amendment Act, 2022, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Eby: I call continued second reading of Bill 10, Labour Relations Code

Amendment Act.

BILL 10 — LABOUR RELATIONS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

(continued)

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure to take my place back in the debate today. I

only had a few minutes there when we closed up on Thursday for the week,

so I’m glad to continue my comments around Bill 10 and what is

essentially, really, the stripping away of democratic process in the

workplace in British Columbia. I say that because that’s really the core

of Bill 10.

We’ve heard government members speak to Bill 10 already. I’m not

sure if they think the bill is something other than it is, or if they’ve

read something different. We’re not redoing the labour code in terms of

safety practice and safety standards in the workplace. Bill 10 is not

designed, and its intended purpose is not, to make workplaces safer, yet

that’s what the majority of the commentary by government members has

been to this point. Absolutely, everyone deserves and has a right to

work in a safe workplace — no one is disputing that — but stripping away

the right to a secret ballot does not accomplish that.

No one is saying that you should not have the right to assimilate

and be part of a union. Of course you should have the right to do that,

and you have that right in British Columbia right now under existing

legislation. What Bill 10 does is that it actually strips away the

democratic right of joining that union that you have. That is where the

problem lies, from my perspective.

I was thinking back to what got me to this place, and I went

through a nomination process. I know, probably, most government members

that would have been part of a snap election wouldn’t have had a chance

to go through a nomination process in their riding, but I certainly did.

That was contested. It’s interesting, because there are similarities.

You sign a card under the current system. If there’s enough people that

sign cards, it goes to a vote a few days later.

In my case, for my nomination, I went out and sold memberships.

People had to sign to become a member of the B.C. Liberal Party. I’m

sure the NDP operates in a very similar way in terms of people taking

out a membership. Then there’s a few days’ period at the end of those

membership sales, at the end of signing those cards. People get together

again, and they have a secret ballot to decide who will be their

representative. That’s what enabled me to become a candidate for our

party in my riding.

We then carried that forward to having an election, where you fill

out a whole bunch of paperwork, and you sign your intentions on papers,

of what you would like to try to do. You ask the people for further

confirmation. It’s a secret ballot. That’s essentially the same process

we have if you would like to join a union in British Columbia. Unions

come in. They make representation. They try to convince members that it

would be a good idea to join their union and why they would benefit in

that particular workplace. That’s not a problem at all.

If they convince enough people to sign a card showing intention

that they would like to explore this further, they do. They then move

forward with a secret vote that’s overseen by an independent neutral

party, much like Elections B.C. In this case, it’s not Elections B.C. I

believe it’s the labour board that comes in and supervises. There’s a

secret vote. If enough people vote yes, the unionization of that

workplace continues on — not a problem at all. You don’t need to change

the legislation to enable people to have that right to move forward with

the process.

[3:25 p.m.]

To say and to try to suggest, in any measure, that a secret ballot

creates intimidation and coercion, instead of sitting in a room full of

people, co-workers and organizers — and saying that a show of hands,

essentially, is less onerous on people and less stressful on people, to

be able to provide their true thought and true intention — is

laughable.

Like with my nomination, just because someone took out a

membership, it does not necessarily mean, when they’re standing in the

privacy of that voting booth by themselves, that they actually marked my

name down on the ballot. That’s okay; that was their right.

It’s just like in an election. When I first ran for city council

back in 2002…. I can’t even remember how many thousands of votes I got.

I can guarantee you I almost had twice as many people tell me to my face

that they voted for me. That’s okay. It gets awkward sometimes. People

don’t know what to say. Every former local government official in here

probably knows what I’m talking about. That’s what people do.

Stripping away the right of somebody to have a secret ballot on

something as critical as what will shape the future of their work,

potentially for their career, the length of their career…. It’s critical

that something like that demonstrate what their true intention

is.

No one is saying they shouldn’t be allowed to have that right to

join a union. Absolutely, they should. If it’s working conditions that

are driving the need for that, that will shine through in a secret

ballot vote. Under the current rules, if an employer is deemed to be

meddling in this whole process, then, in fact, the certification is

immediate, automatic. Pretty high stakes for a business to go to the

levels of coercion that are being bandied about by government right now

as an excuse to strip democratic rights for people.

Now, I’m no expert, obviously, when it comes to who forms the bulk

of NDP delegates when they go to a convention. I would imagine there’d

be a lot of labour leaders, a lot of labour organizers, people that

would be trying to set up unions in various jobsites. That’s fair

enough. It’s no secret, the connection with the NDP and labour. They

should be allowed to freely associate with whatever political party they

choose to associate with.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

It’s interesting that those exact same organizers, trying to say

that a secret ballot is a coercion tactic, don’t seem to have a problem

electing all of their executive in an NDP election by secret ballot.

Those are the same people that would be walking into workplaces and

saying that a secret ballot is too onerous and too rife with problems.

Here, let’s look at some of the elected positions with the NDP, where

it’s a secret ballot by these same people, many of whom, in the room,

would be the ones going into a workplace to organize.

Interjection.

P. Milobar: I look forward to the member for Na­naimo–North Cowichan’s

commentary. I’m sure he’ll get to his feet and defend why stripping away

a secret ballot…. That way, he could actually have it on the record

instead of just Hansard marking him down as interjections in

the middle of this.

Other elected positions: party president, secret ballot;

treasurer, secret ballot; regional representatives on the party

executive, secret ballot; northern caucus representative on the party

executive, secret ballot. The chairs of the participation of women

committee; the New Democratic Youth of Canada; the racial justice and

equality committee; the Aboriginal commission; the lesbian-gay,

bisexual-transgendered committee; the persons living with disabilities

committee; and the federal caucus representative — all secret

ballots.

Not a showing of hands in the middle of the convention. Not people

standing up, one by one, at a microphone to proclaim who they feel would

be best suited — many of whom would be the same organizers, going into

workplaces, that are now saying that a secret ballot is a

problem.

In fact….

Interjection.

P. Milobar: It’s interesting. Someone just asked me how democracy works, from

the government side. If that doesn’t say it all right now…. That’s

remarkable to me. We have someone asking, from the government side, how

democracy works when we’re debating a bill that would strip away

somebody’s democratic right to have a secret ballot. That, to me, speaks

volumes about what is wrong with this bill.

[3:30 p.m.]

At its core, this bill’s problem is it’s just bad legislation.

We’ve seen it time and again from this government. In fact, we just had

a piece of legislation removed, a piece of legislation that was

supposedly a trigger for an election, a snap pandemic election. That

legislation was used as a reason for the election. It was going to come

back to this House. Eighteen months later the whole concept is removed

completely, because it was bad legislation.

This government has had bad legislation time and again. It

shouldn’t be that shocking, I guess, that they have another piece of bad

legislation when their own members are asking for democracy to be

explained to them on a bill that takes away the democratic right to a

secret ballot. A fundamental tenet of democracy is the secret

ballot.

I know the Premier likes to refer people to the Google. So perhaps

his own members could go to the Google and check out where secret

ballots came from and see how far back they go — they go back to

hundreds, BC — and why and the premise.

It was not just in one area of the world that this was happening.

It was happening across the world, because it was widely recognized that

a secret ballot is important. It’s fundamental. It’s the basis of all of

this.

When you see that the NDP, to select their own members’ positions,

rely on a secret ballot, it calls into question the sincerity and why

this is really needed.

Now, there are other pieces of this legislation that are

problematic, things like being able to go to a union to raid every

summer instead of every three years. That will create problems. That

will create big problems within the construction industry.

I’m willing to bet, for the first few years, the unions that will

be raided are the ones that aren’t currently on the preferred list of

unions to be able to get government work, because 85 percent of

unionized construction workers in this province don’t belong to those 19

unions. I know the government likes to dismiss those unions, but there’s

a difference….

Here, again, a member from the government said: “Well, it’s

because there are non-union workplaces.” That’s not called union

raiding. That’s called union organization, to the member. Two totally

different things. They don’t understand their own bill.

A union raid is when a workplace is already organized and

unionized, and union A goes in to try to supplant union B. That’s a

union raid, which will now be allowed every summer.

The member from Chilliwack doesn’t seem to understand that. He’s

comparing that to a non-unionized workplace, where the other part of

this bill comes into play, where they stripped away the secret ballot,

which, to the other member, from Nelson, is how democracy works. They’ve

stripped away that and the other part.

Perhaps the members of government could get together and

understand the two parts of this bill and how they actually interact

with the two different workplaces, one which is already unionized and

one which is not unionized. Perhaps, when they get to that fundamental

understanding of this bill, we could actually have a proper

debate.

That would probably explain why previous speakers have spent all

of their time talking about workplace safety with this bill. This bill

doesn’t impact workplace safety. This bill takes away the worker’s right

to a free and democratic secret ballot vote on whether or not they want

to be governed and represented by a union in their workplace.

If you’re a young person in that situation, literally your

career…. Were it taking away…. With this bill, the government is trying

to strip away — someone that might be 22, 23, 24 years old — the ability

for them to say, by way of a secret ballot, whether or not they want to

be a part of a union in their workplace. I don’t understand why the

other side is so afraid of allowing a secret ballot on something as

crucial as that for somebody deciding their next 30-year workplace. Why

that is a fear of this government….

[3:35 p.m.]

Let’s be clear. This has been tried for the last couple of years.

It only didn’t happen during the coalition government because the Green

Party didn’t support it. You know who else doesn’t support it?

Seventy-nine percent of British Columbians, including a heck of a lot of

unionized workers. They agree that their brothers and sisters should get

to vote with a secret ballot. In fact, you can only find about 5 percent

of the population that actually thinks it’s a good idea, which means 95

percent are on one side of don’t like it to 79 percent that really don’t

like it.

Only this government could try to advance something that only 5

percent of the population even remotely thinks is a good idea. That

strips away democracy. It’s a shame. One would think that with

“democratic” in the middle of their party name, they would actually

understand the tenets of democracy. But as was pointed out earlier, that

doesn’t seem to be the case.

Bill 10 is just bad legislation. We have seen it time and again in

this chamber. Some bad legislation has advanced. Some was used to

trigger an election and has now been withdrawn. Clean energy. That was

bad legislation. That magically has just disappeared, never to be talked

about again. I believe that was an excuse for the snap election as well.

Just quietly withdrawn.

This government has a track record of actually bringing forward

bad legislation. FOI legislation. Yeah, they rammed it through all

right. Hard-pressed to find anyone that says that was a good process,

let alone good legislation. Secretive, not forthcoming. Those are the

hallmarks of the most secret government in Canada. That’s what this NDP

government is. What’s good enough for them apparently is too onerous for

someone to have as a right to decide how they want to work at the job

they’re already doing.

Somehow the only place in our society that a secret ballot becomes

too onerous is in the workplace when a union wants to get certified. It

doesn’t happen at student councils. It doesn’t happen in classrooms. If

they’re picking a rep to be for their class, they do that as a secret

ballot, even back in elementary school with, yes, a secret

ballot.

There are very few things in our life that you can point to that

are a show of hands in a public assembly where you’re then interacting

with those people day in and day out. That’s why a secret ballot is so

important. It’s the long-term, day in and day out, working with these

people, side by side, that creates divisions, and that starts to create

a toxic workplace. If you want to talk about an unhealthy workplace,

this legislation will actually create it.

I go back to how I first got elected municipally. People tell you

one thing but do a different thing when they get to the ballot box,

which is their right to do.

The fact that some unions have found out, with a cold piece of

reality, that what some workers told them they might want to do when it

comes to a union by taking the first step and signing a card and then,

in the security and privacy of a secret ballot, indicating the exact

opposite just proves why this is bad legislation. It proves why people

need to be able to have the freedom to, unhindered, voice their true

opinion on whether or not they want to join a particular

union.

[3:40 p.m.]

It could be that they don’t like that particular union, and then

the next union that comes along they actually do want. That’s okay too.

They should have that right to do that.

If they unionize, unions absolutely should be trying to push the

bar as far as they can with their boss in terms of hours worked or

working conditions, benefit packages and salaries and everything else.

They absolutely should do that because that workplace, by way of a

secret ballot, has said: “We want to entrust this bargaining group to do

that for us.” I take no issue with that whatsoever.

The comments that you’re hearing from opposition are not

anti-union. We’re not saying that there shouldn’t be any. They actually

do play a space in our society. I had a very good working relationship

with the various unions at the city when I was in Kamloops. Never had

any work stoppages. WCB claim rates kept dropping. Stress leaves, those

types of indicators, and grievances were all dropping. Didn’t have any

strikes. Negotiated quite a few different agreements. So I don’t have a

problem at all.

You should have the fundamental right in a democratic country,

like Canada is, to use a secret ballot to decide how you would like to

change your working conditions on something as fundamental as unionized

or not. The fact that the government doesn’t understand, or cares not to

understand, or cares not to care about the union raiding aspect of this,

where, every single summer, construction unions are fair game for each

other to go and duke it out to try to steal members away from one to the

other….

The only reason I can think of that they wouldn’t care about that

is that they’re fully expecting their 19 prioritized unions, which are

the only ones to get access to the government jobs right now, to go

after the remaining unionized workplaces and their members. They tilt

the scales to make sure the government contracts only go to a certain

subset of unions, and now they’re going to try to tilt the scales to

make sure that those remaining workplaces can get raided on a yearly

basis by those same ones that get access to the government

work.

It’s fundamentally not right. That’s why I say it’s fundamentally

bad legislation.

There are other ways they could have worked around things, but no.

They chose to ignore it. This government seems to be very good at

delaying and saying that they’re going to consult and saying that

they’re going to go and ask for experts. In fact, they’re doing it right

now.

We’re waiting to find out about the cooling-off period for real

estate that the Minister of Finance says actually won’t affect house

prices. It might actually make things worse. You could actually wind up

losing your down payment that you took 15 years to save up for, thanks

to her new legislation. There may or may not be geographic differences

for consumer protection in that bill, but don’t worry. That’s what the

government says on that bill.

On this…. They’re waiting for the BCFSA report to come in. They’re

waiting for that group of experts to advise before they can answer any

of those critically important questions. On this bill, they actually did

get advice from experts. The experts said: “Don’t get rid of the secret

ballot.” What does this government do? “It was really just an exercise

of asking. It doesn’t mean we can’t have a difference of opinion on

things.”

Well, it’s a pretty big difference of opinion when you’re talking

about something as fundamental as a secret ballot and something as

fundamental as a basic tenet of democracy. I challenge anyone to find

definitions of democracy that don’t involve a secret ballot.

[3:45 p.m.]

That’s the process. That’s the core process to it. You can tweak

it. You can say: “Well, it’s got to be 60 percent in favour or opposed.”

It’s got to be this, or it’s got to be that. The baseline for all of it

is a secret ballot.

We just went through the proportional representation referendum,

which was another thumb on the scales by the Attorney General. That was

to figure out how you would select people to come. But not once, through

that whole process, was the secret ballot talked about being removed.

They looked at — how many? — different voting systems around the world.

All of them involved a secret ballot.

Somehow, in British Columbia, the most critical thing this

government has to work on, the burning issue for them, is to remove a

secret ballot for somebody to choose a union. Yet it took the Labour

Minister five years to bring forward asbestos legislation. Asbestos

accounts for one-third of all workplace deaths in British Columbia every

year. It took the minister five years to bring that forward. It took him

basically a year after the snap election to bring this forward, when

they were unshackled from the Greens. If that doesn’t tell you their

priorities, I don’t know what does.

All the well-meaning in the world means nothing when you actually

stack it up to the actual workflow, the workplan, what they’re actually

enacting, what they’re bringing forward by way of legislation and their

prioritization of that. I’m going to end with that and repeat it,

because I think it’s galling. I first started speaking to this bill,

actually, on the Day of Mourning. One-third of yearly workplace deaths

are attributed to asbestos exposure.

It took the same minister that’s bringing this bill forward five

years to bring that forward to this Legislature, but one year after a

snap election — and being unfettered from the Greens — removing the

secret ballot for people in the workplace was brought forward. That’s

shameful, and yes, it’s undemocratic. There is no way I can possibly

support this bill moving forward.

I thank you for the time, Madam Chair.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the Minister of Education and Child Care.

Hon. J. Whiteside: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s nice to see you in the

chair.

I want to start by just saying what an incredible honour it is to

have the opportunity to speak to this bill today. I want to thank the

Minister of Labour for bringing it forward. I want to say that this

issue is an important issue to people in my community, which, like many

other communities, of course, is comprised of working people, many of

whom belong to unions.

In fact, in New Westminster, we are home to several union central

offices: the UFCW 1518, B.C. Building Trades, the Health Sciences

Association, Retail Wholesale Union, Canadian Union of Postal Workers,

Unifor. You could say we’re bit of a union town.

I want to say to them that I am profoundly grateful for the work

that they do to lift up working people, to build safer workplaces,

because that work not only benefits their members, but it benefits all

of society and ensures that we have a thriving, equitable economy.

Ensuring the constitutional right of workers to join a union and to

negotiate one’s working conditions collectively with your fellow workers

is a right that must be one that can be practically accessed and that is

real.

[3:50 p.m.]

This debate is important for people in our communities.

Ultimately, this is a question of working people being able to act on

their constitutionally protected right to join a union.

Now, I have had the privilege and the pleasure of spending most of

my working life advocating for and with working people, mostly health

care workers. Over the decades, I’ve seen the incredibly important role

that unions play in providing public services, and I’ve seen the

struggles that working people have experienced in accessing the right to

unionization. I’ve also seen the struggle and the operation of power in

this field.

I have seen the faces of people I’ve worked with who have suffered

situations where their right to join a union has been interfered with,

where they have been deprived of that right and where the barriers that

they face are insurmountable, despite freedom of association being

enshrined in law.

I will say that many of those faces are racialized. They come from

communities that have been made vulnerable because of racism,

discrimination and inequity, and forming a union is the path for them to

experience dignity and decency in their working lives. This fact must

remind us all that unionization is a force for equity and that unions

are a critical feature of modern civil society.

I want to also just reflect on some of the work that I have done,

over the course of my career, that looks at the relationship between

unionization and outcomes for patients and residents, particularly in

nursing homes. Peer-reviewed research demonstrates a positive

correlation between unionized workplaces and quality-of-care outcomes

for people who live in nursing homes. We have seen that in our own

experience in this province — the relationship between unionized

workplaces and the care that is received and the quality of the lives of

people who are patients or residents who get care in our care

system.

I could line up incredible care providers around this building

many, many times who could speak to the degree to which they care for

the people in our province and the importance of their ability to have

stable labour relations, the kind of stable labour relations that come

with a unionized environment, the kind of dignity and decency that comes

in having structured ways of ensuring that you have a safe work

environment.

These issues are not theoretical. They’re not abstract about what

democracy is. They are very real about the material conditions that

people experience every day. Working people are driven to join unions

because they experience injustice at work. They experience inequity,

indignity, a lack of safety in their work lives.

Those are generally the kinds of experiences that cause people to

want to join with other working people to improve their working

conditions. It is the material effect of these circumstances on the

lives of working people and their families and their children that is

important to understand here. Whether it is a lack of access to a

livable wage, a lack of access to a family-supporting wage, whether it’s

the experience of harassment or discrimination at work or a lack of

access to benefits or to paid sick leave, there are many experiences

that have a material impact on the health and well-being of workers that

cause them to come together to bargain collectively to improve their

experience at work.

[3:55 p.m.]

Once we understand that the reason that unionization is the only

path to remedy this experience, we understand that it is the power

imbalance in the workplace between workers and their employer that is,

really, just simply a fact of how our workplaces are organized. That is

just a fact of labour relations.

My friend and colleague the member for Langley gave a very

eloquent and extensive description of the framework of labour relations

in this country, in this province, which is intended explicitly to

provide for labour stability and to promote, to the greatest extent

possible, a sort of a levelling of the playing field in that regard.

That’s an important context and framework to understand the way in which

this particular provision in our labour code is working — or not

working, in this particular instance.

We have an approach both constitutionally and set up in our labour

code which understands that there is a differential in power between

workers who are employed and their employers. That is the framework in

which we have established a labour code that says that working people

can come together, under a clear set of rules and in the interest of

labour stability, and have access to a pathway to improve their working

conditions and, thus, their lives.

Much has been made of the notion of the only form of democracy

being a secret ballot, but I will say that I think it’s a false

equivalency to suggest that voting in a municipal or a provincial or

federal election is really sort of the same as, in this instance, making

a decision about joining a union, precisely because of that power

imbalance, which does not exist in those other circumstances.

I also am troubled, frankly, by the way in which it ignores the

reality of people, the lived reality of people. If you talk to working

people who have been in workplaces where there is intimidation, who have

been through this process in some cases of trying to organize a union

and have had that right frustrated, then you will understand that this

is a real and material condition that people experience. I think to

disregard that, to dismiss that experience shows, really, a troubling

lack of regard for the experience of people.

I have seen it. I have seen workers who have been fired en masse

and have tried to come back and have gotten hired and have tried to form

a union again that have been unable to do that. I have seen workers work

in situations, in environments, where there is a culture of fear. That

culture of fear is designed to prevent workers from deciding to join a

union. I have seen that. I have talked to workers. I see their faces

right now.

To somehow say that there is sort of an equivalency, that there’s

no such thing as power operating anywhere here between how we elect

governments and how workers choose to form a union, is a real false

equivalency. That power imbalance simply doesn’t translate into those

other circumstances.

If we look at the process by which people actually join a union,

then you really see the opportunities for employers to frustrate that

right. Indeed, the stakes are very high. Members across the aisle have

noted how high the stakes are. They are very high for working people who

are looking for decency and dignity in their lives, very high

indeed.

What did we hear during the labour panel review? That was a really

big process. We heard much evidence, much testimony put forward by

working people, much analysis by experts who comprised the panel. What

we heard from one of the unions that provided testimony at the panel was

that one of the major impediments to union organization is employer

opposition. That opposition can easily manifest itself during an

organizing campaign when employer representatives express inappropriate

opinions on the question of unionization.

[4:00 p.m.]

We accept the view that employers have a legitimate interest in

whether their employees organize for the purpose of collective

bargaining. On the other hand, we believe employers must maintain a

circumspect position during an organizing campaign, to ensure that

employees are able to freely choose whether or not they wish to belong

to a trade union. This is a subject that has been talked about in a

number of different forms — in the ’90s, during the process to review

the code at that time, and then again in 2017-2018, when the code was

being reviewed.

I want to go back to the most recent discussion by the panel and

just put into context the recommendation that came from that panel with

respect to the secret ballot process. I’m just going to quote from their

analysis.

What the panel said was:

“A secret ballot process gives rise to two main concerns: the

potential for delay and unlawful employer interference. Under a secret

ballot system, employers have more opportunity and incentive to engage

in unlawful union avoidance. Longer timeframes for certification votes

or lax compliance negatively impact the s