2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Morning Sitting

Volume 27, Number 10

[ Page 8749 ]

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2011

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Reports from Committees

R. Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the fourth session of the 39th parliament respecting the Budget 2012 consultation process.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

R. Howard: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

[1005]

R. Howard: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I would like to make some comments.

The Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services Report on the Budget 2012 Consultations summarizes the budget priorities of British Columbians who participated in the process and contains 75 recommendations for next year's provincial budget.

The recommendations are based on 15 public hearings held in communities across the province over a five-week period. These included two video conference hearings covering several additional communities. British Columbians also had the opportunity to make written and on-line survey submissions for the committee's consideration.

Overall, some 750 submissions were made to the committee, addressing a wide range of topics relating to Budget 2012. There were 220 oral presentations, 118 written submissions and 411 respondents to the on-line survey.

To promote competitiveness, jobs and economic growth, the committee recommended streamlining permitting processes and regulations, bridging the skills gap and investing in northern development. For programs and spending priorities, the committee recommended maintaining health care, funding K-to-12 education, strengthening post-secondary education, resourcing community services and enhancing court services.

The committee's recommendations regarding fiscal management included balancing the budget and protecting the province's triple-A credit rating.

It has been a pleasure serving as Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. I'm especially thankful to committee members, who gave of their time to ensure the success of the report.

D. Donaldson: As Deputy Chair, I'd like to say a few remarks about the tabling of the report today.

First of all, thanks to the Committee Clerk, Susan Sourial, her staff from the Clerk's office and the Hansard staff. Also, just to note two of the people who toured us around the province: the pilot, Luc Fortin, who passed away recently and was part of our team, and the co-pilot, Matt Robic, who still remains in hospital. Our thoughts go out to them and their families.

I'm happy to report that the committee members came to consensus agreement on over 80 percent of the recommendations: recommendations in fiscal management, such as completing the transmission from the HST to the PST as soon as responsibly possible; recommendations in the areas of maximizing opportunities in the natural resource sector, especially around First Nations consultation framework — we need some more meat on that framework; resources for effective, efficient and transparent permitting processes; some resources around regional geologist positions, which is very important for the rural areas and for generating the revenue that this province depends on; and some recommendations in agriculture, especially around the Buy B.C. program and support for that branding program.

We also had consensus recommendations on addressing the skills gap in the province — the colleges' role, especially regionally, in addressing that. Special mention was made in a recommendation around core funding for Northwest Community College's School of Exploration and Mining; and as well, student access around needs-based grants.

We had recommendations in health and education and in court systems. But we didn't agree on everything. Our committee members felt that a number of the recommendations were not wholly consistent with what we heard from submissions and based on our knowledge and experience. I agree with the member from the government side of the committee that the consensus approach should be based on submissions and members' experience and knowledge they bring to the table as elected officials.

I must say — it's my third year as Deputy Chair — this year the process verged on breaking down. It started with the Finance Minister not addressing the committee to start the process as is usual, as is tradition, to explain the budget consultation document. It finished with two unprecedented unilateral decisions by the Chair to include information in the report that hadn't been discussed with opposition members of the committee: one, to make a priority list of recommendations, which we weren't consulted on and didn't endorse; and the other,
[ Page 8750 ]
to include a letter from the Chair, the wording of which we were not consulted on and didn't endorse.

These last two points were part of the reasons we were not able to endorse the entire report overall as a consensus document.

[1010]

Having said all of that, I still really would like to thank those who came out to do presentations and those who took time to do submissions. It does make a difference. Some of that is reflected in the recommendations, but it also makes a difference in educating the committee members. They go back to their team and their caucus and talk about what they heard. It makes a difference in providing material that helps inform debates in this Legislature and the business we conduct in this Legislature.

I'd just like to finish off by making special mention to the families that came out to many of the public sessions, whether it was in the rural areas or in more urban settings, around the issue of Community Living B.C. and transition.

These family members brought members of their families who were impacted by cutbacks at CLBC, whether it was family members transitioning into 19 — in the process or had just transitioned — or some family members who had others in their family who were quite old — 35 years old in one case. So a special mention to those. It was very brave and courageous, and their efforts were reflected in a consensus recommendation to improve services around CLBC.

I thank the members of the committee, and I thank the Chair for conducting the business.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the member for Richmond Centre closes debate.

R. Howard: Just in closing, I would like to reflect on the fact that as a committee we worked very hard, put in lots of hours touring and listening, and then we put in lots of hours deliberating and working hard at trying to create a consensus report to the greatest extent that we can. Special thanks to the vice-Chair, who I know worked equally as hard as I did to make this a success.

One point I think I should make is in terms of the priorities that I felt as a Chair. There are 75 recommendations. I thought it was incumbent upon us as a committee, especially given these rather challenging economic times, that we prioritize for summary purposes and for the purposes of making the report easier to grasp, I think, for the public but also useful from the Finance Minister's standpoint; that if we prioritized the items, it would be easier to get the items out of the 75 that the committee felt were urgent — at least, that the majority government side of the committee felt were urgent.

I also want to make sure I convey that as we heard from 220 different people representing some individuals, some organizations, some businesses, I was really struck by the positive nature of all of these people that presented to us. They were there taking advantage of this unique opportunity to plug into budget consultations, talk about spending priorities and talk about their ideas on how we can balance the budget in these really challenging economic times.

There was an optimism that I sensed in all corners of the province where people were willing to work with government, to roll up their sleeves and create a prosperous future for them and their families.

Lastly, I did write a letter from the Chair in the report, and again, I felt that was important to make sure that British Columbians, readers of the report, understood the context in which we are operating. There are significant headwinds for Canada and British Columbia. There are economic news events occurring almost nightly on news broadcasts, and we're all aware that governments around the world who have not been fiscally responsible have been punished.

We see that to some extent in the States, and certainly, Greece and Italy come to mind. I wanted to emphasize that through years of prudent fiscal management this government has held its debt-to-GDP in check. I'll just talk about the context of that for a minute. Our net government debt-to-GDP is less than 20 percent. Canada's is up around 35 percent. In the States it's up around 75 percent, and in Greece it's up around 150 percent.

So you can really see that this government has done a great job of holding the line on that. That comes through a systemic analyzing and rigorous managing of government expenses and revenues, so I wanted to make sure that we framed the report in the challenging economic times in which we exist.

[1015]

Last but not least, to the staff that accompanied us: they do great work on behalf of the province. We had Clerk of Committees staff and Hansard staff.

Of course, in closing, I'll just say, as I've said in this House before, that we acknowledge in the report the one pilot and the co-pilot. The pilot, Luc Fortin, who passed away, was our pilot through our first leg, and the co-pilot through the second half of our leg remains in hospital in critical condition. Our thoughts, of course, go out to them and their families.

So thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's been a pleasure serving with this committee so far, and I look forward to continued work in the next phase of our committee's work.

Motion approved on division.

Ministerial Statements

MULTICULTURALISM IN B.C.

Hon. H. Bloy: As Minister of State for Multiculturalism, it gives me great pleasure to recognize November 13 to 19 as Multiculturalism Week in British Columbia.
[ Page 8751 ]

Now celebrating its ninth year in B.C., Multiculturalism Week acknowledges the contributions of more than 180 diverse cultural heritages of British Columbians. B.C.'s rich tradition of multiculturalism began before the Europeans and other cultures arrived, with First Nations whose diverse languages and cultures were the first example of multiculturalism. In fact, one-quarter of the people of British Columbia are self-identified as visible minorities, making our province the most ethnically diverse in Canada.

Every British Columbian has their own reason for making B.C. their home, and those reasons are as varied as the cultural influences that make up our province. Whether it's family connections, business opportunities or simply the natural beauty of our province, nearly 40,000 new immigrants make B.C. their home every year.

Multiculturalism kicked off on Monday with the launch of a book called B.C. People: Portraits of Diversity in B.C., which profiles 51 British Columbians from a variety of cultural backgrounds living in every region of our province.

Hon. Speaker, multiculturalism strengthens our province and puts us on the map as a society that values inclusion and cultural diversity, something that every British Columbian should be proud of. This week is the perfect opportunity to enjoy what B.C. has to offer. I encourage all members to be open to the richness of cultural diversity in your communities and discover how multiculturalism is building a way of life in British Columbia.

Happy Multiculturalism Week.

M. Elmore: I'd like to join the member across the way in recognizing Multiculturalism Week and also the great contributions that all immigrants into B.C. have given and the rich tapestry that we enjoy here in British Columbia in our political, social and economic fabric and, as well, the value and especially the contributions of our First Nations people who settled British Columbia initially, and also in recognizing B.C. as the most ethnically diverse in Canada.

We celebrate multiculturalism this week but also recognize that, certainly, we have challenges to overcome to ensure that our ethnically diverse population is able to participate fully in all aspects of society. There are many barriers that remain for us to undertake.

We know that visible minorities are under-represented in senior leaderships in all areas of the province — an average of about 12 percent. We know that the number is nearly 30 percent. Certainly, there is a challenge to undertake to ensure that diverse representation is reflected in all areas of our public service, in our community organizations and on boards in the public and private sectors. We also go forward with that undertaking to ensure that all citizens have equal opportunity to participate.

As well, the support for new immigrants coming in — 40,000 a year; a great addition to our province…. Certainly, support in terms of settlement services for new immigrants and their children and families is important, in particular improving the recognition of foreign credentials to ensure that immigrants are able to utilize their full potential, that it benefits our economy and also that we are able to maximize the human resources in our province.

[1020]

It's a great celebration to join — many exciting opportunities and events happening across B.C. I also encourage and urge everyone to celebrate fully this week and, certainly, every day in British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Lake: I call continued debate on second reading of Bill 7, intituled the Regulatory Reporting Act.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Regulatory
Reporting Act

(continued)

D. Routley: I'll rise and seek to bring some continuity to what I was saying last night before the debate was interrupted at the end of the day. Just to summarize, I rose to speak to Bill 7, which seeks to make mandatory the reporting of progress, if we wish to call it progress, on deregulation in the province of British Columbia.

It was pointed out by several speakers that in fact the minister has every capacity to report on deregulation now, be that annually, biannually, semi-annually or as often as the minister might choose. But by the minister's own admission, this was a political statement to make it more difficult for any future government to have the latitude that any elected government ought to have in this province, which I think underlines the fact that this government has learned little from the disastrous outcomes of some of the deregulation that occurred in their first term.

[D. Black in the chair.]

The minister speaks of deregulation in terms of how tall the stacks of papers are when it comes to regulating the province and that there was an arbitrary decision to remove 30 percent of that volume without really considering what that meant.

I pointed out that as a small business person importing products from Asia and distributing in Canada and across the border into the U.S., I faced regulations that I thought were sometimes rather meaningless and were very cumbersome, and I would have liked to have seen
[ Page 8752 ]
some of those removed. In fact, some have been removed, and that is helpful to an expediency of business.

But when expediency trumps principle, when the principle of protecting the public…. Regulating heavy industry, regulating the lives of children in care, regulating the lives and care for seniors in residency supported by the government — when those measures, those environments, are deregulated without consideration, we are asking for trouble. This is a recipe for disaster and tragedy, and that recipe was borne out. It was proven through the experience of British Columbians. That tragedy was painted with the blood of workers.

We went from an average of about 12 workers dying per year in the forest industry to a high, I believe, of 46 in one year. That was as a direct result of the deregulation of the forest industry. I've spoken already in this speech, earlier yesterday, about how Ted Gramlich, a faller in my community in the Cowichan Valley, died under a tree he was falling without knowing that the air support, air ambulance, was not able to leave the ground.

Before the deregulation of the industry, that news would have been passed along the safety chain, and those workers would not have been out that day. But unfortunately, because the industry had been deregulated to a point where each faller was a contractor unto themselves, a separate business, these considerations were lost, and Ted Gramlich's life was lost.

The government and the Finance Minister, the Deputy Premier, who brought this forward don't need to take my word for it. They can take the word of the coroner who reported that in fact the deregulation of the forest industry was a contributory cause in the death of Ted Gramlich.

I sat through coroner's inquest. I heard the testimony. I heard how he didn't know and his co-worker didn't know that there wasn't air support; that the co-worker had to walk over a kilometre and a half to a truck to find first-aid supplies; that Ted Gramlich, after suffering for an hour and a half, died in the arms of his co-worker. Had he been attended to within the golden hour, it was said at the coroner's inquest, he might well have survived — the golden hour after a traumatic injury.

[1025]

This is the real-world result of public policy without proper consideration, without due consideration of public interests. These changes were driven by industry, and industry has an understandable motive to make profit at whatever cost. And it is the job of government to balance that interest — the pressure on workers to be the fastest, the bravest, the most courageous, particularly in industries like logging, where that pressure leads particularly young workers into placing themselves at great risk.

It's an industry where every day workers are exposed to extraordinary hazards. Falling a tree is moving an object weighing tens of thousands of tonnes by its own gravity, guided only by the human being and the machinery at their disposal. It is commonplace and routine for workers to be at extreme hazard and risk.

Over generations, over decades, a culture of safety evolved, through the cooperative work of companies and workers and unions, where workplace health and safety committees, workers and their employers sat together at the table, without fear of retribution, and discussed the safety issues they faced. Those were replaced, and the onus for providing a safe workplace was transferred from the employer to the worker. This resulted in disaster.

These are the real-world results of the deregulation that occurred in the first term of the B.C. Liberals. The minister shows he hasn't learned much by saying now that this bill is a political statement — that they're so committed to arbitrary reductions in regulation in the province.

Already we've seen the minister talk about how tall the stacks of regulations are and saying he wants to cut that stack by 30 percent. Well, that's without considering these deep implications in the lives of British Columbians.

The most moving experience at the inquest into Ted Gramlich's death was on the final day. At the end of it, outside the courthouse, his widow, Debbie, told us that what she missed most about Ted was dancing — that they danced together. That was their hobby, and that's what they loved to do together, and that's what she missed. That is missed by this government when it takes these arbitrary acts and when these outcomes are considered simply a cost of doing business.

Have we learned enough? Has there been enough tragedy in this province to teach this government that placing expediency ahead of the principles of protecting the public interest and protecting workers and protecting the environment…? Have they learned enough?

Well, I would suggest that at a time when so many important issues in this province need to be debated, for this government to bring this bill forward simply as a political statement and an attempt to corner future governments in their actions shows that, in fact, the government hasn't learned enough.

I finished yesterday talking about Rafe Mair, a radio host and former cabinet minister in Socred governments and Environment Minister, who opposed the Kemano completion project in Kitimat. I was very moved by his reasoning for opposing that project. In fact, it's one of the reasons that I entered politics — his rationale. His rationale was that the proposal to dam a river — I believe it was in Nechako — and allow heated water from turbines to be reinjected into the river after cooling…. His argument that the risk of hot water being injected into the river at a time when salmon were spawning and, thereby, killing off a salmon run was something like
[ Page 8753 ]
5,000 to 1 and that that was an acceptable risk to the company that was making the proposal. He made the argument that probability is but certainty unproven.

He made the argument that you can play Russian roulette with a gun with six chambers and one bullet or 5,000 chambers and one bullet. The only difference is that it may take you longer to find the bullet if you have 5,000 chambers, but you will find it.

[1030]

When we take decisions that are based on a probability and a risk, we as responsible people, responsible for the public interest of this province, take on an onerous responsibility. We have made a wager with that probability.

We have said that we accept the probable risk. The worst-case scenario will occur. When this government deregulated industry in this province — this province that depends on very heavy industries that expose workers to very significant risks — when they took on the role of deregulating those industries in such a haphazard, reckless and imprudent way, they took on that onerous responsibility for Ted Gramlich and others who died as a result of those decisions.

That argument, in fact, moves me to be in this House. That argument that what we do as parliamentarians…. The decisions we make carry with them risk and carry with them onerous responsibility and carry with them the probability that decisions to disrupt communities, disrupt workplace cultures, disrupt the lives of children in care…. All of those decisions carry with them a probability that there will be tragic outcomes.

This bill, as a political statement, fails to learn the lesson that should have been learned from the tragic cases of children in care who suffered under the disrupted processes through the reckless deregulation of this government.

I would say that this government needs to take ownership for those actions and learn that, in fact, expediency should never trump the principles that we are here to protect; that we can, in fact, bring efficient and modernized process and economy to this province without putting at risk the people and the environment; that we can get rid of those troublesome, burdensome regulations that small businesses are subjected to that seem to not make any sense.

As I said before, I experienced many of them in trying to import products from Asia, manufacture products here in B.C. and then export into the U.S. That was a very difficult process as a small business person. There were rules and regulations that were set up that didn't address the circumstances that I functioned in. They ought to have been changed, and some have been.

But when it comes to rules that are essential to protecting people's health and the health and safety and continuity of our environment, we need to be cautious. We need to be prudent. We need to be conservative, and that is the least of what this government can be characterized as.

Rules — why do we have them? We have rules and regulations that guide our communities and our lives in order to be safe and healthy. Brookelyn Baird, my seven-year-old stepdaughter, sometimes doesn't like rules in board games, and she'll change them, much to the chagrin of her ten-year-old brother. He'll protest, and we kind of laugh at it, because it's kind of cute when she just changes the rules in a board game to suit her.

But it's tragic when a government does that, and the results wind up being tragic for British Columbians. It's irresponsible. This government has a long history of breaking the rules of this province, be it their own budget laws or any number of rules that they just trot into this House and change at their whim in order to suit their expediency.

It's rather unfortunate that the bill I'm rising to speak to is something that could be achieved simply with the mechanisms available to the minister on a daily basis, but in order to facilitate him and his government, it's a political statement. And that is rather tragic to the business of the province.

To Ted Gramlich, his widow and all the people who were negatively impacted so severely to the point of loss of life by the deregulation, the reckless disregard for regulations that supported the safety and health of this province, I say that is truly a tragedy. I wish that this government would learn these lessons and that we could stand in this House and debate issues that British Columbians really need to have brought to this House today.

[1035]

H. Bains: I too feel privileged to stand here today to speak on Bill 7. I was looking at the bill yesterday and today trying to find the intention behind Bill 7. After all, we are spending such valuable time of all of us here in this House, and people out there expect us to do their business. I look at this bill, and I'm puzzled. Why are we debating this bill here in this House when we have so much other people's business to do?

Here, all this bill talks about is preparing a report after one year, every year, of what regulations have been cut. The minister could do that on his own. He doesn't need a bill to go through this House and all of us debating and taking this time to talk about this bill — that the minister is reminding himself to prepare a report every year. That, basically, is what this bill is that we are talking about today.

I think it is disappointing, to say the least, that this government continues to make decisions and policies that are political expedience rather than to help anybody outside of these chambers. People out there are asking and are actually waiting to see when this government, the people of this House, will start to talk about a seniors advocate, for example.
[ Page 8754 ]

That's what we need, and that's the necessity for all of those seniors who are right now living in those care homes. Many of them don't have families, and they don't have a voice. They expect us to deal with those issues. Those are the people that built this province. Those are the people, actually, that built this House and built our democratic system. They are the ones who actually gave us what we have today, and we are basically neglecting them in this House.

This government chose to bring in this politically expedient bill rather than to do something that is going to be beneficial to the citizens of this province. Even at this bill…. If you look at it, it's so skimpy. And what's in it? A report will be published by the minister. But then again, it does not say what will be in that report. It still is up to the discretion of the minister to decide.

I'll quote from the bill. Section 3 says: "Without limiting subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows: (a) respecting the information that must be included in a report."

They will decide what is included in that report and what's not included. So we are wasting our time here talking about the publishing of a report on a yearly basis by the minister, and we don't even know what will be in that report. The minister isn't telling us what will be in that report.

Secondly, what this bill is talking about, also, is that it will be order-in-council. The minister, again, will decide the methodology by which the regulatory reform initiatives are to be assessed.

If there was some substantive material to discuss and debate in this House, I'm all for it. But I think that right now what we've got is something that these Liberals think they need desperately in order to be on the good side of the public, somehow showing to their friends and to the business people, our business community of this province, that we are helping them by publishing this report.

When you look at…. We are not even sure what will be in that report. It will be up to the minister. How do you trust this government that this bill…? Even if it's passed after this debate, what purpose will it serve? We have no idea what will be in that report. No one will know, except the minister. The minister will decide what goes in that report, what methodology will be used — all of that important information that we should be debating here. There's nothing in it. It's a waste of time, a waste of this House's time.

I think they should be — it's too early to say — ashamed of themselves that we are using such an important time. We have only, after today, another six days of debate left in this fall session, and there's so much work to be done.

[1040]

I mentioned one. We talked about the seniors advocate that the public and the seniors are asking us to appoint. It's not going to be debated here. It's not going to be even brought into this House for discussion. We will not have anything to talk about the elimination of child poverty in this province. This is the time to discuss those issues and those children.

The Premier talks about…. She's all about families. Those families have children, and we have the highest child poverty in this province seven years in a row. What does the Premier do other than make a political statement, like this one here, Bill 7, that they're doing? Nothing. Nothing to talk about how we are going to deal with child poverty in this province — none whatsoever — because that's not important to them.

Deregulating for the sake of deregulating is important to them, and making political statements is important to them on that side of the House. That is not a useful use of our time.

I say that no one, at least on this side, is going to argue to eliminate or streamline the regulatory regimes. Remove those regulations that are outdated and that are irrelevant. Those are meaningless in today's world. I understand that, and everyone understands that. All they have to do is go ahead and do that and change those. No one will argue with that.

What they did, if you look at their history since 2001 — whether it was forest industry deregulation, whether it was family and children deregulation that went on there or whether it was the farmworkers whose rights were deregulated…. The list goes on and on. Although they will assure us…. The minister stood up in this House again yesterday and said: "Oh well, trust us that when we are deregulating, we will continue to preserve important health, safety and environment regulations."

But the history tells us a different story. They said in 2001 — and the minister repeated that again yesterday in the House — that they will not be doing away with those health and safety and environmental regulations. But they did exactly that — exactly the work that they did since 2001. When they deregulated the forest industry, the injury rates and the death rate went way up.

It's not my word. It's not anybody else's word. It's not even a political statement. It is reality. The coroner that was appointed at Ted Gramlich's death came out and said that. They have no axe to grind. They actually did an investigation, and it was a fact-based statement. The statement is backed up by the numbers.

Since 2001 when the regulations were done away with, there was a 300 percent increase over that period in the workforce injuries and deaths that occurred in the forest industry. In 2004, 16 deaths occurred in the forest industry; in 2005 it was 43. The numbers are clearly indicative of the tragedy that was caused by deregulation by this government. The ministers, as the speaker previous to me spoke, have not learned anything from it. They continue to go on the track that they need to deregulate for the sake of deregulation.
[ Page 8755 ]

If any one of them has spent some time in a sawmill or a factory or any manufacturing plant or in a logging camp, I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that none of them…. If that person was responsible for making those changes in the forest industry, they would not have made those changes.

[1045]

Those regulations are there for a reason, especially health and safety regulations. I spent about 17 years in a sawmill. There are regulations that are a necessity. Without those, you would see people dying all over the place in those factories and those mills.

For example, I can use some examples of lockouts. When you are repairing a piece of machinery or clearing up a jam, you must lock out the machineries that are before and after and the machinery actually that you're working on. Because of production pressures — and because sometimes we, as is human nature, take shortcuts — we take risks.

I've seen people put themselves in danger to a point where someone could have been killed or came this close to killing themselves because they were pushed and because they felt themselves pushed. They felt that it's their responsibility to outdo the other shift because of the production competitions. It's the nature of the beast, and that's what happens.

But those regulations are placed in there with thorough consultation with the workers, with management and with the Workers Compensation Board — that before you enter into any live production machinery, you must lock out the machinery before that, after that, and the machinery you're going to work on. Those are necessary pieces of regulation that are needed. I think that on that side, the Liberal side, they believe those are impediments to doing business. That shouldn't be the case.

Workers' health and safety should be front and foremost when it comes to doing any business. Workers are expected to come home in the same shape that they went to work in. It is not just good enough to say: "Well, you know, just take a risk because we need to be productive. We need to be efficient." That's what happens out there if you don't have those regulations.

We used to have surprise visits from the WCB, but this government has done away with that, because those are considered to be impediments to doing business in this province. So what happens? The inspector will phone the employer: "I'm coming to visit to see if your operation is safe or not." Guess what. Before that person comes in, everything is safe. Every worker is instructed to do and be at their best as far as safety is concerned.

The results are before us. Forty-five deaths in the forest industry in 2005 compared to 16 in 2002. That's why it's important. I suggest that all of those Liberals on that side need to go and pay a visit to a real workplace, a real production facility. Go to a logging camp and see and spend some time with those workers.

Because of those deregulations in the forest industry — and I think it was touched on by the speaker before me — every worker was made a company. The larger employer, the licence holders, will hire contractors, and they will hire subcontractors, then a sub-subcontractor. At the end there's a one-person company, and that person is responsible for his and her safety operations. That person is responsible for investigating any safety infractions. If they do that, they know that if they come out and say that this is not a safe workplace or a safe work practice, they will no longer be working there. That is reality, and I think the folks on the other side should pay attention to this.

Guess what. After a forestry coroner was appointed, all of those regulations that were taken out were recommended to be put back in word for word — that they need to go back in to protect those workers.

[1050]

Farmworkers. On the other side…. I remember in the '70s and '80s we used to go downtown and talk to the Socred Ministers of Labour in those days, because the farmworkers were treated as third-, fourth-, fifth-class workers in this province. They didn't have rights to hours of work. They had no right to vacation pay. They had no right to overtime. They had no health and safety protection. They were not even covered by Workers Compensation Board in those days. Can you imagine that in Canada, that's what the workers had to go through and those were the conditions that those workers had to work in? And these are the people that produce the food we all eat.

It took them 20 years to get those rights. When the government in 1991 first instituted and brought in those protections for farmworkers, they were covered under the WCB. They were covered under the Employment Standards Act, and they enjoyed almost the same rights that every other worker in this province enjoyed. Finally, in 1991 all workers were equal in this province.

But guess what. In 2001 the clock was turned by this government, and they were thrown back 30 years again in time. Thirty years they were taken back, to the 1970s and 1980s.

Right now they enjoy no overtime protection. All those health and safety regulations that they enjoyed in the 1990s are gone and done away with. Farm contractors can load them up like a load of material and pack them in, try to take them to the farms and see if they survive. You know of the cases where farmworkers were killed on the road — three of them. I met with those families. If that wasn't good enough for this government…. They continue to ignore their rights. That's the result of deregulation.

I think we should take pride in one of the richest provinces in the world, living in a democratic society where we actually go out in the world and talk about human rights and give lectures to other countries on how they
[ Page 8756 ]
should be protecting their human rights. Right here, under this government's nose, workers are treated as second- and third-class. They want to help their friends, big farmers or those contractors, because they are their friends. They are the people that they actually depend on during the election campaigns, and that's where they get donations. So the workers are forgotten.

This bill that is before us doesn't do a thing to help any one, single person — either to remove child poverty, to protect the farmworkers, to protect our children or to protect the human rights of this province. The first thing that this government did as a part of deregulation was they removed the Human Rights Commission — the only province that doesn't have a human rights commission right now. It was this province in 1972 that was one of the first to bring in the Human Rights Commission. It was a proud moment for all of us.

We just heard statements by two colleagues of ours, one from the Liberal side and one from our side, about the Multicultural Week that we are celebrating. But we still do not have a human rights commission in this province. Their role, as you know, was to promote equality at workplaces, promote human rights obligations and responsibilities in our schools. They could go out there and deal with those issues that arise from time to time, rather than going through litigation and going through the panels.

We still don't have it, because this government doesn't believe in having a human rights commission. That's the reality of the day — the only province that doesn't have it. It's a part of their deregulation. And yes, proudly once a year they will be listing: "Yes, we eliminated the Human Rights Commission. That's part of our achievement in this province."

I hope they will print that kind of information in this report, but knowing the folks across the way, that information will not be there. They will be gloating over how many pieces they have eliminated, but they will not tell you what the effect has been on workers, on the people of this province. Plus, the information that they will give you will be anything but the real information.

[1055]

I'll give you some examples of how they moved from one to another and then back to the middle and back somewhere else in order to make it look as if they have done something good.

When in 2001 they talked about eliminating one-third of regulations in this province…. I'll give you a little history of how much you can trust this government when it comes to the real information. In about three years the minister responsible for this bill today, the Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier…. He was the minister responsible for deregulation at that time, so his name is mentioned here. But over three years the B.C. Liberals said they had abolished first 850 unnecessary regulations, next over 60,000 and then over 90,000, and finally they said they have eliminated 150,000 unnecessary regulations that they set.

But in November 2008 the new minister, Rick Thorpe, told the Legislature that the government had cut red tape by 42.8 percent or 164,000 regulations. In January 2011 the previous Minister of Finance issued a news release that claimed regulations had been cut by 42 percent, down from 360,000 to a precise 206,343. But that adds to a reduction of 153,655 — not 164,000 as the minister of the day had claimed.

Then during the Liberals' leadership campaign the current Minister of Finance, who was running to be the leader, on January 18, 2011, issued a news release stating that while he had cut regulations by a whopping 40 percent, the total rescinded was just 25,000 useless regulations. You see it, Madam Speaker — 164,000 down to 150,000. Then, during the leadership debate it's only 25,000.

So what do you trust? What kind of information given by this government on any day do you trust? Not a single piece of information can you trust — not a single piece of information — because it's all for political expediency. "Today these numbers probably will work, so we'll give you that number. Tomorrow those numbers don't work, so we'll give you some different numbers."

This is a government in chaos, basically. They have no more ideas left — no more ideas. The only idea they've got: "We will print a report once a year." Maybe the Minister of Transportation is going to come here next. He's going to say how many potholes they have actually eliminated last year, how many bridges were built last year, how many tickets were issued last year. Once a year they'll have a report. How many booster seats were issued, booster seats in the Liberal offices? That minister may come one day. That would be required under the bill.

Each one of you will have a report once a year. What did I do last year? This is my report. Guess what. That just shows they have run out of ideas. They are stalled in the middle of nowhere. They don't know what to do, so they will report to this House once a year what they did last year. Next year they'll do the same thing again. But by that time, the people of this province will have an opportunity. They'll throw this bunch out. They'll put a real government in, in 2013. Then the real work of this province will start.

As I talked about, deregulations and what the deregulations did…. When we are talking about our children, when we are talking about our seniors, like I said, many of them don't have voices.

[1100]

When they eliminated the children's advocate when they came in, it was revealed that over 700 files of dead children were buried in a warehouse, and no one knew — no investigation, none.

What they did at that time…. I mean, we're talking about deregulation. They're going to make a report
[ Page 8757 ]
under Bill 7 on what deregulations they have been working on. This, hopefully, would be one of them that they will be admitting — that part of their deregulation was those forgotten 700, over 700, children's files that went unreported, uninvestigated.

They promised before the election, actually, that none of that would happen. But after the election things changed. This is one thing that I would quote from the Vancouver Sun. Paul Willcocks reported after that happened, after that deregulation exercise by this government. They "eliminated the Children's Commission, handing child death reviews to the coroner's office. They cut the coroner's office budget by $600,000 and didn't provide the authority needed to carry out the new role."

The Premier of that time, Mr. Gordon Campbell, said he's "shocked by the forgotten files, because the government had taken care to ensure that the coroner would continue the Children's Commission's work. 'The transition plan was pretty clearly laid out in the legislation.'"

That's what the Premier said, but this is what the article then went on to say: "That's not really true. The so-called transition plan consists of two sentences in the legislation setting up a child and youth office. The Children's Commission records 'must' be transferred to the coroner, the act says. And incomplete child death investigations 'may' be continued by the coroner. That's the plan the Premier was counting on."

"Note the language," it went on to say. "The records must be transferred, but the coroner may or may not" — that's what the language said — "continue the reviews. The government created the option of abandoning those child deaths."

That's the result of deregulation. Now they are going to proudly print once a year, under Bill 7, what they have achieved in that year. If it was clearly defined in Bill 7 what the report will include, what methodology will be used and what information will be there, then yes, maybe we could say there's a point in case here. But there's nothing. It still is left up to the minister's discretion what information goes in that report.

I think my time is coming to an end, but I am saying this. There are so many important things that the people expect this House to work on, debate and pass policies on, and they're being ignored.

Human rights commission should be brought back for discussion. We're not doing that. Seniors advocate legislation should be brought in here and appointed. That is not being discussed here. Elimination of child poverty should be before the House to discuss. It's not being discussed here.

Overhauling of WCB should be before us. There are so many injured workers out there that are suffering day in and day out because of deregulation of that department. They are being left without any benefits. Their benefits are cut. Rehabs are cut. Their zeal to deregulation, and people are suffering. That is not being discussed here.

Revival of the forest industry should be before us. That is not being discussed. There are so many forestry workers that are laid off right now and so many forestry-dependent communities that are out there, crying for help from this government, to put some sense into it so that people go back to work.

Thank you very much for the opportunity. I think there are other people that I will be listening to.

[1105]

Deputy Speaker: I'll remind the members that it is Bill 7 that is up for debate today.

D. Donaldson: I'm very happy to speak to Bill 7 today and will keep my comments to Bill 7 and the issue of regulation and deregulation. Bill 7 is disappointing from the aspect of…. The high point of this government's legislative agenda for this session seems to be encapsulated in the fact that the minister is to publish a report.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Well, this is the Minister of Finance, he's the Deputy Premier, he was a leadership candidate to lead the B.C. Liberals, and he's been reduced to holding up his accomplishments in this House, this legislative session, to say: "I will publish a report." It's sad in a way, but it's indicative of a lost agenda, a lost leadership by this government and by this party.

It reminds me of a news story. Stop the presses; the minister is going to publish a report. Well, nobody would read that news story. The fact is that it's not any news whatsoever. It's not even a very good legislative agenda.

I was a reporter in a former life before becoming an MLA. I also taught journalism at journalism schools. The "Minister to publish a report" reminds me of the story of how we would decide if something had any newsworthiness or gravitas. We'd tell students: if a dog bites a man, that's not news. But a man bites a dog…. Now, there's a front-page story. That's news. Man bites dog. That's news. Dog bites a man. That's not news.

"Minister to publish a report" is not news. It's the equivalent of a dog biting a man, and that's what we're left with, with this government's agenda. No news: dog bites man; minister to publish report. The Minister of Finance has some very serious responsibilities in this day and age, and he's left holding up, as a shining example of his work, that he's going to publish a report.

So what else does Bill 7 have to report on? We have to consider Bill 7 in the context of what we're doing here in the Legislature. We have Bill 16, 169 pages on the Family Law Act; Bill 17, the Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 111 pages; Bill 18, the Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 34 pages. This is all in connection to Bill 7, hon. Speaker. Bill 19, the Miscellaneous Statutes
[ Page 8758 ]
Amendment Act, is 14 pages and has some impact on the mining sector.

We have 6½ days left to consider those 328 pages of legislation. Instead, we're looking at Bill 7 and debating that the minister is going to publish a report. Now, I would think that most people you would talk to out on the street who voted for an MLA to represent them in the Legislature would say: "What is the government doing?"

They're spending time introducing a bill that says they're going to publish a report, when they've got 328 pages of documents. As a member of the official opposition, I am voted in to shine light on the government's decisions on those 328 pages, to bring some accountability to this government on those 328 pages, and they've left 6½ days to debate those 328 pages.

Now, what we see coming up, perhaps, is some form of closure on debate, because to be true to the democratic process, I have to shine light on Bill 7. It's the government's decision to introduce Bill 7, and it's the government's decision to make a big deal that the Minister of Finance, the Deputy Premier, is going to publish a report. They want us to debate that? The people that I represent want me to shine light on those poor decisions.

[1110]

Now, the underlying theme in Bill 7 is about regulation — or deregulation. I want to point out that regulation creates certainty for investors. It creates certainty for investors, it creates certainty around jobs, it creates certainty for First Nations, and it creates certainty for people in communities around decisions government is going to make. So when Bill 7 talks about regulation and cutting regulations, I think we have to remember that streamlining where appropriate is good, but cutting corners leads to unnecessary delays.

Bill 7, in talking about the minister publishing a report on deregulation, has the undertone of regulation not necessarily being good for creating investment, and it does. I'm going to give you some examples, especially in the mining sector today.

Cuts to the environmental assessment legislation have resulted in delays and have resulted in destroying the public confidence in the process. It undermines social licence. So when we're talking about Bill 7, the minister publishing a report in relation to deregulation, then it really has an impact on investor confidence in the province and in this government.

Three areas where deregulation in a form did occur — and deregulation is at the essence of Bill 7…. Three areas where it did occur in the Environmental Assessment Act were in its objectives, in its structure and in its reporting mechanisms. In 2002 this government decided to delete objectives that explicitly stated provisions for the participation of First Nations in the process and promotion of sustainability. So those were cut. Those are examples of regulations — you know, to typify them — that were cut by this government in 2002.

That has led to uncertainty and led to situations that we see where investors are shying away from B.C. when it comes to mining, where we haven't been able to take advantage of the opportunities that the markets have created over the last ten years because of uncertainty, especially around the land question and First Nations.

Bill 7 addresses deregulation. The other area where deregulation occurred in the Environmental Assessment Act was regarding a project committee that was part of the original act that was eliminated by this government in 2002, a project committee that had a clear role for First Nations on that committee. Now whether that committee is struck or not is an ad hoc decision. It's totally up to the environmental assessment office project director, and it's entirely discretionary.

Perhaps this is sounding familiar to those on the government side, because we're getting at the crux of the matter around Taseko Mines and the Prosperity mine project and why it was rejected by the federal assessment — because none of this information could be considered in the provincial environmental review perspective, because of the discretionary powers. It has to do with deregulation, what we're talking about in Bill 7 around deregulation and the fact that all we're going to get out of the government is that the minister is going to publish a report.

The third area around deregulation, and this is pertinent to Bill 7, was that the Environmental Assessment Act was gutted in 2002 on project report content — the final report. There was a list of items that could be addressed in the final report, prepared as a guide, that was eliminated by this government in 2002 — effects on aboriginal rights, effects on social, cultural, health and heritage issues, cumulative effects, plans for proponents' consultation with affected First Nations and…

Deputy Speaker: Member, if I might draw your attention back to Bill 7.

D. Donaldson: Yes, thank you, Speaker.

…evaluating adequacy of mitigation plans.

So in Bill 7, when it talks about deregulation, these are the kinds of topics that Bill 7 is intended to report out on around what is going to be eliminated. In fact, these topics, when they're eliminated, might sound very familiar because they're exact topics that the federal environmental review process cited when they rejected the Prosperity mines original proposal. I just wanted to talk to those, hon. Speaker, because it's the kind of thing we would expect when the minister publishes a report, the details of which aren't in this thin bill.

[1115]

Those are the kinds of things that we would expect the minister to be reporting out on — how they gutted
[ Page 8759 ]
the Environmental Assessment Act of regulations. That has led to uncertainty and lack of investment in areas such as mining. Those examples relate directly to Bill 7 and the minister publishing a report.

I should also note that it's not just the environmental assessment but First Nations consultation that needs some of these rules and firming up. A presentation by the vice-president of Imperial Metals to the Finance Committee pointed out some of the regulations or rules that they were looking for to create some certainty around investment when it comes to First Nations consultation. Again, this relates to Bill 7 because the report that is written about in this act — that's going to report out on every year on what has been deregulated — involves these serious issues.

The Imperial Metals vice-president talked about…. They want to know what level of government consultation is necessary with First Nations based on what level of impact. Provide a clear consultation process. Clear direction regarding what portion of consultation has been delegated and what the Crown expects of industry.

I would look forward to those kind of issues being addressed in legislation — not Bill 7, but other legislation. It could be addressed in Bill 7, as well, because that's what creates a certainty, and that's what creates the investment climate that we need. We know that we've lost that.

The kind of reporting out that's going to happen in Bill 7 by the Minister of Finance will address the cuts to regulations. As I said before, streamlining is appropriate in certain circumstances, but cutting corners will lead to further delays. This is what was alluded to by Imperial Metals in their presentation to the Finance Committee.

It's also not just myself saying this. The Fraser Institute has ranked B.C. last out of 72 jurisdictions when it comes to assessing risk around investment, last when it comes to aboriginal rights and title. The uncertainty there obviously needs some boundaries, but under Bill 7 we're going to be getting out a report every year published by the minister to describe what rules and regulations they've cut. In fact, that's opposite of what industry is saying and what business organizations are saying about what we need in the future to create an atmosphere and a level of certainty around investment for the future.

I want to just wrap up. I've kept my comments brief, because as we know we've seen this government introduce a number of bills rapid fire in the last few days that have hundreds of pages of legislation that we need to shine a light on.

They've also introduced Bill 7, which we're attempting to shine a light on in the context of that, to say: what is the legislative agenda? What has it been reduced to? What has the Minister of Finance been reduced to, holding up as a shining accomplishment of this legislative session that he's going to publish a report?

We've heard from other speakers that publishing that report has a lot of doubts about it — about what the actual consequences of deregulation have meant and what the actual benefits of deregulation have meant.

I've pointed out some examples of how deregulation without thought, deregulation based strictly on ideology, deregulation in that context, has led to cutting of corners and unnecessary delays in projects in the province that would help generate revenue and that really have been counterproductive.

With that, I'll wrap up my comments. Again, the minister publishing a report is not news. It shouldn't be held up as an achievement by this government. It's equivalent to dog biting a man, not man biting the dog.

[1120]

S. Simpson: I am pleased to join in debate and provide a few comments in regard to Bill 7, the Regulatory Reporting Act, which is before the house now. The purpose of this piece of legislation is essentially for the minister to produce and publish an annual report "respecting the government's regulatory reform initiatives" for the previous 12-month period.

As other speakers have said, this probably is not something that warrants a piece of legislation. In fact, it's something that a minister of the Crown could choose to do — and could choose to do through regulation or simply through the authority of their office: to produce that report, which would talk about regulatory initiatives and how those are playing out in British Columbia.

The challenge, though, with this is that we need to look at why we're having this conversation. As you'll know, hon. Speaker, and as most people in this House will know, the Minister of Finance, in a previous portfolio back when the government first came to power, was the Minister Responsible for Deregulation. I believe that was part of his title at that time.

The thing we saw with that, though — and we'll talk a little bit about some of those examples — was a government and a minister who chose at the time…. When regulatory initiatives and regulatory reform became a hot topic for this government shortly after they came to power in 2001, it was a government that seemed to be much more preoccupied with the ideological side of cutting regulations than with looking at whether it made sense to make those regulatory changes.

As my colleagues have said, I think everybody would agree that if you can look at and reform regulations to make them more efficient and more effective, and streamline them so that they accomplish those objectives, that's a good thing. Everybody would look to do that. But there's a big difference between when you do that and when you eliminate regulations or regulatory regimes that, in fact, provide for important initiatives.

What Bill 7 is not entirely clear about is what exactly gets reported in this annual report. For example, I assume
[ Page 8760 ]
that we're going to get a list of any regulatory changes or cuts or regulatory reductions that the government will choose to advance in a 12-month period. But I wonder whether this report will provide a little more depth than that.

I wonder whether this report will tell us when the government has made regulatory changes and those changes have turned out to be bad ideas and they've failed British Columbians — whether the report will in fact speak to that, whether the report will tell us when regulatory changes that have been put in place have hurt British Columbians and whether the report will then say: "Well, these are changes. In this annual report we will acknowledge that we made mistakes, that what we did was wrong. And we're going to go back and revisit those things."

I would hope that this report becomes more than simply a list, that it actually has some analysis. Maybe it wants to invite some outside commentary on that analysis — invite people who are affected by those regulatory changes to make comments that maybe would be included in that report. If that happened, the report might start to have some value.

But I certainly see nothing from this piece of legislation — which is basically one page — that gives any sense that the government is in fact prepared to do that kind of review and is prepared to use this annual report in a way that would provide that sort of insight.

I don't have a whole lot of expectation that that will occur, and that should be the kind of thing that this report would do. We know there have been a number of regulatory changes over the past decade that have in fact been pretty damaging, all in all.

[1125]

Just to refresh the House's memory about a couple of those changes. If this report that's suggested in Bill 7 is to come to fruition, you might want to look at it and come back and tell us that this wasn't such a good idea after all. We know, for example, that as part of deregulation the government deregulated recovery homes, removing licensing requirements for most recovery and drug rehabilitation houses in the community.

We have heard, time and again, about the impact in some of our communities. We've certainly heard about those challenges in places like Surrey, which I know is the home community of the Minister of Finance. We've heard of serious, serious problems there in regard to what's occurred in some of those facilities. But what's occurred has been allowed because the government has deregulated that sector in a way that allows pretty much whatever people want to do to occur.

You know, the Vancouver Sun in 2006, when they reported on this, said that as a result of that, "a large and growing problem" of "unlicensed and poorly run" homes "with allegations of everything from poor living conditions to drug-dealing on site, according to the manager of addiction programs at Fraser Health…. There's been overcrowding. Some places there's no food. Some places youth and adults are together in a house. There have been allegations of intimidation and violence…. You name it." That's what was said in the Vancouver Sun on August 10 of 2006.

That's an example of where deregulation in fact created a huge problem in important facilities that are working with vulnerable people with complex issues. Yet the deregulation created a circumstance where, if you have people who are unscrupulous who chose to set up those facilities and run them, they were in a position to be able to exploit individuals who might have been captured in that.

Now, the question around Bill 7 and the annual report that Bill 7 is going to create is: does the minister go and take a look at things like those addiction and recovery houses and the deregulation of those that occurred and go back and say: "Well, maybe this wasn't such a good idea. Maybe we were wrong when we did this, and we need to go back and revisit that and look at a regulatory regime that makes more sense"? I suspect that we're not going to see that in the report that will come from the adoption of Bill 7.

Addiction and recovery houses, of course, aren't the only place where that occurs. We have heard — and you've heard from some of my colleagues, hon. Speaker — a long list of situations where that is the case.

We know, for example, that in the instance of farmworkers, when the government changed the regulatory regime, as part of that deregulation — and it was the then Minister of Finance in his previous responsibilities around deregulation — they in fact reduced many of the legal protections for workers in the farming industry. As a result of those changes, farmworkers were excluded from regulatory protections like hours of work for overtime, statutory holiday pay, and that became a reality. These changes were also made at the same time that there was deregulation around issues of child labour.

The government argued, at that point, that it was balancing these measures with penalties for employers. But as we know, most of those penalties were in the $500 range — not exactly a penalty that becomes anything more than a modest cost of doing business for people in that sector.

So when Bill 7 gets adopted and this report comes out, again, this would be a useful exercise if part of the responsibility of this report was to go back and do the assessment of whether that deregulation, in fact, was a good idea. I suspect, much like it would tell us with the addiction and recovery houses, that for the changes around farmworkers and child labour there would be an assessment that said: "This really wasn't a very good idea. We should change our practices, and we should re-regulate these sectors in order to protect the most vulnerable people, protect children and protect farmworkers."
[ Page 8761 ]

But, again, my suspicion is that this report is going to be a list. This report is not going to do any analysis of whether, in fact, the ideological deregulatory bent of this province is one that has harmed people. We're going to see that.

[1130]

There's a whole array of issues where this has occurred. We know, again, at this time that Bill 75 that was adopted, which was a case where…. Again, not surprising necessarily, it was the Minister of Finance in a previous incarnation who brought forward Bill 75, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act.

That was a minister who was feeling that just not enough local governments and communities and others were paying him due heed when he was looking to be able to move forward on projects that local governments were saying weren't necessarily good for their communities, that were inconsistent with local area planning and that would in fact be harmful.

But it was full speed ahead for the minister. So he puts in place, with the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, these extraordinary powers for cabinet and for ministers to essentially be able to overrule pretty much anything they like — other provincial regulations, local government rules, bylaws — and anything they perceived as constraining development projects that the government designates as provincially significant.

Of course, there's always time for projects that need to move forward. There are ways and processes to do that. But taking the sledgehammer of Bill 75, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, certainly was not the way to do that. Does anybody do an assessment of that?

Does this report that Bill 7 is producing for us provide any opportunity for somebody, some thoughtful person in the ministry maybe, to do an assessment or have an independent assessment done of things like the Significant Projects Streamlining Act and be able to come back and in this report say: "You know that act that we adopted? You know that act that today's Minister of Finance brought in when he was" — I think, at that time — "Minister of Transportation? This really wasn't a very good idea, and we really shouldn't have done this. We're going to think about it again"?

It's another example of the government being ideological rather than being thoughtful and rational and using common sense. But we know this is a government that is basically driven by ideology — ideology and fixing things for their friends. That's what the Significant Projects Streamlining Act is about.

So there are a number of these kinds of instances. But sadly, this bill, which could have had value if it was a bill that said, "We're going to have that sober second look at some of these issues, some of these choices around deregulation…." But they haven't done that. Bill 7 provides no opportunity for that to happen. Sadly, it's my expectation that that is not going to occur with Bill 7.

As we know, there's a reason why we have regulations. There's a reason why the regulatory regimes are in place and that they can be very beneficial. People in British Columbia, as in every other jurisdiction, expect there to be a regulatory regime that protects the public interest, that is as efficient as it can be, that doesn't have undue obligations on it, that allows business or other initiatives to move forward in a timely and effective way. But that doesn't take away from the need for a regulatory regime. Bill 7, I'm afraid, is just going to deal with those reductions in regulation.

When we talk about the value of regulation…. I'm sure this would resonate with the Minister of Finance, because he's worried about the budget of British Columbia and the B.C. economy and how that all unfolds. The minister here, like our federal counterparts, tells us on a pretty regular basis, and rightly so, that Canada has done better than many other jurisdictions in the world in terms of coming out of the 2008 economic downturn and has been able to manage that in a way that's more successful than certainly many, many other countries and jurisdictions in the world.

[1135]

We will know that one of the key reasons why Canada did better, why Canada didn't get into the kind of trouble that our friends south of the border got into, was because of the regulatory regime around financial institutions. That was a key piece of this.

We know the banking industry was regulated. As it was regulated, that did not allow the financial institutions to play the sub-prime game that happened in the United States and did not allow greed to overtake some kind of responsibility when you're dealing with other people's money. In fact, I'm sure this Minister of Finance, like his federal counterpart, would be the one who would say: "You know, the regulatory regime around banking probably saved Canada."

Some credit is due to the federal government, because we know that the banking industry at one time was saying: "Deregulate us. Let us spread our wings. Let us do what we choose to do. We know best." Thankfully, the federal government, to its credit, chose not to do that and said no to the banking industry.

After the collapse in the United States that now has reverberated around the world, many people here, I'm sure, would breathe a sigh of relief that the decision to keep a strong regulatory regime in place for our banks and financial institutions was, in fact, the decision of government.

Hon. Speaker, we need to think about that. If we're going to have a report, a Regulatory Reporting Act, that's going to tell British Columbians the state of affairs when it comes to regulation and deregulation, then what the Minister of Finance, I believe, would be best intended to do would be to actually take this particular piece of legislation and expand it and include the obligation in
[ Page 8762 ]
here for some assessment — some independent assessment would be good — of the impacts of decisions that the government has made about regulatory change and about regulatory cuts, in large part, and whether in fact those cuts, those changes, have worked in the best interest of British Columbians.

In some instances, I'm sure we'll find that those changes made appropriate sense, but I know that if you talk to people in British Columbia about whether the deregulation of addiction and recovery houses was a good idea, British Columbians would say: "We're not so sure." If you asked British Columbians about the deregulation of the child death reviews that happened, I think most British Columbians would say that was a bad idea.

If you asked about deregulation in the forest industry, which led to a spike in the deaths of forest workers, I think most British Columbians would say: "We made a mistake when we allowed that to happen." If we asked British Columbians about the deregulation around farmworkers' rights and safety, British Columbians would say: "Maybe we should restore those regulations and give those workers back their rights."

If you asked about deregulations that happened around rail safety — often, in many cases, linked to the sale of B.C. Rail — I think British Columbians would say: "That's a mess in general. But on the regulatory side, absolutely we need to think about that."

As I mentioned earlier, if you asked British Columbians whether the idea that the provincial government, in a very arbitrary way at the whim of a minister, should be able to run roughshod over local governments and others, as is allowed in the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, I think most British Columbians would say that's not a good idea and that we have to have some protections. Those protections are in large part provided by having local governments, governments closest to the people, being able to do their work and not having a provincial government arbitrarily just throw out their work, throw out their bylaws and throw out their regulatory regime.

Bill 7 could be an important piece of legislation. It could be a piece of legislation that started to turn around this ideologically driven notion of the B.C. Liberal government that removing regulations is unto itself a good idea — without being very thoughtful about why those regulations were put in place, why those regulations exist and who's protected by having those regulatory regimes in place. It's unfortunate, though, that Bill 7 is not going to take us down that road. It's not going to create the opportunity for that kind of assessment to happen.

[1140]

As I said before, I guess it's a relatively harmless piece of legislation, a pretty irrelevant piece of legislation in many ways. It's probably not necessary in order to accomplish the objective that this particular piece of legislation has in place, which is to produce that report on an annual basis. I'm sure the minister could have found other ways to do that rather than have it come here.

But if there's an upside, it has provided some opportunity to have a discussion about the regulatory regime and some discussion about whether what this government has done over more than a decade, in terms of cutting regulations and cutting protections that those regulations afforded people, is a good idea. We've had some opportunity to talk about that, and I'm sure my colleagues on this side will have a few more comments to make about that.

I would note, and it's unfortunate, that for whatever reason — other than, obviously, the minister introducing the legislation — we haven't seen much interest on the part of members on the government side to stand up and defend the regulatory changes that have been made and talk about why it's important to put out a list every year of what those changes might be.

I do hope we'll get a chance in what will probably be a pretty brief committee stage to maybe talk a little bit about what this piece of legislation could be if the government chose to take it down the road that I believe it should go down. Maybe we'll get a chance to talk a little bit about that in committee stage.

I'm pleased to have had a chance to talk about this one-page piece of legislation a little bit and, more importantly, to make some comments about some of the ill-conceived decisions of this government around regulation, some of the decisions that are based not on intelligent thought or common sense but just on Liberal ideology that drives far too much of what happens in British Columbia, sadly.

With that, hon. Speaker, I will take my seat. I'm sure I have colleagues here who want to join the debate.

M. Karagianis: Hon. Speaker, I'm quite fascinated by this bill. I think it's frivolous, but it is fascinating, this particular piece of legislation. I know that yesterday afternoon Bill 7 was canvassed very well by my colleague from Surrey-Whalley, and he laid out all of the issues around the frivolity of this act that's being brought forward.

But there are a couple of things that have come to my mind in looking at Bill 7, and I'd like to talk about those a little bit here. It's interesting that if you look back at the last decade of the Liberal government, we're now bringing this particular piece of legislation forward nine years into the deregulation regime of the Liberal government.

The first thing that comes to my mind is: why are we bringing this piece of legislation forward now? Why are we doing it, and why are we doing it now? The government has been on a deregulation binge since 2002 and yet didn't feel it necessary to report on any of those activities over the last decade. So why are we doing this now? That to me is the big mystery. What exactly is the purpose of this?
[ Page 8763 ]

The bill requires the government to publish an annual report on regulatory accountability. The details of the report, including a count of regulations, will be determined through regulations. That in itself is so silly that it begs a bit of mockery. Right? You're going to start to count regulations, and that will be determined through regulations.

If we weren't in the Legislature of British Columbia seriously discussing this, it would sound like a skit out of Saturday Night Live or This Hour Has 22 Minutes. That in itself sets a bit of a tone here for looking at the purpose of this bill.

[1145]

I think the legislation very clearly does fulfil a promise to small business, and perhaps that is at the heart of this. After a decade of small business saying that the deregulation process has not been particularly successful — has in fact failed the small business community in many ways…. Perhaps that is really the purpose for bringing forward this piece of legislation.

I remember canvassing in 2005 as the Small Business critic, canvassing the then Minister of Small Business about the whole deregulation process, because it had been something that the government particularly was proud of. They were quite boastful of the quantity of regulations that had been removed from the books — not the quality. There was no real discussion at that time on quality, but there was certainly a great deal of discussion on the vast number of regulations that had been removed.

Now, on a little bit of further investigation with that, both through estimates debate and just some research in the front lines of the ministry staff, it was pretty easy to find out that a lot of the deregulation, the vast numbers that the government was bragging about, were in fact really minor shifts in the way databases worked, in the way forms were to be filled out electronically. It seemed like every small nuance of change in how an electronic form was compiled was put down as a number.

The government was busy bragging about this huge quantity of regulations that had been removed, but in fact, many of those were very superficial and others were extremely damaging. So here we are ten years later, and now the government feels it's imperative. In fact, the very person who played a very significant role in deregulation has now assumed the role of Finance Minister of the province and feels it necessary to embed in legislation the necessity to report out on a deregulation regime that's been underway for many, many years — certainly with questionable success.

I know that others of my colleagues have canvassed very eloquently the failures, the dramatic failures in deregulation. The deregulation of addiction and recovery houses — we have heard about that. We have heard about what a dismal failure that was.

The deregulation of child death reviews. We know what a significant issue that was in the lifetime of this government and certainly in the effectiveness of the opposition to bring into play the hon. Justice Ted Hughes in doing a review that then led to the implementation of a children's representative. We were very fortunate to have attracted and kept Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond here to deal with the outcome of that. The deregulation of those child death reviews had huge repercussions.

Others of my colleagues have talked about the deregulation of forest worker deaths, of farmworker safety, of rail safety and derailments and, of course, the really significantly abusive deregulation under Bill 75, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, which has run roughshod over municipalities. These are all examples of very poor deregulation outcomes that, to this point in time, I don't think have been rectified sufficiently. In some cases they've had to be. In the case of the child death reviews, that particular issue took on a life of its own and led to a better outcome. But it has taken years and years to rectify the outcome and disaster of that deregulation.

I don't see anywhere in reading through Bill 7 where it does talk about how this reporting process will in any way rectify or revisit or re-evaluate a decade of deregulation to see whether or not it has been successful. We know that in many cases it has not and that sheer numbers alone of regulations removed from the books do not adequately reflect the real responsible activity of this government. I have to ask the question here about how sincere the government is in their initiatives around evaluating regulatory reforms or deregulation for success or failure.

[1150]

In looking back to the early days of deregulation, I came across an interesting story that ran in the Vancouver Sun back in 2001. The then deregulation minister, who is now our Finance Minister, was questioned by Vaughn Palmer, a reporter, around this whole issue of deregulation. In fact, the headline reads that the minister "Flunks the First Test in Deregulation."

It says here that the reporter asked the then minister of deregulation about providing a report on the ambitious undertakings of deregulation. The government was claiming that 220 regulations had been eliminated. So the reporter asked for a report on this — right? — and was given a promise that all of this information would be provided.

The reporter said to the minister: "Can you provide a preliminary list of these regulations that have been scrapped?" The then minister, who's now the Minister of Finance, said that "we had 220 regulations that were brought forward for elimination." So the reporter said: "Well, can we see the report?" The Vancouver Sun continued to pursue this, asked the government to release the 220 regulations that were destined for the scrap heap and was promised repeatedly by the then minister of deregulation, now the Finance Minister of the province, that that would be forthcoming.
[ Page 8764 ]

The first request went to the Premier's office on October 3, but that apparently fell through the cracks. However, the then minister of deregulation, our current Finance Minister, said the count is critical. He was still sounding very accommodating on getting this information to the reporter.

However, that subsequent request failed. Several more attempts were made by the reporter to get a simple list of the 220 regulations. The then minister of deregulation, now our Finance Minister, claimed that it was 600 pages of information to be read, and therefore it was a bit overwhelming. The reporter said: "Well, I'm not overwhelmed by that. No problem." He'd be willing to look through the 600 pages and read it.

Well, the 600 pages, of course, never manifested themselves either. Days went by, and the reporter once again asked for this information — a list — to come forward, but of course none was forthcoming.

The reporter encapsulates this at the end: "To recap, in less than two weeks the promise went from 220 regulations to 600 pages of background material to a précis that would cover both to, well, nothing actually — not a regulation, not a page of background, no précis, nothing."

It seems to me that if at the beginning of the process of deregulation, when the government was so incredibly proud of the process they were going through, was making claims to large numbers of regulations being placed on the scrap heap for very valid reasons…. You'd think the government would have been able to report out very concisely and precisely on that, but that didn't happen in 2001.

Instead we come forward, fast-forward a decade, and now we have the Minister of Finance — who was the minister of deregulation at the process start and has come full circle as Minister of Finance — who has now delivered Bill 7 requiring a report to be delivered every single year on deregulation.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

What has happened in the ten years since the beginning of deregulation and today? Where are all those regulations? How many have been scrapped? What was the outcome of all of those? We know from looking at a simple list of the most disastrous of them, the largest and most public and most contentious of those, that it's been an abysmal failure.

I think, again, the frivolity of this bill speaks for itself. It speaks volumes. But it would also seem to me that all of this speaks very strongly to a government that is currently in the process of trying to re-evaluate, reassess or undo ten years of their own behaviour.

[1155]

When we now see that we're going to report out ten years into a process on the process itself, one has to ask: what in the world has happened in the ensuing decade that has not been reported out?

Noting the hour, I will adjourn the debate and reserve the rest of my remarks for later today.

M. Karagianis moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2011: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175