2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th 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)

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 7

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2015

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. N. Letnick: I call second reading of Bill 4, intituled Chartered Professional Accountants Act.

[1335]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL
ACCOUNTANTS ACT

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I move that Bill 4, the Chartered Professional Accountants Act, now be read for a second time.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

This bill will unify the chartered accountants, certified general accountants and management accountants of British Columbia. It will amalgamate them into a single Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia regulatory body. The single chartered professional accountant body will create a more modern, streamlined regulatory system for accountants in British Columbia. The Chartered Professional Accountants of B.C. will be one of the largest professional bodies in western Canada, with more than 34,000 members, including the students in training to become accountants.

The Chartered Professional Accountants of B.C. will be responsible for a number of things, including setting and enforcing professional standards and ethical standards, promoting and increasing the competence of members by providing a comprehensive program of ongoing professional development, assessing the continuing competency of members, enforcing practice standards and rules of professional conduct for both students and members, and providing a fair and efficient mechanism for investigating and adjudicating complaints against members.

The Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia will have authority to regulate its members, students, registered firms and professional accounting corporations. Accountants who are non-members of this new body, the CPABC, will not be prevented from practising accounting in British Columbia. This is a mobility issue, it seems, as accountants do come and go with their work. The legislation will request that the use of certain professional accounting designations, such as the CPA designation, be limited to members of this new body.

The three current B.C. accountancy bodies have been consulted extensively and are in support of this legislation. They have supported it through voting and surveys, and we’re looking forward to support for this legislation from those bodies. The legislation is actually part of a national initiative that will bring British Columbia into line with other provinces and territories that have already introduced or passed similar legislation.

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand up and speak on Bill 4, which we on this side of the House will be supporting.

We know that this is something that the various disciplines in the accounting profession have been looking for, for some time. In fact, I think many of us on both sides of the House have had representations from the profession for almost four years — perhaps more, in the case of some of my colleagues who have been looking at it. I know that there was a major initiative around 2011 in order to try to merge the management accountants, the CGAs and the chartered accountants at that time, and it wasn’t successful. So it would certainly not seem appropriate — after the profession itself has for many, many years been working to merge — to stand in the way of that.

This is, sadly, a little near and dear to my heart. I’ve been sitting on the Public Accounts Committee since I was first elected in 2009. I’ve been very, very pleased to serve on that committee, along with the member next to me, the member for Surrey-Whalley, who has been the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee for many, many years and has done a great job. It has made me come to appreciate how important, how critical the role of auditing is in government and in societies.

The role of accountants — keeping us all honest, appraising, auditing, performing performance audits — is a very critical role in government. Now, we’re talking about a merger that is going to apply both to accountants who work for government and certainly in the private sector, but that role is one that is certainly critical in government. I have appreciated it, as I have read countless reports coming from our Office of the Auditor General — which is, of course, an independent office and I think serves this Legislature well, as do the independent offices of Auditors General across the country.

[1340]

The role of accountants in our society is critical in order to evaluate the truth of books, the effectiveness of government programs and the good use of taxpayers’ money.

Certainly, I have seen report after report — which have come from various Auditors General that have been here while I’ve been here — that have been very important. Sometimes they’re uncomfortable to government, but the purpose always is to make sure that government does things more effectively and transparently and that the use of taxpayers’ money is appropriate. I have appreciated that.
[ Page 6158 ]

In fact, I even have read the public sector accounting standards. I have been known to do that, not even just late at night when I want to go to sleep.

It is a very important merger, and it has taken a long time. Part of the reason it has taken a long time is that there is a long, long history in the profession of a separation into three different groups. So when you’re talking about the merger of the three areas — the chartered accountants, the certified management accountants and the certified general accountants — representing 34,000 members in the province…. It’s not an easy thing to do.

Of course, part of what has had to happen is merging the standards, merging the education, merging the governance. There are many, many streams that had to be merged. Not only that, this is happening within the context of merging and harmonizing the profession across the country as well. That’s also within the context of merging the profession, or the standards, or an attempt to increase the standards around the world.

Part of the impetus for this is the meltdowns that we have had and, as well, some of the scandals, like the Enron scandal. I think that there has been a real shake-up in the accounting world. There’s a recognition that we need to have worldwide standards, and those need to be high standards.

There needs to be harmonization. That’s part of globalization. I know that some of those concerns about globalization, the idea of harmonization, were some of the concerns that were raised over many years. That’s why it has taken several years in order for this to happen.

I’m satisfied from taking a look at the bill, but more from speaking to professionals in the field, that this is a good thing, that it is worthy of being supported. For that reason, I’m certainly happy to support it.

When we talk about how large of an effort it is, we’re talking about requiring approvals over the last few years of 40 different accounting bodies, including the national association for chartered accountants, the management accountants and the CGAs, certified general accountants, and the regional bodies for each of those in two provinces and territories.

We certainly have to congratulate, I think, the various organizations. There were, back even a couple of years ago, those groups and members of those groups that were concerned about this merger and were not so sure that they wanted to support it.

[1345]

Some of the areas of concern that happened were some of the students. Some of those students that were concerned….

For example, one area of concern was by the CA students, a number of CA students who felt that the process, the education that they had gone through, was a very rigorous process, and they were concerned that the very high standards that they were being held to would be kept across the profession. I know there were some students that felt they had really gone through the gruelling process, as well as the exam that happened at the end and that they wanted to make sure that the profession had the same high standards as they were being held to and the same level of education.

It seems that over the last couple of years, at a time when there were, perhaps, in some of the areas, particularly the CAs…. One survey I saw from a couple of years ago, there was just barely majority support. I do have to give credit to the governing organizations for shepherding this process through and addressing the concerns that many of their members had over time.

Originally, the designations were separate because the work that was done was seen to be different. CAs were historically seen as working as external auditors, whereas CMAs were more often in-house counsel or corporate accountants. Because of that separation, there was a separate body. The point has been made that, number one, those lines have been blurred over time and that, certainly, there are not those separate designations.

Also, I think what has happened is that it is recognized that, with this legislation and in the accounting governance as a whole, what is going to happen is there will be more, like in other professionals that are unified…. There will be specialties within the CPA designation.

When I first saw that there was some advertising that has been pretty heavy over the last several months…. I think you see them in SkyTrain and hear them on the radio and so on. I was little surprised that the accountants would be advertising this new designation.

But the reality is that once I started looking back at the history and reading about the resistance there had been and the concern about the integrity of each one of the designations, it came to make more sense. There is a brand that’s associated with credibility. Each one of those designations saw their brand as being a brand and having credibility in the world. Of course, an accountant’s credibility around the work that they do is perhaps the most important thing that they have.

In Canada we all believe that we have very high standards of credibility for our professions. This is one of those professions. The reason, I believe, for the high degree of advertising over the last while, using the new designation…. There had to be a separate piece of legislation in order to allow the use of the designation before the unification was complete, which seemed a little bit putting the horse before the cart. Other way around. Sorry.

It seemed to be because of a concern…. The reason for that was, partly, to be able to allow that branding exercise to happen. A lot of the concerns that the individual members and the organizations had before the unification were around the fact that that highly respected designation might be lost.

As I said, this is within the context of both national and international developments, and the international
[ Page 6159 ]
developments are that there are competing designations. Those are like brands as well. In order to make this work for the benefit of the profession, it was felt that the accountants needed to come under one strong umbrella in order to be cohesive, to have harmonization, to have mobility. Part of it is to have mobility so that a chartered professional accountant can work in British Columbia or, equally as easily, in Ontario or in other provinces. The way to do that was to have a more harmonized profession and professional bodies representing them.

[1350]

Then the other thing that is important about this is to make sure that we have a strong profession and representation internationally. As there is globalization of these accounting firms, one of the things is to try to have a strong Canadian voice. I believe that’s important.

When I’ve seen the representatives from, for example, the Auditor General’s office, who sit on some of the international bodies, I think we have a great deal of credibility. We have great professionalism. I look at our new Auditor General, Carol Bellringer, who has sat on international bodies, and I’m very proud to have her as our Auditor General. I think she’s very, very credible provincially, nationally and internationally.

We have a very high standard in this province and in this country. I think having the unification of the governing bodies will bode well for us in terms of having a voice internationally as well. That’s important because of our credibility. I think we are seen as having very professional chartered professional accountants and as leaders in terms of thinking and setting standards.

I know that’s a large part of what chartered accountants do through their professional organizations — they set standards. Every jurisdiction has supported that. I think almost every jurisdiction has passed the required legislation merging the CAs, the CMAs and the CGAs. I think we’re towards the end. That’s certainly not a criticism of government. I believe that in British Columbia we wanted to get it right. That has certainly happened. I would say that this is a positive move.

When you look at the context of concern about some of the very large frauds that have happened over the last years, I think it’s important to have a strong body and strong governance at the national level, given some of the concerns about the profession itself, and the criticisms. I think when you have a more fractured body with 40 different organizations representing them, it makes it harder to be unified, it makes it harder to be strong, and it makes it hard to have an international presence.

I am pleased to support this bill. I’m pleased that it has now come forward. I know that the various organizations have been wanting this for a long, long time. I know that an extraordinary amount of work has gone into making this happen. I’m very pleased to say that we’ll certainly, on this side of the House, be supporting Bill 4 and the merger that it represents.

I look forward to spending some time, when we get to looking at the bill clause by clause in committee stage, just drilling down a little bit more into a few of the questions that I have about how the actual merger works.

When you think about it, it’s not just the merger of the three professions. It is the merger of the education, as I said earlier. It’s the merger of the governing bodies. It’s the merger of accountability, the accountability mechanisms. It is the merger of so much of the profession that it’s a real challenge. I’m going to look forward to asking a lot of questions when we get to that stage of the bill.

With that, I will take my seat.

Hon. A. Virk: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Virk: It’s been an exciting week for me as I had not one, not two, not three but four classes from my riding in Surrey attend. I have the third of those classes here. I have with me, from Pacific Academy, Mrs. Bakken’s grade 5 class. With her she has 27 future leaders and 16 adult chaperones. Would the House please make the Pacific Academy grade 5 class welcome.

[1355]

Debate Continued

R. Sultan: I have great pleasure to join my colleagues on both sides of the House in supporting Bill 4, intituled the Chartered Professional Accountants Act. As the member opposite has pointed out, there is really no discernible opposition in the legislatures across Canada in any jurisdiction to date, and I am informed that it has been introduced in eight provinces and passed in six. Should we pass this legislation, which I am confident we will, we will increase that number.

We will also facilitate Mr. Richard Rees, the chief executive officer, in not having to put after his name: “CPABC joint venture.” Our failure to complete the job of merging these three organizations a year or so ago has required them to operate in a somewhat awkward joint-venture fashion, but they have done so in good spirit, and we’re now here to finish the job.

As both the preceding speakers to this bill have pointed out, accountancy, I suppose for many of us growing up, strikes one as rather dry. We have pictures of that Charles Dickens bookkeeper sitting at a tall table freezing to death, right out of A Christmas Carol, with a quill pen, trying to balance some ledger book.

The reality is that accounting has become a fundamental tool and mechanism of modern life, modern business and, in particular, modern government. As my distinguished colleague opposite has pointed out, we rely
[ Page 6160 ]
very heavily on the Auditor General of this Legislature to produce her opinion on the accuracy and reasonableness of the accounts that we submit to the voters every year as evidence of our progress, or lack of it, in balancing the books.

They are the yardsticks, you might say, of modern society — modern market society. One of the great handicaps of many parts of the world is that they do not have reliable accounts. They do not have professional accountants that adhere to standards that are universally accepted, and their economies operate at a great handicap as a result.

The reason we, with this legislation and its components, transfer such powers to a group such as the merged association is a consequence of the fact that the practice of accounting is an example of a professional world which has become too complicated for most people to reasonably administer from the outside. The only way we can police the quality and the effectiveness of the practitioners in this field is by having them police themselves.

With this act, we delegate to the professional accountants the power to not only represent accountants but to self-regulate. If they run across the odd person who does not follow the rules — and these things happen in all professions — we rely upon the association to take appropriate disciplinary actions because, frankly, those of us on the outside are incapable of making those judgments.

This principle of professional reliance is in fact one that this government has embraced with vigour. We see the principle in action not only in the accounting profession but in the engineering profession — one with much greater familiarity in my own personal life as a member of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists. Again, it’s a field of practice so complicated and in many ways so sophisticated that the only people who really can sort the wheat from the chaff are the members themselves.

[1400]

We also, rather than produce books and books of regulations, delegate to the professions to ensure that they are designing bridges that don’t fall down, or producing books that are accurate. We do not try and specify the rules in law or regulation here because it would be impossible to do so.

There are many examples of the professional bodies operating in British Columbia and elsewhere who carry on these self-governance functions. Aside from the accountants and engineers, perhaps the ones that most immediately spring to mind are the various colleges in the practice of medicine. I’m sure our minister can enumerate how many different colleges there are. It seems that every piece of the body has its own college and enforces its own standards, and we rely upon them to do that.

It is quite easy for me to applaud this statute, but I’ll mention before I sit down two other issues which I think this Legislature may want to debate at some time in the future. One is the distinction between such organizations operating in a self-disciplinary fashion — to be kind of the internal cop, to make sure that competence prevails — which is really the most important function, I think, the government delegates to them, as opposed to the very natural inclination of such bodies to promote their profession.

The lawyers and the physicians split these two functions into separate organizations, and wisely so. We are sort of creeping in that direction in engineering. I’m not sure the accountants have quite come to grips with the distinction between those two very distinct functions. Complaining that one of your colleagues isn’t really quite up to the game isn’t quite the same as turning around and issuing a press release saying: “Aren’t we wonderful? Please hire all of us.” There’s a built-in contradiction there that we depend on people like Richard Rees to sort out as he administers as chief executive officer of the new, merged association.

A second issue which is coming up fast on the inside lane, just to put us all on notice, particularly as it applies to accountants, is the issue of civil liability. Quite some years ago Attorney General Geoff Plant undertook a very ambitious reform of civil liability law and regulation in British Columbia and couldn’t quite get the job done. I think it doesn’t mean the issue has gone away.

I will merely quote from a paper, a backgrounder piece, that the Chartered Accountants of British Columbia has issued under the title Modifying Joint and Several Liability to Manage Audit Risk. On the sidebar they have this quote: “Since 1986, 40 U.S. states have modified the rule of joint and several liability, and three states have abolished it altogether.”

Why should that issue concern us? Well, it certainly doesn’t concern us in this particular statute. But in the months ahead I think we will be asked to revisit this issue as an important element of maintaining the competitiveness of our accounting industry, the cost of audit and the ability, in fact, to perform an audit in British Columbia. These will all be important issues which should be debated thoroughly in this chamber.

To sum up, I think this is farsighted legislation. To a small degree it’s overdue. I think all of the accountants…. The minister has referred to them as 34,000. I’m told, reliably, that that number is probably a little bit out of date. There could be as many as 36,000 today, and they all vote.

[1405]

It’s a very important, influential body. I’m sure that, like the two previous speakers, we will not have any difficulty supporting this legislation.

C. James: I’m pleased to rise and take a few minutes to express my support as well for Bill 4, which we’re discussing today.

I thank the members previous who have talked about the support for the important role of accountants in our
[ Page 6161 ]
society, in our everyday life and, certainly, in the work that we do here in the Legislature and the work that we see in government. It’s a critical role, a role that provides us with some security, some peace of mind, some checks and balances that I think are even more critical if you take a look at the global economy of today.

I don’t think anyone could have imagined the kinds of links that we see across the globe when it comes to our economy now. I think in the kind of complex world that we live in today, the role of accountants is even more important. That’s why I’ll certainly be supporting this bill and the approach of a merger of the three of B.C.’s accounting bodies.

I want to start off by expressing my appreciation to all of those bodies. I think when you take a look at professional associations — not simply accountants, but all professional associations — there is often a lot of turf that’s looked after. They’re often individual organizations that have their particular history and their particular work. Understandably, those associations protect that work and make sure that they look out for the kind of history that they’ve had.

What you see here is that, in fact, three existing associations came together to say this good work needs to happen. They recognize, themselves, the importance of taking on this merger, the importance of looking at what needed to be done and in fact followed a process that I think is a process other associations could look at, if they were looking at mergers, if they were looking at the work that needed to be done.

This really was a long process, no question — others have mentioned that, the time that it’s taken to get to this place — but from the work that’s happened, this has been time well spent.

What you’ve seen is the associations actually recognize the importance of engaging everyone. They took the time to recognize the role that each party played — the role that each of the three associations played, the role of government and the role of other stakeholders. They actually put together a process that would include all of those important stakeholders, that would give them an opportunity to have their say, that would give them a chance to be able to talk about their concerns in a merger and to talk about the strengths that would come.

I think it’s telling that they actually held 58 town hall meetings. The member prior to me talked about the fact that people don’t think of accountants, perhaps, as individuals who are out there engaging with each other. I think if you take a look at 58 town hall meetings on any subject, that speaks well to the process and to the engagement that the three associations took on with their members in making sure that they really saw the challenges and saw the opportunities that were here.

We’ve heard the numbers that we’re talking about. These are not small numbers of individuals that we’re talking about. When you include the students in each of these organizations, this is a large number of individuals.

The merger, from my perspective and from the bill’s perspective, really takes a look at three particular areas that it brings strength to. One, I would say, is accountability. The second one is the issue of labour mobility. The third one, which I think is in some ways the most important one right now, is to build public confidence and to build confidence in economic business.

I just want to take a couple of minutes to start off with accountability. Bringing the three bodies together really provides a level of accountability — for the public, for government, for other groups and organizations that use accountants — by making sure that we have a common regulatory framework that takes the best practices of each of the three organizations and brings them together.

[1410]

That gives some level of accountability and strengthens the level of accountability to those organizations becoming one.

I think the other piece that’s really important is the issue of consistent regulations. We will now see consistent regulations across the three bodies coming together — the CAs, the CMAs and the CGAs. Again, if we’re taking a look at accountability, and if we’re taking a look at consistent regulation, you’re looking at things like a code of conduct. You’re looking at things like disciplinary processes, which right now could be different in each of the organizations. You’re talking about consistency across not only our province but other provinces and taking a look at what happens nationally. I think those are critical accountability pieces that are going to be strengthened through this process and are certainly strengthened in the bill as well.

I do have to add a bit of a chuckle when we talk about regulations, because we often see this government on the other side talking about getting rid of regulations, talking about regulations not being valuable. I think this is a perfect example of how important it is to have good-quality regulations in place and support for those good-quality regulations by these bodies coming together in this piece of legislation.

The second piece that I mentioned is the issue of labour mobility. I think we can’t, again, underestimate the opportunity that it provides in bringing the three associations together to give a common entry point, a single entry point for people who are looking at moving into the field of accounting.

The issue of common standards. To come back to that for a moment, I think all of us in this Legislature, probably on both sides, have heard concerns raised by individuals who emigrate from other countries, with credentials, and who come to British Columbia and then find that they can’t use their credentials when they’re here, that they’re not able to and that their credentials aren’t recognized.

It’s a difficult process to try and go through and make sure that you can get your credentials recognized.
[ Page 6162 ]
Imagine if you’re an accountant coming from another country. You come in and there are three associations with perhaps three different opportunities to be able to try and get your credentials recognized. I think the issue of labour mobility and having a single entry point will certainly provide a better opportunity for us to be able to utilize the skills of individuals who immigrate here and who we asked to come here to bring their skills and then who are not able to practise.

I am hopeful that this legislation will provide a better opportunity for those individuals and a better chance for us to use their skills. It’s a waste for them, and it’s a waste for all of us to have people here with those credentials who aren’t able to use them.

Then just the last piece that I want to touch on before I take my seat is the issue of confidence. I think we can’t underestimate this when we take a look at what has happened with financial crises around the globe. We can’t underestimate the strength we have here in Canada with our regulatory system around banking and financial institutions, and the strength that that has given us as a country. When you take a look around the world at what has happened, we have the ability here to be able to stand proudly and talk about the strengths of our accountability.

I believe what this legislation does here in British Columbia is provide us with another step — another step in those regulations and another step in building confidence for the public and for the economy. I’m certain that accounting can seem a very daunting profession for people who are taking a look from the outside and wondering about an accountant and using an accountant, perhaps, in their own finances or in their business. Then to have to take a look at three different bodies and three different accountants adds a level of complexity. So I think having a single body and an opportunity for the public to really gain that kind of confidence will be a strength as well.

I am pleased to see this come forward. I think it was time well spent. I congratulate the associations for the good work that they did in engaging government, as well as the public, as well as their members. I think it was a very good process. They did a very good job of letting people know on both sides of the House how important it was to have this bill come forward. I certainly will be supporting it.

[1415]

L. Reimer: I am pleased to stand up in the House today and speak in support of this act. I have and know many accountants in my community. I’m very pleased that government drafted this legislation, and it was presented in the Legislature the week before last. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services for all his work on this file and also the Minister of Advanced Education for sort of putting the icing on the cake, so to speak.

This act modernizes and streamlines regulation of the accounting profession in B.C. by enabling B.C.’s three accountancy associations to unify and create a single professional organization, which will be known as the Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia.

The legislation establishes a framework for the CPABC to regulate accounting services that members can provide to the public. Accountants will be required to meet strict professional and ethical conduct standards established by CPABC as they do under their current professional legislation, whether it be chartered accountants, certified management accountants or certified general accountants. This will, of course, serve the public interest well and will increase public confidence.

The purpose of this legislation will establish a new governance structure for the profession, authorize CPABC to provide for chartered professional accountant education programs and allow CPABC to regulate, investigate and discipline members and students as well as accounting corporations and firms that are registered by the CPABC.

CPABC will continue to regulate accounting services that members provide to the public, and accountants will continue to be required to meet strict professional and ethical conduct standards. The benefits of this, the unification of the three B.C. organizations into a single designation, will create a more modern, streamlined regulatory system.

The new designation and consolidated regulation of professional practice allow the unified association to strengthen its position in an increasingly global marketplace. This legislation will bring B.C. into line with the rest of Canada. To date, all provinces and territories except Nova Scotia, Ontario, Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut have introduced or passed similar CPA legislation. The educational programs and professional standards for accountants will be largely consistent across the country, enhancing labour mobility.

The legislation will, as I said, establish the governance structure for CPABC, which will be a board consisting of both elected and appointed members; set out the powers for them to regulate, investigate and discipline members; authorize CPABC to provide educational programs; reserve the use of specific titles or designations for their members only; and include transitional provisions to ensure that the amalgamation does not adversely affect the public or members of the current three accountancy organizations.

This bill, along with the minor legislative amendments made in 2014, enables unification. It’s an interim measure to allow members of the three organizations to use the new designation.

In conclusion, the unification is supported by CAs, CGAs and CMAs in B.C. They have been very active, making this their primary focus. The members of all three of these organizations voted in support of the uni-
[ Page 6163 ]
fication and establishment of the new CPABC, and the three organizations have requested this legislation. Today I stand here in support of this act and commend the Minister of Advanced Education and also the Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services for what will be one of the largest professional organizations in the province, with 27,000 designated members.

B. Ralston: I rise to speak to Bill 4, the Chartered Professional Accountants Act. I want to begin by congratulating the three merging bodies or amalgamating bodies: the Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C., the Certified General Accountants of B.C. and the Certified Management Accountants of B.C.

Many of us, in the course of our lives, will have been involved in mergers of one kind or another, whether in the business world…. I suppose the texts of the business schools are replete with analyses of successful mergers and unsuccessful mergers, because a merger is sometimes not a certain thing.

[1420]

It’s more than simply the legal drawing together of two entities. It’s also a joining together, sometimes, of very different corporate or business cultures.

I see the member seeks to make an introduction, perhaps?

Deputy Speaker: The minister seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Virk: Hon. Speaker, once again, thank you very much. I’m happy this week and very excited. This is the fourth and final introduction I make of Pacific Academy. It’s my deep, deep pleasure to have another grade 5 class from Pacific Academy, an excellent school in my riding. Afterwards they’re going to come to my office, and we’re going to have a question-and-answer period.

A big thank-you to Mrs. Blois’s grade 5 class and Pacific Academy for coming to the Legislative Assembly and learning about government. Would my colleagues make them welcome.

Debate Continued

B. Ralston: As I was saying, the culture of merger in business has certainly been well studied. Reviewing the documents and the briefings that I’ve had over the years as this process has gone along, I’m confident that a very successful merger plan is indeed underway and will be successful as a merged organization.

Other members will have had experience in the merger of trade unions or, in my case, in the merger or amalgamation of credit unions. The challenges are immense when that process is undertaken.

This is more than simply a merger or amalgamation at the provincial level. It’s also the national merger across every province and territory in the country, whether Nunavut or the Northwest Territories or Yukon territory and every province right across the country. This is certainly a huge undertaking that the profession across the country has begun and is enacting. It seems to so far have been very successful, but that’s only because of the amount of work — the discussion, the public fora that have been held and the ongoing work — by the leadership in the profession.

In the documents it’s clear that the profession commissioned external professionals to review the benefits and the detriments of a potential amalgamation. The other professions and other bodies — notably the Securities Commission; I believe, the Law Society as well — have all supported the effective amalgamation of these bodies.

I heard the minister say that a merged profession would have 34,000 members, including students. I believe that the member for West Vancouver–Capilano elevated that to 36,000. Certainly, it will be a substantial presence in the province given the contacts and the work that accountants do, whether in the public sector….

I chaired, in the past, the Public Accounts Committee. Certainly, the importance of the role of accountancy in both the analysis of the financial position of the province and in performance audits really contributes to the scrutiny that the public expects and deserves in terms of the financial accountability of the government itself.

A further benefit of regulation, as others have spoken of, is mobility between provinces. Although it will not be a requirement to practise that you be a member of the association, those who do join will find it easier to move from province to province. Given the global mobility of capital, it’s probably helpful for there to be one designation within the country.

Certainly, some of the national firms will find it much easier to move key personnel from one province to another if there’s a common designation. One could move from Calgary to Vancouver or from Toronto to Surrey with much greater ease, given a common designation. Internally, I think in the national firms that will help. Also, there’s an affiliation with international standards, and it will facilitate that as well.

[1425]

The risks were analyzed as well. I think there was some concern, given that there were three bodies, that perhaps two bodies might merge and one would be left out. I think that also helped to encourage all three to come forward at the same time and accept a merger. The possibility that the body that might be left behind would not be aligned with a global accounting designation was a concern as well.
[ Page 6164 ]

After lengthy consideration…. Accountants are highly qualified professionals, so I’m sure that there was an assessment, a risk assessment and a benefit assessment, by each member of the three bodies. Clearly, they are now taking the final steps here in British Columbia to merge.

The national profession, the national body, will have approximately 170,000 members, which is, again, when one compares it to other national bodies, a significant presence on the national scene and will, I think, benefit the ability of the profession to make its views known publicly and to influence the course of public affairs in the country.

The other, I think, important aspect of the merger is the merger of training. In the document that was provided to me, there’s a recitation of the merged training opportunities. The competencies of a newly qualified Canadian CPA will involve having been trained in the following six areas: financial accounting and reporting; management accounting, planning and control; assurance; taxation; finance; and performance management. “Financial accounting and management accounting, planning and control would be central to the program, but the CPA certification program would require the demonstration of competence in all six competency areas.”

That provides a substantial assurance to members of the public and those in business, when they engage either a sole proprietor, a partnership or a national firm with CPA designations, that they have the assurance that there are well-trained and well-rounded CPAs who are going to undertake the business that they’re being asked to undertake.

Certainly, speaking from the perspective of the Public Accounts Committee, performance audits are invaluable in assessing deficiencies in programs, whether it’s internal to a company or whether it’s internal to government — deficiencies in program offerings and recommendations on how efficiency and value for money might be achieved in the ongoing operation of either government or a business or, indeed, non-profit enterprise.

This is a significant step. As I say, I think they’re executing a well-considered and effective merger plan. The new merged profession, I think, will be something that all of us will benefit from.

I support the legislation. I thank the minister for bringing it forward, and I congratulate those participating organizations on achieving yet another milestone in the road to an effective merged national profession.

D. Bing: On behalf of my constituents in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill 4, the Chartered Professional Accountants Act. Bill 4 will bring together three organizations: the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia, the Certified Management Accountants Society of British Columbia and the Certified General Accountants Association of British Columbia. All combined, they will be unified to create one professional organization, the Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia or CPABC.

[1430]

By unifying accountants under a single professional organization, the CPABC will be able to establish a modern and streamlined regulatory system, which will include a board of elected and appointed members. This will ensure that educational programs and professional standards are consistent. It will also promote transparent governance for the accounting profession. Our government is pleased to streamline the accounting profession to make it a more effective service in British Columbia.

Bill 4 is also consistent with changes to the accounting profession that are happening across the country. Many jurisdictions have introduced or passed similar CPA legislation. This legislation will not only create consistency in B.C. but help to consolidate the accounting profession across the country. Modernizing and streamlining accounting regulations in B.C. will benefit all British Columbians.

There are approximately 34,000 members in three organizations who will benefit directly from this act. Individuals who are certified and in good standing with existing provincial accounting organizations will be able to apply to become a member of CPABC. A single modern regulatory system that will govern members will strengthen the position of CPAs in B.C. in an increasingly global marketplace.

Because these changes are occurring across Canada, it will allow members the flexibility to work in many different parts of this country. Individuals who currently use the CPA, CGA, CMA and CA designations have all expressed their support for this bill. Each organization has voted in support of unification and has requested this legislation. They have also consulted extensively with stakeholders and post-secondary institutions, who have also shown their support for unification.

Similarly, this legislation will help accounting students by allowing those enrolled in an existing program to receive a CPA designation when they graduate. The president and CEO of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C., Richard Rees, agrees. He says: “This is an exciting time for new graduates as we move forwards towards unification under the CPA banner. They represent a new generation of professional accountants, who will add great value to the businesses who employ them.”

Finally, this legislation will benefit the general public of British Columbia. It will enforce strict professional and ethical standards on members to ensure that they are held accountable. It also authorizes the CPABC to regulate, investigate and discipline its members and students.

Beyond ensuring accountability, Bill 4 will help simplify the accounting profession to the public. Only members will be able to use the CPA designation in their title. This legislation does not prevent individuals from calling themselves accountants or from participating in ac-
[ Page 6165 ]
counting activities. It simply clarifies to the public who has received certified training and continues to be held to rigorous professional standards.

Our government is making these changes to ensure that clients of accounting services can have confidence in the people they hire. Despite these changes, accounting services provided to the public will not be disrupted. The legislation includes transitional provisions to prevent adverse effects on the public or members.

The intention of this bill is to streamline and to simplify the accounting profession, allowing it to be a more efficient service for all British Columbians.

L. Krog: I’m very pleased to rise today to make a few remarks about the Chartered Professional Accountants Act.

It’s a somewhat sentimental day for me in one respect. My dear sister-in-law, the first sister-in-law to marry into the Krogs…. Oh, I shouldn’t even mention names. She took a secretarial course back in 1969 at the vocational school in Nanaimo and went to work for MacMillan Bloedel. We used to have giant forest industries in this province at one time, and MacMillan Bloedel was that signal champion of B.C.’s forests. She worked her way up through a very long career. She only retired a few years ago and became a certified management accountant along the way. No small achievement. A very difficult program.

That is an organization, the Certified Management Accountants Society of British Columbia, which will disappear as a result of this merger. Having said that, I can’t help but remark that a merger is somewhat like a marriage and, in this case, it’s clearly voluntary. It’s not like some problematic marriages where the parties are forced together because of untoward premature couplings that have produced a certain pressure to tie the knot.

[1435]

This is, in fact, more of a polygamous relationship here. We have three parties merging into one for the purposes of the greater good.

Interjections.

L. Krog: I’m somewhat surprised that there’s such enthusiasm for the encouragement of polygamy, given the recent rulings of the Supreme Court.

Having said that, and not wishing to make light of the seriousness of this legislation, of course, I want to say that opposing this bill is not quite like opposing motherhood or saying that you dislike ice cream, but it’s not far off the mark. But I would be remiss if I didn’t say that notwithstanding the love that obviously exists now amongst all the various types of accountants in this province who have merged into this new organization and will be able to do so under a more fulsome piece of legislation than existed before, we only allowed them last year, in a quick run-by in this House, to get together without legal ramifications.

Notwithstanding that, there will be problems, as many members have pointed out. Like all relationships, there will be some very difficult times ahead, no doubt, but I think it is extremely important, as it is true for all professions, that the public be able to have reliance, that the members of that professional group — who are, by virtue of statute, awarded significant responsibilities but also significant opportunities — will in fact be the kind of people who can be trusted. There have been some occasions in the last few years where some very large international accounting firms have faced some significant and real criticism — and indeed, prosecution in various jurisdictions — because of their actions.

I am firmly of the belief that in fact, here in British Columbia, with the merger of these three professional bodies, it will enhance what, on an international level, certainly, has been a somewhat diminished reputation. That is important, because, as the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, one of those members whom I was referring to the other day when I talked about the best and the brightest brains being banished to the back bench, of course…. When he commented earlier today that there would be some difficulties around the objects, I think he was bang on.

As a member of the Law Society of British Columbia, they afford me my professional credentials, but it’s the Canadian Bar Association that I expect to be an advocate for lawyers in general. I think it’s important to note that in section 3 of the act it lays out the objects of the Chartered Professional Accountants board. What it says is, firstly:

“(a) to promote and maintain the knowledge, skill and proficiency of members and students in the practice of accounting; (b) to establish qualifications and requirements for admission as a member and continuation of membership, and for enrollment and continuation of enrollment of students; (c) to regulate all matters, including competency, fitness and professional conduct, relating to the practice of accounting by members, students, professional accounting corporations and registered firms; (d) to establish and enforce professional standards”; but then “(e) to represent the interests of members and students.”

Now, I don’t want to be terribly legalistic here today, but the phrase “to represent the interests of members and students,” by implication, to me means that you are to advocate for them as well. I’m not entirely sure that, over time, that will be something that the society or the Certified Professional Accountants board will be able to handle in the way that we have come to expect of other professional organizations. I used the lawyers as an example. The B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons, as opposed to the BCMA, is another example.

These are all issues that will have to be worked out over time, because if we are in fact to ensure that the reliance is justified — and I’m sure that it will be — by the people of British Columbia in the 34,000 members of this new organization, than we have to ensure that there are high standards and that the most important object is surely to ensure that the public has every reason to have reli-
[ Page 6166 ]
ance on it. There is a bit of a duality here that may present some problems.

I’m sure the board is going to have to confront that, but I do note that certainly, in the bylaws division — division 2 on page 7 of the bill — the first thing authorized under the section under “Bylaws” in the bill is: “The board may make bylaws for the purposes of the management and objects of the CPABC.”

[1440]

Then it goes on at some length respecting all the other bylaws, with a fair bit of specificity as to what those objects and what the powers would be respecting those bylaws. But it’s left it pretty broad when it comes to making bylaws for the purposes of the management and objects of the CPABC and really doesn’t say very much with respect to that provision that says: “to represent the interests of members and students.”

Subject to those kinds of questions, which I’m sure the minister responsible will be able to answer in a fulsome and modest way, of course, noting his usual delivery in the House. I’m sure that the opposition and those members of his very own party and fellow MLAs will now be asking…. I’m sure those questions will be answered in a more fulsome manner that will illuminate the government’s reasoning behind the wording that is in this bill so that, again, the public can be satisfied that this new body will in fact do as good a job as the three bodies that are now being merged into one.

Certainly, I think, like most of us who — and I say this not in a bragging way — have had the pleasure in our society of having to have an accountant look after our financial affairs on occasion and, certainly, being very satisfied with mine…. I won’t go so far as to mention the name of the firm, lest I be accused of trying to promote business in the wonderful city of Nanaimo.

Having said that, if the experience of every other person in British Columbia has been as satisfactory as mine, I’m sure we’ll all be happy. So as I say, I look forward to the minister explaining the government’s views with respect to the objects of the society. I think it is important because other professions have certainly had to confront this at other times. There has been legislative change as a result of that. But this is, after all, the first go.

I’m reminded of what President Obama has become famous for: basically promoting — and I’m sure he wasn’t the first ever to say it — that one should never let the pursuit of the perfect stand in the way of doing the good. This legislation is doing the good.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I move second reading of Bill 4.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I move that Bill 4 be referred to a Committee of the Whole to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 4, Chartered Professional Accountants Act, 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. M. Polak: I call second reading debate on Bill 3.

BILL 3 — BUILDING ACT

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 3 be read a second time now.

As I reflect on this piece of legislation…. The member opposite, the Opposition House Leader and I will be able to do some reflection on this because we actually have worn separate hats in this House in the same portfolio. When he was a cabinet minister in the former NDP government he was also the Housing Minister, and I was the Housing critic. We actually had conversations about the efficacy and the consistency of the building code, going, I think, back as far as maybe 1996 or 1997.

This piece of legislation behind us, which is the Building Act, has actually been a piece of work in process as I’ve been the Housing Minister, since 2005 — with some process, I think, prior to 2001. The work with the communities and UBCM has been extensive over those years.

It’s an act, the first legislation in British Columbia devoted to the building and construction sector, particularly the building code and how building codes and construction standards will be done in British Columbia in the future. We have to remember that the construction sector is a big contributor to the economy of British Columbia. It generated about $9.6 billion in gross domestic product and employed 110,000 people last year, in 2013.

The objective of this act is to balance the consistency of construction.

[1445]

The industry desires the flexibility of local government and the quality of the product and the certainty of the product that flows through to the consumer of British Columbia, the end buyer of a home in B.C. — and other buildings. In particular, it’s so we can actually make sure that we’re not putting needless costs on the construction of housing and so that, by having some consistency in how we do business, everybody can understand from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

The legislation is intended to increase efficiency, productivity and innovation in the industry. Its goal is to achieve three things. First, the act will streamline regulation of building construction. Basically, that means currently that we’re going to go look at how we do.… Well,
[ Page 6167 ]
we want to streamline how we do this, with the regulation and building construction. Some of the things that are faced we’ve been talking about, as I said a few minutes ago, for a long time — about how some things in the building code, building act have become confusing over the years.

Not only has there been a national building code, which is harmonized, for the most part, with the B.C. building code, there’s always been a tendency for other building bylaws to be put in at local government levels that are different from one community to another. Whether it be from Coquitlam to Port Coquitlam, from Langley to Surrey, there’s confusion in that. They go beyond the intent, the efficacy and the reasons for a building code.

The result of that has become a patchwork of different requirements across B.C. which increases the costs for building a home or other buildings and, at the same time, increases the time to be able to do your work and to be able to do things.

You can imagine if you are an architect or engineer and you’re designing a building in B.C. You design it in Surrey, and you go to a community next door, and they have a different set of bylaws and rules around the designing of the same building, even though you’re matching up to the building code. That creates confusion and costs, not just for you but for the bidding process, for those people who would build it, the finishers — all the people that do the work with regards to that particular building.

There is a story out there, which is true, that one community many years ago had an opportunity for 300 jobs in a special kind of warehouse. That warehouse would have brought $1 million in municipal taxes to the local government and about 300 jobs. The local officials decided to put some differing things within their local building bylaws and their fire code that had never been applied anywhere else before, which increased the cost of the building exponentially. So they didn’t build it there.

They went to a neighbouring community in the Lower Mainland that today gets the million dollars in taxes, has the 300 jobs. Their fire suppression system is the same fire suppression system as anywhere else in North America, except for this one place where somebody decided they wanted to change the local bylaws. Not only did the community lose $1 million and 300 jobs, but the opportunity was lost there too. And somebody actually had to pay extra dollars to try and design a building twice.

The act is intended to ensure that the building requirements are set by the province, that existing requirements set by local government will be eliminated over time so that we can harmonize this. If local governments have basic things during the transition period, we’ll fix them. For other pieces, we’ll do harmonization. But as we come through to the future, they will have to make the case if they want to do something outside the building code in a particular community in B.C.

There was a time when I had those debates…. I don’t remember if the member opposite was actually the minister at the time, because debates on the building code have gone on forever. There was a situation where we had a building code in B.C., and it was the reverse of this.

It said there was only a certain type 2:12 slope roof, etc. It didn’t make allowances for places like Whistler and Revelstoke, where they needed a higher-pitch roof with a metal roof because of the snow load. So we need to be able to have that efficacy and smoothness, but it has to be practical, and in some way it has to be consistent. The intention here is to accomplish that.

We think that it will help reduce costs, improve efficiencies of construction, increase the consistency of building requirements across B.C. and will help a lot of communities across British Columbia that want to actually improve some of the things in and around their building.

I should say that there have been a number of consultations at UBCM. One, in particular, I actually chaired myself, for everybody from the local governments. I think, at that meeting, in excess of 90-plus local governments that were present unanimously supported that we move to a harmonization and some consistency in the building code.

[1450]

Secondly, the act’s going to increase the competency of local government and building officials. Now, building officials monitor the compliance with the B.C. building code in their communities. Currently there’s no required qualifications for building officials in B.C. The result is different levels of building code knowledge and contradictory decisions on what the code says and how it should apply.

The Building Act will establish minimum qualifications for building officials and require local governments only to employ qualified building officials. That is a nuance in itself for local governments that don’t want to have full-time building officials on staff because they may not have enough activity in the construction sector in a very small community. So they can have somebody that is qualified, with the qualifications, to do the inspections on behalf of that community and know that they’re reaching a standard.

Third, the act is going to expand the provincial role to better support the construction sector and local governments. Currently there’s no clear approval process for innovative buildings such as the Wood Innovation and Design Centre in Prince George, such as taller wood-frame and, basically, cross-laminated beam structures in British Columbia, even though they’re built elsewhere in the world.

We have a situation where there’s a proposal that’s come in from UBC, I think it is, where they’d like to do something with their engineering department with regards to a taller building. We actually have to put an en-
[ Page 6168 ]
velope around that, do a special directive and try and build a separate code for that because there’s no ability or flexibility in the existing code to be able to do that.

We think there should be that ability to get to that clear approval process for innovations in any type or form of construction. If we don’t do that, we’re likely to just repeat the past, and repeating the past, given some of the experiences we’ve had in leaky condos and other forms of construction in B.C., isn’t really something that we want to do.

Under this act, the province will review proposals for innovative building by a cost-recovery approach. If there’s a building that is coming in that needs an extensive amount of work in and around building code that could be applied across the province, but they need a special directive, they will actually pay a fee for government to be able to bring the experts to play to make sure that can happen.

We know, for instance, in wood construction, particularly cross-laminated beam, there are buildings in Europe that are substantially higher than the wood innovation centre in Prince George. We know that we could do that here, but it is a matter of making sure the code and the consistency with communities and the expertise and understanding to be able to do that is consistent across the province.

The act will expand the capacity of the Building Code Appeal Board to resolve more complex disputes between industry and local governments. So for the folks that have some complexities and disputes as we come through the transition period, we’ll be able to solve those.

Through these new services, the province is taking leadership to support the building innovation part of our future in construction in B.C.

As I’ve said, some of us have been around here a while and consulted extensively over a number of years with the industry, with communities and with building officials. There’s broad support for the act from the construction sector and building officials, but also, I believe, it will come from the public as well. They understand that by streamlining this, having consistency, we should be able to actually drive some costs out of the retail costs of housing, which the consumer should be able to benefit from.

In response to feedback from local governments, the construction sector and the public, it will be phased in over several years, providing time to adapt. The new Building Act is a significant step forward for the construction sector of the economy of B.C.

I believe that our committee stage discussions on this will be very instructive, and the work that goes from here will be very important to make sure that we have a stable, understandable and professional construction sector for the future of British Columbia.

I am pleased to move second reading, and take my seat now.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for his comments on Bill 3.

This is a piece of legislation that has been a long time in coming. The minister’s right. We’ve had discussions on the issues around building code going on for many, many years — in fact, going back almost two decades and even before that. That is why this particular piece of legislation is important. There’s a lot in this bill, and I’m going to touch on several key areas where we have a lot of questions.

As we know, much of this bill is regulatory in nature. I will address that in my remarks around that. It gives significant power to the ministry or to the minister, and I think it’s important that we explore that. There’s a fair bit that I have to say in second reading, but the bulk of the questions will, of course, come during committee stage. I know the minister will be more than willing to deal with and answer questions at that time and address concerns raised in the bill. I see him nodding. So I look forward to that discussion.

Interjection.

[1455]

M. Farnworth: Absolutely, this is exciting stuff. The reality is — you know what? — the minister’s right. It is exciting stuff. It’s scintillating.

This bill doesn’t come out of nowhere. We’re talking about building. As we all know, for people the most important financial decision they often make in their lives is purchasing a first home or purchasing a new home or purchasing any home. It’s an important decision. So we need to make sure that we’ve got the right building standards and building codes and training systems in place.

This bill arises from the hope of most people in the province that new buildings built in British Columbia meet minimum standards for safety, environmental efficiency, access for people with disabilities and consumer protection. In fact, for many years B.C. has had a building code to address some of these issues.

Standards required for quality and consumer protection. On the topic of the need for standards to ensure consumer protection and high-quality, long-lasting buildings, this province has seen in the past the worst of what happens when building codes fail. The leaky-condo crisis cost homeowners across the Lower Mainland hundreds of millions of dollars in repairs that they could not afford. Seniors remortgaged their properties. Families sold and moved. First-time homebuyers saw their investments collapse when, if their building had just been built to better standards in the first place, their condo would have increased in value the way that would have been expected.

I mean, I still remember my partner and I buying our first condominium in 1992. In 2004 I was still paying off $35,000 in an assessment to get that leaky unit fixed. I
[ Page 6169 ]
paid $158,000 for it in 1992. In 2002 you couldn’t sell it if you wanted to for $85,000. The mortgage was bigger than the value of the equity in that unit, and that was typical of thousands of people in this province.

The leaky-condo crisis is exactly why minimum standards are needed in this province as a preventative measure. The standards must be fair, must be transparent and must establish the minimum level of quality that builders must reach in their products in order to protect the biggest investment most British Columbians will ever make — the purchase of their family homes.

For many in this province their homes have also become their retirement plans. The value of their homes, preserved through high-quality building, must carry them through their later years in comfort and dignity. High-quality construction, reinforced by clear and transparent standards, will help them reach those goals. Low-quality construction that undermines this critical investment’s value will threaten many retirement plans across the province.

Another important use of building standards is to protect rights of access for people with disabilities. It may not be intuitive for people who don’t live with a physical disability what the connection is between building standards and access for people with disabilities. However, for people who must live with a physical disability, the connection is clear.

Building standards that mandate doors wide enough for scooters and wheelchairs, doors with push handles rather than door knobs, commercial buildings with requirements for disabled-access bathrooms — the list of how building standards can and have improved life for people with physical disabilities by ensuring basic access is endless. One need only look at the challenges presented by this legislative building to understand how building codes and planning access for people with disabilities have changed in the last 100 years and how well-planned standards can overcome very costly retrofits down the road.

A building code can also be used to restrict the use of materials found to be linked to diseases like asthma or cancer and can have a profound impact on public health initiatives. The elimination by law of the use of asbestos in buildings, for example, has almost completely eliminated asbestosis among construction workers because the product simply isn’t installed. We no longer permit the use of lead-based paints.

Provincial building standards could react quickly and provincially if new health hazards — for example, in treated wood product — were discovered. Through amendments to our building codes we could act to protect British Columbians, and the work of monitoring health research into building materials wouldn’t fall to small municipalities across the province and patchwork enforcement. Similarly, uniform building codes can help ensure safety.

[1500]

The height of stairs is predictable to people, and when stair height changes suddenly, falls occur more frequently.

Standards for using fire-retarding building materials and designs can help our firefighters keep accidental fires under control. Instead of accelerating a small fire into a four-alarm blaze, standards for water sprinklers and smoke detectors and alarm systems, especially in multi-unit buildings, have been proven to save lives.

In many areas of our province seismic building standards help ensure that when the big one finally comes, as many buildings as possible will be able to resist the earthquake.

There’s a direct connection between building standards that are well planned and protecting the public from hazardous building materials and ensuring that buildings are as safe as possible.

In addition to those positive aspects I have listed about how building codes can improve public health, environmental sustainability and access for people with disabilities, consistency in building codes through a uniform building code mechanism can also help provide contractors with cost efficiencies — which, ideally, are passed along to consumers, reducing the overall cost of new construction.

This bill holds the promise of all of the benefits of a well-planned uniform building code. However, it also holds a number of perils for the province that we will be exploring during the committee stage of this bill.

Let me begin by saying that the initiative to establish a provincewide building code is a good one and should be welcomed by most British Columbians. However, like many initiatives undertaken by this government with the best of intentions, we want to make sure that they are implemented properly and in the way in which they are intended. There are some hotly contested issues behind this legislation, and the government is well aware of those issues.

One only needs to read section 3 of this new act to understand what new powers the minister will be able to exercise in the cabinet rooms of the Legislature through regulation. That’s one of the critical components of this particular bill, is that it gives significant power to the minister to make changes through regulation. There are advantages to that, in the sense that regulations can be passed quickly. The flip side, of course, is that those regulations are not debated here in the chamber.

Section 3(1)(a) says that the minister may make regulations for “establishing one or more building codes” — which, although broad, could be understood to be reasonable given the quick-changing standards for buildings and the need to keep up without requiring the Legislature to debate the merits of various cement aggregates or clearance requirements, for example.

But the powers for the minister are not just reserved to the right to rewrite technical aspects of the building codes. They can also, by regulation, empower the minis-
[ Page 6170 ]
ter to look at other areas, such as under subsection (b), to regulate “building generally for matters not included in a building code.” A regulation-making power for everything to establish a building code and also a regulation power for everything related to any matter not included in a building code — that’s a pretty broad power. That is a very broad power.

Now, I look forward to exploring this with the minister, and the minister may have a sound idea of how this is intended to work. But as the minister himself well knows, having served in this place now for almost 20 years, he will not be the minister forever. At some point there may well be somebody else exercising the power given to them through these regulations. We need to understand exactly what the intent of those regulations is going to be and how they’re intended to be implemented.

This is not a closely restricted regulation-making power for technical matters, structured to require the minister to come back to the Legislature for approval for major changes. This is regulation-making power for literally everything relating to buildings in the province. In fact, the law goes on to say that the minister can pass these regulations to prescribe requirements for “any other matter that the minister considers necessary or advisable.”

[1505]

This legislation has come about through considerable discussion and consultation. If you read it the way that it’s presented, in many ways, some might say that it creates a building czar.

Now, the minister smiles, and, as I said a moment ago, he’s not going to be the minister forever. But the fact of the matter is….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: I hear “What? What?”

This is a powerful piece of legislation, and this issue of so much power in this legislation, concentrated by regulation, is one of the issues that has been raised by the Union of B.C. Municipalities. In fact, in July of 2014, months before this bill was announced, they asked for clarity about the new role of the minister in implementing regulations and for certainty about what the government’s intentions were. Well, as of this stage of the bill, those intentions aren’t clear, and one of the areas that we intend to explore during committee stage is just that.

The UBCM wrote: “The reform plan presented by the province lacks specific details as to what is planned. The scope of the proposed legislation is not detailed, and no indication is given on the nature of the new ministerial powers, nor how they might compare with existing powers.” The plan lacks specific details, and now it seems the plan has been implemented in this bill and that — no surprise — it lacks specific details on critically important issues.

One of the controversies that we need to understand how this bill is going to impact or deal with is around the requirement of licences for people in the province who may have been building homes for decades. That’s why, in December of 2012, the minister indicated to Tar Sandhu of the builders relations organization based in Surrey that existing builders would be grandfathered. This seems reasonable, if builders have the necessary experience to build. But what does the legislation actually say, given the commitment that the minister has made?

Additional regulation or powers requested by the minister in this legislation include the ability to require that building activities like carpentry, form building, or really any construction task of any kind be performed by “persons in specified classes of persons” — those classes, of course, being set privately without coming to the Legislature, set by cabinet regulation without coming to the Legislature.

This legislation grants, without restriction, the minister the ability to impose any licensing requirement on any contractor in any part of the province — not just new builders who start their trades after the date of the legislation’s passing, but all builders. This wide-ranging power has the potential to be considerably at odds with what the minister’s statements have been to existing contractors, and this is an issue that we will be exploring closely in committee stage.

We need to have a debate on these issues. We need to understand what the requirements are going to be. What I hope, in the course of the discussion around this bill at committee stage, is that it is clear that contractors have been consulted, that they have been able to make presentations to the government, that they have been able to express their concerns to the government but they’ve also expressed these concerns to opposition and that we have a full understanding of how these regulations will deal with the issue that I have just mentioned so that we’re not waking up one morning to new restrictions that were never anticipated and, in fact, end up being put in place when they were told that they would not be implemented.

Beyond the ability to make regulation on areas around licensing, the bill has some other areas that we will want to explore in committee stage.

[1510]

The bill does not actually address energy efficiency, renewable energy or other green initiatives directly, despite the reality that building codes present significant opportunities for establishing high energy efficiency standards that will help B.C. meet our carbon pollution reduction goals that could help B.C. address issues of climate change.

Section 5 reads that local bylaws will not be allowed where they deviate from the new building code that will be set by the minister’s regulation.

The bill fails to define what a contravening building standard at the municipal level will be. Ideally, contraven-
[ Page 6171 ]
ing building standards would be, in the best-case scenario, less energy-efficient standards than the provincial code. In such a scenario this bill would set a basement level for energy efficiency, and municipalities would be free to impose higher standards.

Unfortunately, at this point it seems likely that rather than a minimum standard for energy efficiency, this law will set an absolute standard. Sometimes absolute standards work the same way — for example, where a city had a lower energy efficiency standard for insulation, the new provincial standard would make their buildings more energy-efficient. But if a municipality has higher environmental efficiency standards than the provincial standard, an absolute standard could claw them back to a lower standard, eliminating energy efficiency initiatives taken by that community.

We need to make sure that what this bill — and the regulations and sections dealing with this bill — proposes to do in terms of establishing absolute standards…. Municipalities must have the ability to use initiatives to go to higher standards than what is necessarily, potentially, going to be here in this particular piece of legislation.

The act also needs to be clarified on issues where municipalities want to see a variation in terms of what’s proposed in the legislation. It’s another issue that will be explored at committee stage.

Section 7 and section 8, in terms of how municipalities approach variations, are going to have to be explored further at committee stage. I want the minister to know ahead of time that there will be discussion and debate around that.

When it comes to safety, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, that is a key component of what a building code is all about. I’ve talked about minimum levels, minimum standards around energy efficiency. Well, similar concerns about the code can be said about setting a minimum level of compliance or an absolute standard around safety.

For example, the mayor of Pitt Meadows wrote to the minister expressing concern that aggressive fire sprinkler requirements, which they say have saved lives and property, would be compromised. The mayor wrote:

“The city of Pitt Meadows has a highly successful fire sprinkler component to our building bylaw that has enhanced public safety, reduced fire service costs and dramatically reduced fire losses, both human and structural. It has never experienced negative push-back from homeowners, builders or developers for over 19 years.

“The positive results of local fire sprinkler requirements above those contained within the current building code are irrefutable. Removal of the ability for the city to continue to ensure such efficient and effective service is unacceptable without an alternative solution that, at minimum, provides the city with equal or better results to those obtained by the government.”

What we want to do is to ensure that this legislation is encouraging municipalities, that it doesn’t discourage municipalities from adopting higher safety standards.

This particular piece of legislation has the potential to significantly improve building standards in the province of British Columbia. It gives significant power to the minister.

[1515]

The question in debate in committee stage is going to be: is the minister prepared to give greater detail to how the regulations will work? Is the minister prepared to give a sense to this House of what regulations are going to be in place, how they’re going to be implemented, how they will be developed, what kinds of consultation will take place, what kind of implementation plan there is and what are the time frames for the implementation of those regulations? Those are going to be critical.

As I’ve said, there are a number of areas where we have provincial standards. We have standards in this chamber, and sometimes those standards are not met. We have standards around the use of cellphones in here, and sometimes those standards are not met. Members are held to account to those standards. Likewise, in legislation such as this, once these standards and regulations are in place, then the government will be held to account for them.

The reason that that’s important is because these particular standards will be impacting the construction of not just commercial buildings, not just residential buildings but of people’s hopes and dreams when it comes to the most important purchase that they make in their life, which is their home. I think that’s what all of us want: to ensure that we have the best possible building code with the best possible minimum standards in place and, at the same time, that we have building standards that enable and encourage municipalities to go above and beyond to meet the needs of their communities.

That is why I look forward to what other members have to say in the course of this debate. More importantly, I look forward to the discussion on these issues and other issues that will be raised in committee stage. With that, I take my place.

V. Huntington: Standardizing the building requirements and the qualifications for building officials across B.C. is an obvious and very practical step to take. The standardization will hopefully result in a more efficient system where all building inspectors, architects, construction workers, local governments and now the province are on the same page as to what the law allows and, presumably, will ensure compliance with the code provisions.

The minister says its intent is to balance consistency with local flexibility. However, I’m not entirely sure local government is on the balancing scales here, nor has, I think, the ministry been able to reduce costs and red tape. I think the unfolding of the provisions in the transition as it goes forward is going to be an interesting opportunity to see exactly what level of bureaucracy is being introduced into the system.
[ Page 6172 ]

I know that the government has been working toward modernization of the building regulatory system for a long time, and even the modernization strategy of 2004 wasn’t implemented at the time, according to the UBCM, because government priorities shifted and focused on greening the building code and on the mid-rise six-storey wood-frame construction regulations. Nevertheless, the system has been undergoing numerous reviews in the past 25 years.

This move to harmonization itself, I believe, will be welcomed by everybody. But along the way, more than one local government and the UBCM itself have raised concerns about a uniform building code and its implementation.

A 2012 UBCM policy paper asked that no changes to be made to the Community Charter. Well, this bill does repeal sections of the Community Charter, and that repeal forms one of my most serious concerns with the bill.

Section 47 repeals the section of the Community Charter that gives local government the ability to establish standards greater than provincial regulations. This is the important meet-or-beat principle of municipal authority.

[1520]

This a significant incursion into a time-honoured principle of local governance in this province, and I await the comments of local government with some concern.

An application of this principle, for instance, was the case where a number of municipalities commented that a uniform building code would take away their ability to uphold stricter fire sprinkler requirements. Campbell River is one of the local governments with localized fire sprinkler requirements. This past October they commented that taking away their local building code bylaws would threaten the efficiency and effectiveness of their fire service.

Now Campbell River and the other municipalities will be required to request exemptions from the act, from the minister. Will these municipalities be granted their exemptions under government regulation? How quickly will the exemptions be granted? Will they even be granted, or will they have to go through the approval process under section 7 and ask the minister to make local regulations, only to be met with rejection?

I’m hopeful the minister will answer these questions in committee stage, because I think they’re important to the local governance structure in this province.

The government is also portraying the bill as a means to streamline the building code requirements across B.C., which I feel is an essential issue, and to cut red tape. But for municipalities that have to jump through new hoops to uphold their existing and often necessary local building code requirements, this legislation appears to mean additional red tape, additional bureaucracy and additional cost.

The bill does provide for a transition period for some of its provisions, but it will be telling to see how easy or difficult it is to obtain exemptions under this bill or to what extent the government will exercise its regulatory powers under section 41 of this legislation to declare unrestricted matters where local authorities can exercise their discretion. UBCM wrote in 2012 again that there could be increasing delays as everyone waits for a decision from Victoria about issues of jurisdiction and standards.

I could speak from local experience in Delta, where Delta is under an order-in-council where the Minister of Agriculture has to approve any Delta bylaw, as are two or three other municipalities in the province. It can take months — months — to have a bylaw approved — months of negotiation with the ministry while people wait, while the municipality waits, while cost rises and while frustration rises. The authority of local government to be run by the minister in Victoria, who does not necessarily understand the local issues, can at times be lengthy and very frustrating.

The Nanaimo regional district has also raised concerns about government taking away authority from local government. The RDN director Bill Veenhof said that he was concerned “about the district’s losing its right to deal with building issues that are specific to our area…I don’t see how making the building code more uniform across B.C. and making the province the sole authority for it “ — which is my issue — “ will solve the problems that the government thinks it will.”

I can understand the importance of uniformity and of training standards, but I do not understand, nor agree with, treating municipalities like children. They are by far the more experienced partner here, and removing their decision-making authority almost entirely is counterproductive, in my opinion. It is a response, I believe, to industry pressure rather than a need to enable good governance.

Despite these concerns, which I hope to canvass further during committee stage, it is worth noting that a government report on the results of consultations found that 84 percent of local government and industry respondents favoured a uniform B.C. building code and over three-quarters of the respondents favoured mandatory certification requirements for building officials. Meanwhile, only 56 percent of local government supported phasing out all local government bylaws that didn’t conform to the provincial standards.

I do hope that the government and its local partners can, through the transition period, come to some understanding of where their various and unique authorities lie.

There are still some question marks here about how this bill will be received by local governments. Government says that eight other provinces have stand-alone building legislation, but I’d like to ask: how was that legislation received?

[1525]

What was the debate in those Legislatures? Have there been consequences, including push-back from local gov-
[ Page 6173 ]
ernment? Does the provincial government enforce the code, as ours appears to? Have costs and delays increased or declined? Is industry in control, or are the people in control?

There are other outstanding issues as well. The government’s 2012 paper proposed a levy on the value of construction to cover the costs of the uniform code. Local government and construction stakeholders again pushed back, with only 31 percent of local government and 46 percent of industry respondents supporting the idea of a levy.

Well, there doesn’t appear to be anything resembling a levy in the legislation, although government can collect money to offset fees for consultants and specialists who are reviewing proposals from the local authority.

[P. Pimm in the chair.]

That raises the question: are there other costs that we don’t see? Are there costs to the local authorities? Is the local authority going to be allowed to recover those costs from industry? Or is industry going to be passing on those costs to the consumer? While we say that we’re cutting red tape and making things more efficient, we appear to be making things more costly in the long run. I’d be interested again in hearing much more on this from the minister during committee.

I’m also curious about the provision in section 57, which appears to allow councils to make more stringent maintenance rules for manufactured homes and manufactured home parks and sites. What was the reason for that change? There are a number of questions that relate to those issues too.

This is another bill where the devil will be in the details or in the regulations and how the minister chooses to use them, and how liberally or conservatively the ministry will be approving or vetoing local government decisions. Will it be industry, or will it be the people in charge? This bill changes the power dynamic between local authorities, industry and the provincial government when it comes to building regulations. I hope to pursue these issues, as will my colleagues, during committee.

H. Bains: It is a pleasure to stand here anytime that an issue arises or legislation that comes before us that will affect our constituents. When you look at this Bill 3, from the surface, it looks pretty benign, it makes sense, and perhaps we should not even talk about this. Perhaps it is something that is the right thing to do. But I think that when you apply some of these legislations on the ground…. I think that the real effect is understood and realized by those who are affected by it and those who may not even have real input into making these changes.

I will speak to some specifics, but generally speaking, I think during the committee stage we will be asking some more specific questions about many of the concerns that were raised in the last year or year and a half within my community and, specifically speaking, within the building community in Surrey and the Lower Mainland.

I think at that time the idea was floated by this government that perhaps the builders will require certain training and qualifications and then going through a test. That really raised nervousness within the building community in the South Asian community and some of the other immigrant communities who are in the building industry.

I must say that the construction industry is one of the industries that is a lifeline for Surrey, generally speaking. But the residents of Surrey who are of South Asian descent are deeply involved in the construction industry, from the smaller-sized, one house a year — they have a regular job, and they build a house on the side for extra income — to other medium-sized, who build four, five, six, seven houses a year. Then we have real large ones.

[1530]

At that time, the concern was raised that the larger developers and builders have resources. They have trained managers. They have people fully qualified, understanding the code and understanding how the system works. They possess those qualifications, but they would have no problem with that issue. I think going through committee stage, some of those questions will be asked. I hope the minister will be able to answer whether it’s a part of that or not.

Interjection.

H. Bains: The minister says that has nothing to do…. I’m glad to hear that because at that time the real concern was…. The reason the minister got involved…. I remember him going on. I didn’t hear it directly myself, but I was told that he was on one of the radio stations. It was such a heated issue that he had to go on one of the radio stations and make a pledge that: “No, we will not bring in such legislation.” But that was before the election. Now, if the minister says that it has nothing to do with training the builders and the building community, I think that would be of some comfort to those folks.

I had some questions here, especially under section 11, the definition of “building officials.” My understanding and reading from the surface, again, is it looks like we’re talking about the building inspectors and those who look at the plans and inspect the buildings. That issue, I think, is…. Largely, I think those are trained and qualified people. They understand the industry. They know what the codes are, and then they go and make sure that all buildings meet those building codes.

I’m really happy to hear from the minister, but I would like to see the minister go on record during committee stage to say exactly what the minister’s intents are.

On the other side on this issue, one of the three things that the government’s press release says is that the intention is to streamline building requirements to create the
[ Page 6174 ]
same standards across B.C. We all understand B.C. is, geographically speaking, a very big province and very, very diverse. What works in Prince George may not work in Surrey. What works in Surrey or the Lower Mainland, with heavy rain and moisture, may not work in Whistler. The minister touched on some of those issues during his speech.

I think those are some of the questions. How would you streamline and have similar building codes all across the province when you have that kind of diversity when it comes to weather and terrain and different building requirements due to the weather? There are other diverse issues involved in different areas as well. Those are some of the questions.

Also, “establish mandatory qualifications for local building officials,” expand the province’s ability to review building proposals…. When you go on to see part 7, section 41, there are certain regulations that the minister mentioned in the press release. But it is a general section. Section 41 says: “(1) The minister may make regulations referred to in section 41 of the Interpretation Act. (2) Without limiting any other provision of this Act, the minister may make regulations as follows: (a) respecting any matter for which regulations are contemplated by this Act, other than matters for which regulations are expressly contemplated to be made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council….”

That is a wide range of powers given to one office, one minister. As the member for Port Coquitlam mentioned before me…. He said very, very clearly that this minister may have certain intentions, but the minister is not going to be around forever. There will be different people, and their interpretations of the intentions may be different from what this minister’s intentions are.

[1535]

Again, saying here that respecting any matter, without limiting any other provision of this act, the minister may make regulations respecting any matter for which regulations are contemplated by this Act…. It’s giving complete powers to the minister, and the minister’s discretion, to determine whatever the contemplation was within this act.

Those are some of the questions that will be asked at committee stage so that the minister coming after this minister will know what the intentions of this minister are as far as this act is concerned.

Other questions are raised by UBCM. Again, the minister is saying that…. I may have heard him correctly or may not, but I think this minister said the UBCM endorsed this at their UBCM convention. But this is what they had to say in a July 2014 news release. UBCM stated that several questions need to be answered before they can offer their support to move to a unified building code. “The reform plan presented by the province lacks specific details as to what is planned. The scope of the proposed legislation is not detailed, and no indication is given on the nature of the new ministerial powers nor how they might compare with existing powers.” Again, they have some serious concerns and some very serious questions before, they are saying through this press release, they could support the unified building code.

Then they go on to say: “The plan indicates that changes will be made to the Community Charter and the Local Government Act. However, the scope of the amendments are not identified.” Again, a very serious concern.

“The reform plan calls for a uniformed building code but does not apply to the city of Vancouver, leaving a large gap in the coverage” — I guess because the Vancouver Charter is giving Vancouver some special rights. Again, you talk about, as much as you want, having a unified building code. But then, again — Vancouver being such a large population base and the housing and the buildings — it’s a big gap left. That’s a concern for the UBCM.

Then they go on to say: “The plan calls for strong provincial leadership but does not identify how the province will provide the wide-ranging support services needed to implement the new building measures and the funding required to implement these changes.” I think they have a very legitimate concern here. We’ve seen the history here, the last 14 years — downloading, off-loading on to the local governments. They make legislation here. They make agreements here. We’ve seen with the teachers contract previous to this one. They will make decisions on behalf of the local government but will not fund them.

If you talk to any local government out there today, they will tell you that they are burdened by off-loading by this government time and again. Again, here they have a concern. Will there be some resources available to them in order to make this a unified building code application? There are many, many concerns.

I was going to go into what the minister said on the radio. The minister has said that they are nothing to do with the training of the builders who build homes or the buildings. It is only to deal with the inspections of the homes by the inspectors and those who inspect the plans and who come and inspect the houses that are being built. That is good assurance for me, and I think that message will be passed on to the community. I’m sure the minister will be asked that question by the local media as well. So I’m sure there will be plenty of opportunity for the minister to clarify that one part.

With that, I will take my place. We will have a number of questions during the committee stage.

[1540]

B. Ralston: I rise to address Bill 3, the Building Act.

As a member who represents a riding in Surrey, of course I’m keenly interested in anything related to building or construction.

It’s a very important part of the local economy, whether building the new city centre in my riding, where there is intense construction activity and a number of high-
[ Page 6175 ]
rise apartments and some office buildings going up, or whether it’s the single-family residential industry, which employs many people in a variety of trades, whether it’s framing, whether it’s concrete work, whether it’s insulation, plumbing — the full gamut of skills that are required to construct buildings in the municipality.

Also in some parts of Surrey, where the zoning has been established, there’s a very vigorous growth in townhouses — which are, for many people, a more affordable option than a single-family dwelling. So it is with some interest that I rise to scrutinize the Building Act.

The minister has set forward the objectives of the legislation. I certainly understand the mandatory qualifications for local building officials. The minister will know, because he took the legislation through the House, that the formerly unregulated building inspection industry was the subject of legislation that set basic standards for people who would profess to do home inspections as a business, as part of the steps that people take before buying a house.

This seems reasonable, and I note that the president of the Building Officials Association, in the minister’s press release, is supporting that. I think it’s in section 11, which sets out the legislative framework for the standards that will be required.

The other proposal — I suppose, the more important proposal — is to set out uniform building code standards across the province. I think that, in essence, is a valuable approach. One wonders…. This may be balanced by the other objective, which is to give the minister and the ministry some power to scrutinize innovative building schemes.

In Canada, as a federal entity, sometimes the federal government has looked to individual provinces for innovation in social programs and then taken those programs and adapted them nationally. Just arguing, I suppose, by analogy, individual municipalities sometimes do have good ideas about innovations in building code standards. Although they may deviate from the uniform code, they may be effective innovations that should be more broadly adopted.

I suppose my concern would be: does this legislation strike the balance between giving municipalities the ability to innovate, for example, in environmental standards or, as the member for Port Coquitlam spoke of, standards for access for our disabled citizens or safety standards, such as fire retardant and the emerging sector of larger and taller wood-frame buildings? How will that balance be struck?

Certainly, I think there are people with good ideas. There are people who want to make innovations in building, although I think building is a notoriously stuffy and somewhat conservative business, and houses are built very much the way they’ve been built, certainly at the single-family level, for generations. There hasn’t been a great deal of innovation there.

So how will that balance be struck? I’d be interested in hearing from the minister when we move later in the legislative process.

The other exception which has been noted…. And this is clearly the result of the fact that Vancouver is governed by a separate charter for which they are, I think, fortunate, in the view of some other municipalities. It is custom-designed legislatively for the city of Vancouver and its particular situation.

[1545]

Since many builders operate — certainly the larger ones — in Vancouver and Surrey and perhaps Langley and Abbotsford, up the valley, where the centre of a lot of intense building activity is taking place these days, one wonders: will there be an effort on the part of Vancouver to voluntarily harmonize the standards? I know certainly Vancouver is keenly interested in environmental standards in order to meet their objective of being the greenest city in the world. Those are laudable goals. But what will be the ability of the standards that are imposed in the rest of the province to fit with or mesh with the standards that are being set in Vancouver?

I don’t raise this question in a hostile way. I think it’s a legitimate question that some will be interested in finding out the answer to — certainly those involved in construction or at the design level, whether it’s architects or building designers and planners. How will those standards mesh? Certainly there are, I think, real questions that need to be answered there.

I’m pleased to hear from the minister that the proposal to set mandatory standards for builders is not present in the legislation and has been dropped entirely. That will be welcome news to many in Surrey, although certainly there are mandatory requirements, I think, in American states. The one that comes to mind is California. But as I say, that will be welcome in many parts of Surrey, given the position that the minister has taken here in the Legislature today.

I support the objectives of the bill. As others have pointed out — and this information may be dated — certainly the Union of B.C. Municipalities did issue a news release expressing some general concerns with the detail of the legislation and the specific powers that would be conferred upon the minister and how those powers would be exercised. The minister says, if I heard him correctly, that consultation has taken place with the member municipalities of the UBCM, and they are supportive of the direction that’s being taken here. Perhaps we’ll hear more about that as the bill moves through the legislative process.

It’s always a pleasure to talk about the construction industry, the jobs and prosperity it brings. It’s one of the few industries that you can’t offshore. You can’t ship a building over — probably with the exception of prefab buildings, to some extent. For the most part, building and construction is an activity that’s firmly rooted geographically in the jurisdiction where the building is be-
[ Page 6176 ]
ing constructed and, therefore, an important driver of the local economy.

I think, indeed, during the boom, in the run-up to 2009, the B.C. Business Council said that six or seven of the ten leading industries in the Lower Mainland were building or building-related. It’s an important industry. I’m sure that this debate will be followed keenly by those affected in that industry and by consumers generally.

With those comments, I conclude my remarks.

L. Krog: I won’t trouble the ears of the members of the chamber for too long today. [Applause.] I’m delighted by the enthusiasm expressed by the member for Peace River North, I believe, at that announcement. I’m always delighted to please…. Oh, south. Obviously, the north has far more wisdom than the south in this particular case, but we won’t go there.

Interjections.

L. Krog: I would never comment on the presence or absence of any member.

Having said that, look, this is the kind of legislation that is necessary and appropriate. Housing, I hate to say it — and it’s even more readily apparent in the Lower Mainland and certainly in the city of Vancouver — has become not housing the way most of us were brought up to envision it — you know, the major asset, the place where we raise family, where we live with our loved ones.

[1550]

Housing has very much become a commodity. In Vancouver, it’s an international commodity. It is a commodity subject to the whims of the marketplace and the wealth of other parts of the world who are happily purchasing residences and, indeed, commercial buildings in what is regarded as a beautiful part of the world. No credit, lest the members opposite start to pound their desks mightily, to this government. It is an historical reflection of the beauty of this province and climate and many other factors, including the fact that we are a multicultural society, a fascinating place to live, that we have so much to offer.

Having said that, we expect when we purchase a commodity certain standards. We go into restaurants expecting the food won’t poison us. We buy automobiles expecting them to be safe and to meet certain standards. And it is surely only right and proper that if you purchase housing in British Columbia, it meets certain standards, that you know that the price you’re paying may well reflect the market price, but it will also reflect the fact that you are assured of toilets that flush, electricity that won’t set the house on fire, of systems that actually work.

My wife and I had a lovely vacation in the Dominican Republic for a couple of weeks in January. I must tell you, it was a lovely, luxurious hotel. It was gorgeous, but every once in a while, out of the blue, the toilet would start to run. I have no explanation for it. You would go and flush it. It would stop. Another hour or two later, it would start to run again. I don’t believe in ghosts, so I’m assured it wasn’t the toilet ghost.

The little things we take for granted every day — that when we flip on the switch and the electricity works, that we’re assured that the wiring in houses we purchase is going to be safe — all of those things are important. So this is a very necessary and appropriate step forward.

But I, too, want to comment about the criticism that’s already been voiced by other members. It’s a criticism I have raised in this House time and time again with respect to legislation proposed by this government — which inevitably, with their majority, gets passed — and that is this increasing reliance on regulation that doesn’t get debated in this chamber, that isn’t subject to public scrutiny in the way that legislation is here.

It diminishes the role of this Legislature. I would argue on a larger plain, it’s entirely anti-democratic. It may be easy for a government, and it may make it simpler for government, but it doesn’t make it better for the public.

That is the simple reality when you keep putting more and more power in the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, in the hands of cabinet, in the hands of individual ministers, which is what this legislation proposes to do. It is quite simply not right. I don’t suppose this government is going to change as a result of the remarks of the members here, but that is an objective reality of this legislation.

Now, there’s one other thing I want to say, because I did promise to be brief. The one other thing I want to say is going to take at least a minute or two. That is simply this. It is 2015. In my response the other day to the budget, I said there were two great issues facing our time, facing our generation. One was the growing gap between the rich and the poor, and the other was the effect of climate change.

I would have expected that having a majority, having been in power for 14 years, having access to all the information and knowledge that is available to the government and to public servants….

At a time when we could be encouraging building in a way that had the least impact on the environment, that encouraged energy consumption, that encouraged the use of new and innovative materials or indeed, old materials that are being rediscovered by many of those young, forward-looking, idealistic people who have come to occupy many of our communities, whether it’s rammed earth, whether it’s using straw and mud, whether it’s using all kinds of innovative things….

[1555]

I would have hoped and thought that this government, even as a token gesture to a younger generation that is in tune with what’s happening, could have included objects in this act, in this bill, that encouraged that, that said: “Look, this is a worthy goal for our society.”
[ Page 6177 ]

“Here,” to the building community, “we’re going to give you a basis on which to work — standards that will be applied fairly and equally across the board. But in addition, we want more out of you. We want to give the opportunity to all those young, entrepreneurial folks in our society who want to create housing that suits the 21st century.”

Would it have been that difficult to include a provision that simply said: “The goal of this legislation is to encourage safe construction, to reduce energy consumption, to encourage the use of multimaterials, to build communities that are designed for people and not for automobiles, to do all sorts of things that might have been forward-thinking”?

It’s rather like Site C. I mean, hydroelectricity has been a wonderful thing for British Columbia, but if you’re going to spend $9 billion on energy generation, maybe you should have considered a whole series of alternatives that might have generated just as much energy and had just as much economic impact — and might even have been cheaper — and put that before the public.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Oh, the Minister of Health. I always enjoy having him speak back to me in the chamber. It’s always very flattering that he pays so much attention to me. Well, I shouldn’t say that. He listens; he doesn’t really pay attention to me.

Having said that, there is a very simple example of looking at the bigger picture, of doing something forward-thinking. Even the Minister of Energy himself, I believe, said, in effect: “Well, this will be the last dam. Okay, we can’t be innovative, but this’ll be the last dam. Okay? I just want to assure everybody: it’s the last dam.” That, in and of itself, tells you that the government didn’t look at alternatives.

I come back to my point about this bill. It would have been better if this had been forward-looking legislation, if this had held out something to the building community saying, “Look, we don’t want to keep doing things the way we’ve done it in our communities, in our society, for decades just because it’s familiar, we’re used to it and it’s easy. We want to encourage something that is new, bright and modern and that attracts the thinking of all of those people who want to see real innovation.”

We could have encouraged, with this bill, new industries, new approaches, new technologies — all of which would have the impact of making this a better province to live in, ensuring reduced energy consumption — and, thus, saving the environment — and at the same time attracting capital and development here, which will otherwise, candidly, go to some other place.

This is a prime example of what happens to a government after 14 years in office. Frankly, you run out of doing something new. You run out of innovative ideas. This was another missed opportunity.

This isn’t a controversial bill in the sense that the members of the opposition are going to be pounding the desk, probably, and voting against it. It’s something. It’s a significant step forward, and I give the government credit for it.

I recognize the Minister for Housing’s kind comments to our House Leader, earlier today, acknowledging that this has been in development for a long time. I don’t know if he recognized the work done by the former parliamentary secretary, now minister, who did some work on this issue. It’s a good thing. But I repeat my point. When you could have taken the bold step, when you could have done something quite interesting, when you could have drawn attention to British Columbia — international attention — you chose not to.

That’s the problem with this government: “When there’s something innovative that could be done, we want to go back and rely on what’s tried and true.”

[1600]

Frankly, on this side of the House, we’d like a government that would have provided real leadership in British Columbia, that helped address the two issues I talked about in my response to the throne speech. On the climate side, this would have been a bold and golden opportunity to move forward.

It’s a disappointment. I hope the government is listening. I hope they’re paying as much attention today as the Minister of Health is. Maybe the next time they have an opportunity, they won’t pass it up. They’ll be forward-thinking and look to the 22nd century instead of back to the 20th.

A. Weaver: I must say, I do agree with the member for Nanaimo about the importance of climate and actually having that reflected in building codes. There have been steps made in the province of British Columbia, without any doubt, in that area. I assume and hope that there will be in the future. Speaking with….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The minister points out that the building code has been greening for the past seven years. I agree that there have been advances in that area. My concern, of course, is whether or not this bill will actually limit the innovation that has occurred and will continue to occur at the municipal level.

There’s a lot of good in this bill. I’ve been in contact with municipalities in the area that I serve, and they’re generally supportive of this bill. There’s strength within the streamlining of the building requirements across the province, particularly in a region like the capital regional district, with our multitude of municipalities and subsequent building codes. There does need to be standardization, and that has certainly been conveyed to me.

The intent, of course, is to reduce costs and improve
[ Page 6178 ]
efficiency, productivity and innovation in the construction sector. It’s hard to argue against attempts to reduce bureaucracy, red tape and costs in the construction sector. Of course, builders and construction associations have been lobbying for a streamlined Building Act for many, many years. As a stakeholder in the building business…. Of course, listening to an important stakeholder is of great importance.

Some of the local governments that we’ve looked into, particularly the ones that I represent, have expressed concerns not so much about what they’ve read in the bill, but the devil is within the details, in some sense. They’re not sure to what extent, at this stage, it will actually affect them or affect their ability to take local concerns in their building practices.

There are some concerns about streamlining. But generally, streamlining the building requirements, especially qualifications for building officials, would certainly help reduce confusion and improve the efficiency for builders.

Some of the concerns and questions that have been expressed to me lie in these finer details. In particular, there have been questions with respect to whether or not this bill actually provides a minimum standard or a maximum standard in some cases, whether it will limit innovation or allow for innovation. Again, this is where the devil is in the details. We’ll hear more about that as we go into committee stage.

One specific and very local example that was brought to my attention — and I think this is shared not only in the region of Oak Bay but across British Columbia — was the issue with respect to local requirements for fire regulations, fire sprinkler regulations. There are areas that are not well served by access for fire trucks, access for fire reduction. These areas do have and are required within local areas to have various sprinkler regulations. We only have to look at what happened on Mount Washington just this past week for some of the ramifications of perhaps not having more aggressive fire regulations in a community that is not well served, that does not have good access to fire services.

There’s also some question and concern about the extent to which this bill will retroactively remove some of the unique bylaws within the municipalities. I look forward to exploring that further. Again, it’s important — as the member for Nanaimo, the member for Port Coquitlam and others have expressed — to actually ensure this bill facilitates innovation rather than limits innovation. I’m sure, again, in committee stage we’ll see more of that.

Finally, the big question municipalities are asking is: who’s going to pay the cost? Is the government going to be repaid? Or is this, in some sense, going to be downloading of costs onto municipalities? Or will it be alleviating municipalities?

[1605]

There is a very real concern out there that while builders will be saving money, the question is: what about local governments? Will they be picking up the bills, or will they actually be reducing their costs as well?

The rationale for this, of course, is that there are far too many pressing issues, as we try to deal with our infrastructure debt in municipalities across British Columbia that has grown over decades of neglect and is now having to be dealt with through year-after-year increases in municipal housing taxes, property taxes. There is simply no more room for growth in these areas to cover downloading of costs onto municipalities.

Once again, overall, I’m very pleased to support this bill at this stage, and I will look forward to seeing more information in the details as we move to committee stage.

S. Robinson: I rise today to speak to Bill 3, the Building Act. As I read the proposal, I put on my city councillor hat — I wore it for five years — and I thought, as I read through it: how would this affect local communities and decision-making of local communities?

On the surface, this looks to be a good idea, streamlining building requirements to create the same standards across British Columbia. It helps make things more efficient, helps make things more consistent.

Really, when I think about our buildings, they’re not just bricks or wood or concrete. Our buildings are really parts of our community. We are in our buildings all the time, and our buildings set the tone for what it’s like to be in our communities.

Having a building code that looks at all the aspects of public safety, that looks at accessibility…. We’re certainly an aging population, and every single one of us will have some accessibility challenges in our lives. So making sure that we have a building code that is as accessible as possible, that means that we could age in place, that means that anybody in our circle can participate in our lives and in our community activities — these are the things that are really important.

The greening of our communities. I was preparing for estimates that are coming up in the coming weeks and reviewing the work plan for the Minister of Community Development. In it, one of the objectives that she has is to make sure that local governments sign on to green their communities. I think the goals are 96 percent, which is a very high percentage for local governments to sign on, to make the commitment to reduce their carbon footprint.

Moving to a uniform building code — I hope that that’s part of what we’ll be doing. It’ll make it easier for local governments to meet the targets set up by another ministry in this government.

The fourth aspect that I think is important to consider is affordability. I do hope that, moving forward, there’ll be some consideration for allowing secondary suites in duplex strata units, for example. I think making sure that different communities can adapt to the challenges
[ Page 6179 ]
of the rising costs of housing — that the building code will allow for these sorts of things — is something that I hope the minister will take into consideration. It’s certainly something that’s important in my community and across the Lower Mainland and the rest of the province.

Overall, if we can address really good public safety, really good accessibility, innovation and opportunities for greening our buildings and finding ways to make them more affordable — this is all a good thing.

As the member from Oak Bay mentioned, the devil is in the details. There is certainly some concern about what this will mean. Governing by regulation has some challenges around that, because we don’t know what the details are, and there will be decisions made by the minister and by the cabinet that won’t help local governments prepare for the kinds of things that they need to be prepared for when it comes to changes in the building code.

[1610]

There are also some concerns just around this idea of efficiency. I think it’s really interesting — this belief that when you create the same standard across B.C., it will streamline, but if you have a particular issue in your community and you need an exclusion, you make this application. Then it becomes: “Well, how long will that take?”

Then you can apply for…. There’s another level. If you don’t like the answer, you can go back and ask for reconsideration, an appeal. It makes me wonder how much that is going to cost not just local governments but also the builder, who’s waiting. Their money is tied up, and they have to wait. Is it going to be six weeks, eight weeks, 12 weeks? Whereas local governments have a faster turnaround time than I think a larger bureaucracy, than this government will have.

Certainly, in my community, Minister, we were able to move things as we needed to. So there are some concerns about what implications that’s going to have.

There are also concerns about how much power gets placed in the hands of a minister. Other people here before me — the member for Port Coquitlam, as well as the member for Nanaimo — commented and reflected that the minister is not going to be here forever. He might wish to be here forever, but at some point there will be other opportunities waiting for him, and there will be another minister who now assumes responsibility.

Do we really understand exactly how that’s going to be played out in the future? What does that mean for local governments that are left trying to fill in the gaps and trying to make plans for their communities, not knowing exactly what decisions will be made going forward?

I do want to mention some issues that have come up locally in Coquitlam when I was on council. I think this is an example of where flexibility is needed. Coquitlam decided a number of years ago to develop Burke Mountain. It’s the side of a mountain, covered in forest. There’s building going on. It’s very, very active. The community reflected and expressed some concern about fire interface and the risk of forest fire coming on over to the community and, if there is a fire in the community right at the edge of the forest, the impact on the forest.

Having that kind of flexibility at the local level to address unique needs for one neighbourhood, not even the entire city, leaves communities wondering. So how are we going to address that? What’s the protocol? How is that going to play out so that we can protect our citizens and we can protect our forests and our assets?

Having said that, I do look forward to more questions at the committee stage. I think there are going to be a number of us asking the minister those questions.

With that, I conclude my remarks.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Natural Gas Development and Responsible for Housing.

Hon. R. Coleman: It is going to be an interesting discussion because, as I’ve heard people talk about this in the last hour and a half, it’s really clear to me that they don’t understand that we already have a building code, that we’ve been greening it for the last seven or eight years. We add things into it for disabilities — access and those things — under consultation.

This act is about trying to get some standardization, with some flexibility to be able to consult with communities on innovation. It’s also about being able to innovate on housing, which we are unable to do today.

Some of the members have made some interesting comments, and I think it’s important that I respond to them.

The first one is when the member for Port Coquitlam was speaking. I want to use this example, because this is a failing of both local government and of the building code, and of consultation that took place a decade and a half ago in construction in British Columbia. This is why we’re trying to do something.

We have tens of thousands of people who lost their homes or had to over-mortgage above the value of the home because their homes leaked. They leaked because everybody had a way of pointing a finger at everybody else as being at fault. One community — one of the major cities in British Columbia — decided to change a calculation.

Remember, we live in a coastal wet climate. Just think about that for a second.

[1615]

In this particular city, all the wood-frame construction buildings had 24-inch overhangs over top of them. Do you know why? Because the overhang catches the water and drains it down in so that we miss the building and don’t get an ingress of water into a building. They decided to change the calculation of the floor-square-foot ratio of a building in that city from the footing to the overhang. Some group of people in some planning department and building officials made that change.
[ Page 6180 ]

Guess what happened. In order to get the square footage, the overhangs disappeared, and we got a whole bunch of leaky condos. Other cities followed suit across B.C., and for a long period of time it was more common to see staging and scaffolding and screening outside buildings as they tried to fix the rain screen on them because of that particular situation.

We had people who decided they would take away the flashing, which had been around windows for decades under building codes locally. So now the water gets to run down the building and catches the little easing sticking partly outside of the building. It leaks in, and we get a leaky building.

You have to understand that if you don’t understand how a building works, you shouldn’t be actually changing the code autocratically.

One of the members that spoke here today comes from a community that actually did one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen. I just want you to know that today in British Columbia, we change the building code not by legislation and not by regulation but by directive. Fortunately, we have the power to fix things by directive in British Columbia.

One of the members that just spoke in this House a little while ago comes from a community that decided by the advice of a building person to change their local building code to select a certain type of window that they thought would be better for their community only in all their future homes in their community.

You know what they did? It wasn’t because of FSR. It wasn’t because of heat. It wasn’t because it wasn’t triple-paned. It wasn’t because it wasn’t well manufactured. It was an opinion somebody took and made a change in a local building code. Guess who they were eliminating? Almost 80 percent of everybody that manufactured a window in British Columbia, making it so you had to buy your window from another country, even though our windows meet specifications for heat and ingress and moisture and all of those things.

We had the same situation in another community. They decided they didn’t like certain kinds of doors and decided they would dictate on certain subdivisions a certain kind of exterior door, which had to come from outside of British Columbia because our manufacturers were different in certain standards. There was nothing wrong with the door. In actual fact, the R-factor of the door being approved was worse than the ones that were being built in B.C.

As you go through this, we’re talking about a building code. We’re talking about trying to get some standards and understanding and education so that those kinds of things can’t happen, so that in the future….

One person mentioned stairs a minute ago. When I was building, I had one community beside another. The building inspector in one community said the riser needed to be 7½ inches on a set of stairs going up to a deck or within a house. Less than a mile away the neighbouring building official said: “I want 7 3/8 inches on my stairs.” Now, first of all, that’s expensive, but it’s nonsensical, because we know what the standard should be for a stair, right?

One of the things we found when we went along and said we wanted to have innovation with regards to disabilities in homes is that we need to move to where we can put the backing in the wall so that somebody can age in place, and put in the bars they need in their homes or the roll-in showers — for the accessibility to be able to be changed.

One of the interesting ones came from one of my friends that happens to have a disability, who said to me, “Within the home I’d like to have the option of the lever-handled doors, the lever-handled taps and those sorts of things that help me with my disability. But I don’t think you should make it a standard practice that every home should have a lever-handled exterior door,” which some communities think they should do.

Now, if you’re following what’s happened in Toronto and Edmonton recently, where two young children have walked out into the cold, you’ve sort of got to think about what you’re going to put on that front door.

[1620]

I happen to have a lever-handled door on the front door of my house. I now have a latch in the upper left-hand corner, because I have a two-year-old grandson who can open that lever-handled door and be in the street faster than I can catch him, and I don’t want that to happen.

Sometimes your code can’t be so blind as to not recognize the innovation that’s needed or the changes for public safety and those sorts of things. As we go through this, you have to understand, and understand this as we go through the debate, it’s not about whether the minister has power under regulation.

If you look at how governments work, how forestry works and other things, you have directors at levels in forest districts that actually get to make decisions on forest practices and decisions on permits, because a delegated authority has to take place. The same things happen today in Canada and in British Columbia on the national and provincial building code.

It’s important that you can adapt and that you don’t have to go back to legislation and rewrite something every two years in order to have something that operates and functions for a vast variety of people who actually rely on housing and buildings and structures within their communities.

A building code should address, for instance, lever-handled doors in every washroom in British Columbia that needs to be accessible to the disabled, because that’s the best way for it to work. It should also address how that door opens, or doesn’t, for easier access for someone in a wheelchair. Those are the things that we’re doing already.
[ Page 6181 ]

One of the members opposite brought up licensed builders, the fact that this…. I sort of said to him across the way: “This has nothing to do with it.” We have legislation in British Columbia. We have licensed residential builders in British Columbia, and we continue to build that infrastructure. That’s got nothing to do with this legislation. It has been in place under the Homeowner Protection Act for way longer than we’ve been in government.

We have moved to grandfathering our licensed residential builders but then moving to where they can upgrade their skills, as new products and things come into the marketplace, so they can continue to build on their expertise in the marketplace. That’s just sort of the thing we do, but it has nothing to do with this piece of legislation.

The thing we have to understand is that you can’t take for granted. It doesn’t add powers. The powers exist under directive today to make changes under the building code, and thank goodness they do sometimes.

When you get somebody that has a local issue in their mind and wants to change a building code that disenfranchises British Columbia companies and manufacturers of windows and doors — people who make roofing products in British Columbia, things that are actually accepted within the building code — because there’s a local bias to something, that’s where you should have standardization in the building code. You should have it because it has to be fair, it has to be understandable, and people need to be able to make investments in your province in order to be able to do their business well.

I think this is going to be very instructive for some members — those of us that have had to deal with the building code, both in the private sector and as a critic, and then as a minister having to deal with the particular file and know some of the challenges. The stories that I spoke about a few minutes ago are only a couple of the smallest examples that I can tell you about. Maybe we’ll get a chance to get into some of that narrative in committee stage.

Look, the reality is this. You’re greening it, and you’re already doing a number of things on climate change. You’ve been working on things to do with how to do things relative to how you can move quicker on things like solar roofs in areas in some places where municipalities say, “We don’t like the looks of them, so we don’t want to have it in our building code to have a solar roof” — which is a greening of the building code.

There should be able to be a place where the government says: “Actually, we believe in climate change, we believe in saving energy, and so we’re having this in the code because we believe it’s important.” Actually, most people would agree with us on that.

As we go forward and debate this bill, I look forward to committee stage. I do know that it’s taken a long time to get here. I also know, as I said in my opening remarks, there’s an extremely long transition time that we will go through, as we transition this, so we can harmonize with local government. We will work with them.

But we have to understand that there will be times when we see something that we like. As the members opposite know, I don’t ever hesitate to steal a good idea on housing, with regards to whether it be shelters or ideas about supportive housing or how meals and other clinical supports can help someone who’s homeless on our streets.

[1625]

This is no different. We need to be able to be innovative. We need to be able to figure out where the opportunities are, and we can’t be afraid of seeing how these things work.

One of the real interesting ones I’ve come across in the last few years is the objection to having a six-storey wood-frame construction building. We’re a forest province. There are buildings built of cross-laminated timbers worldwide up into the ten- to 12-storey height. We know how fire works with them. We know how sprinklers work with them. We know how six-storey residential construction actually brings down the cost and affordability of the building for people to purchase.

Yet when we brought that in, there were a number of communities that said they would not allow that in their building code. They didn’t want to go two storeys higher in wood. We had fire chiefs saying it’s dangerous. It’s impossible. Yet we could show them, worldwide, where this has worked.

Here we are, a jurisdiction that builds with wood, having people telling us we shouldn’t have a building code that allows us to build with wood. It is kind of stunning sometimes. That’s why, when you move to harmonize and set down the standards, it’s important. It’s important so that people will realize what is important on the standardization of a building code and what that means with regards to the ability to innovate.

The innovation we’ve done in the past has never taken a year or two to do. People in municipalities have come to us with ideas. It gets done pretty fast at a directive level. But sometimes it has to be the reverse. It has to be the reverse when you do a directive because somebody has decided to bring in a window that isn’t manufactured in B.C. and to eliminate all windows from British Columbia, even though they meet all of the standards and structure and the R-factors that are necessary for climate and heat and retention and the proper building of the building.

We’ve learned over the years. Leaky condos have taught us some lessons. But ad hoc–wise we’ve done this, and we still have difficulties with some communities that still want to have other standards. I today believe, in the way they approach their building — because they don’t understand a building itself and how it breathes and operates — that they make changes to their building code that will actually put at risk the people’s investment that they’re making today as there become problems with either mould, ingress of water or other aspects in the future.
[ Page 6182 ]

All we’re doing is getting to where we can do this together to build a safe standard for building in British Columbia, have people understand it and make sure the products that are being approved in the buildings in B.C. are innovative, can deal with the future but, at the same time, can actually be adaptable to the future of the marketplace. Been a long time coming.

I know the member for Port Coquitlam and I were joking earlier in our remarks. I was the critic in the ’90s, he was the minister in the ’90s, and we talked about standardizing a lot of things in the building code in the ’90s. So we’ve been having this conversation, the two of us, for a decade and a half. It’s here so we can move that into a place where we can actually make it a functional thing for the future of British Columbia.

On that, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 3, Building Act, 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. M. Polak: I call continued debate on the throne speech.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

On the subamendment (continued).

Hon. T. Lake: It’s a great pleasure for me to rise in this House today to speak on the Speech from the Throne.

We always like to, when we’re doing our first speech of a session, recognize the people who allow us, with their support, to do the work we do here in Victoria and in our constituencies.

[1630]

First and foremost, of course, are our families. For me, that’s my wife, Lisa, and my three girls — Shannon, Stephanie and Gemma — who have been supporting me in a political life for about 12, almost 13, years now. As many of us know in this House, that is something that we really depend upon. Without that support, we wouldn’t be able to do the work we do.

I have to mention my dog, Pal, because he’s a big part of my family, something that keeps me sane by running with me and providing that kind of companionship that dog lovers, cat lovers, animal lovers really appreciate and understand. Pal, I’m sorry that I can’t be home as much to take you out for those runs that you so appreciate, but I know I’m always happy to see your wagging tail when I get home at midnight on Thursday nights.

I want to thank my staff in my constituency office. That’s my constituency assistants: Kirsty Morris, who been with me for a number of years, back to when I was the mayor of Kamloops; and Gil Yaron, who has joined us over the last year and a half. They do a fantastic job. I don’t think people realize how much our constituency assistants do the day-to-day work helping people who are accessing government services, and how much their role is appreciated by us and by the people whom they serve. So I want to say thank you to Kirsty and Gil.

Here in Victoria my ministry staff — Sabrina Loiacono, Kyle Marsh, Eric Wallace-Deering, Kellie O’Brien, Shaina Jukes, Rhiannon Martin and Debbie Wade — all take very good care of me. Yes, it takes that many people to look after the Minister of Health in the busy times we have here in Victoria. They do a remarkable job managing a busy schedule and making sure that I’m as prepared as I possibly can be — also helping with constituency issues that people might have with the Ministry of Health. They do a remarkable job.

And just a big thank you to my deputy minister, Stephen Brown, who leads the Ministry of Health — the public service. In fact, I found out today, after I asked how big our organization was compared to other organizations, that we have 180,000 employees throughout the ministry when you look at the health authorities and all the people working in the public health care system in British Columbia. That would make us larger than any other private business in Canada — multiple times the size of banks, of Air Canada. We have a remarkable number of transactions with the public each and every day. So to Stephen: thank you for your leadership.

Health care. I want to say a few words about health care. I will keep my remarks fairly brief this afternoon because I know other people want to speak to the throne at this opportunity today.

Health care is something that is obviously a core function of government, and one of the things — obviously, by looking at the size of our budget, about 43 percent of the total budget of the provincial government, at $17 billion — that people look primarily to the provincial government to do: to support them in terms of staying healthy and then addressing their health care needs when they need it.

Health care is changing. The health care system in Canada was primarily designed in the 1960s when baby boomers were young. There were lots of kids running around, and life was quite different than it is today. It’s a lot different — or needs to be a lot different — today than it was in the 1960s, yet the institutions that were built in that era are remarkably unchanged today in 2015.

One of the first things that my deputy and I did when I became Minister of Health in June of 2013 was to do a scan of what we are doing today, what had been done in the last number of years and what the needs were of
[ Page 6183 ]
people in British Columbia — the needs of a population of 4.6 million people; an aging population; a very diverse population, much more diverse than it was in the 1960s. It’s a population that is spread over a vast area with topographical challenges like no other place on earth, I believe.

What we did was a lot of consultation. We did a lot of reading. We did a lot of interaction with health authorities, with physicians, with nurses, with other jurisdictions and found out what was going on elsewhere and what we thought we needed to do to meet the needs of the people of B.C. today — but importantly, the people of B.C. tomorrow.

[1635]

We put together a strategic priorities documents. The core message of that strategic priorities document was putting the patient at the centre of all the decision in health care — which sounds, remarkably, almost facile. You would think that that would be something that we’d just naturally do, that all decisions are made for the good of the patient.

Yet because health care has become so entrenched, so institutionalized, so solidified in the way we have done things and because of the different interests working in health care, the patient sometimes is not the centre of decisions. That formed the basis of our priorities document that has been posted on our website for the last year.

What we wanted to do was make sure that the experience and outcomes of the patient were improved, that the population of the province was improved on a population-health basis and that we achieved the best possible outcome for taxpayers. Those are the three tenets of the Institute of Healthcare Improvement that are accepted by many jurisdictions as really the foundation of delivering health care.

Although B.C. has some of the best health care outcomes in all of Canada…. In fact, according to the Conference Board of Canada, it’s third when you look at OECD countries around the world. That is a remarkable achievement largely due to the combination of the personal responsibility that British Columbians take for their health — by the low smoking rates we have, by the low obesity rates we have, by the love of outdoors, the love of physical activity, the love of good nutrition — with the excellent delivery of primary care and community care and acute care that we have in the province of British Columbia and the health care prevention programs that we have through Healthy Families B.C.

The combination has resulted in the best outcomes in terms of longevity, in terms of infant mortality, in terms of cardiac care. We stack up very well: tops in Canada, third in the world, according to the Conference Board of Canada. But we need to make sure that we’re not being complacent. We need to meet the health care needs of tomorrow’s generation.

Increasingly, it is obvious that we need to move care out of the acute care system — out of the big hospital in the middle of town and into home and community — and provide the resources for people to access primary care to meet their needs to stay healthy and to look after their needs when they find health challenges, whether they’re physical challenges or mental health challenges. We need to support people to be able to stay in their homes longer so that they don’t have to be hospitalized and end up in residential care before they really need to.

Allocating resources away from the acute care system into home and community is something that we will strive to do but is not easily accomplished because it’s difficult to take resources away from that acute care facility where so many people have their needs met.

Just in my own family recently…. The experience, the tremendous service we get from our acute care facilities around the province of British Columbia…. Time after time I hear stories of people that are, first of all, seen and taken by our excellent paramedics, B.C. Ambulance Service, to a hospital where they’re cared for by excellent physicians, specialists, nurses, care aides and hospital staff. When people really need our health care system, there are remarkable stories that speak to the excellent care that we have in the province of British Columbia.

But we also hear stories of people that are waiting in hospital beds too long to find a place, a more appropriate level of care in the community. We also hear too many stories about people who are waiting for the care they need — often, elective surgeries to deal with problems related to aging.

Those are some of the challenges that we face in health care — challenges that we are prepared to meet through our priorities document and working with health authorities throughout the province of British Columbia to deliver health care with the right resources, to the right patients, at the right time, in the right place. That will require dedication on the part of the Ministry of Health but also on the part of health authorities and, of course, the 180,000 people working throughout the health care system in British Columbia.

[1640]

We have an ambitious capital plan because, even though it would be nice if we didn’t need hospitals, we still need to have those acute care facilities and the level of care, the technology that’s involved, constantly needs to be updated.

Many of our older hospitals have wards that are still, in some ways, a model that was created in the 1960s and 1970s, with four patients or more to a room, whereas the new modern standard is to have 80 percent single rooms and 20 percent double rooms. We have an ambitious capital plan to make sure that we’re moving those facilities into the modern era.

Some of that work is happening in my home community of Kamloops, with the $80 million being spent on the clinical services building that is under construction at the moment, and then also a commitment to the second
[ Page 6184 ]
phase of Royal Inland Hospital, with a new surgical in-patient building and dedicated emergency entrance. A total of $400 million will be spent on Royal Inland Hospital, which serves not just the great city of Kamloops but the communities stretching from Blue River in the North Thompson, over to Ashcroft and Logan Lake and up into 100 Mile House, over to Chase and to areas to the east as well.

Other things that that we are doing is leading the world in things like HIV and AIDS. I think that people around the world recognize British Columbia as a global leader. Since 1996, HIV- and AIDS-related deaths have decreased by a remarkable 80 percent, thanks in large part to the Centre for Excellence under the leadership of Dr. Julio Montaner, and the seek and treat for optimal prevention of HIV/AIDS, and treatment as prevention, which has really reduced, in fact, the prevalence of HIV and AIDS in British Columbia and is being emulated around the world.

The accomplishments in capital investments that we’re making extend beyond my own hometown of Kamloops. It would certainly not be fair to just talk about what’s going on in my city, but we can look at this: over $600 million for new hospitals in the Comox Valley and Campbell River as part of the North Island hospitals project; in the Kootenays the East Kootenay Regional Hospital, $11 million toward a new ICU and electrical upgrade.

I was just up in Burns Lake, where we opened up the Lakes District Hospital and Health Centre, a $55 million, state-of-the-art facility that will meet the needs of the people of Lakes District for many, many years to come. Under construction, and hopefully within a year of completion, is the $50 million Queen Charlotte–Haida Gwaii hospital, and the recent opening of the $62 million HOpe Centre at Lions Gate Hospital, which is an acute mental health care facility.

Of course, we saw the opening of the Surrey Memorial renovation and new emergency department, neonatal intensive care unit and critical care tower — over $500 million there — as well as $400 million in both Vernon and Kelowna for patient care towers, and the Interior heart and surgical centre in Kelowna that is under construction, $380 million, which will accommodate a new cardiac centre, surgical centre, laboratory and in-patient unit.

I could spend a lot of time talking about the investments we’re making in health care in the province of British Columbia, but I think it’s fair to say that while we are leading Canada and leading the world, in many respects, we can always do better. My goal is to place the patient at the centre of all of our decisions and to continue to work hard to make sure that we are improving our system to meet the needs of the population of British Columbia for the next ten, 20, and 30 years. To do that, we will need to shift our thinking into community, into home, so that we make sure we’re delivering the right kind of care for people where they need it.

This government is dedicated to improving the health care for the people of British Columbia. This throne speech I think represents the hope that we have for the province not just in health care but in opportunities for economic development, for education, for social security, to ensure that people that have an opportunity are able to grasp those opportunities and also to care for those who have more challenges, that are vulnerable, that need the government, in the form of the province of British Columbia, to help them as they navigate their way through their challenges and are able to reach up to hope, optimism and a better future for them and their families.

[1645]

With that, I will take my seat and look forward to more debate on the throne speech.

C. James: It really is an honour to rise and respond to the throne speech as the MLA for Victoria–Beacon Hill. I never take it for granted, walking into this building and to be re-elected to represent a community I grew up in. I’m one of those very fortunate MLAs who not only grew up in this community but lives right close to the Legislature. I know I often get ribbed by MLAs who are away from their home and who don’t get to go home to their own bed when the Legislature is sitting. I am one of those rare MLAs who actually gets the chance to go home when the Legislature is sitting, and I live very close to this community.

To be able to represent a community you grew up in is an extra-special privilege. I joke about meeting my grade 3 teacher at the grocery store in the aisle while she tells me the stories that she remembers from school. As I said, I don’t take that for granted. That is a very rare privilege, and I feel very fortunate that I raised my children in this community and I now have the opportunity to be able to share time with my grandchildren in this community.

As others have done when they’ve risen to speak to the throne or to the budget, I want to take a couple of minutes to thank people who have supported me in this role as well. There isn’t a one of us in this Legislature who got here by ourselves or who could continue in this job without the support of many, many people.

I’m very fortunate here at the Legislature to have the support of my legislative assistant, Heidi Reid, who has been with me in a number of different roles that I’ve played in politics over the last while and provides me with great support, a great sense of humour and keeps me going on many days. I appreciate her work.

I’ve been very well served, as well, and continue to be, by the research and communications staff that we have — and I’ve had a number of different staff. Currently Jeff Dean and Ed May provide great support to the work that we do.

Then, of course, there’s the work that goes on in our constituency offices. You know, this is a very difficult role, and I think this is something we would find agree-
[ Page 6185 ]
ment on in this Legislature: that the people who are in our constituency offices when we are busy in this place or when we’re on the road or when we’re travelling are the front line. They are our faces in our community offices. They are the people who have to manage what goes on and who have to make sure that we get the information as soon as we can.

I, again, have been incredibly well served by individuals. I want to first recognize Joanna Groves, who has been my constituency assistant for a long period of time and right now is at home enjoying her maternity leave with her beautiful baby girl, Madeleine. I want to wish Joanna well while she takes this important time with her new daughter, a first baby. It’s time well spent. Even though I miss her at the office, I think she’s doing important work.

I was fortunate to have Robyn Spilker, who has come in to replace Joanna during this mat leave and is providing exemplary service in my community office, and of course, Alice Ross, who has served other members on this side in past times and who serves me well in my community office as well.

I want to recognize, too, my incredible family. I am fortunate to have my parents living in town. I had the best role models possible in this job. I really did see every day in the house that I grew up in the kind of good work and support that need to be done.

I thank my parents and my ever-patient husband, Al, who has stood by me and supported me through all of the years that I’ve spent in politics and who has been here. He’s had his own political life, as well, as Chief of his First Nation and has just come back home. We are joking that after a number of years we’ll finally get a chance to actually live in one place at one time, and so far, so good. We’re enjoying that opportunity. I’m very grateful to have his support and could not do this job without him.

[1650]

My children, Alison and Evan. My daughter-in-law and son-in-law, Bronwyn and Chris. And of course, my grandkids, Hayden and Charlie. I ask my children to plug their ears, but I have to say being a grandparent is one of the most extraordinary experiences of my entire life.

Interjection.

C. James: I hear, from the other grandfather who’s in the room, that it is an extraordinary experience. If you ever need a reminder about why you do this work, what’s really important in life, it is having grandchildren.

I started off with those thank-yous, because I really want to talk a little bit about what drives me in this work and what has shaped my values. I think that is important when we look at a throne speech, when we look at a government’s choices and when we look at why we all came here — why we all came to this Legislature to do the work that we do.

I mentioned earlier that I had incredible role models in my family. I really did grow up in a family that believed that we all had a responsibility to give back. It wasn’t simply the words that I saw in my household. I saw it lived every single day by my parents and my grandparents.

We had foster kids. My grandparents had over 40 foster kids over the time period that I was growing up. My mom was a single parent until she remarried when I was in my teens. We grew up in a household where it was expected that everybody had something to contribute, that everyone had something to offer and that we had a responsibility to offer that.

I feel very blessed that I had that kind of upbringing, that I had the kind of household where there’s a belief that everyone, at some time in our lives, may need a hand up — not a handout, but a hand up — to be able to access opportunity, that we all have an obligation to help that, to make sure that that occurs, that everyone has an opportunity to offer what they have to contribute and that they have an opportunity to succeed in whatever way that means to them.

When I took a look at this throne speech, I took that time to look at where the government’s priorities were, to take a look and see where their values were. I’ve talked a little bit about the values that I grew up with and the kinds of values that I bring to my work in this Legislature. When we take a look at the throne speech and at the direction of government, I think it’s important to take a look at what values you see reflected there, what choices have been made by this government. A throne speech and a budget really do speak to that.

I also want to take a little bit of time, while I have the floor today, to talk about my constituents and some of their priorities that I’ve heard over this last while. Again, just as we bring our values, we bring and reflect the kinds of things that we see and hear in our community.

I have to say that the first thing that stood out in the throne speech this year for me really was the lack of vision, the lack of ideas and the lack of approaches to deal with either the strengths or the challenges that we see in British Columbia.

Often when you see a throne speech, you will see big goals. You will see lofty promises. Yes, sometimes they’re long on words. We will all remember the great goals that came in when the government first came in under the previous Premier. We had golden goals at one time, of decades. We had promises to be the most literate jurisdiction. There were very big, lofty goals. But I have to say that not only did we not see any of those big, lofty goals in this throne speech; we saw very little in this throne speech. I think that’s extraordinary.

To me, at a time when we are still going through a difficult economic time globally, when we’re coming out of that challenge and facing some real issues, when we see in our province middle-class families squeezed and really having difficulties, you’d have expected that that would
[ Page 6186 ]
have been acknowledged and recognized in a throne speech. Certainly, I, as an MLA, would have expected government to recognize that and, if they were in touch with what was going on in communities around British Columbia, to actually have some breaks in there for some of those middle-class families who’ve been squeezed, to actually recognize it.

I think the important thing to remember is that the families that I talk to, the hard-working British Columbians that I see every single day, certainly don’t expect government to solve all their problems. They’re, in fact, working hard themselves. They understand that. They know. They feel a sense of responsibility.

[1655]

But they don’t expect their government to make their life tougher. They don’t expect government — when they’re doing their part — to actually get in the way and make it more difficult. Yet that’s, in fact, just what we saw in this throne speech. That’s exactly what we saw.

What was the government’s response to those hard-working families, to the people who continue to support our province and continue to keep us going? The response was: “You’re going to have to pay more in fees, in premiums, in costs, in services. And oh, by the way, while you’re paying more, you’re also going to be getting less.”

I want to take just a couple of minutes to take a look at some of those additional pressures and additional costs. I’ve heard some members say: “Well, you know, things haven’t gone up that much, and it hasn’t been that difficult for families, and people are getting ahead.” Well, that’s certainly not the experience that I am hearing and that I’m sure other members must be hearing in their communities. In fact, people are finding it tougher and tougher to get by. They’re finding it more and more difficult to manage month to month.

Let’s take a look at hydro rates. We’ve seen hydro rates, since 2001, under this government, increase by 74 percent. Is that the end of it? No. In fact, hydro rates are going to be going up 28 percent over the next five years. Again, when I talk to families, they’re doing everything they can to try and conserve, to try and manage, to try and make sure that they’re bringing those bills down. But it’s pretty tough, when you’re stuck with that kind of increase — 28 percent over the next five years after a 74 percent increase — to try and manage to get ahead.

What about medical service premiums? They’ve increased 92 percent under the B.C. Liberals, and just like hydro rates, they’re actually going to continue to increase too. So when families think, “Maybe I’m just going to get a break. Maybe they’ve raised them as high as they can raise them,” no. In fact, they’re going to keep increasing by 4 percent for the next number of years each year.

Medical service premiums are particularly difficult because, whether you’re a family making $45,000 or a family making $400,000, you pay the same amount for medical service premiums. Not only do you see these huge kinds of increases, you also see how regressive the MSP system is — that it does not provide a break for families. In fact, it layers on even more costs for families at a time when it’s already difficult.

ICBC rates — a 41 percent increase.

Ferry fares. Those of us who live on the Island know that we’ve seen a huge increase on major routes and a 100 percent increase on minor routes. And the costs on the ferry routes aren’t simply difficult for individuals and for families. I think sometimes people on the other side will say: “Well, you know, people are heading over to Vancouver or to other parts of the province for a vacation or for travel.” In fact, using the ferry system is a requirement for many people on the Island. It’s also an economic driver.

There was a wonderful report done. The Union of B.C. Municipalities put together an independent report that really pointed out the economic impact of this kind of ferry fare increase on the economy of Vancouver Island — the increased costs of goods and services. Again, we talk about families being squeezed. Well, here you are increasing ferry fares, which increase the price of goods and services and costs for families.

What was the response from the minister? The response was to brush it off. “It’s a report that doesn’t matter; we’re not going to pay attention to it.” We’re going to continue to see ferry fares go up — a real insult to people on Vancouver Island and, in fact, to the people all over this province who know the kinds of challenges that we see there.

[1700]

Tuition has more than doubled. I’ll talk a little bit about education as I go on because education really is the opportunity for people to get themselves out of poverty, to be able to get better-paying jobs, to be able to support themselves and their families. Well, even there, we’ve seen tuition more than double.

Long-term care rates. There are many families I talk to that are both caring for their children — trying to give them the best start in life, trying to put a little bit of money aside for post-secondary education for college or university or trades training — and are also looking after their parents. They are providing support for their aging parents, some of whom may have to make the transition into long-term care. Heartbreaking stories of the kinds of stress that families are under, trying to do their best.

Long-term-care rates under this government have gone up 93 percent. And was there anything in the throne speech that spoke to these issues? Was there anything in the throne speech that spoke to that hard-working family that’s trying to care for their children and is looking after their parents as well? Nothing. There is no mention in the throne speech of these kinds of pressures. There was no recognition of the kinds of challenges that are facing families.
[ Page 6187 ]

I chatted with a senior at my grocery store in my neighbourhood who told me that her husband had passed away and they had lost their house. She’d had to go back to work, 67 years old. She’s now working as a cashier at the grocery store, full-time. She actually works afternoons and evenings. During the day she tries to provide child care for her grandkids because her daughter’s husband can’t afford to pay for child care and go to work, because their job doesn’t make enough money to be able to provide.

Those families deserved a break in this throne speech. Those families should have been a priority for this government. Yet we didn’t see it. Those people who are working part-time jobs, who are looking around for full-time work, who are trying to pay their bills, who are trying to find affordable housing…. Again, a huge challenge in my community.

Now, it’s not that the government didn’t make choices in this throne speech and in this budget. In fact, the government did make a clear choice. The government found over $230 million for a tax cut for the top 2 percent income earners in this province. Those families ended up getting a break. Those individuals, according to the government, according to the B.C. Liberals, are deserving.

But the rest of the hard-working families, middle-class people in British Columbia who are squeezed? They’re not deserving of a break. In fact, they’re going to pay more, and they’re going to get less. That’s the approach that was in this throne speech, and that’s the approach that the B.C. Liberals have taken.

While families are being squeezed by the kinds of fees and services that I talked about, we’re also seeing their opportunities being squeezed. We’re seeing the door shut on people who are trying to get ahead. I mentioned the issue of education, but there are a couple of other areas that I think are important to mention. When people are out there looking for work…. What is the statistic in British Columbia when it comes to people who are gainfully employed?

We hear the Premier talk a lot about her jobs plan. We heard it mentioned again in the throne speech. Well, the facts are that B.C. is in seventh place when it comes to the percentage of people who are gainfully employed in our province. That’s the lowest employment rate west of the Maritimes. Since 2008, B.C. has seen one of the weakest job recoveries across this country since the recession. One of the weakest job recoveries — that’s the reality for those hard-working British Columbians. That’s the reality for people who are trying to get ahead.

[1705]

Even when those British Columbians are working, the news isn’t good there either. Statistics Canada data shows that between 2006 and 2012, B.C. experienced the worst income growth of any province in Canada. Even people who have managed to get one of those scarce jobs, who have managed to find employment, are finding that the median income is dropping in this province.

Median income in B.C. actually declined by 2.4 percent. Right here in my community of Victoria, median income dropped by 4.8 percent. What does that mean in reality? Those statistics are families. Those statistics are individuals who are struggling to get by.

The income gap isn’t just bad for families. It’s bad for the economy. Jurisdictions all over this world are recognizing that a strong middle class is the foundation of a strong, thriving economy, that you can’t have one without another. We’ve seen the issue of inequality and we’ve seen the issue of the income gap start to be recognized and addressed by economists across this world.

Yet did the throne speech speak to those families? Did the throne speech recognize the pressure that people are facing? Did it recognize that people are the greatest asset in British Columbia? No. In fact, it did just the opposite. Those families are going to pay more with this throne speech, and they’re going to get less. What about the most vulnerable? What about those individuals who, as I said earlier, sometimes need a hand up to be able to take the opportunity that’s there for them?

Now, I will say that I was glad to see the end of the clawback of child maintenance payments for single parents on income assistance and disabilities. That is something I was pleased to see happen. It should have been gone a long time ago.

I say a huge thank-you to all of the families who came forward and shared their stories, because that was not an easy thing to do. That was not an easy process for them to go through. They continued to do that. They shared their stories to stand up for their children receiving the child maintenance payments that were meant for their children. That will make a difference in the lives of those children, who will have better food, who will be able to have school supplies in September, who will receive the money that was there for those children.

But what about the growing inequality gap in British Columbia? Did the throne speech speak to the high rate of child poverty we see in our province? Did the throne speech talk about the real challenges that are being faced right now? No. Again, I didn’t see anything about that growing inequality. I didn’t see anything about the increased pressure that those children are facing.

I have to say that it is one of the most shameful statistics in our province. I’m ashamed as a British Columbian that we’ve continued to be first or second when it comes to child poverty in this country. That is shameful in a province like British Columbia.

While I am not naive enough to believe that that could be fixed overnight, it shouldn’t prevent us from getting started, and this government has refused to do that. That’s wrong, and we need to get on with a child poverty reduction plan. That’s what a throne speech should have included. We should have seen a recognition of those kinds of challenges and a plan to begin to address the issue of inequality and child poverty in our province.
[ Page 6188 ]

Now, it was interesting to notice that the throne speech mentioned, for one of the first times in a very long period of time under this Premier, the word “diversity” when talking about her economy. It’s certainly not something we’ve been hearing from this Premier or from the other side. “Diversity” didn’t ever pass their lips over the last while. I have to say thank you, I suppose, that we actually saw the word “diversity” in the throne speech.

Perhaps that’s a good start, but I would like to say that I think the diverse industries in our province deserve more than simply the word in a throne speech. Wouldn’t it have been nice if they could have had some of the attention over the last number of years for the good contribution that they’re making to our province? They deserve support, and they haven’t seen it because the Premier, as we have so often heard her say, has a laser focus on LNG.

[1710]

She put all her eggs in that one basket and neglected all the other industries that have been keeping our economy going — industries like forestry, mining, high tech, energy, tidal, solar, wind, tourism, mining, agriculture. I could name a whole number of industries.

We’ve certainly seen it right here in the greater Victoria area. We’ve seen a huge boom in the area of high tech, which has contributed not only jobs in the area of high tech but spinoff jobs and life to our community. They brought real strength to greater Victoria. Yet have those industries seen any kind of attention? No.

LNG all the time is what we continue to hear from the Premier. We only need to take a look to our neighbour next door to see what happens when you put all of your eggs in one basket, when you don’t support diversification, when you only look at one industry. When that one industry changes, you’re in trouble.

We’ve been incredibly fortunate in British Columbia that those industries have continued to work hard. They’ve continued to contribute. They’ve continued to offer jobs to people in communities in every corner of our province. But that’s despite the government. I think that’s why I get so frustrated when I see a throne speech of this kind or a budget of this kind.

We live in an extraordinary province. I really am a proud British Columbian. I’ve lived here my entire life. We’re an incredibly diverse place. Our population, our citizens have connections to every part of the globe. Entrepreneurs bring their strengths, their connections, their skills and their abilities to British Columbia. We have a well-educated workforce.

Just imagine if a throne speech had supported those strengths. Imagine if a throne speech had built on what our citizens bring and the skills and abilities they have, had built on the strengths of our community. Imagine what our citizens could accomplish if they had support. Imagine what all of those diverse industries could do with some support, some focus, some leadership.

There really are endless possibilities in British Columbia, but we didn’t see that leadership in this throne speech. We didn’t see a poverty reduction plan to begin to address the challenges of inequality which, again, are a challenge to our economy. We didn’t see a break for hard-working British Columbians, for middle-class families who are working so hard to try and do the right thing. We didn’t see commitments to the new green economy, to clean energy or to transit, specifically, to be able to address the issue of climate change.

You know, as I said at the beginning, I’m so proud to represent the community of Victoria–Beacon Hill. It’s an incredibly active, engaged community, citizens who want to have their say. You never have to worry about hearing an opinion in my community — people who care about the environment and who believe that a strong economy, social supports and protection for our air and land and water go hand in hand and that their government should provide that kind of leadership.

It’s a community where people step up to do their part, whether it’s the issue of protecting the most vulnerable, whether it’s arts and culture groups, whether it’s markets in our community, whether it’s groups like the social planning council or the Victoria Foundation, who do Vital Signs, whether it’s Our Place or Cool Aid or the Mary Manning Centre, whether it’s the Belfry or the Royal or the McPherson, Kaleidoscope, Langham, Intrepid. There’s a long list of groups and organizations in our community who are doing their part, and they deserve better.

They deserve better than they saw in this throne speech. They deserve better than cuts to post-secondary education instead of investments. They deserve better than a Premier who says to the K-to-12 system: “By the way, squeeze more. Find more. Never mind all those programs and services you’ve had to cut.” They deserve more than fees and services and costs, while a tax break is given to the top 2 percent income earners. It’s the wrong direction and the wrong choices.

[1715]

My community has been looking for balance. They’re looking for support for the most vulnerable, protection for our environment and in key investments, like education and post-secondary and child care, to give people an opportunity to get ahead.

I think the most frustrating part of all of this is the wasted opportunity here. It’s time for us to invest in people. It’s time for us to give an opportunity for that to happen.

S. Sullivan: I want to speak in favour of the throne speech, but before I get into the meat of my arguments, I would like to make a few acknowledgments to some of the people that have made it possible for me to be here in this chamber.

First of all, I’d like to acknowledge Lynn, who is my significant other. She has gone above and beyond the
[ Page 6189 ]
call of duty on so many levels to help me to achieve my goals and to live a very full and happy life. I can say that we’ve had many, many years of relationship. I fell in love with her when she was ten. If some viewers are concerned about MLAs falling in love with ten-year-old girls, I can reassure them that I was nine when I fell in love with her. Believe me, one year makes a big difference at that age. She certainly was the older woman, but for 45 years she’s been an incredible support, and I can’t say enough about what she means to me.

I’d also like to acknowledge Derek Robertson, who is my legislative assistant. He has taught me so much about politics in this chamber here. He’s a very capable person. He’s got a deep understanding of government, and he has the very difficult task of shepherding me around for all my duties and keeping me organized. So I’m very, very grateful to him. I might say he’s got the weirdest and the best socks in the building.

I’d also like to acknowledge Cris Garvey. She is my constituency assistant. I inherited her. She became the constituency assistant of an MLA named Lorne Mayencourt many years ago and was very successful there. Then, when Mary McNeil took over the riding, she became the constituency assistant of Mary McNeil.

When I was elected, there was a strong body of opinion that, really, I should bring in someone who I knew, who would be loyal and such. I made some inquiries, and I found out that Cris Garvey was a real star, that she really knew government and knew how to get things done. So I decided to hire her, despite not knowing much about her but just coming from recommendations. She has gone through three MLAs, and I do sometimes worry that she thinks of me as the temporary help. I believe she’ll be there beyond me for other MLAs. She is so good.

My riding of Vancouver–False Creek is a very interesting one. It wraps around False Creek. It includes Granville Island. It includes Science World, the International Village. It goes right out to Coal Harbour. It includes the whole downtown of Vancouver, and I like to call it Downtown, British Columbia, because it is the largest agglomeration of commercial and retail in the province.

I did a little survey of some of the stats on Vancouver–False Creek, and some things really do stand out, make it different from any other riding.

[1720]

For example, the largest category by far is in professional and science and technology. Almost 20 percent of all of the labour in my riding is in that one category, which is very unusual in the province. It is lower in every age category except one, the age of 20 to 44. It is far higher than any other riding in that one category, which is very unusual in the province. It is lower in every age category except one: the ages of 20 to 44. It is far higher than any other riding in that one category. In that age group, you might not be surprised, it has more one-person households than any other riding.

The great majority of the homes are new. They’ve been built in the last 20 years. The great majority of the homes are in buildings of five storeys or more. The prices of the houses and rents are higher than in most ridings as well. It is definitely an expensive riding.

Almost as many people walk to work as drive to work, and twice as many walk as take transit. It’s a very unusual riding. It’s got twice the number of people with university degrees as the average in B.C. More than 70 percent have moved within the past five years, so it’s a very mobile riding.

All economic families.... In total the average is more than $100,000 a year, versus the $80,000 for B.C. Almost 40 percent do not have English or French as a first language, versus 26 percent for the rest. So it is a very interesting riding. It’s a young riding. It’s a vibrant, dynamic riding. I believe it is the future of our economy, and I’m very honoured that they have trusted me to represent them.

As you know, it has been discussed here that our government is in its third consecutive balanced budget. We’re on track to balance the 2014-2015 budget, with a projected surplus of $879 million. That includes $284 million in 2015-16, $376 million in 2016-17, and $399 million, almost $400 million, in 2017-18. Independent economists forecast B.C. to be near the top among provinces in terms of economic growth.

We have the surpluses, and we’re using these surpluses from the balanced budget to pay down the government’s direct operating debt. This is the money borrowed to protect programs and services through the global economic downturn. Direct operating debt is forecast to decline by more than 50 percent, from $10 billion in 2014 to $4.8 billion by 2018. That’s the lowest level since 1991. By the end of the fiscal plan we’ll have more than repaid the $4.5 billion borrowed since 2008-2009.

The government’s taxpayer-supported debt-to-GDP ratio, which is a key measure of affordability, improves in each year of the fiscal plan and in 2017-2018 is forecast at 16.6 percent. Now, our GDP is a little over $230 billion, I believe. Our per-capita GDP is around $50,000, and our debt is around $60 billion. We’re going in the right direction in terms of direct operating debt.

Vancouver will benefit, and my riding will certainly benefit, from the up to $3 million over three years that will re-establish the International Maritime Centre in Vancouver to help attract more shipping companies and their head offices to Vancouver. There was a time when Vancouver was the centre of the action in terms of the International Maritime Centre, and over the years we’ve lost traction. So this will re-establish our role as an important hub for shipping companies and their head offices.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]
[ Page 6190 ]

I’m very pleased that approximately 180,000 families will begin receiving the B.C. early childhood tax benefit, starting April 1, 2015. It provides up to $660 a year for each child under the age of six, to help with the cost of child care.

[1725]

Now, my riding of Vancouver–False Creek is typically…. Many people believe that it’s not a place for children. But in fact, if you go down to any of our community centres, like the Roundhouse Community Centre, there is a traffic jam of strollers. It’s incredible to see the young mothers in the riding, living in high density, and to see that our schools in my riding are booked to the brim. They’re oversubscribed for schools. We have a new school being built in the International Village, already oversubscribed.

It is quite an interesting phenomenon, of young families moving into high-density neighbourhoods — to see the vibrant and dynamic culture that is available to young people. All of the great institutions, cultural institutions are there. There are so many amenities that it is a great place to raise children.

Applications for the training and education savings grant, a one-time payment of $1,200 for every child resident born in B.C. since January 1, 2007, will be available at participating financial institutions by August. As many as 40,000 children may be eligible every year, once they turn six.

An additional $106 million over the next three years to Community Living B.C. to support people with developmental disabilities. And $3 million for a new $250 children’s fitness equipment credit. That will be set at 50 percent of the amount claimed for the existing children’s fitness credit, so parents won’t have to keep receipts for equipment. I know that many of the young families in my riding will be very grateful for that.

I’d just like to acknowledge the work in health care. The budget reaffirms the B.C. government’s commitment to health care. There will be a $3 billion increase to Ministry of Health spending over three years. I’d also like to acknowledge a centre that will be developed in Vancouver. Up to $12.5 million will be given to the Canadian Cancer Society towards establishing a world-class cancer prevention centre in Vancouver. Additional funding will support hospice services for children and adults as part of our work toward doubling the number of beds by 2020 and supporting end-of-life care.

I’d also like to acknowledge the importance of the jobs plan that our minister is championing. Thanks to a diverse economy, British Columbia is performing well compared to other jurisdictions. Our commitment to maintaining that diversity is seen through the eight sectors that make up the B.C. jobs plan. We have agrifoods, forestry, international education, mining and energy, natural gas, technology and a green economy, tourism and transportation.

We’ll also continue to build our strong trading relationships. As an example, since 2002 British Columbia’s trade with China has grown rapidly, and they are now our second-largest trading partner, accounting for $6.5 billion in 2014. I note that in my riding we have more Chinese-speaking citizens than is average in B.C.

I’d like to also acknowledge a few other issues.

International education. My riding is full of language schools and, actually, other schools as well — colleges and institutions of higher education. In international education the number of international students has increased by 20 percent in just five years, spending $2.3 billion in B.C. and supporting almost 25,500 jobs. At the same time, opportunities for B.C. students to study abroad have increased steadily through partnerships with overseas institutions. The industry of, certainly, language schools in my riding is very vibrant and very successful, and it is increasing every year.

[1730]

I’d like to acknowledge the forestry sector. People often think that the riding of Vancouver–False Creek in the downtown area is unconnected to our resource sector. In fact, it is so connected. It is probably more connected than most people would realize. So many of the head offices are there. So many of the service organizations are there. Law, accounting, science and technology — a lot of that happens in Vancouver–False Creek.

The strategy of expanding new markets has paid off. In just five years forest product exports have increased by 63 percent and now account for over a third of all B.C. exports.

B.C.’s mining and energy sectors. This is an incredibly important part of my riding. If you were to stand in one area, maybe near Burrard and Hastings, within a three-block radius there are over 1,100 mining and energy companies — within just that three-block radius.

Since 2011 five new mines have opened, creating over 1,300 new jobs, and seven major expansions of existing mines have been approved. Later this year we expect Red Chris mine to open, employing another 300 British Columbians, including many First Nations people.

I want to just make a few comments about the Conference Board of Canada, which has made some interesting comments about British Columbia and how it relates to our country’s economy. Fuelled by positive conditions, Manitoba, British Columbia and Ontario will be the growth leaders among the provinces this year and will remain strong in 2016. Boosted by the lower Canadian dollar, the acceleration of U.S. economic growth and stronger consumer confidence, these provinces will easily outpace the Canadian average.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Member, subject to the standing rules, it is now time to put the question on the subamendment.
[ Page 6191 ]

S. Sullivan: Okay, so I get off early. All right.

[1735]

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the question is the subamendment put forward by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

Subamendment negatived on the following division:

[1740]

The next question, hon. Members, is the question on the amendment put forward.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, in the spirit of time off for good behaviour, Madame Speaker, I’ll move the House do now adjourn.

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday.

The House adjourned at 5:43 p.m.

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada