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, October 1, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 28, Number 13

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

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2015

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Anton: We are joined in the House today by Steve Schnitzer, director of the Police Academy at the Justice Institute of British Columbia; Kelly Joiner, manager of the assessment centre of the Justice Institute of British Columbia; and our staff member Jane Marie Naydiuk, program manager, training standards, policing and security branch in the B.C. Ministry of Justice.

They’re here today meeting with our Sergeant-at-Arms, who works with his staff so hard to keep all of us here in the Legislature safe every day. I ask that all sides of this House make them feel very welcome.

[1005]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

KIDNEY DONATION
AND WORK OF SERVICE B.C.

R. Austin: Last Sunday, I attended the annual Kidney Walk on Ferry Island in Terrace to support all those families and individuals who are desperately awaiting a kidney transplant that will allow them to live a normal life, without having to rely on dialysis, and which may indeed save their lives.

Since the change in policy of not making the decision to be an organ donor when we renew our driving licence, the number of people who’ve signed up has declined. Over 85 percent of British Columbians believe in the benefit of organ donation, yet only 20 percent of citizens have taken the time to sign up as an organ donor using the new system. This is clearly a big problem. Lives are at risk as a result, and the quality of life for many is seriously diminished.

Of the 500 people who are waiting for an organ, fully 80 percent, or 400, are currently seeking a kidney. We could put this right, if more of us are willing to go on line to www.kidney.bc.ca and fill out a simple form to sign up as an organ donor.

The time to do this is now, because this decision is too difficult to leave to our loved ones once we die and they are in a state of grief. Think of those who are on the waiting list and how our own demise can bring the gift of life to others so that they can lead a fulsome quality of life that we all take for granted.

I want to recognize the work of Service B.C., which has organized in many of their offices to encourage citizens to sign up as organ donors when they come in to renew licences and have other dealings with government. They even assist people to use public access computers to fill out the on-line forms.

The Kidney Walk is just one way of increasing public awareness, but we need to spread the word far and wide so that the many who might want to become donors recognize how they can go about doing this.

I’d like to thank Joan Iamele, the local branch of the Kidney Foundation of B.C. and the Yukon, Laurie Fulford and her staff at Service B.C., as well as Steve Little of CFNR radio, for their continued work and commitment to improving the lives of all those who are living day to day wondering when they will get a phone call that will forever change their lives.

FOSTER FAMILY MONTH

G. Hogg: It has been said that there are moments in every child’s life when a door opens and an opportunity presents itself. And there are sometimes moments when doors suddenly slam in the face of a child’s potential. And there are precious moments through each of our lives when important choices present themselves. Sometimes they go unnoticed, sometimes they are taken, and sometimes those opportunities are transformative.

One of those moments presented itself to me on a cold Saturday morning when I was coaching a bantam football team. Our best defensive player arrived to practice a bit late. He came from the beach, over the railway tracks and onto the field. He was carrying a cardboard box full of his belongings. He had run away from his foster home and was living on the beach.

I invited him to stay with our family until he could speak to his social worker and work things out. He stayed. Within six months, we were joined by two more youths — three youths who taught us a great deal about families and about ourselves, three youths who had struggles, just as we did, and three youths who are part of our lives to this day.

October is Foster Family Month, and B.C. has 5,300 children living with over 3,000 foster families. Anyone over 19 who is willing to share their home can apply to become a foster parent. If the possibility crosses your mind, the opportunity awaits you, and like so many meaningful things in life, it can be both challenging and rewarding — even transformative.

Thank you to the 3,000 foster families who have opened their door of opportunity for a child, who have provided homes and families to children across our province. They help to make us a better, more caring province.
[ Page 9322 ]

LAX KW’ALAAMS FIRST NATION
AND NEW SCHOOL

J. Rice: A lot of eyes are on a First Nations community in my constituency. Lax Kw’alaams, also known as Port Simpson, is an area with worldwide attention on it right now. When you have high demand for this nation’s land or resources, marine territory, it’s very interesting for that community to have such attention paid to it, with an otherwise remote and ignored community.

LNG development — Flora Bank, fishing rights and Lelu Island — is a dominant topic, and it’s created a lot of division in our communities around North Coast. But there is one issue that’s really united our community and the Lax Kw’alaams community, and that is the opening of their new school.

[1010]

I’m pleased to share with the House a special occasion for the Lax Kw’alaams community. Tomorrow I, along with, I understand, the Premier, will be travelling to the Lax Kw’alaams First Nation on north coast for the grand opening of their $19 million Coast Tsimshian Academy.

This school provides classrooms for 26 kindergarten and 156 grades 1 to 2 students. The school is designed with a state-of-the-art kitchen and a layout that allows for large group gatherings. The school has seen an increase of over 20 students, so having over 150 students this month alone. It has attracted a lot of adults wanting to go on to further their education. It’s really not bad for a small remote community that only has a couple hundred inhabitants on it.

Mayor Garry Reece explains that the new school will play an important role in supporting the community’s forces on education and skills development in youth. It will allow our children to learn and grow within our community while preparing them for a future where they can make a contribution to our economic goals.

So I’m standing here today. I am sincerely pleased for the people of Lax Kw’alaams for having built their new school. The old school was built in 1955, when construction standards were nonexistent, and had a creek running through it.

It’s a big day tomorrow, and I’m happy to share that with the House.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF SENIORS

D. Plecas: Today I rise to mark both National Seniors Day and the International Day of Older Persons. This is a day that offers British Columbians the opportunity to recognize, appreciate and celebrate our seniors.

Seniors, as you know, are a vital part of our communities and a growing demographic. Thanks to B.C.’s exceptional quality of life, supported by a world-class health care system, our seniors population is expected to double from 750,000 people to 1.4 million people within the next 20 years. This is why, in 2014, this government established Canada’s very first office of the seniors advocate. The seniors advocate role is to identify solutions and make recommendations to government on ways to improve support for our aging population.

Our seniors helped build this great province and continue to have a great impact today. Right across British Columbia every day, seniors volunteer their time, remain active, engaged and deeply committed to their communities. And, by the way, we know seniors volunteer more time than any other group of citizens. They pass on their knowledge and experience down to all of us, and this should be revered.

On this, the National Seniors Day and the International Day of Older Persons, let’s take the opportunity to celebrate our parents, our grandparents and our friends.

RIDE FOR REFUGE CYCLING EVENT
AND CRIDGE CENTRE FOR THE FAMILY

R. Fleming: The 2015 Ride for Refuge takes place Saturday, October 3. It’s a non-competitive cycling event that partners with 175-plus independent charities annually and raises awareness and funds for displaced persons, the vulnerable and those who have suffered exploitation. The event occurs internationally at locations across Canada and the United States.

Ride for Refuge was started in Canada in 2004. In its first year, it took place in just one city, Kitchener, Ontario, with only 25 cyclists pioneering that event. Ten years later the Ride for Refuge has raised more than $6 million for their charitable partners and is continuing to grow into more and more communities.

The ride supports a diverse number of charities and churches who serve refugees — both claimants or sponsored — widows and orphans, the homeless, human trafficking survivors as well as charities that help aboriginal and First Nations people who have been traumatized and abused in our communities.

One of the charities that is supporting the ride and raising funds is the Cridge Centre for the Family, an institution that is 142 years old serving greater Victoria. For the second year in a row, the Cridge Centre is hosting Victoria’s Ride for Refuge.

Last year hundreds of thousands of dollars were raised in Victoria by over 300 cyclists to benefit 17 local charities. I expect they’re going to break that record again this year. The Cridge Centre is proud to be hosting the event alongside other charitable partner organizations in Victoria, like the Mustard Seed Food Bank, the Inter-Cultural Association, Mercy Ships and Sanctuary Youth. All of these organizations are doing vital work to support vulnerable populations, both here in Victoria and abroad.

There are many ways for members of this House to participate. You can ride your bike or walk on Saturday. You can volunteer or you can donate to a team.

[1015]

I want to applaud the many community organizations across Canada, in particular, the Cridge Centre for the Family for hosting the greater Victoria Ride for Refuge, and to thank Executive Director Shelley Morris, her staff and the many individuals who made the commitment both to volunteer their time and to raise money for those most in need in our city.

COMMUNITY LIVING MONTH

S. Gibson: October is the 17th annual Community Living Month in B.C., a time to recognize the contributions and potential of people with developmental disabilities, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and autism.

My daughter Alisa is a developmentally delayed adult. We are best friends. No one says “I love you” to me more than Alisa.

The organization provides a range of invaluable supports to help adults with developmental disabilities lead full and productive lives. These include residential services like home-sharing and supported living, community inclusion, respite and employment supports.

This year CLBC will support nearly 18,000 adults, and 850 youth will transition to the services. During October, communities around B.C. will hold events to celebrate Community Living Month. These events include dances, barbecues and award ceremonies.

Each year CLBC recognizes British Columbians who are leading inclusive projects in their community with the annual WOW! Awards. “WOW” stands for “Widening Our World,” which is the theme this year, of inclusion. Inclusion can mean jobs for people with disabilities. It can mean education and community participation and independent living.

The group Ready, Willing and ABLE says there are 500,000 Canadians with intellectual disabilities or autism spectrum disorder, but only one in four are employed. Only about 3,600 of the 13,000 people CLBC serves report an income.

Many businesses already participate in initiatives that link people with disabilities with jobs. Our government is committed to making B.C. the most progressive place in Canada for people with disabilities through our ten-year plan, Accessibility 2024.

Oral Questions

EDUCATION MINISTRY DATA BREACH

D. Routley: Yesterday we asked the minister responsible for data security to explain what he was doing to address the fallout from the largest data breach in B.C. government history. We asked him whether there were any other unencrypted drives with personal information on them sitting in warehouses. He said we were embellishing. We asked him what steps he had taken to contact the 9,200 former or current children in government care whose data had been lost. He said he had no evidence to believe that data had been stolen.

My question to the Minister of Citizens’ Services is simple. If he is so confident that no one’s personal information or identity has been compromised by this breach, why has his government initiated two investigations into the matter?

Hon. A. Virk: To repeat what I’ve advised the member opposite and members opposite a number of times, as an abundance of caution….

The fact remains the same. A duplicate copy of a hard drive was created. It was unencrypted. In 2011, it was placed within a locked room within a locked warehouse, an alarmed warehouse. Currently as that ministry, the Ministry of Education, was reviewing their policy, they determined that that particular hard drive was not being located. As an abundance of caution, our ministry notified the Information and Privacy Commissioner about that potential loss of information.

It’s important to recognize that we’re going to do a review all across core government. That’s the reason I’ve asked for that review to be done. We want to make sure that the privacy laws that were in place in 2011 and that are in place now are fully applied all across government.

[1020]

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan on a supplemental.

D. Routley: I agree with the minister that there is a lot of repetition here. Repeated data breaches, repeated assurances that it’ll never happen again and repeated apologies by repeated ministers. The only thing that isn’t a repetition in his answer is the phrase “abundance of caution.” I would hardly describe this situation with that phrase.

Hon. Speaker, you’ll have to forgive me if I take this minister’s assurances with a grain of salt. As you will recall, when this minister was responsible for Advanced Education, we asked him about his conduct on the board of the Kwantlen Polytechnic University. He called those questions outlandish until he was found to have broken the rules he was supposed to enforce. We asked the minister to disclose his correspondence on the hiring of the KPU president, and he said there were none — until a whistleblower released his e-mail logs.

Given this minister’s record of providing, in his words, “fulsome answers” on matters under his authority, I’ll ask him again. Given the minister’s track record, why should anyone trust him when he says it will have no impact on British Columbians?

Hon. A. Virk: The member opposite is, once again, clearly misrepresenting the facts. I’ve asked for a review
[ Page 9324 ]
to be done across core government, across all ministries and starting with the Ministry of Education, to determine that the fullest application of privacy law is to be done. That review is being conducted as we speak, and we’ll await the results of the review. I won’t jump to conclusions before that review is in my hands.

R. Austin: On Tuesday, we asked the Minister of Education what steps his government plans to take in protecting the 3.4 million people whose personal information was stored on the lost hard drive. In response, the Minister of Education said: “Based on the type of data that is out there, we don’t feel that there’s any risk to identity theft.”

My question is to the minister responsible for data security. As a former RCMP officer who should be familiar with the consequences of identity theft, do you agree with your colleague that this information on this missing hard drive — information on family financial situations, information on medical records — poses no risk of people’s identities being stolen?

Hon. A. Virk: Well, I’ll repeat what I’ve said a number of times in the past two weeks. The facts are, indeed, the facts. There is a hard drive — a hard drive that was unencrypted and a hard drive that has not been located. That was a backup hard drive. The information contained on that backup hard drive is also in the public domain as well. I’ve said a number of times that at present and as of today, I have no evidence to suggest that any of that data has been used for anything other than the intended purpose, and that’s the current status.

Madame Speaker: The member for Skeena on a supplemental.

R. Austin: The minister held a press conference to report the largest data loss in B.C. history. He announced three separate investigations into the breach, and his colleagues think that there’s no risk and that the matter is, quite frankly, a bit of a joke.

The minister is a former RCMP officer. He knows the serious consequences of identity theft. Why on earth should anyone trust this minister that he’s going to prevent this information from falling into the wrong hands in the future?

Hon. A. Virk: If there’s anything I’ve learned in almost 26 years of service that I did in uniform, it’s that you don’t jump to conclusions. You do a thorough investigation, you let the facts speak for themselves, and upon receiving the fullest information, then you draw conclusions.

[1025]

The member opposite certainly suggests that we jump to conclusions immediately. I’ve asked the chief information officer of government to investigate the creation of the hard drive and to review all core government to determine what the status is of adherence to policy. When that review is done, then I will draw conclusions.

HEALTH AUTHORITIES’ HANDLING
OF PERSONAL HEALTH INFORMATION

J. Darcy: Yesterday the minister responsible for data security reacted to the latest damning report from the Information and Privacy Commissioner with repeated platitudes. He voiced his appreciation for the report. He said health authorities are working hard. But the one thing missing entirely from his remarks is what he was going to do to fix the problem.

The commissioner found that while health authorities are collecting the most personal and sensitive information there is about British Columbians, they are operating in a culture that just doesn’t value privacy, and that culture starts at the top, with this government.

This government has had 14 years to fix the problem. When should British Columbians expect that the minister might start making some progress?

Hon. A. Virk: My appreciation for the report, to the Privacy Commissioner, doesn’t diminish today. It’s the same as yesterday. I appreciate the fact that the Privacy Commissioner is doing her job, and I agree with the Privacy Commissioner that there needs to be better protection of health data.

As British Columbians go to our health care providers and as we take our family to health care providers all across British Columbia, we expect that our privacy is respected. It’s a responsibility at all levels — at government level, at a ministry level, at a minister level and also at every level of every individual that deals with that individual who requires that health care service.

My expectations are very clear. When I take my family to a health care provider, I — and all of us — expect that that information is respected from that front-line delivery all the way up to government. This government takes that priority very seriously.

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: Among the minister’s litany of platitudes, he told the House: “Health authorities are working hard to ensure that when there are breaches, they’re reported appropriately.” Reassuring words, indeed. But the minister just said he wants facts.

Well, here’s a bit of a disturbing fact from the report that was released. According to that report: “Over the past ten years, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner has received 200 reports of breaches from the health authorities. This may sound like a large number, but we estimate that these reports comprise less than
[ Page 9325 ]
1 percent of the suspected breaches that have occurred.”

Less than 1 percent. The minister likes to refer to his history and his experience as an RCMP officer. Well, my question to the minister responsible for data security is this. Does he think that a 1 percent reporting rate for security breaches is something to be proud of?

Hon. A. Virk: When the Privacy Commissioner commissions a report, she makes recommendations to strengthen policy, and she has done exactly that. I understand that the Ministry of Health is going to read that report, it’s going to review all the recommendations, and it’s going to take all of them into account as they develop a health information policy framework involving all the stakeholders across the health care system.

RB GROUP AND USE OF AGRICULTURAL
LAND FOR CARBON OFFSETS

V. Huntington: Last April the House heard that the British firm RB Group has been buying up prime farmland, planting trees and converting the land to carbon sinks. It’s been four months since the Minister of Agriculture said he was going to come forward with a coherent plan to address the situation.

[1030]

I’m wondering if the minister has figured out the problem yet and why we still have no rules to protect agricultural land from this abuse.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

RB has indeed been buying up land or leasing land over the last few years in British Columbia — approximately 10,000 hectares out of 4.7 million hectares in the agricultural land reserve. Our ministry staff have met with RB. RB has put all plans to expand their program on hold until a complete review is finished. We’re working with the independent Agricultural Land Commission right now to determine whether or not RB has violated the Agricultural Land Commission Act. Once we receive the opinion of the ALC on that, we may or may not take further action subsequent to that decision.

Madame Speaker: The member for Delta South on a supplemental.

V. Huntington: On June 16, RB told local government officials that it was putting its land purchase program on hold. On June 19, the minister publicly thanked RB and stated: “They will not make any new offers to purchase land.” On July 7, just three weeks later, RB signed a $1 million deal for 800 acres of ALR land near Dawson Creek.

My question is: did RB mislead the minister and his officials, or did the minister craft his words to conceal an existing offer to purchase?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for that information. We’ll follow up and verify whether or not it actually occurred.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. N. Letnick: RB committed to us, to the government, that they would not expand their plans or implement any more planting on their lands. We will confirm whether or not that is in violation of their commitment to us, and we’ll report back to the House.

PORT DEVELOPMENT AND
STATUS OF FARMLAND IN RICHMOND

L. Popham: The city of Richmond is desperately trying to protect agricultural land from being swallowed up by the port of Metro Vancouver. The port is buying up this scarce farmland with the intent of turning it into industrial land, despite the fact that it’s in the agricultural land reserve.

What is the Minister of Agriculture doing to support the city in their fight to protect the ALR?

Hon. N. Letnick: There are 4.7 million hectares of land in the ALR. There are 38,000 hectares more in the ALR today than there were back in 2001.

This government makes no apologies for continuing to support the independent Agricultural Land Commission as it has done its work. Indeed, not only do we support the independence of the land commission, but we’ve seen record increases in their budget over the last few years. We will continue to support the ALR and the ALC throughout British Columbia, specifically on the issue of…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, the Chair needs to hear the answer.

Hon. N. Letnick: …federal government agencies purchasing land. It is our expectation that they will follow the same process as any other landowner and apply to the ALR or the ALC when the time comes.

Madame Speaker: The member for Saanich South on a supplemental.

L. Popham: The Union of B.C. Municipalities supports the city of Richmond in their fight to protect the farmland. They are asking for the port to sell all agricultural land that they have purchased and plan to build on. The city has offered the port alternative land for development, but it has been rebuffed.
[ Page 9326 ]

The minister said he would strengthen and protect the ALR. When is the minister going to do his job?

Hon. C. Clark: I’m happy to speak to, really, what the core of that member’s question is all about.

What we see across the way — and we saw it in flying colours yesterday — is a continuation today of this opposition’s opposition to jobs.

[1035]

She stands up. She wants to protect the land from trees. Then the next person stands up. They want to protect the trees from loggers. Now what we find out is they want to protect British Columbians, wherever they live across this province, from jobs.

Well, you know what?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: We want to deliver jobs for the people of British Columbia. So while they didn’t support the Coquihalla Highway…. They didn’t support the Alex Fraser Bridge. They didn’t support Expo 86. They didn’t support building B.C. Place. They didn’t support the Sea to Sky Highway. They didn’t support the Port Mann Bridge. They didn’t support the South Fraser Perimeter Road. They didn’t support LNG.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: They don’t support Site C, as we saw yesterday, and now they don’t support a port expansion that could create thousands and thousands of jobs for working people in this province.

Working people in British Columbia are watching what happens in this House today, this month and, most of all, yesterday. What they have learned is that the opposition that says they stand for jobs…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: …and that says they stand for working people is not setting them straight.

The only party in this House that stands for jobs, the only people in this House who are on the side of working people in British Columbia is the government on this side of the House. We’re going to keep doing that, and they can keep fighting us every step of the way.

Madame Speaker: Members, the Chair will hear the answer and the question.

LIQUOR SALES IN GROCERY STORES

J. Shin: It’s been nearly two full years since the government announced their plan to bring liquor into grocery stores, making the prospect of selling liquor in grocery stores the hallmark of their liquor policy review. So how many grocery stores in B.C. now carry liquor on their shelves? That would be two — just two.

I’d like to hear from the new minister responsible for the liquor file: what is causing the holdup?

Hon. C. Oakes: Are you kidding me? We have a store that has 700 labels of British Columbia wine on shelves that provide opportunities to provide more access to consumers of B.C. wine in British Columbia.

This is about ensuring that we are supporting a vibrant wine economy. There is no government that supports ensuring that consumers have the opportunity to explore and to understand the tremendous opportunities we have with the wine economy throughout British Columbia….

Let’s talk about jobs for a moment. Let’s talk about jobs. When we support a thriving wine economy and ensuring the wine gets opportunities to be showcased in grocery stores, it ensures that we are supporting 10,000 jobs in British Columbia — 10,000 agricultural jobs.

Madame Speaker: Burnaby-Lougheed on a supplemental.

J. Shin: Despite the minister’s enthusiasm, it is what it is. We are looking at just two stores in the province right now.

Now, one reason that the Liberals’ rollout of the liquor sales in the grocery stores has almost completely stalled is because the entire design was flawed right from the beginning. This critique isn’t coming from me. It’s coming from the coalition of B.C. wineries. These wineries are worried that the B.C. wine-on-shelf grocery store model will create a situation where small B.C. wineries are forced out of business.

So this coalition is asking the government….

Interjections.

[1040]

Madame Speaker: Member, please take your seat.

Please continue.

J. Shin: This coalition is asking the government to place an immediate six-month moratorium on issuing any more new licences for the sale of wine in grocery stores so that the impact of this model can be first examined.

Again to the minister, how does she plan to address these legitimate concerns of our local small businesses in the B.C. wine industry?
[ Page 9327 ]

Hon. C. Oakes: To the member opposite: thank you for the question.

Let’s be clear. We have 700 labels — VQA labels — in a grocery store. This one store sells more VQA products than any VQA store in British Columbia.

We will never back down from offering British Columbians the opportunity to have access to British Columbia wine. We will ensure that we support a thriving, growing wine industry and support an agricultural sector that supports 10,000 jobs in British Columbia.

D. Eby: It’s not just small and medium-sized B.C. wineries that are concerned with the way the Liberals have rolled out this plan. Cities across the province have problems with it too.

If a grocery store wants to sell wine, many of the licences this government has issued will allow them to sell wine even if it’s right next door to an existing liquor store. Now many cities and businesses are rightly worried that increasing the number of locations that people can buy alcohol at will hurt existing businesses as well as public health.

Will the new minister listen to these concerns and put a hold on this plan, as the coalition asks, until she addresses the problems that have been raised, or will she say: “It’s my way or the highway”?

Hon. C. Oakes: This is about ensuring that we are providing opportunities for our B.C. wineries to have more shelf space so that their product can have the opportunity for consumers across British Columbia.

If the member opposite is saying that now they do not support those 10,000 jobs in the agricultural sector, I wish that the member would stand up. We’ve heard that the members opposite do not support LNG. They do not support Site C. Last year we heard they do not support tourism development in the Kootenays. Are we hearing that they do not support the wine sector and agricultural opportunities in British Columbia?

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: Ninety-five percent of B.C. wineries are small and medium-sized wineries. These are the employers of the employees that the minister is talking about. This is the message that we’re bringing to the minister that she is demonstrating this government will ignore, which is incredibly problematic.

Now, if this government had worked with those wineries and had worked with cities before introducing this plan, maybe there’d be more than two stores in the province selling B.C. wine. But they didn’t. They held the photo op first, and then they did the consultation. It’s the wrong way around.

Will the government commit to talking to these employers, to talking to small businesses, to talking to cities before moving ahead with this plan that they are opposing?

Hon. C. Oakes: Let me repeat what I earlier had the opportunity, with great pride, to say.

[1045]

We have, with this new model, 700 small and medium-sized winery labels in a store that sells more VQA wine than anywhere else in British Columbia. This is providing greater access for our wine products, those small wineries that perhaps previously did not have the opportunity to showcase their product to British Columbians. This is the work that we are undertaking.

Constituents in every single one of your ridings when we did the consultation said they wanted more opportunity. We’re delivering upon that.

MYEDUCATION B.C. INFORMATION SYSTEM

R. Fleming: The troubles that have plagued school districts with this government’s new $100 million MyEducation B.C. software system continues.

It is a requirement that all districts must report their enrolment to the Ministry of Education by September 30, but that date came and went yesterday with districts unable to deliver accurate student information to the government. At this point, the system won’t even be able to record letter grades or report cards. But it’s quite clear that if you were to ask teachers, staff and district personnel who now have to work with the system, they will give MyEducation B.C. a solid F for its non-performance.

Can the minister confirm that his new $100 million IT system that replaced a failed $100 million system is still unable to provide the ministry with accurate information on registration, timetabling, attendance, special education or give access to users and is failing to even tell the government what the enrolment of the student population in British Columbia is?

Hon. M. Bernier: On this side of the House, we recognize that there is frustration out there that the system is not operating at the speed that it was intended to operate at. At the beginning of school seasons, I just want to mention that the system is running slower than expected, but the demands on the system are quite intense.

When you look at the beginning of the school system, over one million timetables have been changed in the last three weeks. The system is working. But we take this really seriously. That’s why we have ministry staff working around the clock. That is also why the service provider has brought in extra assistance. The service provider itself has brought in people who are going to be working on this over the next couple of days.

I encourage any school district out there that continues to have issues that they can contact the ministry and we will help them through them.
[ Page 9328 ]

[End of question period.]

Hon. C. Oakes: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Oakes: Today we’re delighted to celebrate the proclamation for Small Business Month. I have some very special guests in the gallery today that I would ask that we kindly welcome to the this hall.

We have Angie Barnard, founder of TripTide Canada, from Nanaimo. We have Ashley Ramsay, founder and CEO of Yeti Farm Creative, from Kelowna, British Columbia. We have Cybele Negris, CEO and co-founder of Webnames.ca, from Vancouver. We have Ian Tostenson, president and CEO of the B.C. Restaurant and Food Services Association. We have Jill Doucette, owner of Synergy Enterprises, from Victoria.

We have Randy Richmond, vice-president and partner at Spearhead, from Nelson, British Columbia; John Cameron, CEO of Rock Solid Business Coaching, here from Langley; Mark Startup, vice president of MyStore, Vancouver; M.J. Whitemarsh, CEO of Whitemarsh Enterprises, from North Vancouver and Sooke; Robert Redden, partner and president, Environmental Dynamics, from Prince George; Samantha Howard, director of the B.C. Canadian Federation of Independent Business in Vancouver; Sean Surerus, vice-president of Surerus Pipelines, from Fort St. John; and finally, we have Sue Adams, managing partner of Bevendale Enterprises in Whistler.

Small businesses from across British Columbia representing all regions — would the House please help make them welcome.

[1050]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, second reading of Bill 34.

Madame Speaker: We’ll allow a moment for members to move to their other duties.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 34 — RED TAPE REDUCTION DAY ACT

Hon. C. Oakes: I’m pleased today to speak to Bill 34, which introduces an honorary day devoted to reducing red tape through regulatory reform and the repeal of outdated or unnecessary regulatory requirements.

Since 2001, the province has been modernizing British Columbia’s regulatory environment to increase British Columbia’s business and economic competitiveness. This legislation institutionalizes accountability and transparency of regulatory reform activities. It demonstrates government’s commitment to reduce the red-tape burden imposed on citizens and small businesses.

Since 2001, we have reduced regulatory requirements by over 43 percent. It is fitting today that we have members from the Small Business Roundtable, who have been significant supporters of ensuring that businesses across British Columbia have the ability to raise their voice to our government.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Let me put this into perspective. Over 150,000 pieces of red tape have been reduced for small businesses since 2001. If you were to take sheets of paper and pile them up, they would have 65 feet in regulatory reductions.

Members opposite yesterday heckled. They heckled when this bill was introduced, and that demonstrates reckless disregard for small businesses and the efforts that we have taken to ensure that we are listening to small businesses and getting out of their way.

Some of the red-tape reductions that were reduced from 2001 were regulations such as asking that comedy clubs had a dance floor. Or how about the size of a television in that pub? Or how about…? We heard from small businesses across British Columbia that the procurement process in British Columbia needed to be improved. All of these we listened to, and through this regulatory reduction process, we were able to eliminate these outdated regulations.

Bill 34 will impose on government a requirement to host an annual day devoted to red-tape reduction on the first Wednesday of March of each year. From this year forward, our government is required by law to focus efforts on red-tape reduction by improving the way we deliver government services and identifying and removing outdated, unnecessary regulatory requirements. Reducing the regulatory burden on citizens and small businesses is critical to ensuring British Columbia’s economic competitiveness, providing all citizens with easy access to government services and programs.

I want to take a moment to talk about our economy, which Bill 34 supports. The Conference Board of Canada and banks are forecasting that British Columbia will lead the country in economic growth. There is no doubt we are doing better than others, but let’s remember that in a fragile global economy, with governments across our country running deficits and carrying heavier debt loads, British Columbia is an island of stability. There are no guarantees. We have to continue to be fiscally responsible, live within our means and strengthen our diverse economy.

B.C.’s singular achievement has not happened by accident. We got here because of hard-working British Columbians and because we have a plan.

[1055]

Three consecutive balanced budgets and a fourth expected this spring, eliminating British Columbians’ operating debt in four years for the first time since 1975. Almost 93,000 jobs created since the launch of the B.C. jobs plan, and the biggest decrease in unemployment rate of any province in the country.

We have a plan, and we’re doing hard work to ensure that we’re implementing it. In contrast, we know that those on the other side just can’t do this. In the 1990s, under the NDP, British Columbians paid some of the highest marginal tax rates in North America, and we know today they want to take us back. Those rates will drive away investors and newcomers. It’s risky, and it’s reckless.

The NDP is offering a 1990s solution for the 21st century. They didn’t work then, they won’t work now, and they heckle at the work that we are trying to achieve to ensure stability. On this side of the House, we know that streamlining how British Columbians interact with government and improving how we deliver services to the public reduces frustration. That’s why our government continues to make this a priority.

British Columbia is a globally acknowledged leader in the field of regulatory reform. If passed, Bill 34 will reinforce British Columbia’s leadership in regulatory reform and red-tape reduction. The legislation, by its very nature, will help to ensure that the number of regulatory requirements does not increase over time, helping us achieve our commitment to a net-zero increase to 2019.

Institutionalizing a requirement to continually review and reduce red tape lowers the risk that the number of regulations will slowly creep back over time. By modernizing and repealing unnecessary regulatory requirements, citizens and businesses can save time, money and frustration when searching for and using government services.

Businesses are attracted to straightforward regulatory regimes and are encouraged to invest in British Columbia. From retail stores to computer programmers and even the family farm, small businesses impact each and every sector in the B.C. jobs plan.

Tourism is a great example and one of B.C.’s top job-creating industries. Today there are more than 19,200 tourism-related businesses in British Columbia, and approximately 93 percent of them have fewer than 50 employees. In 2013, the tourism sector employed more than 132,200 British Columbians. That is about one in every 15 jobs in British Columbia. Industry projects that there’ll be 100,000 additional tourism and hospitality jobs by 2020.

We’re gaining solid ground when it comes to modernizing and cutting red tape for liquor businesses in British Columbia. Most recently, we announced that all manufacturers in British Columbia who have a lounge or special event area can now serve other types of alcohol for customers during their visit. This was a no-nonsense change that manufacturers in this province asked for and government was happy to deliver.

Let me illustrate this change for you with a story. Imagine that you run Odd Society, one of Vancouver’s hard-working craft distilleries. You have a beautiful lounge, and you make amazing cocktails using 100 percent B.C. spirits that you produce on site. You often get groups coming into your lounge to try out that cocktail, but generally there is one in the bunch — and we all have friends — who really isn’t keen on spirits and would rather just have a beer.

Until early August, Odd Society had to say, “Sorry, folks. We can only serve liquor that we make right here,” to which, in many cases, the group would reply, “Well, that’s too bad. I guess we’ll have to go somewhere else,” and then they’d leave. You’d have lost seven customers because you couldn’t make all eight of them happy. It’s a sad story of red tape getting in the way, and now, thanks to this update, one that won’t repeat itself.

[1100]

The other great thing about this change is when people are hosting an event…. Perhaps it’s a wedding or perhaps it’s a 50th wedding anniversary. Let’s say it’s at the winery in the manufacturing special-event area. There is no more running around for the bride and groom trying to get a special occasion licence just to serve a cocktail or a pint of beer. Now the manufacturer can bring in the additional liquor and serve it at their special event. That’s one less thing to worry about. And leading up to the big day, it saves the $25 fee for the licence as well.

With that no-nonsense common sense, government has opened up the benefits for consumers and those in the manufacturing, tourism and event-planning industries.

Today is a very special day. It is Small Business Month, and today we will have a proclamation to celebrate that. Small businesses provide significant benefit to communities across British Columbia. They are the heart and the soul of communities.

Earlier today, in the two-minute statements, we had the opportunity to listen about the importance of organ donation. It was these types of initiatives that were identified when we talked about reducing red tape for citizens in British Columbia. When we reduce red tape for citizens, it makes an impact. When we have the opportunity to listen to citizens from throughout British Columbia, these are the types of red-tape regulations that they’ve said just don’t make sense. We’ve ensured that we’re supporting.

We have new family-friendly fishing regulations. We have new common standards for home inspectors. We have new strata rules that came out of ensuring that we have a singular focus on red-tape reduction in our government. We modernized the Animal Health Act with the implementation of a new act, and we are better equipped to manage and report animal diseases.

We’ve looked at other opportunities, such as fostering intakes to ensure that we have better access to services. We’ve improved autism funding. We’ve streamlined the process for hazardous waste applications. We have a single umbrella for natural resource decisions. We’ve
[ Page 9330 ]
simplified contract fees for B.C. Parks capital facility improvements.

We’ve streamlined and modernized the building code. We’ve improved security for financial information transfers. We’ve looked at new systems for employers adviser officers. We’ve modernized the training platform for commercial trucks. We now have new flexible forest licences.

All of these important red-tape reductions that we have made make common sense. We listened to citizens across British Columbia, and we’ve implemented what they have said.

I hope that everyone here today joins me in support of Bill 34, which will make a positive and effective shift in the management and continuous improvement of our regulatory environment, effectively ensuring it continues to meet the citizens and businesses while keeping our economy diverse, strong and growing.

I would like to now move second reading.

C. James: I rise to speak to Bill 34. I want to start off to say that I wish we were having conversation in this Legislature. I wish this bill was bringing forward a conversation about small businesses in British Columbia.

[1105]

I wish this bill was bringing forward an opportunity for us to talk about how we can support small business, how we can encourage them in British Columbia, how we can help them continue to be such an engine, such a driver of our economy in British Columbia. But in fact, that’s not what this bill is.

Red Tape Reduction Day, 2015. There is more than a little bit of irony that the government is bringing forward a bill — using red tape and regulation to bring forward that bill here in the Legislature — when they simply could have done this through a proclamation, when they simply could have taken care of this. Instead, they used regulation to bring this into the Legislature to be able to have the discussion. It really is extraordinary, as I said, for us to be spending time in the Legislature on a bill that had to use red tape and regulation to come forward, on something the government simply could have done by proclamation, as they’ve done so many other times.

There was one other piece that the minister said that I just had to shake my head at. That was when the minister said: “We’re passing a law so we will do this.” It now takes passing of a law for this government to actually do something that they set as a goal for continuing on? They actually have to pass a law in the Legislature to force themselves to do something? Again, when we’re talking about red tape and regulation, there’s more than a little bit of irony here.

As I said, if we had the opportunity to talk about small businesses in British Columbia, it would be an entirely different discussion. It could be a discussion about the strength that they bring to our province. As I think the minister said, 382,200 small businesses. Some 98 percent of businesses in British Columbia are small businesses, and 81 percent of those small businesses are microbusinesses, with fewer than five employees. We all know, when we take a look at our own communities, the strength that those small businesses bring to our communities.

I think one of the most wonderful, amazing things that’s occurred over the last number of years has been the real movement around shopping local. We see it in my own community. In my own community, we’ve had, in fact, a group of businesses come together to create a Shop Local association to encourage people to support their small businesses, to take pride in the kinds of goods and services and produce and products that you can buy right in your own community to support those people in your own community.

I think one of the amazing things about small businesses and about investment in small businesses is that that money stays in your community and stays in the economy in British Columbia. Those aren’t dollars that are taken overseas. Those aren’t dollars that go off to shareholders. Those are dollars that actually stay right in the community, that circulate in the community, that keep our local economies going and provide employment for people in our local communities. So I take great pride in the local businesses in our communities.

I take great pride in the fact that we’ve seen a real shift over the last number of years with people looking to their local businesses to be able to buy, whether it’s the 100-mile diet or whether it’s people now stating — as many folks have done, and I have a group of friends that we’ve done this with as well — that Christmas presents now are only local and only edible. It’s a wonderful way to be able to make sure that you’re supporting your small businesses in your community.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if, while we’re debating Bill 34, we were talking about those kinds of opportunities, those kinds of opportunities to discuss how to support small businesses. I’ve spent a lot of time…. In fact, over the last number of weeks while I’ve been on the Select Standing Committee for Finance, we’ve had businesses come forward to talk to us about some of the challenges that they’re facing, about the issues that they think are important for business in British Columbia. The businesses that I talk to and that I hear from aren’t asking for the elimination of red tape and regulation. They are asking for smart regulations. They are asking for things that make sense.

The minister said common sense. But I can tell you that this government’s approach of counting regulations — if you add a regulation, you have to take a regulation away — isn’t looking at smart regulations, isn’t looking at common sense. It’s looking simply at numbers and trying to play a political game, to say: “Don’t worry, we’ve taken care of things.” In fact, that doesn’t take care of things at all.

The sensible approach is to actually work with those small businesses to say: “Where are there things that can
[ Page 9331 ]
be streamlined?” There’s no question that there are times when you need to take a look at priorities, at duplication, and you need to address that.

[1110]

I certainly support that and agree with that. Small business owners are not individuals who have a whole staff to be able to take care of repeating regulations when that occurs. They don’t have an entire department to address those things. It’s often, as I said…. Small businesses have a small number of individuals who are employees. It’s often working weekends. You certainly don’t get statutory holidays and time off if you’re a small business owner. You’re spending that time.

So to look at that kind of streamline makes sense. But to look at simply playing this political game, around the kind of bill that we see in front of us today, doesn’t do anything to support those small businesses and doesn’t do anything to streamline the approaches that are needed and, in fact, to add the regulations that are needed.

I want to just give one example of that. I introduced last fall an act called the Franchise Act. It was a number of businesses who have approached ourselves and also approached government to say that…. These are people who buy franchises — franchisees, they’re called — and who have run into some real challenges in being able to manage their franchise. They have seen an imbalance of power. They have seen a lack of disclosure of information when they buy that franchise, and they’ve seen some real inequality in the system.

A franchise act is a perfect example of where regulations are needed, where smart regulations are needed to be able to level the playing field. I think most of the public would imagine that if you go to buy a franchise, you, in fact, would get all of the disclosure of what information you need, what kinds of costs are going to be associated, what kinds of products have to be bought by the franchise to be able to run your business, whether you have the ability to sell your business and move somewhere else or whether that’s tied in to the franchise.

Those are all very valid questions that business owners, entrepreneurs in our province who want to contribute to the economy, have been coming forward and raising questions on. In fact, as I said, we presented a franchise act. We felt it was important to try and address some of those challenges, that imbalance of power. That’s an example of smart regulation. That’s an example of things that business owners are asking for.

What do smart regulations do? Well, from my perspective, smart regulations provide accountability, making sure that there is a level playing field there. Smart regulations look at the health and safety issues that are involved in businesses. Smart regulations look at environmental protection and how important that is.

This government’s move, from 2001, to look at deregulation and to look at — often, in many cases — handing over self-regulation to large corporations, to large companies, and saying: “Don’t worry. We trust you. You can take care of those things….” No question. It was the wrong direction to go.

As I said, there are times when it makes sense. I hear from small businesses where sometimes there are government departments, and they’re required to give the same information to two or three departments that are in place. They’re applying for something, and they’re told to give the information to one department. They then go somewhere else in government, and they’re told they have to provide that same information there.

In fact, this doesn’t simply happen for businesses. This also happens in the social services field. We’ve all heard, from individuals and not-for-profit organizations, the challenges for individuals, for example, who are applying for disabilities. They go to the government department, they are told that they need to provide information around being able to claim their benefits for disabilities, and they give all the information. Two years later someone on permanent disability is required to go to their doctor to be able to show once again that they are disabled and that they can provide that information.

Should those kinds of things be streamlined? Of course they should. That’s basic common sense. That’s basic common sense to say it doesn’t make sense to ask someone to have to repeat that information over and over and over again, department after department. Whether you’re a business, whether you’re an individual living with disabilities, whether you’re on social services, it makes sense to be able to take a look at that.

[1115]

Removing the checks and balances that are necessary to be able to ensure, for example, that industry is following the law on health and safety. Does that make sense? No. Eliminating regulations at WorkSafe B.C. that protect workers. Is that the right direction? No.

I certainly haven’t heard from small businesses that that’s what they expect. I haven’t heard small businesses say: “Take away all of those regulations.” That’s not what they’re calling for. They’re calling, again, as I said earlier, for smart regulations.

It’s the wrong direction to go to simply look at a count and, as we’re seeing with this bill, to bring something forward that has no meaning and that isn’t looking at providing the support that small businesses really deserve and a real conversation about the contributions that small businesses make to British Columbia.

Removing environmental regulations. We’ve seen that again in this government’s zeal for deregulation. We’ve seen, whether it’s the building of logging roads or the protection of watersheds, leaving it to industry and saying: “You go take care of it yourself. Don’t worry. We trust you.” Well, there’ve been examples where there’ve been some tragedies because of that that have shown it’s not the right direction to go.

Data collection. I was thinking about this as we were go-
[ Page 9332 ]
ing through question period. There are rules and regulations in place around data collection. Well, we spent a lot of time in question period and a lot of time this week discussing the challenges that this government seems to have — this government’s cavalier approach, which they seem to have, to collecting data, to maintaining data, to saving data and to not losing or, as the minister said, misplacing data.

Those regulations are in place for a reason. Those requirements are there for a reason — to protect people’s personal information. Yet, again, simply doing a blanket, “Let’s look at cutting red tape. Let’s look at cutting regulations. If we add one, we’ll take one away,” doesn’t take the time to look at a sensible approach to be able to manage this kind of process.

I want to look, just for a few minutes, at some of the work. The minister mentioned in her discussion and her comments around Bill 34 that the government has been cutting regulation and red tape since 2001. She said that this has been a great approach and that it’s had great success.

Let’s look at a few individual examples that have occurred since 2001 that, in fact, the facts show have been just the opposite. The facts show that this kind of approach to looking at red tape and not looking at smart regulations is the wrong direction to go.

The first one I want to mention is — and this occurred in 2002 — the deregulation of addiction and recovery homes. This was something that government felt was going to be a positive direction to go. “Let’s take away the licensing requirements for recovery homes, for addiction homes, in the province.”

I can tell you, you just need to talk to anyone in a community to know the challenges that has created. You are taking vulnerable individuals who are looking for support to address their addiction and recovery issues, who have been taken advantage of, who have been not treated well, who have not been given the kind of support they need.

Why? Well, because there are, in fact, no regulations right now around addiction and recovery homes. No licensing requirements around the individuals who run those homes to have the kind of training and support they need, the kind of health and safety issues that need to be addressed. The Vancouver Sun, a few years after this occurred, reported that the result has been a large and growing problem, with allegations of everything from poor living conditions to drug-dealing on site.

We continue to hear that today. The mayor at the time, Dianne Watts, expressed her concern about the deregulation. She said: “Municipal councils are not in the health field. We don’t have expertise to deal with this. We’ll be back to the same old problems, with unregulated boarding houses, drug overdoses and, sometimes, staff abuses.” So there’s an example, when we talk about smart regulation, to make sure that in an industry where the opportunity exists to take advantage of vulnerable people, the regulations are in place to make sure that doesn’t happen.

[1120]

Again, this government, since 2001…. The kind of zeal that they’ve taken on in being able to look at the numbers shows that they took away regulations that actually made sense and were there for a very specific reason. That’s not a smart approach to looking at regulations and red tape.

Another area — and we’ve seen the tragic results of this one — is the deregulation of child death reviews. The government, when they were taking a look at regulation and red tape, went through a process of changing in many acts — there were a number of acts, but one of them, as well, was the Coroners Act — the “must” to “may,” so giving the option. The example I want to use, unfortunately, is the issue of child deaths. The act was changed to say that the coroner may investigate child deaths, not must investigate child deaths.

At the same time, that was also the disbanding of the Children’s Commission, the independent officer who reported out on government, whichever government was in power, to make sure that there was some accountability around children and families issues in this province.

When we take a look at the years it took, the fight it took by the opposition, by groups and organizations in the communities, by social workers, by others doing good practice in this province…. They had to fight to bring back an independent children’s officer in this province. The work that that took, the resources, the time and the energy that could have been spent instead on providing support for children in care when we know the kinds of challenges that are there, when we know the kinds of resources that should be put in place….

That’s what happened. That’s what happened when this government decided that getting rid of the Children’s Commission was a great way to cut a bunch of regulations, to be able to put them on a list and say they were gone, instead of looking at smart regulations and the result of what that would cause.

We’ve seen it, as well, in health and safety issues. We’ve seen it in the area of forestry. A 45 percent reduction in workplace inspections, and we’ve seen the tragedies that have occurred because of that. A 49 percent decrease in written orders — an increase in deaths.

Again, if anyone out there, including businesses, were taking a look at regulations and red tape, they are certainly not calling for regulations to be removed that provide support for worker safety, that provide support for health and safety. Yet that’s what we’ve seen — again, vulnerable people facing challenges because of this government’s desire to look at numbers instead of the reality of what those regulations would do.

Another example during that same time period was the issue of farmworker safety. Again, the government decided a good way to cut regulations was to remove farmworkers from employment regulations that were related to work, overtime and pay; to reduce, as well, the inspections that occurred on farms, where the health and safety issues would be looked at, where government would go in
[ Page 9333 ]
and say: “Are you following the safety rules that are there now?” Again, we’ve seen the kind of tragic result that has occurred in the area of farmworkers.

I’ve spent time, as I know members on the other side have as well, with some of those farmworkers who have lost family members in tragic accidents. I don’t hear those farmworkers, and I don’t hear others and other businesses in British Columbia calling for the kind of drastic regulation change that we saw under this government.

It’s for good reason that when you see something like this come forward, when you see a bill like this come forward that could have been done, as I said before, through proclamation…. We could have spent time talking about: what are smart regulations, and what aren’t? Wouldn’t that have been an interesting conversation in this Legislature, to be able to talk about how that could be done properly?

We don’t have to look very far to do that. In fact, if we look south of the border, it’s been interesting to watch the approach that’s been taken by the Obama administration around regulations. They, in fact, put in a process to be able to take a look at regulations. They called it: “Making regulations smarter to save lives and money.” Again, that’s looking at priorities. That’s making sure you take a look at what makes sense.

[1125]

I want to mention the process that they’re using, because I think it’s interesting to take a look at it compared to the government and the approach the government is taking of just counting numbers, that we’ll get rid of ones over here if we introduce one here.

The President actually signed an executive order down south of the border, making it an obligation to scrutinize the rules that were on the books to see if they made sense and also directing agencies to actually get public comment and discussion with the area that they were looking at changing regulations in.

Let’s look at the impact before those regulations are taken away. Let’s look at what might happen if those regulations and rules that are there are removed. Are there positives? Are there negatives? What’s going to be the impact? Again, doesn’t that make sense? Isn’t that a sensible, straightforward approach to take when it comes to rules and red tape?

Smart regulations — discuss with the people who are going to be impacted, and take a look at why the rule and regulation was put in place in the first place. Maybe there’s a perfectly good reason it’s there, and maybe it does have to do with health and safety. Maybe it does have to do with protecting workers. Maybe it does have to do with protecting the environment or vulnerable people in our province. That’s the kind of approach that I’d like to see the government spend their time and energy on.

We saw it yesterday with a debate on a bill that the government had already made a decision on. Today, we see government bringing a bill forward that they could have done through proclamation and had passed and got on with putting together a process for smart regulations. Sadly, that doesn’t seem to be the way the government wants to go. The government seems to want to play these kinds of games.

I would have loved to spend time in this Legislature debating how we support small businesses and local businesses in our province, how we encourage them to continue to be part of our economy, continue to be able to contribute the way they do, providing employment the way they do. That’s how we should be spending our time in this Legislature.

Hon. S. Bond: I’m very pleased to be able to take my place in the Legislature today as the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour. There’s probably no more appropriate day that we should be talking about the reduction of red tape in British Columbia than on a day that marks the beginning of Small Business Month in this province. We also will be celebrating Manufacturing Month as we talk about the engine that drives the economy of British Columbia.

As has been mentioned by others — both our minister and the member on the opposite side of the House — this is about small businesses, and 98 percent of the businesses in British Columbia are defined as small. Why does that matter? It matters because more than a million British Columbians work in small business. It means that today, we as a government need to make sure that we are doing everything we possibly can to make the life of small businesses in this province as easy as possible.

One of the things we hear about endlessly.... The member opposite that just spoke made it sound like government never talks to small business and that there’s no process in place. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, today in this very Legislature, during question period, representatives of small businesses from across this province were in the gallery. They are meeting today, as they meet regularly, to have that conversation with government that says: how can we be part of making sure that businesses, small businesses in particular, thrive in British Columbia? And what is the message we hear routinely? It’s that we need to deal with unnecessary regulation.

While I very much appreciate the member citing a number of health and safety issues, we have been clear from the very beginning that this is not about removing regulation that protects the health and safety of British Columbians. This is about unnecessary, redundant regulation. As we move forward, we want to make sure that we are responding to industry and to changes in technology.

[1130]

The member opposite said this bill has no meaning. Well, perhaps the member opposite would like to make that statement to members of the small business community, who value the fact that this government has stood up since day one and said we recognize that when
[ Page 9334 ]
we overregulate — not in the areas of health and safety but when we overregulate small businesses in this province — it crushes job growth.

A million British Columbians today work in small business. Our commitment has actually seen this government lead the country in its work on regulatory reform. The member opposite may not like that, but that is the fact.

Let me quote for a moment from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and what they said about the efforts that have been taken.

Interjections.

Hon. S. Bond: The members opposite smile and laugh, because that’s exactly what they would do.

This is about jobs for British Columbians.

Here is the quote: “B.C. is the only province in Canada to get an A grade for regulatory reform from CFIB. The commitment to getting on the regulatory scale and weighing in deserves praise and is something a lot of other governments still don’t want to do. This annual report” — in fact, we do report annually — “provides important accountability.”

Today the introduction of this bill is another step in being publicly accountable for the continued reduction of red tape. I’ll say it again for the member opposite. It is not about reducing protection for men and women in British Columbia, for families, for health and safety. All of those things remain critical to this government.

To the member opposite, I should point out that across this country….

Interjection.

Hon. S. Bond: I look forward to the member opposite rising from his chair and sharing those comments shortly. I look forward to it.

We should be clear that this province recognizes the importance of small business, and the work that the Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness has done to move the small business file forward in British Columbia has been nothing short of stellar. As a previous small business owner she brought to this government a lens which requires us as ministers to evaluate everything we bring forward and to look at: what is the impact on jobs? What is the impact on small businesses in British Columbia?

Yes, this government is being recognized for reducing over 43 percent of unnecessary red tape in British Columbia. As we move forward, we need…. The member opposite spoke: “Well, we don’t really need numbers. We don’t really need to have targets.” Do you know what happens when we don’t hold ourselves accountable to numbers and targets?

I’m very proud of the fact that this government has stood up and said: “We are going to have and continue the practice of net-zero regulation.” It’s not a matter of check marks. Well, let’s just see if we can subtract one here or one there. It’s about accountability. It’s about saying to British Columbians…. If I’m going to add a regulation, I need to be sure that we are maintaining that aggressive approach to making sure we don’t strangle small businesses in this province.

We’re committed to supporting the small businesses of British Columbia. They are the heart of this province, and one of the biggest concerns they have is being addressed by the work we are doing with red-tape reduction. We hear it all across this province. We hear it from the members of the Small Business Roundtable, which, by the way, has been in place for years. All of the steps that we’ve taken in terms of supporting small business in this province have been in consultation with people who actually own and run small businesses right across the province.

I don’t know how the member opposite can be opposed to something like simplifying forms. When you’re a small business and you have three people working for you and the form….

Interjection.

Hon. S. Bond: That’s right. The member opposite says “smart regulation.” That’s exactly what we’re doing in British Columbia. We started smart regulation long before the Obama government, and we’re going to continue.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite laughs. She’s the one that referenced Obama in this Legislature. He’s a little late to the game of red-tape reduction compared to the province of British Columbia.

This is about being pragmatic, and it’s about supporting small businesses.

[1135]

For example, when we inherited government…. When you had to apply to have a child care subsidy or when a small business had to do paperwork, one of the things we found out was that often the forms were 32 pages long.

I know this. That impacts productivity. Do you think a small business owner who has three employees has time to fill out 32 pages of paperwork? On this side of the House, we say no, and that’s why we’re getting rid of those big, cumbersome forms and allowing small business owners to concentrate on what they do best: run businesses and provide services and supports.

I don’t know how that’s a laughing matter or how it’s not important or how it has no meaning. I can tell you this. Reducing red tape for small businesses in British Columbia is a priority. It matters to the success of small businesses, and we’re going to make sure that, once a year, we hold a day in this province to highlight the importance of maintaining a smart approach to regulatory regimes in this government. That’s exactly what this is intended to do.
[ Page 9335 ]

We have today in British Columbia 2.3 million British Columbians working. That is a record in British Columbia. We’ve never had 2.3 million people working in this province. And think about this. One million of those people actually work in small businesses.

The other thing we look at is: why do small businesses have confidence in British Columbia? If we look back at the numbers that are presented on a regular basis here by independent organizations, when they take a look at the confidence level of small businesses, British Columbia continuously ranks in the top two in terms of small business confidence in the country. That is a result of the focus and emphasis that we have placed on working with small businesses, making sure we are getting rid of needless regulation, making sure we’re supporting small businesses.

This is just a next step in the evolution of making sure that we remain vigilant and accountable and transparent about our intention to look at responsible red-tape reduction. It is about a public commitment. It’s about saying: “That matters.” Unlike what the member opposite said — that this has no meaning — it has meaning to the men and women who struggle in British Columbia, at times, to keep a small business afloat.

We have removed 155,000 outdated and unnecessary requirements. And this bill is intended to point out that it will remain a priority for this government, a top priority, to make sure that we’re creating a place where, when investors are looking across the country, around the world, to choose a place to invest, one of the first things they look at is how much red tape. What are the income tax rates? “What are those things that matter when I’m going to make a decision about where to put my business?”

What if you’re that entrepreneur who has a dream and wants to start that small business? Should the first thing they worry about be how much government red tape there is, how much we get in the way of entrepreneurs and small business owners in this province? Absolutely not. This is the next step in terms of a transparent approach. I would urge the members opposite to go take a look at the annual report — it is our fourth annual report — where we lay out for British Columbians the changes that we’ve made to the regulatory environment.

Throughout it all, I want to assure British Columbians and the member opposite that compromised health and safety is not one of the questions at issue here. In fact, the member opposite referenced issues with WorkSafe B.C. I can tell the member opposite, and she knows very well, that I recently introduced amendments to the WorkSafe B.C. act to actually tighten and strengthen those regulations. And the member opposite I’m sure will know that as we move forward, that will continue to be our priority: the health and safety of British Columbians.

Despite the doom and gloom we hear in the Legislature on a regular basis, British Columbia is anticipated to be one of the leaders of economic growth in the country this year — that during a time when the economy is fragile, when provinces next door to us and around us are struggling. This province has the potential in those very difficult circumstances to lead this country in economic growth.

[1140]

We’re going to continue to do every single thing we can to ensure that our economy is diverse, that it is growing, that it is one of the strongest in this country. Regulation, whether the members opposite want to laugh about that or not, is absolutely essential to ensuring this is a place that people choose to invest, choose to grow their businesses and choose to hire more people. Because one thing we know: we want to make sure that those small business….

Ninety-eight percent of businesses in this province are defined as small businesses, and you know what they want? They want government to get out of the way. They want to be protected in terms of the health and safety of British Columbians, and no one on this side of the House is talking about compromising British Columbians’ health and safety with this bill or any of the other initiatives that we have taken on.

What we are saying is that we’re going to grapple with regulation one at a time, one by one, looking at the regulatory count. For everyone we talk to — so perhaps the member opposite in her next visits with small business would like to ask this question — the regulatory count actually matters to them. When government was contemplating whether or not we should continue to actually count regulations and hold ourselves transparently accountable for that, guess what the answer was. Don’t get rid of the count.

It matters to people. I can tell you, as a minister who has served in this House for 14 years in a variety of ministries, regulation, and unnecessary regulation, matters to me. When I bring a bill forward or I’m dealing with a policy issue, I actually look, as do all of my colleagues, at: what is the impact on small business? How does it impact them? Is the regulation necessary? Is there another way to do it? Not once have I sat in my office and thought about how we could reduce the regulation that protects the British Columbians that all of us represent in this province.

This is about needless overlapping. It is about how we get rid of stuff we don’t need — the colour of the washrooms, whether you can bring one tadpole to school or two, whether or not you have 32 pages to fill out or whether you have two pages to fill out. All of those things make a difference. They are needless. We don’t need to be doing them.

While there are those who would snicker, which occurred yesterday and even today, or guffaw, this does matter. Strangling small business should matter to the members of the opposite side of the House as much as it matters to this side of the House. So, as we proceed, we’re going to continue to look for ways to allow small businesses to flourish in British Columbia. That means getting rid of red tape. It means making sure we have a strong fiscal foundation.

We have some of the lowest income tax rates in the country. We have a triple-A credit rating. We’re projected
[ Page 9336 ]
to lead the country in economic growth this year. All of those things matter. Those are the things that will ensure that British Columbia has a strong and diverse economy moving forward, and it is what is allowing us to be successful in very difficult circumstances, as we look to some of our colleagues across the country.

Red-tape reduction does matter. It is not at the expense of the health and safety of British Columbians, but we’re going to make sure that we do everything we can to allow small businesses to flourish in British Columbia.

L. Popham: It’s so interesting hearing the government talk about the ways they’ve cut red tape and how they’re concerned about small business when they choose to ignore a red-tape Godzilla that’s strangling small business. They’ve actually added new red tape in British Columbia, and they’ve done it through an additional layer of bureaucracy.

There is no better example of this than the red-tape monster called Multi-Material British Columbia. MMBC is a registered B.C. non-profit society that has been given monopoly-like powers by the Ministry of Environment to demand over $100 million annually from businesses and to take over the B.C. residential recycling sector. To collect all this money, MMBC has forced a huge reporting and accounting regime onto B.C. small businesses.

[1145]

This red-tape monster led the Canadian Federation of Independent Business to give MMBC a prize. MMBC won the top prize from CFIB as one of the two worst red-tape offenders in the entire country. I’m going to read a little press release that was sent out by CFIB.

“As it wraps up its fifth annual Red Tape Awareness Week, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is calling on the Premier of British Columbia to prevent an onslaught of costly red tape from hitting B.C.’s small businesses and increasing costs for consumers. The B.C. Liberal government passed legislation in 2012 forcing businesses to account for packaging waste and have appointed an arm’s-length organization called Multi-Materials B.C. to enforce new regulations.

“Today MMBC was recognized by CFIB as an award-winner for Canada’s worst new red tape, earning the first-ever Paperweight Award. The government’s waste program goes into effect on May 19” — this was last year — “and will impact thousands of small businesses and consumers with new fees and hidden taxes.

“MMBC’s website instructs businesses to consult with their lawyers and regulatory affairs departments in order to comply with the new rules. Eighty percent of B.C. businesses have fewer than five employees and do not have regulatory affairs departments.

“‘Getting small businesses off the hook for these ridiculous regulations is the first real test of this government’s commitment to small business,’ says Laura Jones, CFIB executive vice-president. ‘If B.C. is serious about maintaining its red-tape leadership, it can’t give the power to a group like MMBC to impose rules that contradict the government’s own regulatory reform policy.’

“MMBC is governed by an Ontario board of multinational corporations, such as Procter and Gamble, Walmart and Coca-Cola. Small businesses from across B.C. will be required to sort, weigh and track packaging material and remit payments of up to thousands of dollars annually to MMBC. Those costs will be passed on to B.C. consumers in the form of price increases.

“‘Small businesses are already taking action to get greener and cleaner, and there is no evidence that the new rules with MMBC further help environmental goals,’ says Mike Klassen, B.C. director of provincial affairs.”

I don’t think he’s with that organization anymore.

“‘Last summer MMBC…’”

Interjection.

L. Popham: It’s all the same — exactly the same as last year, for the member’s education across the way.

“‘…promised changes to mitigate the impact on small and medium-sized enterprises and asked for time to consult with small business. The time has run out, and businesses are in the dark. It is the worst public policy in memory, and small businesses need to be exempted from it.’”

That’s what our friends at CFIB are saying. I’ve spoken to numerous small businesses collecting a list of businesses across the province that today are still caught up in the red-tape rules that come with trying to meet MMBC rules. It’s clear evidence of failed governing, but it also shows that the B.C. Liberals can’t tell the difference between red tape, on one hand, and regulations essential to protecting public good and running small business.

Truth be told, much of what they call red tape is actually important and necessary regulation, like inspections and standards at mines, the kinds of regulations that were cut prior to the disaster at Mount Polley. Despite their posturing, the B.C. Liberal government has unrolled miles and miles of their own red tape. With one hand, the members opposite wave scissors in the air boasting of their red-tape-cutting skills, and on the other hand, they’re tying red tape tightly around the wrists of small business.

We have called for a review of MMBC by the Auditor General. On July 22, the Auditor revealed that one of her priorities will be a review of MMBC. This is an important and necessary step that we’ve been working toward since 2014. You can’t trust this government when they talk about their cuts to red tape, because the proof is in the small business pudding.

L. Reimer: On behalf of my constituents from Anmore, Belcarra, Port Moody and Coquitlam, I’m pleased to rise today and support Bill 34 , the Red Tape Reduction Day Act.

[1150]

For the business community — and I stress that: for the business community — one of the greatest overhead costs is excessive regulations and red tape. It is more than just a burden on the private sector. Excessive regulation and red tape can be a job-killer, especially when many of these rules date back to a bygone era and no longer have any relevance in our current context.

It is a fact that the private sector is the main source of jobs in our province. If you look even closer, you will discover that small business makes up 98 percent of all business in the province. Small business employs over one million people, and we owe it to them to create the best environment for business to flourish, rather than
[ Page 9337 ]
hinder them with outdated and unnecessary regulation.

It might also interest you to know that British Columbia has the second-largest share of self-employed workers in the country, accounting for 17.4 percent of total employment. For all those people who have struck out on their own as entrepreneurs, the last thing they need is a set of antiquated rules standing in their way.

Red tape and unnecessary regulations not only kills jobs; it makes British Columbia less competitive within our Confederation and even less able to compete in what is becoming an increasingly global marketplace. Therefore, it is incumbent on government to work closely with the private sector to ensure that we are competitive not only with other provinces but also with our competitors abroad.

As I mentioned yesterday in the House, as elected officials, many of us started out in local government. As a two-term councillor with the city of Coquitlam, I brought forward a motion that resulted in staff creating a red-tape-cutting committee. I also supported a Tri-Cities mobile business licence. The goal was to simplify the way business licence fees are collected, making licences more user-friendly for business.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

In having staff review all of our city bylaws, we were able to make the system more equitable and fair by establishing fees that were based on the actual size of a business. It also made our on-line processing easier.

One of the key changes that came about at the city of Coquitlam was that the total number of business licences were reduced from 70 different categories down to eight. That’s a stark reduction. You can imagine how cumbersome 70 different categories were, and, at the local level, the response from small business owners was remarkable. In fact, through this initiative, more than half of businesses saw their annual licence fees decrease, or at least remain stable, because we were able to achieve efficiencies in the system.

That was what I and my fellow councillors were able to achieve at the municipal level. Now, as a member of the provincial Legislature, I’m pleased to continue the efforts to create a better atmosphere for business through today’s legislation, Bill 34, the Red Tape Reduction Day Act. Red tape reduction day is an honorary day that will shine light on our commitment to a net-zero increase in regulatory requirements through to 2019.

It’s an opportunity to shed light on the fact that government has been working with the private sector — yes, we have — to slash red tape since 2001. Since 2001, our government has reduced regulatory requirements by over 43 percent, and during that time, as the minister of jobs, skills and tourism said, we have removed more than 155,000 outdated and unnecessary requirements. Consequently, British Columbia has been a recognized leader in cutting red tape by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

For four years in a row, we’ve received an A in red-tape reduction. There is a reason for that. In October 2012, the B.C. government announced it would create the B.C. small business accord to establish a list of priorities to make B.C. the most business-friendly jurisdiction in Canada. A consultation period was launched to determine guiding principles that should be included in the accord.

Over 35,000 individuals provided feedback through community meetings, an on-line survey and the #BCBizChat Twitter town hall. On February 5, 2013, the small business accord forum, made up of 15 business owner-operators from various regions throughout B.C., used the feedback from the consultation period to determine the accord principles and establish action items for the provincial government.

As a result of these efforts, the B.C. small business accord arrived at the following principles.

Consider the needs and impacts of small businesses and policy and program decisions to enhance business certainty, access to qualified labour, access to capital and technology adoption. Foster a regulatory environment that small business can access, navigate and influence effectively and efficiently.

[1155]

Design provincial government programs and resources affecting small businesses so that they are well developed, accessible, properly funded and effectively communicated. Foster thoughtful collaboration among all levels of government, including First Nations. Deploy educational and training programs that are future-focused and aligned to meet the changing needs of small business and the labour talent that it develops. Create long-term growth opportunities for small business through government procurement.

The small business accord is designed as a living document that continues to evolve and meet the ongoing needs of small business.

In conclusion, the provincial government will continue to engage small business owners and operators to ensure that we are the most business-friendly jurisdiction in Canada and the world and will continue to do so by continuing to slash unnecessary red tape and regulations that hinder the private sector.

L. Reimer moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Wilkinson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

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

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