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

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 28, Number 14

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

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2015

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I call continued second reading of Bill 34.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 34 — RED TAPE REDUCTION DAY ACT

(continued)

S. Simpson: I’m pleased to stand and speak to Bill 34, the Red Tape Reduction Day Act. This is a piece of legislation that I think, all in, is about 12 or 13 words, something like that.

The challenge with this bill is, of course, when we talk about red tape…. I heard the Minister of Jobs say that this is all about small business. But this talks about red tape. It doesn’t talk about small business.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

What we know is deregulation, something this government has been pursuing for 14 years, apparently not particularly successfully, since we keep reintroducing the question of deregulation. But what we know that it has done — deregulation, across the government — is hurt a lot of people and hurt the environment.

When you look at workers compensation, when you look at worker injuries, when you look at the things that underlie coroners’ juries on matters like Babine and Lakeland…. When you dig deep on those tragedies, you will find that deregulation played a role.

When you look at employment standards and you look at workers who were hurt, you will find it is deregulation and moving to the self-help model that has hurt workers who are unorganized and who are often at the mercy of their employer. You hope their employer is positive and not negligent.

[1335]

When you look at the environment and you look at deregulation around the environment, it is the regulatory regime and those cuts that have hurt the environment. Often, it’s a matter of the government — this government — slashing resources in those areas and then saying to industry, “Well, we’d kind of like you to do this, but it’s a self-regulatory model. So do whatever you’re going to do, but we’d kind of like to you do this,” and then not having the ability to do the oversight or the enforcement to ensure that happens.

I listened to the Minister of Jobs say that this is all about small business and not about those things and that she wouldn’t allow that to happen. Well, the reality is that it has happened, time and time again. Workers have been hurt and the environment has been hurt because of deregulation. There were decisions to streamline things, and people went too far and the government went too far.

The government has an obligation to regulate where it makes sense. Nobody is looking for unnecessary regulation. Nobody wants unnecessary red tape. Nobody wants to hurt small business. Everybody wants that success. I have small businesses in my constituency. Obviously, they want help. They’re looking for help from the government, and frankly, they never talk about these things when they talk about the help that they need.

They want help, and presumably, we all want to help small business to succeed. It’s good for us. It’s good for job creation. But this kind of stunt, as was noted…. I mean, I think that we had a Small Business Week not long ago. This kind of stunt, like yesterday’s stunt, is not about dealing with substantive issues. It’s not about dealing with the matters that are important to us. It is about playing a game.

I don’t have any problem with saying that we need to do what we can do for small business, but this doesn’t say that. When you read the content, it’s says: “The first Wednesday in March is Red Tape Reduction Day.” It doesn’t say it’s reduction day for red tape for small business. No, doesn’t say that. If it meant that, then it should say that.

It says this. That says to me: that’s a reduction in regulation for workers’ compensation. That’s a reduction in regulation for employment standards. That’s a reduction in regulations for environmental protection. The reality is that we have seen every one of those things over the last 14 years.

There have been significant reductions in safety for workers, in safety for the environment. We have seen it continually, the erosion in those areas — a combination of accommodating people who asked this government to do that and of slashing the resources necessary to put the people on the ground to provide the oversight and the enforcement. That’s the problem that we face today.

If we want to talk about red-tape reduction for small business, then let’s talk about that. And let’s talk about it in a way that’s meaningful. This piece of legislation is not going to do anything for anybody. It’s one day a year when we’ll probably have a debate over how we did. Again, it is instead of being something substantive, instead of being something meaningful.

It would have been good for this minister and her first step on this file to have done something meaningful or substantive. She didn’t do that. She put this up. One sentence — a piece of legislation that is one sentence that says nothing and that does not deal with any of the substantive issues.

If this minister of deregulation was serious, she would have brought forward an approach that said, “Let’s talk
[ Page 9340 ]
about how regulation works. Let’s talk about good regulation and what happens there,” versus negative regulation. We could have that discussion.

[1340]

This isn’t simple math. The silly, absurd comments by the government of: “If we put a regulation in place, we have to eliminate a regulation….” This is silly. You put in place regulatory controls that you need to protect the public interest, and if you have regulations that make no sense, you get rid of them. It isn’t about one for one, but this government has chosen to play this game around the regulatory regime.

I will go back again and say we have seen far too many workers injured or killed because the regulatory regime didn’t work. We have seen workers exploited because the regulatory regime around employment standards didn’t work. We have seen the environment compromised, our habitat compromised, because the regulatory regime doesn’t have the resources behind it for the oversight and enforcement that are necessary.

What we really need to do…. We should have a meaningful discussion about regulatory regimes. It’s certainly not the Red Tape Reduction Day Act, certainly not this one sentence that we’re calling a piece of legislation.

The minister, when she gets up to close this debate at some point, should explain to this House what she understands about how the regulatory regime should work in this province. She should explain to those workers who’ve been injured how she was committed to improving the regulatory regime for those workers. She should explain how she’s going to work with the Minister of Jobs and for Labour to fix that. She should explain how she’s going to work with the Minister of Environment to fix the situation there. That’s what the minister responsible for red tape should be talking about.

I guess maybe she can’t do that. I notice here that she’s not the minister for the regulatory regime. She’s the Minister of Red Tape Reduction, not for the regulatory regime. I guess it’s a one-way street. All you can do is erode the regulatory regime, whether it’s good or bad to do it. That’s the only option she has, presuming…. If this title means anything, that’s the only option she has. That is never good public policy.

Yes, regulations that are duplication, that have unnecessary amounts of bureaucracy attached to them…. I’m the first one to say: “Let’s move them along. Let’s streamline them. Let’s change them.” But regulations that protect the public interest, that protect our habitat and where we are and that protect the people who go to work each day…. Let’s make sure those regulations are as strong as they can be, are as firm as they can be, with real oversight, real enforcement and real consequences for those people who are not prepared to play by the rules.

D. Plecas: On behalf of my constituents of Abbotsford South, I rise today to speak in support of Bill 34, the Red Tape Reduction Day Act.

With the passage of this act, red-tape-reduction day will be observed every year on the first Wednesday of March. This government is reinforcing its ongoing commitment to reduce red tape, an administrative burden for citizens and businesses.

Why is it so important to ensure we continue to reduce red tape? By doing this, we are ensuring British Columbians’ economic competitiveness. Easing the regulatory burden is also critical to providing citizens with high-quality government services and programs. This makes it easier for small business to do business. Removing frustration for citizens by streamlining and modernizing government services makes them easier to access and simpler to use.

In addition, we are inviting British Columbians to submit their own ideas on how to streamline how they use and access services. Listening to the people that use these services each and every day will help streamline service. There will be a public engagement opportunity for British Columbians to share their ideas. It can be the simple fixes that can help make using and accessing these services easier and simpler to use.

When it comes to cutting red tape, what are we doing? We are reviewing and assessing provincial regulations. Contrary to what the opposition says — that somehow it’s one or the other — this is a government that can do more than two things at once. It is a concern for regulation, but it’s also a concern for reducing red tape.

[1345]

We are reviewing and assessing government regulations. This means outdated and counterproductive regulations are removed from legislation. It will be easier for businesses and citizens to understand what is required of them when assessing government services.

We will help entrepreneurs save valuable time. They can redirect their time and resources into the development and expansion of their businesses instead of adhering to outdated and unnecessary regulations. Any improvements and modernization processes that will save citizens time, money and frustration when they are searching and using government services…. Having a straightforward regulatory regime will encourage more businesses to invest in B.C., and that is a good thing.

As well, I’d like to note that October is Small Business Month. This is the ninth consecutive year we are celebrating this. It is a time when we celebrate the contribution of small business to B.C.’s economic community and social well-being. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the voice for small business, has given B.C. an A grade four years in a row. That’s four years in a row. We are the only province to ever receive this grade.

We have reduced red tape by 43 percent since 2001. We heard the opposition say: why don’t we do something meaningful? It’s not us who are saying we’re doing some-
[ Page 9341 ]
thing meaningful. We have an independent body that’s telling us that we’re doing something that’s meaningful and more than that.

The increased supports we have undertaken for small business have led B.C. to having amongst the highest small business confidence numbers in Canada for over a year. In B.C. small businesses generate 33 percent of the province’s GDP.

This legislation institutionalizes the accountability and transparency of regulatory reform that British Columbians expect from us. In 2014 alone, B.C. has cut more than 1,700 regulatory requirements. More than 200 red-tape-reduction projects have been completed, with many more underway. Each year since 2001 we have undertaken streamlining initiatives to reduce the overall regulatory burden.

We have changed processes, forms and government websites to make it easier for citizens and businesses to deal with government. This legislation makes B.C. the only province in Canada with a red-tape-reduction day, and this is just one more thing we are doing to help small businesses in our province.

A. Weaver: I think it’s important that I start off my speech with a little bit of history of where the term red tape actually comes from.

It all began during the reign of King Charles V in 16th and 17th century Spain. Back then, his administration differentiated the most important documents from those that were more mundane by tying them with a red ribbon instead of a rope. In honour of this tradition, I entered the chamber today with my papers, my important papers on this topic, tied in red tape. More recently the term red tape is used to describe unnecessary bureaucratic regulatory roadblocks.

Let’s be clear. Let’s be very clear. This bill has nothing to do with red tape. This bill is yet another example of a narcissistic government trying to take credit for the things that were done by the previous administration. This government is out of ideas.

[1350]

This government calls an emergency session in July to discuss the project development agreement for its LNG pipedream, continually chasing that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow that keeps never being found. How many hundreds of thousands of dollars — taxpayers’ dollars — were used to bring back the session to debate a bill that we should be debating now?

Instead, what are we doing? We’re debating the absurd. We’re debating a bill that should have been done through proclamation, to name a date — the red-tape-reduction day.

I’ve put a motion on the order paper, and you will see that in your order papers tomorrow. I take exception to the date proposed. My motion that I’ll bring — and give notice now that I will be calling a division on — is to move the date to April 1. There’s a very real reason why that date would be April 1.

This is a government that is void of ideas. This is a government that has no vision. This is a government that recognizes that its small business base is lost. I know that that small business base is lost. I’ve toured the province. I’ve spoken to businesses. I know that they look at this government, and they see a lack of leadership. They see a lack of leadership because they feel that this government is singularly focused on LNG, at all costs, at all expenses.

There are small businesses — left, right and centre — talking to me about this issue. They wonder where their government is for them. Where is their government actually reducing red tape? Where is their government actually supporting them? Where is their government putting their interests, the interests of British Columbians and small businesses first, instead of spending all of its time, all of its legislative agenda in trying to land its pipedream of an LNG?

Yesterday evening, I was flabbergasted that we are actually debating this. I mean, this is not even a serious bill. The taxpayers of British Columbia should be astonished that we are wasting their money, their time, to debate this, astonished that this government is debating a bill like this. Maybe we should “om the bridge” again and think about it deeply and sincerely as we contemplate more bills like this.

When I put this on my Facebook page, I had no idea. I put it out as a joke. It’s not a joke. I have some comments that were posted on my Facebook page. In my career here in the Legislature, I have had very few posts that have had such a viral, organic reach in such a small amount of time. Let me tell you, the comments are not pleasant.

This bill is precisely the reason why voters in British Columbia are turned off by this government, are turned off by politics, are cynical about politicians, cynical about the political goals that they have. The reason why is that this bill has nothing to do with the well-being of British Columbians and everything to do with the narcissistic, self-congratulation of a government out of ideas, out of direction, visionless and losing its base in small business.

It’s a very sad day for British Columbia. Politics should be serious. We should be discussing serious issues. I welcomed the chance yesterday to discuss the Site C dam. Too bad that it wasn’t seven months ago, but nevertheless, we were able to discuss real issues. Again, it should have been done seven months ago when it would have actually meant something.

Let me read some of these comments. My favourite one, I thought, was…. Well, there are a lot of them. Here’s one: “I can’t believe there is such a thing as a Minister of Red Tape Reduction. Ludicrous. Sounds like something made up in a children’s story. There should be a minister of regulatory affairs, maybe, who is responsible for ensuring regulatory measures to ensure public safety are equitable, achievable and enforceable.”
[ Page 9342 ]

Another one here: “Is there not anything else they could work on, like — oh, I know — child welfare, the homeless, education, etc.?” “Isn’t that, by nature, an oxymoron?” “I was looking for the line with the words ‘the Onion’ beside my post.” For those who don’t know, the Onion, of course, is a comical, satirical magazine in the U.S. “While they’re at it, can you ask them to make an official silly walks day?” “We’ve already got a Ministry of Red Tape.”

I’ve got to read a few more. “Ha, ha, ha. Let’s do yoga on the bridge.” I’ve already used that one. “What about hardhat day?” somebody posted. “Gotta be bright blue.”

Let’s do some more. Well, this one is very dear to my heart. It says: “We could easily reduce red tape.” In capital letters: “Get rid of the Liberals.”

Here’s another one: “Well, that is what the federal Conservatives are touting, 40 percent less red tape, and Clark is a….” With respect. I’m quoting here. “The person, the Premier, is a con,” it says here.

[1355]

“The stupidity of the B.C. Liberals never fails to surprise me.” Another quote. I could go on and on. “Words escape me.” “Who are these people?” “This is too absurd for words.” “Face palm.” “No, wait, is it April 1?” That comment on my Facebook page — I really like to engage my constituents on Facebook — prompted me to put in this amendment to this bill, this ridiculous bill, to change the date to April 1.

“Why? Why? Why? No direction. No leadership. No brains,” is another comment. I’m not picking and choosing. I’m just reading the comments. “What’s next, anti-provincial holiday day? How much did it produce to then reduce?” That’s a good one. How much red tape are we introducing to then reduce it?

We could keep on going. “Did it pass?” somebody asked. “Baffling, staggering, stupefying.” “I solemnly swear never to vote for those responsible ever again.” “Give me a break. With PCTIA taking over the language sector, the B.C. government has shown they have no concept of red tape and the harm it does to businesses — businesses that support B.C. residents and the B.C. economy in general.”

These are not my friends and relatives. These are random people commenting on this. Here, “Oh, can we start with the B.C. Liberals?” another comment about reducing red tape. “Comment: no comment.” “Oh, seriously? It’s not even April 1.What a waste of time.”

Here we have another one, and this one is truly my favourite. This one makes me happier than all of the others combined. I will not say this person’s name, but he said the following. This is somebody who never voted in his life before because he thinks that all politicians are corrupt. He thinks that politics is a waste of time. He has lost hope in politics. He thinks the government is corrupt. With respect. He doesn’t believe in support of the opposition either, and he said this.

“Mr. Weaver” — Mr. MLA for Oak Bay–Gordon Head — “I have been thinking long and hard what you told me when I commented on not voting. You made some very valid points, and I have decided to vote. I wish to thank you, and I wish you good luck in the next election.” It is precisely this type of bill brought to us today that is encouraging these non-voters to regain their democracy.

I keep going: “The only thing missing was Mayor Quimby in his sash.” “On that point, I have to agree with you. A bill is not needed to reduce red tape. That requires a minister who knows how to accomplish that within his or her department.” “Seriously? Are we being pranked?” “Stranger than a Monty Python skit.” “What a waste of time and the paper it is written on.”

I keep going on: “This is the kind of waste of time we have to shed. We have a lot of serious issues that need our senior levels of government.” “The Premier leaves me speechless, but Andrew, you and others like you give me hope.”

I won’t bore the House. I’ve got another four pages of them, and not a single one of these comments…. And I come from a riding that was for 17 years the home of a Liberal cabinet minister, a riding that was the only Conservative riding in the province of British Columbia when Dr. Scott Wallace sat in this Legislature here. This is what my constituents are saying — my constituents, who this government would honestly believe form their base.

Well, let me tell you, they don’t have a base anymore, because this government has lost touch with its base, it’s lost touch with the people of British Columbia, it’s lost touch with small business, and this is a desperate attempt for them to try to regain some control of their base. Sadly, it won’t work. It isn’t going to work, and sadly — well, happily for us — in only two years, this government will be replaced.

A. Dix: One is, of course, tempted, when the government engages in this level of political stunt, to respond with derision. But I think that it might be better today to have a serious discussion and for the government to have a serious reflection on what it’s actually doing here.

I want to, if the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale, the minister, will bear with me, speak briefly about her family and mine. I think one of my proudest moments as an MLA in this Legislature was when the minister stood up and moved a motion that we unanimously supported talking about what happened: the internment of Japanese Canadians in World War II.

[1400]

She spoke eloquently, and everybody in this House stood and applauded what she did. It brought us together as a House. I followed her and spoke in support of what she was doing and of her motion, and everybody in this House stood up for me. It was a moment of great pride for me, because I have thought and reflected on the issues involved all my life, from the time I was a student to the
[ Page 9343 ]
day I spoke in the Legislature. Afterwards we went to the minister’s office, and she held a reception. Many of us came and celebrated with members of her family. It was a great moment for this Legislature. It truly was.

I want to speak about my family. My dad was a small business person for most of his life. He came to British Columbia to open a small business in 1969, and he and my mom ran that business until 2012. He passed away in 2013. He supported and raised my sister Wendy and myself and my brother Dylan from the proceeds of that small business. He cared about it. At his funeral, I must say that people who, as a small business person, he had served in the community, came in large numbers. They only knew him because he was their insurance agent, but they admired him and they loved him.

He understood that small business played an important role in the community and that we succeeded as a society because we had the rule of law, that people were protected, including him, at times by regulation and by law. He understood at times, because he ran a small business, the absurdity that that sometimes brought. He would point it out, and he would fight for change. He would work to make things better in his industry, and he did. He was respected for it most of all by those that loved him and by everyone in the community.

So I reflect today about what my father would say about this action. Five times in the history of the British Columbia Legislature — five times — we have proclaimed, legislatively, days. The cabinet proclaims days all the time. In fact, here’s a list in 2015 of the days, months, weeks and years that have been proclaimed: 2015, the Year of Sport in British Columbia. Craft Year 2015 in January. Alzheimer Awareness Month and Red Tape Awareness Week — so we’re duplicating here.

Mineral Exploration Week. Family Literacy Day. Data Privacy Day. Black History Month. Heart Month in February. Toastmasters Month. The 2015 Canada Winter Games Weeks. Heritage Week. Chamber of Commerce Week. Resident Awareness Week. International Mother Language Day. Bullying Awareness Day. Community Social Services Awareness Month. Youth Science Month.

Cowboy Heritage Week. Social Work Week. Stop the Sexual Exploitation of Children and Youth Awareness Week — perhaps it requires a legislative amendment. Dieticians Day. Journée de la francophonie. World Down Syndrome Day. Community-based Trainers Week. Lynch Syndrome Awareness Day. B.C. Pharmacy Day. Purple Day for Epilepsy Awareness. Autism Awareness Month.

Canadian Cancer Society’s Daffodil Month for cancer. Parkinson’s Awareness Month. World Autism Awareness Day. Make a Will Week. Canadian Oncology Nursing Day. Child Abuse Prevention Day. Emergency Services Dispatchers and 911 Awareness Week. Prevention of Violence Against Women Week. Law Week. Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Week. AED Awareness Day. National Meetings Industry Day.

Administrative Professionals Week. B.C. Arts and Culture Week. Victims of Crime Awareness Week. Medical Office Assistants Week. Administrative Professionals Day. B.C. Book Day. Animal Abuse Prevention Day. Red Hat Society Day. Creative Industries Week. B.C. Guide Dog and Service Dog Day. Asian Heritage Month. Child Care Month. Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month. MS Awareness Month.

Social Enterprise Month. Mining Week. North American Occupational Safety and Health Week. Family Caregiver Week. Mental Health Week. TB Vets Week. British Columbia Midwives Day. British Columbia Fallen Paramedics Day.

[1405]

Pediatric Stroke Awareness Day. Child and Youth Mental Health Day. Healthcare Auxiliary Day. Tzu Chi Day. Nursing Week. Licensed Practical Nurses Day. Bereavement Day. Cycling4Diversity Week. Local Government Awareness Week. National Public Works Week. Canadian Camping Week. Aboriginal Social Enterprise Day. Child Care Provider Appreciation Day. SIDS Awareness Day. B.C. Jade Day. B.C. Beef Day.

B.C. ALS Awareness Month. B.C. Seafood Month. Invasive Species Action Month. Italian Heritage Month. Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Month. Stroke Month. Intergenerational Day. B.C. Child and Youth in Care Week. Clean Air Day. Nurse Practitioners Week. World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. Ride 2 Survive Day. St. John Ambulance Week. Legion Week.

Automotive Heritage Month. Latin American Week. Screen in B.C. Day. Disability Employment Month. Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Prevention and Support Month. Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. KidSport B.C. Week. Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Prevention and Support Day. World Suicide Prevention Day. World Sepsis Day. Sales and Marketing Education Awareness Week. Square and Round Dance Awareness Week. Balance Awareness Week.

Sales and Marketing Education Awareness Day. Vancouver Community College Day. B.C. Coaches Week. Organic Week. Recovery Day. Be Care Aware Day. B.C. Culture Days. B.C. Law Enforcement Memorial Day. ADHD Awareness Month. Community Living Month. Foster Family Month. Library Month. Occupational Therapy Month. Registered Disability Savings Plan Awareness Month. Small Business Month. Breastfeeding Week. National Family Week. Every Girl Matters Day. Co-op Week. Healthcare Security and Safety Week. Homelessness Action Week. There’s Manufacturing Week.

Interjection.

A. Dix: Oh, we’re keeping going. I know it’s hilarious.

Natural Gas Week. Veterinary Technologist Week. Change Day B.C. Credit Union Day. Pregnancy and Infant
[ Page 9344 ]
Loss Awareness Day. Conflict Resolution Week. Health Care Assistant Day. National Teen Driver Safety Week. Registered Massage Therapy Awareness Week. School Library Day. National UNICEF Day. Apprenticeship Recognition Week. Down Syndrome Awareness Week. World Pancreatic Cancer Day. Child and Youth Day.

That’s so far this year, proclaimed by the cabinet. That is a good thing, I would argue. All of those are very important circumstances, red tape reduction amongst them.

The government has decided, of all of those things, that there’s a different level for red tape reduction. In fact, as I said to this House, five times in the history of British Columbia — five times — we’ve passed legislation creating days by legislation. By definition, these are special circumstances reflecting special things. And they are as follows.

British Columbia Day Act, 1996, chapter 34. I think we all understand that. Douglas Day recognized a great figure in British Columbia’s history, as other countries do. Terry Fox Day, which we, as legislators, passed last year, together with the Fox family. Family Day, which was a proposal put forward by the current government to create a new holiday in February that received much public consultation and discussion. Finally, one introduced and passed unanimously under the NDP government — Holocaust Memorial Day Act.

So five times in our history — five times — we’ve decided to give special recognition to things important to British Columbia, important to its history. I commend the minister to read the debate from those days, because what they reflected on those days was community support for important recognitions that needed to be recognized by legislative action and turned into days in the Legislature

I ask her to consider the speeches made by all members of the Legislature, from all sides of the House, on Holocaust Memorial Day — by all sides of the House, including my colleague from Port Coquitlam who knew the Fox family and knows the Fox family so well, on Terry Fox Day. These were events that brought us together. These weren’t cheap political stunts.

[1410]

These days are devalued when the government engages in what they are doing now — devaluing the work that legislators have done for a generation. Calling us back at a time of significant issues for everyone, including small businesses, in British Columbia and engaging in day after day of trivial activity — this is wrong.

Read those legislations, and then read the speeches made on the government side of the House, lauding their own record, and then saying: “We’ll proclaim a day.” Lauding their own record, attacking the opposition of the day. These events, these recognitions…. They’re supposed to be beyond that, above that. They’re supposed to bring people together.

Declaring a day by the B.C. Legislature is not a wedge issue for the Premier to use at her discretion. She defies…. We had two Premiers’ sons. We had the grandson of W.A.C. Bennett, the son of Bill Bennett, here yesterday. His dad and his granddad didn’t engage in such tactics. They didn’t do that. They’re not on the legislative record doing that. Dave Barrett isn’t, Mike Harcourt isn’t, Glen Clark isn’t, and even Gordon Campbell isn’t.

This is a new type of behaviour. It’s inconsistent with the values I know the minister holds, which is to create, to use this special mechanism…. I repeat what these days are: B.C. Day, our collective history — where we celebrate together our collective history. I had an event, a wonderful event, at Trout Lake Community Centre this year on that day. On Family Day, similarly at Renfrew community centre, we had a day where we came together and recognized that. I don’t need to tell members who take part in the Terry Fox Run what that means to communities and what it means to all of us.

When we rise and, after much discussion, want to recognize these special events, it seems to me that they have to have value, that words matter, actions have value. They’re not things to be used at discretion by the Liberal Party when they don’t have a legislative agenda and they want to jam people. They’re not additional regulation. They are supposed to reflect our collective spirit and what we’re about.

How can members of the government side seriously say that this effort, this partisan performance by the government today, is in the same measure as B.C. Day and Terry Fox Day and Family Day and Douglas Day and Holocaust Memorial Day? Or that the speeches put forward by government ministers — when they call this bill without discussion, and then they have a debate the next day — are in any way reflective of what happened on any of those days or why those measures were brought forward?

In 2000, our collective horror of the Holocaust led people on both sides of the House to recognize that day here in British Columbia. Our absolute…. I think most of us in British Columbia who remember Terry Fox and remember that moment were profoundly affected by it. That’s what you have a day for — not because you’re out of a legislative agenda, not because you want to poke the opposition, not because you want to mobilize the base — because we want to bring people together.

I don’t know how the member from West Vancouver can vote in this way and say that this is a good idea to bring this kind of thing forward when he knows that that’s what this is.

It is entirely appropriate for the government to proclaim a red-tape-reduction day. What isn’t appropriate, it seems to me, as someone who strongly believes that government needs to regulate strongly where it is required and not when it’s not required. Unnecessary regulation of course should be eliminated, but understanding that there’s often a debate about what that regulation is.
[ Page 9345 ]

I know, for example, Phuong Le, a woman who worked on a farm in British Columbia. She has lost her husband — he’s been permanently brain-injured — in what’s become known as the Langley farmworkers accident or incident in September of 2008. It is a fact that as part of the deregulation agenda, the government, without talking to a single farmworker, eliminated protections for farmworkers in 2002.

[1415]

That is not a question of red-tape reduction. That was a political decision made by the government. They decided, in consultation with political supporters of the government, to engage in that practice, and it had consequences for all concerned. That’s not red-tape reduction. That is a legitimate discussion of what role government should play in that industry, and we have a strong disagreement on that question.

Unnecessary regulations…. I would always, 100 times out of 100 — I wouldn’t be my father’s son if I didn’t do it — vote against unnecessary regulation. We’ve got a lot of work to do, and we shouldn’t do what’s unnecessary. I am against red tape. I am against red tape if red tape means unnecessary regulation. I am against it. I am against it, and every single member of the opposition side is against it.

This kind of trick and thing that we get up and all will vote, and you’re voting against it, and I’m voting in favour of it…. This is really beneath us as legislators, and we’re not going to fall into that trap.

We’re against red tape, but it was the government that brought this bill forward. It was the government, just as governments before, that brought forward the Terry Fox Day Act,which had been advocated for by my colleague from Port Coquitlam but also members on all sides of the House, including other members from the Tri-Cities.

Douglas Day, reflecting our history, and B.C. Day, reflecting our collective action, and Holocaust remembrance day, representing, I think, our soul as human beings. That’s worthy of a day to be passed by this Legislature. That’s what we should have been doing. Frankly, I would suggest that the ministers of the Crown, the Liberal members, who have spoken to this and given partisan speeches should go back and read Hansard and read not what the NDP members said on those days but what the Liberal members said on those days.

Does it give the same value to our collective action on all of those occasions when we celebrated what we are as a community, not as Liberals and not as New Democrats and not as Green members and not as Conservatives but as British Columbians? On all of those occasions, that’s what we did, together in this House, as one — unanimously supported, brought forward after lots of discussion and consultation and belief in the community to reflect the best of ourselves.

That’s why you do this kind of legislative day. The minister knows it, and the other ministers know it. And the members of the Liberal Party — they know it too. Those five days and then this — reflecting the heart and soul of this government, which is to use any technique. “Anything is worthwhile. Any action is worthwhile. We’ll just poke at people.” That’s not what this is for.

In conclusion — let me say unequivocally so that everybody understands it — we in the opposition are not into this game, this use of the Legislature for just silly games. I’m not talking about politics. The government, of course…. We are politicians, and what we do is politics. I’m talking about wasting time.

I’m talking about adding laws to reduce red tape. I’m talking about demeaning previous unanimous actions of the Legislature. I am saying that we’re not going to play this game. We’re not going to worry about this vote, which is just a trick. We’re against red tape. We’ll vote against red tape every day of the week.

But what we won’t do is vote against government regulations protecting workers, protecting the safety of citizens, ensuring a democratic and just society. We won’t do that. And we won’t…. This, I think, people understand. My dad understood it. He understood it when he ran his business all those decades. He understood it. The people of B.C. understand it. You don’t get ahead in this world by taking the collective good and attempting to turn it to your own purposes in a kind of low and sneaky way.

That’s what this is. We’re not going to fall for the trap. We’re not into that. We can go forward with this. It doesn’t really affect us. It’s not an expression of our best wishes. It’s certainly not the expression of the small business people that I know — to say that, yes, we absolutely should reflect that.

We already have. The government already did this year. They did it in January. And now what are they doing? What they’re saying is: “Our political interests are at the same level as B.C. Day and Terry Fox Day. Now we have “Save the Liberal base” day.

[1420]

Seriously, the government needs to recognize that. Five days passed by this Legislature — all the other holidays passed by our national parliament and recognized by this Legislature, reflecting our tradition; in some cases, our religion; in some cases, our collective will; in some cases, our best selves. Surely, Terry Fox is that.

Then we have this government, which says: “This is just a mechanism for us that we can use to poke people we don’t like.” I think enough has been said about this. In fact, we have a Liberal government…. Sometimes your action…. And this is a small thing. It’s a bill. It’s one week in March.

I don’t mind talking about red tape. I don’t need to talk about it one day. We should talk about it every day. We should talk about the best way to govern the province every day. That’s what I try and do, as an MLA.

One day in March doesn’t signify a great deal, in that sense. What it signifies is a government that has lost its
[ Page 9346 ]
soul and lost its understanding of what its purpose is. The purpose of government, in these important, symbolic ways, is to bring the community together. Terry Fox understood that. The people and the members of the Legislature who voted on these previous days understood that. Unfortunately, this Premier doesn’t understand anything of the sort.

J. Martin: I’m happy to rise on behalf of my constituents from Chilliwack and speak to Bill 34, the Red Tape Reduction Day Act.

As we know, this bill marks the first Wednesday of March as red-tape-reduction day every year. It’s an honorary day to shine a light on government’s commitment to a net-zero increase in regulatory requirements to 2019. This means that every year the government will shine a spotlight on our progress toward reducing red tape in B.C.

The commitment to a day specifically for red tape means that government formally and publicly is accountable. This legislation institutionalizes the accountability and transparency of regulatory reform. This also marks B.C. as the only province in Canada with a red-tape-reduction day. It also shows our commitment to small businesses and the people of B.C. by streamlining initiatives and modernizing processes to make it easier for businesses and citizens to deal with government and regulations.

By introducing this legislation, government is required, by law, to focus efforts on red-tape reduction, improving the way we deliver government services and identifying and removing any outdated or unnecessary regulatory requirements. It establishes an annual day that we can devote to highlighting our progress in regulatory reform. We can highlight how we have been reducing red tape through streamlining and modernizing the provincial regulatory framework and how we are repealing outdated and unnecessary regulatory requirements.

By highlighting red-tape reduction with a day each and every year, we demonstrate to British Columbia that this is a priority of the government. Outdated and counterproductive regulations will be removed from legislation, and it will be easier for businesses and citizens to understand and meet the requirements that they must comply with rather than adhering to unnecessary, outdated and frivolous regulations.

This can save citizens and businesses time, money and frustration as they are searching for and using government services. Even the smallest changes can help businesses save time and save money that they can invest in better areas. More importantly, businesses attracted by a straightforward regulatory regime are encouraged to invest in British Columbia.

Now, the people that use these services each and every day will have ideas and suggestions on how to make those services work even better. To include British Columbians in this process, we are launching a public engagement opportunity in October. We invite British Columbians to share their thoughts and their ideas on how to make it easier to find and use those government services.

Our goal is to improve access to government services for all British Columbians. What better way is there to do that than to hear directly from the people that use the service? Any idea that could help save people time or provide easier access to services could lead to possible changes to government policies, programs or regulations.

[1425]

What does reducing red tape mean for British Columbians and small businesses? Well, it means we are making improvements to deliver services that are faster, easier to access and simpler to use. Since 2001 we have been steadily working to streamline services and eliminate the burden of excessive and unnecessary red-tape requirements on citizens and businesses.

Well, what have we done to make life easier for British Columbians? Here’s a handful of examples. For families, it is now easier to take your child fishing, thanks to changes to the Wildlife Act. Parents have more dining options, now that they can take their children to family-friendly pubs until 10 p. m. The new dashboard StudentAid B.C. gives students an at-a-glance view of their loan applications. Apprentices can quickly find trades training spaces available at 14 institutions using the trades seat finder.

British Columbians can now get information and assistance to register to be an organ donor at any of the 62 Service B.C. locations. This simplified system could boost the number of organ donations up to four times the amount registered under the previous system. This saves lives.

Red-tape reductions mean you can now buy local beer and wine in select grocery stores. It’s easier to apply for special-occasion licences to host parties or outdoor weddings. You can now simply go on line and fill out the form, rather than filling out paperwork at B.C. Liquor Stores, police stations and municipal halls.

For small business owners, we have reduced the paperwork burden so owners can now quickly and easily bid for government contracts. Owners of breweries, distilleries and wineries can now sell their products at farmers markets.

These are just a few examples of what this government has done to reduce red tape and make life easier for British Columbians. It is abundantly clear that one side of this House supports small business and the reduction of red tape. The same cannot be said for the other side.

G. Heyman: First of all, let me state very clearly that I support small business. Small business plays a tremendously important role in British Columbians’ economy. It plays a tremendously important role in every community.

Small businesses, as my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway has pointed out, help people in the community. They understand the community. They not only provide
[ Page 9347 ]
jobs and are the economic engine of many communities, but there’s a kind of direct, person-to-person assistance and affection and common purpose in community that gets lost as you get larger. Small businesses are important. They’re critical to British Columbia. They deserve our support.

Yes, they deserve to have any form of bureaucracy or paperwork or red tape or requirements be streamlined to be as efficient as possible, while still maintaining the role of regulation in protecting the community at large, protecting workers and protecting others. I will talk a little bit more about small business, but before that, I want to make reference to what I consider to be a shameful accusation by the member for Chilliwack, with not a shred of evidence, that members on this side of the House do not support small business.

That’s the kind of irresponsible, reckless, unsubstantiated allegation that leads to the failure of British Columbians to have any confidence whatsoever in the ability of Legislatures to work, in any sense of collaboration for the common good of this province. It is cheap politics, and it is beneath the dignity of this chamber. It continues the tone that was set yesterday to simply, recklessly misrepresent the positions of members of the opposition. That is not how we should be building this province. It is not how we can build this province.

Within my constituency of Vancouver-Fairview, there are distinct areas and communities that are defined and made lively by the small businesses that exist within them. Whether it’s the new developments along Main Street, the plethora of stores and restaurants, the Cambie village, South Granville or the Broadway corridor, you cannot walk two blocks without coming across a handful of small businesses that have been there for years, small businesses that are new.

[1430]

All of them have talked to me when I go in and meet with them, whether it’s as their MLA for the area in which they do business or simply as a patron, about the challenges they face every day to keep people employed and to make their businesses successful.

I do — we all do — have respect for small business. We do not take for granted how difficult it is for small businesses to thrive, for small businesses and owners of small businesses to deal with any number of government requirements, any number of government forms, any number of regulations about which they’re required to be knowledgeable. I take those seriously.

While I have not run a small business, I have been responsible for a small non-profit. Without meaning any disrespect whatsoever to the owners of small businesses, I think I understand something of what it’s like to worry every week about meeting payroll when cash flow is not what we would like it to be, when the challenge is to try to create some form of small surplus or, hopefully, a larger surplus at the end of every year and when, along with all of the challenges of recruiting and hiring and training and meeting needs, one has to deal with requirements of government in order to fill out forms or respond to questions or be knowledgeable of and live by regulations.

I know that’s difficult. I’ve had to do it. My colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway has had to do it. Others in our caucus have had to do it. We do take it seriously. We take the reduction of red tape seriously — unnecessary red tape. Red tape is a bit of an unfortunate acronym, because it has been used to mean any kind of regulation. But what it really refers to, I believe, is redundancy and unnecessary requirements that do not serve any useful purpose.

When I look at Bill 34, I see two sections: one naming which day in every year will be red-tape-reduction day and when the bill will commence, when it will come into force and effect.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

I don’t know how anyone on the other side of the House or this side of the House could say that this bill has anything whatsoever to do with reducing the burden on small business — or anyone else, for that matter. It doesn’t do that. It creates a day.

What reduces the burden on small business is concrete action that makes their lives easier and makes the ability for them to conduct business, employee people productively and provide services to the community easier and better. There’s nothing in this bill that does that. There’s nothing in this bill, when it becomes an act, that will do that.

What there is in this bill — this simple, two-section bill with a handful of words — is a cheapening of the importance of this Legislature and what we could create and what we could do together. When this chamber is used simply to lay traps, to try to create a forum in which to throw baseless allegations at hon. members on this side of the House in order to curry favour with some segment of the electorate, it is a misuse of this chamber, in my opinion. It is wrong.

It does nothing to make the lives of small business people easier. It does nothing to build the economy of British Columbia. It does nothing to serve our communities. It does nothing whatsoever to make this Legislature more meaningful, important, significant or useful to small business people or anyone else.

It is simply cheap, political posturing of the worst kind, and it is beneath the dignity of this Legislature and the many people who have sat in this chamber before us, trying to create a good environment for business in Vancouver and trying to create useful laws and useful statements of leadership.

[1435]

It’s the kind of communities and the kind of tone in society that brings us closer together, that makes us better human beings, that makes us aware of things that
[ Page 9348 ]
have been done in the past that have been both worthy of praise and not so worthy of praise.

We have here today an opportunity to stand up in the House and…. Instead of actually making lives better for small business, we simply have an opportunity for the government to try to convince people that they think are their friends that the opposition are not their friends.

Let me say once more that I am committed and my colleagues are committed to reducing any redundancy or unnecessary red tape that stands in the way of small business or anyone else. But let me also point out that, while members on the government side talk about reducing red tape for small business, there’s nothing in this bill that refers to small business. The words “small business” are not contained within it. That’s an important point to note. It’s important to note because, in a moment, I am going to revisit some history.

Before I do that, I simply want to say to the member for Chilliwack and to the Minister for Jobs, who has been in this House since this Liberal government was first elected in 2001: if there is so much red tape that it’s an impediment to business large and small in this province, what have they been doing for the 14 years they’ve been in government?

In 2002, Kevin Falcon, as minister responsible for deregulation, introduced two acts that were intended to cut red tape. This morning in this House, the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour stated: “While I very much appreciate the members 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.” This minister was a minister of government in 2002. She was in the cabinet that brought forward the bill.

Let me read some words from Minister Kevin Falcon when he was introducing the Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act, (No. 2), 2002 — Bill 35. Kevin Falcon, the minister responsible, stated at the time: “Bill 35 removes almost 250 unnecessary regulatory requirements and cuts red tape by eliminating duplication, providing greater flexibility for regulated groups…” and he went on.

There is a fair amount of similarity in those remarks. If we are to trust this minister today, presumably we could have trusted Minister Falcon in that day. Perhaps the current Minister of Jobs, Skills Training and for Labour felt the same way at the time. So let’s take a bit of a look at what sorts of things were deregulated under the first two bills introduced in the early years of this Liberal government, in 2002.

Deregulation of addiction and recovery houses. In 2002, the Liberal government deregulated recovery homes, removing licensing requirements for most recovery and drug rehab homes. Other of my colleagues from Surrey may speak about some of the tragic consequences of those deregulations.

[1440]

There was the deregulation of child death reviews that removed the requirement for the coroner to complete child death reviews by changing the word “must” to “may.” It’s worth noting that one of the ways in which the previous minister, Kevin Falcon, toted up numbers of regulations that he deemed to be unnecessary was to do a word check, and every time the word “must” showed up, it counted as a regulation. The word “must” may show up several times in the paragraph, sometimes more than once in a sentence. I’m not sure that makes it a regulation.

Farmworker safety was deregulated with tragic, tragic results. Changes were made to the Employment Standards Act in 2002 as part of the deregulation drive led by Minister Kevin Falcon. It reduced legal protection of workers. Farmworkers were excluded altogether from regulations related to hours of work, overtime and statutory holiday pay.

There were also, as we all know in this House, tragic accidents from the flagrant refusal by farm labour contractors to honour the most simple and straightforward of transportation safety requirements. And farmworkers died. They died.

We have had significant discussion in this Legislature about Mount Polley. There has been debate back and forth about whose responsibility it was and about whether it was a simple mechanical failure or a failure of oversight and regulation. The record shows that from 1994 to 2002, before Minister Falcon introduced the deregulation act, there were 93 safety inspections at Teck’s Elkview mine, for example. From 2003 to 2014, there were less than half that number. There were 40.

In a few minutes, I am going to cite some findings from the University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre about what the meaning of professional oversight and voluntary compliance may be with respect to both important public safety and environmental concerns, with respect to mining as well as forestry. But there’s one other example I want to bring up before I move there. There are actually two.

First of all, we know that part of deregulation was a deregulation that changed the requirements about who could and couldn’t administer very important eye examinations. Not vision, per se, and not what sort of prescription you might need for a contact lens or a set of glasses but the range of other things related to eye health that relate to personal health. The B.C. optometrists have spoken for a long time and compellingly about the risks to the public of that sort of deregulation.

I was in the chamber this morning when the minister responsible for jobs, skills training, labour and, by extension, the Workers Compensation Board — which is still its legal name — said that this had nothing to do
[ Page 9349 ]
with health and safety. I was in this chamber when we were discussing the tragic explosions at the Babine and Lakeland mills, where she said it had nothing to do — nothing whatsoever to do — with a failure by this government to set a tone of concern for workers’ health and safety.

In 2001 and 2002, early when this government was elected, I sat on the board of directors of the Workers Compensation Board. I know the kind of rigorous and detailed research that we reviewed before we approved regulations being set. Sometimes we would spend months. Sometimes we would spend a whole year. Sometimes we would look at well over 100 pages of summaries, of research that had been conducted around risks to workers’ health, around the level of compliance — voluntary or otherwise — by different categories of businesses that had high claims records.

I know that when we introduced new regulations, we took them very seriously. We worked very hard to achieve consensus. There was both a labour representative and an employer representative on the board. We understood that the decisions we made needed to be rooted in evidence and science.

[1445]

I still remember, after a year of study, introducing the environmental tobacco smoke regulation to protect workers from exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke. I also remember that we received a message from the Minister of Labour at the time, Graham Bruce, saying that that regulation was not acceptable to government and asking us to not bring it forward.

We refused. We told the minister that he had the power under the act to overturn our regulation himself, if he wanted, and substitute whatever he thought was appropriate, but we were not going to participate in an exercise that was completely unfounded in any sort of evidence or science. He took our advice. He fired us first, and then he took our advice.

Eventually the regulation was introduced. Eventually the government and municipalities around the province understood that this would not be the death of bars. It would not be the death of restaurants. But it would, quite possibly, be the difference between life and death for a lot of working people.

I offer that not because it’s the most compelling or important example. I offer that because it is my very personal experience about what a mindless approach to deregulation can produce. Not an approach that looks for true redundancies, for truly unnecessary impediments to small businesses being successful — or larger ones, for that matter — but an approach which simply says: “We’re going to count the numbers, and we’re going to set a target. At the end of that, we’re going to meet that target, and we are going to wrap ourselves in the flag of reducing red tape and hang the consequences to anyone else.”

There was a sustained attack on the Workers Compensation Board. Regulations regarding first aid were eliminated. Regulations regarding fall protection were changed. I know from my time that fall protection was one of the most important regulatory changes that we made, because so many workers were killed or permanently injured from falls that could have been prevented by proper safety measures that we attempted to bring in.

Instead, in the interests of parading around the province and talking about their commitment to getting government out of the way of business and reducing red tape, those regulations were eliminated in order to meet a target of one-third. Even such simple matters as the requirement for workplace washrooms and change rooms were eliminated.

In addition, while not directly related to the regulations on paper themselves, the budget was reduced by 12 percent, there were office closures, and there was a 30 percent reduction in site visits by prevention officers. That’s important, because when you’re dealing with regulations that have to do with the safety, the health and, ultimately, in many cases, the lives of workers, if there are no inspections, you’re relying entirely on the goodwill of employers.

If employers, in fact, have goodwill, they will pass an inspection, and they likely will not be visited very often. When they are, if something is amiss, the inspector will likely take them aside and say: “You should be doing this.”

We have seen the tragic results at Lakeland and Babine when there aren’t enough inspections, when the regulations and the requirements of science with respect to controlling dust from the hazards of ignition are not followed. This government can say it has nothing to do with them — that it was a failure of WCB, of WorkSafe B.C., to act appropriately, to protect workers from dangers in the workplace, from following the procedures that would support a prosecution in court.

The truth is this government set the tone. This government set the tone by calling worker safety regulations — along with any number of other regulations — redundant red tape and slashing them by a third.

[1450]

That is the climate and the context that led to those deaths, and no amount of denial on the other side of the House will change that fact. They created the climate that had tragic results. We should never, ever forget that.

We talked in this House about the tragedy of the Mount Polley tailings pond failure and what it meant to the community, what it meant to First Nations, what it meant to fisheries. A study was conducted on professional reliance and environmental regulation in British Columbia by the university’s Environmental Law Centre, led by Mark Haddock, who is a lecturer there.

The conclusion is that “much of B.C.’s deregulation goes too far in handing over what are essentially matters of public interest to those employed by industry. Proponents should not be decision-makers for matters
[ Page 9350 ]
involving the weighing and balancing of multiple, often competing, environmental and social values. This raises irresolvable conflicts of interest and a lack of democratic accountability for many resource management decisions.”

It is important to streamline safety regulations. It is important to streamline environmental regulations. Nobody on this side of the House believes that making things as complex and difficult in terms of compliance guarantees a good result or that it’s the best way to go. But there is a difference between streamlining, between eliminating redundancy and blindly cutting so that, for political purposes, a government can say they’re cutting red tape, and streamlining redundancy for the advantage of the economy of British Columbia.

People in British Columbia, the public in British Columbia, deserve better. People need to know that the government is there for them when the chips are down. They need to know that the government takes appropriate regulations seriously and doesn’t simply think of public protections and workers’ safety as one more form of red tape. There is a difference.

Let me close by saying there is a role for regulation, but that regulation should be effective. It should be evidence-based. It should be science-based. It should be as efficient and effective as possible, and it should not create onerous requirements on business, large or small.

Let me say very clearly once again: I support small business. I support making lives easier for small business people and their employees. I support the elimination of red tape and redundancy where there is no evidence to support a useful purpose, and there’s never a useful purpose for redundancy. We all understand that.

I wish I was standing in this chamber today in some sort of collaborative dialogue with members on both sides of the House about how we can honour small business people appropriately. How, in Small Business Week, we could celebrate British Columbia’s small business people together. How, when representatives of the small business community come to this chamber, we could collaboratively show them how much the MLAs elected from every corner of this province value their contribution to the economy.

Instead, we have yet another example of “let’s set a trap” politics from a government that appears to be out of new ideas, that appears to not be able to take responsibility for anything — whether it’s the death of a child or whether it’s their failure to effectively deal with regulation over their 14 years in power.

[1455]

Instead, we get baseless accusations that members of the opposition do not support small business. We get the introduction of a bill that has no substance whatsoever, will not make a whit of difference to small business in this province and is designed solely so the Premier can get on her soapbox and talk about the difference, the perceived difference, between an absolute support of business on the government side and a supposed lack of support on the opposition side, which is not substantiated by any fact, by any evidence, by any actions we’ve taken, by any statements we’ve made in this Legislature, by anything, in fact, at all. As my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway said very eloquently, we had a red-tape-reduction week in January.

Cabinet proclaims many weeks and many days, as it appropriately should, and we attend often, in the rotunda of the Legislature, the celebrations of those days or those weeks. We think they’re important. But we also think that an act that proclaims a day in perpetuity as something that people on both sides of the Legislature think is important enough to recognize has happened only five times in British Columbia history.

I participated in the Terry Fox Run a little over a week ago, as some other members of the Legislature may well have and as many people in communities around British Columbia and the world did. We all understand the courage of Terry Fox. We understand the ongoing legacy of Terry Fox. We understand that having a Terry Fox Day shows that we understand how significant and important he was in raising awareness, as well as raising money for cancer research.

I sat next to the member for Vancouver-Langara in the rotunda of the Legislature on Holocaust Memorial Day. It is shameful that we are putting business, red-tape reduction, on the same basis as Holocaust memorial. I say that as the child of Holocaust survivors. It is shameful.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows.

D. Bing: Hon. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment as the Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. I wish you well in serving the people of British Columbia in your new role.

On behalf of the good people of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill 34, the Red Tape Reduction Day Act. Everyone throughout their lives has heard of and has had to deal with “government red tape.” Red tape is that clump of burdensome and often unnecessary government processes and regulatory requirements that often frustrate us.

Since 2001, our government has reduced regulatory requirements by more than 43 percent. We have removed more than 155,000 outdated and unnecessary requirements. It is very accurate to say our province is a recognized leader in cutting red tape. For proof, you needn’t look further than the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which has given B.C. an A grade in red tape reduction for four years in a row.

To emphasize our government’s commitment to a net-zero increase in regulatory requirements to 2019, we will be annually recognizing red-tape-reduction day on the first Wednesday in March, starting in 2016.
[ Page 9351 ]

Reducing red tape streamlines and simplifies processes to make it easier and faster for citizens to deal with government. It means fast, easy access to services, saving British Columbians time. For small businesses, it means simplified processes, saving them time and money that can be reinvested in their business. We understand that red tape can create unnecessary confusion and increases the costs and time of doing business or accessing government business.

What is the rationale for red-tape-reduction day? Red-tape-reduction day will make our government formally and very publicly accountable to our commitment to reduce red tape and to continually review and improve the provincial body of regulations. Knowing that we will shine a spotlight on our work in the past year is a strong incentive to keep red tape a priority.

[1500]

True, there are some minor housekeeping costs associated with this legislation. 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 any outdated or unnecessary regulatory requirements.

The benefits of this legislation are expected to far outweigh the minor costs. The benefits for British Columbians include the removal of outdated and counterproductive regulations; the saving of time, money and frustration on behalf of citizens who are searching for and using government services; streamlining and modernizing the regulatory environment so it can keep pace with the needs of citizens and businesses; making it easier for business to understand and meet the requirements they must comply with, instead of adhering to outdated and unnecessary regulations that remain “on the books;” and encouraging investment from businesses attracted by a straightforward regulatory regime.

Our government wants to save people time, money and frustration. We also want services to be consistent across government and, whenever possible, to be digital, to ensure citizens can access the digital services they need 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Our government is planning on using this day on an annual basis to highlight government’s efforts to reduce red tape and reduce regulatory burden. We are working with our colleagues across government to identify outdated regulations that can be repealed or removed when we have our first red-tape-reduction day in March.

We know that streamlining how British Columbians interact with government and improving how we deliver services to the public reduces frustration. That is why our government continues to make it a priority. Red-tape-reduction day is an effort to keep our priority in the public eye: making sure we continue to keep streamlining as a top priority for business and for citizens.

V. Huntington: Well, I’m not very happy to be rising today to add my comments to this silly Bill 34. This is a waste of parliamentary time, and it’s an indication to me that calling us back to session a week early was nothing more than making a play date.

I really do have to think that whoever thought this up should be nominated House jester. We need one at this rate. The whole thing would be funny if it weren’t so sad. I have to say, look how seriously the members opposite are taking the whole thing. This bill has done nothing more than create another opportunity for the government members to pat themselves on the back for a program that’s been around for 15 years.

I’m the first one to support a reduction of useless laws and unnecessary complexities in regulation and government policy. But one would think that after 15 years of reducing red tape, the government would actually have managed to put the red-tape-reduction program out of business — 15 years. Maybe the government should be looking at the program itself to see if it could reduce its own complexities and make it more efficient. There shouldn’t be much more red tape to remove.

Why am I so annoyed about this bill and having to speak to it? And why did I vote against even the introduction of this bill? Because this bill didn’t have to be a bill. This bill didn’t have to be a waste of our time. We’re not creating a statutory holiday with this piece of legislation. This piece of legislation is the stuff more properly of proclamation.

The member for Vancouver-Kingsway illustrated that very, very well. We have 148 active proclamations on the books for this year alone, and this bill ought to have been the 149th. It’s nothing more than a way of engaging the entire Legislature in a PR debate. I think what concerns me most of all is that we’ve all fallen for it.

The issue here is reducing costs and complexities for small business. Well, I’d like to read recent correspondence from a small business in my riding, correspondence that was sent to the Minister of Finance with a genuine thought that the issue could be looked at and straightened out.

[1505]

I’d like to read this correspondence into the record.

“Minister, my small business, like many others, is having tremendous problems administering the current version of PST. We are sure it’s not your administration’s intention, but recent reinterpretations of the act by your ministry are making compliance even more complicated and expensive for small business than it was pre-2010. Perhaps you would take the time to read my attached letter with a view to simplifying the system for us again during your current administration.”

The letter contained a couple of interesting comments. It said:

“Like most businesses, we were supporters of the harmonized sales tax but accepted the administration’s promise that the provincial sales tax would revert to the earlier system, whereby manufacturers and retailers would be exempt PST on purchases and levy PST on the selling price. This was initially the case, but revisions contained in bulletin 501 have greatly complicated the administration for my small business. I won’t go through the litany of
[ Page 9352 ]
revisions that bulletin 501 has indicated. For some reason or other, when I read them, they’re so complicated I can’t understand them.

“However” — the writer says — “this is all clear enough. But in practice, these revisions require small businesses like ours, which do all of these things, to maintain three separate PST accounts, three separate purchase order systems and three separate inventory streams. The revisions also make it virtually impossible for us to do business in the United States, Manitoba or Saskatchewan, administrations where we have no authority to levy taxes. These PST changes are a considerable setback to our small enterprise and not at all in line with the administration’s promise to reinstate PST to pre-2010 status, to simplify administration and to be sympathetic to the concerns of small B.C. business.”

What did this correspondent get in return? Not any indication that people in the ministry wanted to work with them or work with small business to reduce the complexities of the system that they were having trouble with. They got back a letter that reiterated the rules.

So this constituent of mine sent another letter to the Minister, saying:

“Our question for you was not: ‘What are the rules?’ We have one overworked accountant, and your ministry has 100 employees who can recite the rules from memory. But the rules have become vastly more complex and ambiguous since the reintroduction of PST than they already were pre-2010, as the length and the lengthy disclaimers contained in your response confirm. Our question — respectfully asked but not answered — was: ‘Can or will the minister introduce legislation or instruct the ministry to simplify and clarify the PST rules for small business?’”

Well, if the red-tape-reduction program isn’t going to look at the issues that small business really need it to look at, then what’s it doing? If anybody on that committee, or perhaps the minister herself, who is talking with another member in the House at the moment….

If any member on that committee in this House really cared what it wanted to do for small business, it would take that correspondence letter and it would work hard with the Ministry of Finance to try and reduce the complexity of the administration of the PST on small business. That’s where reducing cost makes sense. That’s where reducing complexity really will assist small business.

But there is another area where I think the government’s red-tape-reduction program has utterly failed the British Columbian public. That’s where complexities and red tape and administration and paperwork involve the very citizens of this province that need assistance and help from government in the most dire of circumstances.

I’d like to read a couple of the issues here. First of all, did members of the House opposite know that there’s a Treasury Board master list of fees — 2,332 fees that are posted for British Columbians and business in this province to pay? On top of everything else that they have to pay in the tax structure, a master list of fees.

[1510]

Has the regulatory red-tape committee ever taken a look at that master list of fees to determine how much it costs British Columbians? How complex is it? What does it cost other small business to administer on behalf of the government?

Everything from fishing licences to camping fees are on that list. That list is something that should be gone over with a fine-tooth comb by this red-tape-reduction program. Take a look at what you’re doing to the public. Take a look at what you’re costing the public. Make sense of fees that have been on a list for years and may no longer be modern enough to bother with, that may be duplicated or redundant, that are costing the taxpayers more than they should be paying this province.

Then, when we take a look at the delivery of social assistance in this province, it makes you want to tear your hair out. If there’s anywhere where a red-tape-reduction committee should be taking a good, hard look, it’s the delivery of social development and social assistance.

I’m going to read you a few examples. I hope the minister takes note of these, because this would help people in this province more than anything else that this government can do with their reduction-in-red-tape program.

A woman applied to the Ministry of Social Development for temporary crisis assistance — crisis assistance, mind you — to pay for a damage deposit and her first month’s rent. She was on WorkSafe and was scheduled to return to work later in the month. The assistance was approved, but my goodness gracious, the monthly payment didn’t get forwarded. This woman needed assistance from her father. They made several phone calls, 13 trips to the Richmond office in two weeks — 13 trips over a two-week period — and still couldn’t get the situation resolved, even though the payment had been approved.

On one occasion when they went to that office, there were 11 people standing in line and one wicket only. When the clock reached 12 o’clock, everybody was told that they were shutting down the office for lunch. That was two and a half hours of standing in line to speak to somebody to get a payment that had already been approved and that 13 phone calls hadn’t resolved.

Something is wrong. There is a red-tape glitch in your delivery of assistance. You could really help the people of this province if you took a good, hard look at those areas.

For the people who need to apply for disability and who need the help of our offices because they are, perhaps, illiterate or have tried so many times to access computer, on-line assistance…. If they are illiterate, they can’t do it. How do people access government if government requires them to do it through the computer? Government doesn’t have staff that will help them.

Did you know that when we try and help people, we found out that a disability application form has 90 screens of information for an individual to fill out? What if that individual is illiterate? It took us, in our office, two hours to fill out those 90 pages of screen for an individual. What is that if not red tape that is absolutely unnecessary and is crippling? Nobody in this government has taken a look at that issue for a long time.

One more example — again, of disability. The doctor, when he initially saw the lengthy questionnaire, those 90
[ Page 9353 ]
pages, refused to sign it. The individual had been working on his application for four months. Finally, we get the application sent in, and he’s told the file won’t be looked at until December because of the backlog.

Where is this government concentrating on the problems you have with delivering assistance in this province?

Interjection.

V. Huntington: This bill is about a bunch of nonsense. That’s what this bill is about. This bill is nothing more than an effort to create a PR process for this government to operate on.

[1515]

This bill is an embarrassment. The program isn’t an embarrassment. Red-tape reduction has been done very well, and I’ll give the government all the credit it deserves for the awards it’s taken in that area. But to do something like this is an insult to this institution. It’s an insult to the people of this province. It isn’t pointing in the direction that the people want to see. They want easy access.

Interjection.

V. Huntington: Well, your press release isn’t your bill, is it, Madam Minister?

At any rate, I’ll sit down. What I think should be done by this government is taking a good, hard look at how they really do deliver services to people so that people can access them in an easy fashion without the complexities that embarrass them and make it impossible to feel that they have the rights of a citizen, which they deserve.

M. Morris: It’s amazing just listening to the banter and the input coming from members opposite and from the independent members. This bill is already achieving success, when we hear the input that the member for Delta South has put into reducing red tape and how we can streamline some of the processes out there. Really appreciate the input.

Also, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head was reading out some input that he has received from the public about the reduction in red tape. This is exactly what we were hoping for. We are bringing to the forefront that this government does take the reduction of red tape very seriously.

It’s a never-ending process. If the members opposite think that we have reduced all the red tape that we can and we’ve streamlined all the processes that we can, then they’re living in a different world. We still have a lot of work to do. We see the processes that are out there that some people are struggling to get through, and they let us know — either through their MLA, wherever they might be in the province, and they, in turn, will bring it up in this House, like they have this afternoon. Or they contact our constituency offices and deal with our constituency assistants in trying to work through some of those processes. That’s what this procedure is all about.

We will never achieve 100 percent success in reducing red tape unless the public is aware of the seriousness with which we take that and has an avenue to bring it forward to our attention. This bill, since it was introduced — we are starting to see some results of this. We’re going to see some continued results of this.

All of us can think of examples where we’ve gone through a bureaucratic process that has appeared to be with all kinds of impediments in the particular process to achieve a licence or a permit or some other avenue or some other device that we needed in order to do our job or to go hunting or go fishing or whatever the case might be.

With the introduction of technology, that has made some processes even more complicated. Again, this is what the bill is for. It’s to bring this to the attention of the folks that are out there working with the technology, working on line to try and get those permits or licences or whatever they might have. They come up against some of these encumbrances that make it a little bit more difficult to achieve the results that they want.

That’s what we want to hear from the public so that we can make sure — so FrontCounter B.C. and all the different ministries that use the on-line processes or have permits and certificates, or whatever they have in place that the public needs to achieve in order to do the job they need to do — that we streamline that as much as possible.

It’s not just getting rid of some obscure regulation that hasn’t been used in 100 years. This is about streamlining processes so that we can meet the demand that the public is putting on us every day and that changing demand that technology has imposed on us over the years.

[1520]

This is something that I fully support. I’m glad to see that it’s achieving the results so far. Even though some of the members opposite are scoffing at this, this is something that this government is doing to fine-tune things to make sure that we’re operating as efficiently as possible.

R. Fleming: I just want to say a few words on the Red Tape Reduction Day Act. I don’t want to add unduly to the debate this afternoon. But I do find it interesting that…. I think everybody understands what red tape is and what it isn’t.

I printed out a definition of it from that much used source out there on the Internet, from Wikipedia. I think people understand the bureaucratic, unnecessary regulations and approvals, the stifling of entrepreneurship that can happen when regulations are crafted badly, when they unnecessarily burden the lives of business people, be they a contractor, a retailer, an entrepreneur with a start-up business.

We understand that. Everybody, I think, in this House understands that. Everybody in this House deals with
[ Page 9354 ]
constituents who come from that walk of life, who know self-employed people, who know small business people and who bring real problems into their constituency office that they wish us to raise with government and to fix.

In the definition that Wikipedia provides, which I think is a very comprehensive one, one of the definitions about what constitutes red tape is that it is considered an irritating waste of time. Now, I think that’s quite interesting.

This is an afternoon on a Thursday, on the fourth day of a fall legislative sitting that we are never going to get back in our lives. We’re going to lose this entire afternoon, and it’s all thanks to the brand-new Minister of Small Business and her bill. She could have done something quite different for her maiden piece of legislation. I’ll let her think about what she could have done instead of what she has tabled before us today.

It could have been something that actually made a difference. There are numerous legislative gaps out there on the landscape where government meets the private sector in our communities, where we have a diversity of industries and activities that have to be regulated in our complex economy. There are some areas where regulatory and policy-making have failed to keep pace with changes in business practices. There are some areas where business practices have changed and laws lag dreadfully behind and have an unnecessary weight upon the health of an industry or business activity.

Pick one of them. Pick dozens of them and put them in a bill of substance before the House that, instead of enshrining platitudes, actually shows law-making intent to deal with real problems that real people have in their lives in the small business sector. That would have been a good use of time. That would have shown that government actually has an agenda beyond just words around what red tape means and what it does to hamper business, wealth creation and job creation in our communities.

Instead, we have a symbolic day being enshrined in a piece of legislation here as the first item of business for the new minister in charge of this file. I mean, of all the things that could be done, pick anything. Maybe there are some taxidermy regulations out there that are completely useless. There used to be all kinds of tanneries in Victoria that don’t exist anymore. Maybe there are some statutes on the books that are unnecessary — something.

But nothing, except a two-line bill that we’re debating here on the fourth legislative sitting day of the fall session. I mean, this is the most urgent item of business that this government could come up with? Is that how great the dearth of ideas is on that side of the House that we have a piece of legislation, such as it is, like the bill before us?

[1525]

I’ll make this point in a minute. But I think members on this side of the House, particularly the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, made a very good point about how infrequently this Legislature has declared distinct and special days to commemorate or to memorialize historic events in our province’s history. I think that point has been well made.

The fact that this is the sixth such occasion, should this bill pass, which I expect it will…. Why wouldn’t it? I think you have to stack up the intent of this bill against those rare occasions previously when people who occupied the seats that we now hold on behalf of our constituents created united, bold and strong statements on things that happened in our province’s past we might not be proud of. We’ve been reminded of some of those occasions this afternoon.

This is something completely different. I don’t know how I’m going to actually explain this. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head said one of his constituents on his Facebook page thought that this was an Onion article, from the satirical magazine.

I don’t know how I’m going to get some of my friends who are entrepreneurs and small business people to believe me, too — that this is what we did on Thursday with your tax dollars in the Legislature. We actually had a government create a new law on the statutes, on the books of British Columbia, that bemoans the presence of too many laws in our lives. I honestly don’t know how I’m going to explain that to them. I can’t tell you what they’re going to say.

I suppose that I can, at the very least, assure my constituents that they shouldn’t fear that they’re ruled in their lives by an out-of-touch, intellectual elite — maybe the out-of-touch part, maybe that point alone.

This bill says just how bare the cupboard is on the ideas front on the government side. If this is some kind of carefully laid trap, as we’ve heard hypothesized in this debate already and, I think, as we’ve read in the minister’s press release, it’s pretty transparent. It’s not a very carefully laid one, in fact.

I mean, I have never met a person and I don’t know any political party represented in this chamber that is pro–red tape. I have never heard anyone speak in favour of impediments to businesses operating efficiently. Nobody has a consensus for that or a position for that, I should say. Nobody actually wants a job, a career, where their day-to-day activity is enforcing useless and ineffective regulations. Nobody wants that for themselves. They’d rather live in a Groundhog Day scenario than do that day in and day out.

If we all understand this, and I know that we do, why is this government legislating a day instead of proclaiming it? Wouldn’t proclaiming it be the efficient way to go about raising awareness for the small business community about the impacts of red tape on our economy? Wouldn’t proclaiming it be the efficient way to use our scarce legislative time in the calendar year? Wouldn’t proclaiming it be what we do for hundreds of other days that seek to raise awareness on public policy issues that are important, too, in our economy and our society? Wouldn’t that have been
[ Page 9355 ]
the best way to do it? I think it is. I think that’s been demonstrated in this debate pretty clearly.

I look forward to hearing the minister extol the virtues of legislating and law-making in the interest of acting against red tape as opposed to proclaiming things in the interest of efficiency. I hope she’ll make that point, because it’s lost on me at this point.

Interjection.

R. Fleming: If I’d read the press release. Well, that says it all. Don’t tell me.

[1530]

Was this a media stunt? Was this about a press release, or is this about good law-making? I thought this was about good law-making. I guess not. It’s about the press release.

Members of the press who haven’t turned off your television sets, please direct your attention to the press release, to the importance of this bill before this august chamber right now. Please do that.

Now, I have to wonder, though, what members on the government side of the House are actually thinking, members on the back bench who don’t sit in cabinet, who weren’t privy to the strategy-making session around this bill. But presumably, in such a democratic party as the B.C. Liberal Party, they at least had the privilege of being briefed on the bill. I’m just wondering how that briefing went.

Were they told that this was a cunning plan, that this would ferret out red-tape lovers on the other side of the aisle in the chamber? Is that what it’s about? To find out who in the opposition party, deep down, loves red tape, and create a wedge issue between those who are pro–red tape against those who stand against it?

I mean, who dreamt this up? Who is the strategist over there who is finding salient political wedge issues like needless bureaucracy? Who is it? And what’s next on the legislative agenda for this mystery-filled fall session that we were recalled for?

Are we going to have the “Reduced crime and public safety day” act that doesn’t do anything to reduce crime or increase public safety but proclaims a day that is for those things? Maybe. Are we going to have an “Air and water pollution reduction proclamation day,” saying that clean air and clean water are good for us and we should promote this every year? We need a law for that.

No. Actually, what we need is good environmental regulations and laws that are effective in British Columbia. That’s what we need. We need substance. And that’s what we need for small business owners out there.

Well, look, maybe it’s going to be the “Talk about Miley Cyrus on her Twitter accounts day” act, for all I know, but this is pretty close to that.

Again, I don’t mock the issue of how oppressive and ridiculous the examples of unnecessary red tape are in the lives of my constituents and people in different regions of British Columbia. I’ve heard the stories firsthand about how off-putting it can be to do business with different levels of government, where they hit a snafu in the regulatory environment, where they are at the whim of arbitrary authority, and all of those nightmares where people are at risk, actually, of losing their business and their investments because bad regulations exist — I get that — for entrepreneurs and retailers and other business people.

What I criticize is the need to legislate a calendar day in our law-making chamber, when a proclamation was available to government. It can be proclaimed. The government…. If they have a resolve against red tape, 14 years on, if they want to revive this issue again because they failed to do it in their terms of government, that’s fine. It can be proclaimed.

In fact, it should be proclaimed, because it is a real issue. Red tape is a real issue, as I’ve said. And there are dozens of other real, public policy issues that should be on the agenda of government just like it, and many of them aren’t. But it should be proclaimed. It shouldn’t have been legislated.

In fact, actually, lo and behold, it has been proclaimed already. It was proclaimed, as has been mentioned, in January of this year. It was proclaimed for a week, which is six days better than this law. Let’s go back to the proclamation.

Other members have said it well, and I will just briefly visit this topic. If we were having, this afternoon, a discussion about how government moves towards smart regulations, better regulations, having a regulatory approach that promotes getting rid of ineffective laws and incents the creation of effective ones, that would be a welcome thing.

Now, this is not that. I beg to differ with the minister. In two lines of text, to proclaim a day about red tape is not about actually changing something on the business and regulatory front in British Columbia. It is not the same. If she doesn’t understand that, then we’re in a deeper problem than I thought.

[1535]

We should be talking about how you cut red tape where it exists and where regulations can be improved — regulations that will protect human lives, that will actually create level playing fields for businesses, where consumer protection will be enhanced in our province. There are lots of areas where we should be talking about business and regulatory reform.

I go back to…. Others have mentioned that, when this government had a “deregulation agenda,” that was just pure ideology before common sense, that a lot of bad things happened under this government. And that’s true. Members have talked about the health and safety regime being weakened, and that that has harmed the lives of workers and their families. And there are injuries and disasters to show exactly that.
[ Page 9356 ]

Others have talked about regulations that were dropped or self-regulatory regimes introduced around environmental protection that didn’t do as good a job, or an adequate job, of protecting the environment. They just simply reduced inspection and reduced compliance, and we have some bad examples of that during the lifetime of this B.C. Liberal government.

I can recall another one, which I will add to this debate. When I was the party’s Advanced Education critic, we had an idea to do away with government oversight, government regulation, of the private career-training industry — those colleges and career trainers who are private and operate as businesses but provide a service to students.

Now, government decided that they would just simply, completely, back out of this. Even though this is a significant area of economic activity — billions of dollars flowing through in tuition fees — even though government remained involved in providing student loans to students to attend these facilities, they made it a self-regulating entity.

What happened, I will remind the House, is that we had conflicts of interest that weren’t administered or overseen by governments where private entities were governing themselves and, therefore, acting in a self-interest rather than in the public interest. We had students who no longer had consumer protections that were stripped out of laws that existed before.

Government had to eventually admit that it was a disaster. It took international warnings from the consulate of China. It took international warnings from the Republic of South Korea. It took international warnings from media and governments in India to say: “Stay away from British Columbia, because there are unregulated commercial businesses operating as career-training colleges that will take your money, and when you are unsatisfied, you will have no recourse to get it back.”

So government finally admitted that this was a failure, and they appointed a guy named John Watson, who is a former BCIT president. And he created a report — it’s called the Watson report — with 12 recommendations about how to re-regulate, how to smartly regulate, the private career-training education sector.

And I remember him saying…. He summed it up very neatly in one word. He said:

“The problem in British Columbia is that the B.C. Liberals created an environment where anyone can come off the street and, for $100, buy a business licence at city hall and pay their first month’s rent, and they’re in business. They can grab student loans from the public purse. They can enrol students, create a fancy website, and nobody will ever investigate them, and they will not get caught. And if they do, there are no real penalties.”

That was the problem in British Columbia. That was the business playing field that the B.C. Liberals had created.

You know who backed the Watson report even more than the opposition, who had unearthed these problems and exposed them? The business community — the private sector schools that had been in business for decades and longer — who said: “Our reputational damage as a sector caused by deregulation and bad regulation from the B.C. Liberals is putting our businesses at risk. We’re going to lose employees. We’re going to lose students, and there will be a black eye on our province that means the Australians and New Zealand and California will take that market. They will take international students who would love to study in a safe place like British Columbia.”

Bad business. And it’s because of ideology that the B.C. Liberals did that, as they did on so many areas where they simply deregulated rather than have a process that was looking at how you make efficient, effective and smart regulations.

[1540]

I note that the OECD has a huge emphasis amongst all their industrial economies that are partners around smart regulations. Not less regulation, but better regulation is the emphasis. I notice the government in New Brunswick has an exercise right now where they ask the public to come have a conversation and submit their ideas about regulatory reform. Now, that would be an interesting piece of legislation. That would be an interesting program — it doesn’t even need to be legislation — an exercise for government to engage small business owners in our constituency.

Tell us about specific problems that we can fix because we are the government. And involve the opposition on that. Let’s not make it a partisan exercise. Let’s make it about good government. Instead, we’re using our rare legislative calendar time to talk about this bill that is before us, which should have been just a proclamation, that already was a proclamation.

I think that’s the problem that I’m having with what is before us this afternoon. Again, I go back to…. I don’t know exactly who wrote this bill for the minister, who in the Liberal caucus was the strategist quarterbacking this thing. It’s not a very clever strategy. You know, this whole idea that…. I hope this doesn’t play out for the rest of the session. Apparently, we are into a pre-election campaign time because this government is campaigning all the time.

But this idea that there’s a wedge issue — it’s free enterprise versus whatever else. There’s only one party that believes in free enterprise. It is meaningless. It just shows the ideological prism in which government members are trapped.

We live in a mature, mixed, market economy that is sophisticated, that has international trade relations, that is a diversified economy that has been built up over centuries, that is reliant on good public services, like education, like health care, and all of the other advantages that we have, around electricity supply — all of those things. That’s the kind of open market jurisdiction we are.

Everybody agrees with that, and everybody wants to optimize it. Certainly, our party wants to make it better. But this idea that it’s free enterprise versus something
[ Page 9357 ]
else…. I mean, I don’t know how they can think that that’s clever or that the public falls for it. People don’t think in those terms.

Although I did note that the Energy Minister yesterday made a very strong, compassionate case for the role in centralized, top-down state planning and borrowing yesterday in a debate here. If that’s free enterprise, the Liberal version of it, that’s a very curious version that they offer in this day and age.

That, I think, is about all I will say on this debate about Bill 34 this afternoon.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The member for Victoria–Swan Lake says he doesn’t know how he’s going to explain the importance of this to his constituents, that he doesn’t know anyone who is pro–red tape. Well, I agree. I didn’t think I knew anybody who was pro–red tape, but the NDP history shows that they don’t get it. The members opposite say they get it, but if you think that the small business community have forgotten that under the NDP, red tape and regulations increased — under your watch — I think you’re sadly mistaken.

If you think that small businesses have forgotten that under the NDP the small business tax rate was almost as twice as high as it is now, I think you’re sadly mistaken. If you think that small businesses, the business community, haven’t forgotten the corporate capital tax, a huge tax on investment, I think the NDP are sadly mistaken.

I come from a family of small businesses. My father actually has a PhD and was involved in research and then became an entrepreneur. He passed that spirit down to our family, and I can tell you that our efforts in small business actually was in a business that now doesn’t even exist. It was Japan Camera 1 Hour Photo.

Small business owners are very, very flexible and resourceful and innovative. At that time, to get your film developed in one hour was something else, and to be able to see the photos coming down the front window of the shops was actually quite exciting at one point. Now kids, if they stepped over a roll of film, wouldn’t even know what it was. Businesses change. Small businesses and entrepreneurs — you have to value their ability to be flexible, to be innovative and to take chances.

[1545]

The success of my parents’ businesses enabled them to finance our own businesses. My brother, my sister and myself are all small business owners. We understand that red tape is a huge detriment to growing your business.

Most of the businesses in British Columbia are small businesses, and 98 percent of all businesses are small businesses. In fact, if you look down at those 98 percent, over 80 percent of those businesses actually have five or fewer employees.

Small businesses don’t have an office or a department looking at reg reform. They don’t have the time to go through mountains of paperwork, which is why I’m proud that this government has reduced regulatory requirements by almost — or maybe over — 42 percent. That’s 150,000 or more regulations no longer on the books. We understand small business.

The member opposite — I believe it was the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill — dismisses the importance of counting regulations. But we’re proud of the fact that just in the past year, we’ve reduced regulations by 1,700 regs.

If the members opposite actually read the annual report on regulatory reform, they would see that we’re not all about just counting the number of regs that we’ve reduced. We’re actually looking at how we can change our regulatory environment to make sure that the regulations that we have there are smart regulations.

We know that we’ve done a good job. CFIB acknowledged this four years in a row by giving British Columbia, the only jurisdiction in Canada to receive it, an A for our efforts in reducing red tape.

To legislate us to report annually is also a first in this country. And CFIB has said…. I’ll quote Laura Jones, the executive vice-president of CFIB: “Small business owners are very clear that they want the B.C. government to stay focused on keeping red tape in check. The B.C. government has done more over the past decade than any other in this country, and we want them to keep up the good work. Freeing entrepreneurs from red tape benefits their employees, customers and families.” That is why this bill is so important. It will keep government accountable in continuing our efforts to reduce red tape.

I talked about smart regulations and making sure that the regulations that we do have are smart. It’s not all about just counting regs. We’re not just focusing, also, on small businesses but citizens.

We’re really proud of the organ donor registration project, which made it easier to register, to donate your organ at all Service B.C. locations. We’ve also improved the autism funding process. We’ve made it easier and simpler to apply for the funding.

There’s a new system for the employers advisers office. There has been a drastic reduction in wait time. It’s speedier. It’s more efficient. Within 90 seconds, business owners are able to get advice from the employers advisers office. Cybele Negris, who is the vice-chair of the B.C. Small Business Roundtable and president and co-founder of Webnames, said: “The ability for a small business owner to speak to someone immediately about workers’ compensation and safety questions will go a long way to helping business owners improve the work environment for employees across the province.”

Special occasion licence. I don’t know, Mr. Speaker, if you’ve had the occasion of having to apply for a special occasion licence in your community. You used to have to go to the liquor store, the government liquor store, and pick up a form. You’d fill it all out. Then you’d have to take it to the police station. They would check it over, and if you made even the smallest mistake, you’d have to
[ Page 9358 ]
start all over and go back to the liquor store and do that all over. Finally, that would permit you to then purchase liquor for a special occasion. We now have on-line registration for your special occasion licence, to make it easier.

We also have an on-line guide for starting a restaurant. In January 2015, we launched this. It helps entrepreneurs who want to start a restaurant to navigate the various agencies and all levels of government that are required.

We know that this is important. This bill puts us in a position of continuing to focus on the efforts and why it’s important to reduce red tape.

Today is a special day. Today is the beginning of Small Business Month. In fact, it used to be a week in October. It’s so important that we made it a month.

[1550]

A member from the NDP who was speaking earlier actually said something like, “Oh, I think it was Small Business Week last week,” or something like that. I don’t even know if they actually recognize the importance of October, but it is Small Business Month in British Columbia.

We have a formal declaration celebrating the strength of our small business sector. Bill 34 is also a declaration of our commitment to recognize the continuing importance and the million jobs in British Columbia. A million people, a million British Columbians, actually work for a small business. It also is a commitment to recognize the efforts of reducing red tape, which we know strangles businesses and makes it more difficult for average citizens to deal with government. It takes courage. It takes energy and dedication.

As a past chair of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and an inaugural member of the Small Business Roundtable…. In fact, actually, I should mention that the Small Business Roundtable had the Minister of Small Business as a member. The MLA for Boundary-Similkameen was a member. I was a member.

We certainly understand and own small businesses ourselves. We know that the Small Business Roundtable that was here today, in fact, celebrating Small Business Month have told us that reducing red tape is a priority for them, and we’re making it a priority in introducing this bill.

L. Krog: I don’t like to have to start my remarks by drawing the attention of the House to remarks that were made by the member for Chilliwack earlier. I appreciate that many of us have not taken any time to look at the backgrounds or study the biographies of the members of this chamber or what experience they may have or what skills and talents they may bring to this chamber.

I’ve always taken the view, frankly, that if the good voters of a constituency and the members of a political party in a constituency or riding association have chosen that person as a candidate, they would have done some study and been satisfied that that person was qualified to sit in this Legislature and qualified, therefore, to participate in the decision-making process and the debates in this chamber and create the laws of the province of British Columbia.

I think that’s the way it should work. Clearly, that’s not the attitude that prevails in this House. We have heard it over and over again during the course of the debate on this bill today from various Liberal members that they believe they have a certain monopoly — their party and their political philosophy — on small business and how it operates and the rigours that small business people face and all of those things.

Hon. Speaker, I must tell you that as a lawyer and as someone who has met a payroll, month in, month out, for better than half my adult working life since I left law school, the suggestion that those members over there can lecture me, in particular, about the rigours of small business and what it means and understanding red tape and regulation, I find, firstly, profoundly insulting and, secondly, I’m satisfied, completely inaccurate.

I know the member for Prince George–Mackenzie took great offence to my remarks in this chamber one day and, instead of confronting me, issued a press release. Then I apologized. I’m not going to issue a press release today. I’m not going to go running to the media. But I’d like the member for Chilliwack or other members in this House who have chosen to assail the members of the opposition about their experience or lack of experience, as alleged….

I’d like that member and other members to, perhaps, take a moment to reflect on what they’ve said and engage in the kind of mature debate that this chamber is supposed to engage itself in day in, day out but doesn’t seem to anymore. That’s all I’m asking from the member for Chilliwack or others who’ve chosen to participate in the debate to this.

I’m proud of understanding what it is to meet the rigours of meeting a payroll, of dealing with employment issues, of dealing with government bureaucracy. As some of the members of this chamber know — the member for Vancouver–Point Grey understands this very well; the Minister of Energy understands this very well — when you’re a lawyer, not only do you face the rigours of all the things that are necessary to run a small business; you also face and have to meet the very high standards of the Law Society of British Columbia.

It’s not a free-for-all of running one restaurant in a town and competing with your neighbour. There are significant regulatory requirements prescribed in statute and by the rules of the Law Society that members on this side of the House have met.

[1555]

I’m going to leave that aspect of this debate alone in the sincere hope that instead of casting aspersions on everybody in this chamber about their experience or understanding or lack of it, we might move this debate forward.

My late father was as entrepreneurial as anybody I
[ Page 9359 ]
could ever remember or know. Unfortunately, he didn’t make it to my fifth birthday. He was one of those tough-minded small business people, an entrepreneurial logging contractor. On the issue of regulation…. I’ll come back to that in a few moments. That entrepreneurial spirit carried on to one of my brothers, who spent his whole life in small business and did very well out of it. Again, lecturing this side of the House about what it is to understand small business is just a tiny bit offensive.

Now, when the member for Chilliwack talked about this bill, he used the phrase “shine a spotlight.” I heard the same phrase used by the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. Indeed, if I’d paid closer attention to the debate, I suspect that phrase would have been repeated by a number of the members. It’s in their prepared text about how they speak to this bill today. It’s about shining a spotlight. Well, in my neck of the woods, we shine a spotlight perhaps in an emergency situation.

Many of us think about shining a spotlight more in the theatrical world. It’s about getting to the centre. The lights come up, the spotlight is on you, and you perform. That’s really what we’re engaged in today. It is a level of pathetic and, I would argue, insulting political theatrics. This has nothing to do with advancing the cause of small business in British Columbia. The minister knows it, and the members know it.

The trap has been laid. Everyone is so anxious to see this play its way out in the hopes that some time in some future election the Liberal propaganda machine, during the course of the election, can try and portray the NDP as being anti–small business — notwithstanding the membership in the NDP caucus of people like myself, notwithstanding the vast array of small business people who are supportive of the NDP, who are supportive of a progressive and better British Columbia.

Let us call this out for what it is. The term “political stunt” has been used. I would argue that it’s beyond a stunt, and it is so disheartening for me.

I repeat over and over again whenever I speak to my constituents that it is an honour and a privilege to sit in this chamber. It’s an honour and a privilege. I know that some members have from time to time reflected on that. I checked with the Clerk of the assembly, I think, a couple of years ago. What are there? Maybe 900 people in the whole history of the province of British Columbia have had the privilege of sitting in the B.C. Legislature. Maybe we’re up to a thousand now. It doesn’t really matter. It’s a very small number.

I don’t mind debating things that are of no consequence, and I don’t mind some of the time we waste around bills. Sometimes we all play the games. The opposition has to fill up some time in this place, and the government has to fill up some time in this place. I don’t regard perfection as necessary to the political process. Lord knows that if we did, very few of us would ever survive in this place.

It’s kind of like grading in school. There may not be a significant difference between an F and an E or an E-minus and an F, but there is a difference. At some point you have to step back and ask yourself: is the thing you’re engaged in doing something you can feel good about or perhaps in your conscience ignore or perhaps rationalize to yourself that it’s okay to participate in?

This is one of those days. I want to be clear with the members. This is one of those days where for a while I was actually prepared to not participate in this debate, to let it slide through, to let the B.C. Liberals have their little game here today around this bill.

[1600]

It was the factual knowledge brought into this chamber by the member for Vancouver-Kingsway which was for me the straw, as they say, that broke the proverbial camel’s back and that said: “I cannot participate in this and let this slide by.”

It is particularly frustrating for me, having listened to the debate this afternoon and listened to the array of members, including backbenchers and cabinet ministers. And what have they had to say? Well, as I said earlier, “shine a spotlight” was a common phrase they used. The Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness used the phrase: “We’ll keep government accountable.”

Maybe I’m old-fashioned. Call me old-fashioned. It’s always a good idea to go to the legislation itself if you’re going to talk about it. I hesitate to suggest for a moment that the members actually haven’t looked at this bill, or perhaps they don’t understand how legislation and the law works.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I think it’s really important that we look at the bill, because this is what the bill says. It’s called the Red Tape Reduction Day Act. Contents are “Red Tape Reduction Day” and “Commencement.” “HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, enacts as follows…(1) The first Wednesday in March is Red Tape Reduction Day…(2) This Act comes into force on the date of Royal Assent.”

Now, I know that the members opposite have heard me rail from time to time about the regulatory power of government. Interesting that we’re arguing about red tape today, isn’t it? I have railed constantly about the legislative trend — not just in this assembly but in the Parliament of Canada and other assemblies across this country and legislative bodies around the world — of putting out a bill fairly simple in form and giving enormous regulatory power to cabinet. They then, if you will — again, to use a cliché — put all the meat on the bones of the bill. If you look at a skeleton, you can’t tell who it is, unless you’re whatever that show is with that wonderful, brilliant bone person. But when you put all the meat on it, we under-
[ Page 9360 ]
stand what it is. We can see whether it’s male or female even, whether it’s young or old.

To use the words of the minister for emergency preparedness: “This will keep government accountable.” I’ve talked about, many times in this chamber, regulatory power being given to cabinet, where regulations — for those at home who are listening — are passed and approved by cabinet, with great respect, in secret and with no debate.

Then, when I go to this bill, shockingly, what do I find? I find what I just read. Gosh, I can’t even spend my half-hour railing about regulatory power today. You know why I can’t? Because it’s not here. There’s nothing here — nada, a big zero, zippy. You can use every bit of language you wish. There is nothing in this bill that does anything to force government — or to even imply that government has to do anything whatsoever — to reduce red tape.

This makes the Wizard of Oz look like a big guy. It had this wonderful facade, and there’s this little old white-haired man. We’ve all seen it, I’m sure. I mean, even the younger members in the chamber have seen it, I’m sure, on TV late at night or early in the morning or have watched it with their children or grandchildren. The wizard turns out to be whoever.

Now, I know that the new Minister of Education is making jokes about the member for West Vancouver–Capilano. But I want to tell him that when the member for Vancouver-Kingsway directed some remarks at him earlier today, I can assure him that it was done out of respect. That member on that side of the House is respected by the members on this side of the House. So, Minister, leave him alone.

[1605]

Having said that, again, there is nothing in this bill that advances the cause of small business whatsoever. There is absolutely nothing here.

The minister kept, with great respect, interrupting the remarks of the member for Victoria–Swan Lake earlier by talking about her press release, her press release, her press release. Oh my goodness, the press release. I have news for the minister. Press releases are utterly meaningless. Press releases are the propaganda tool of any and every government to either promote themselves or tell the public about something, but it has no legal effect. Minister, it has no legal effect.

It does nothing, which is precisely what this bill does — absolutely nothing. It does not reduce red tape. It does not bring into effect any change that will substantively impact on how small business is conducted in British Columbia. That stuff is actually carried out by a government that’s paying attention to the necessary work that it’s empowered to do by virtue of winning the last election or the power that’s given to it by the members of this assembly when they pass law. That’s where that stuff is done.

It has nothing to do with — glory of glories — passing a two-section bill that is so utterly devoid of content. I’m not allowed to use props, but I don’t think a bill is a prop. It extends half a page. For heaven’s sake, my little six-year-old grandson could develop longer than half a page. This is the best the government of British Columbia can do — slide a half-page in front of us and make out like the new world of success for small business is upon us? Holy of holies, Elmer Gantry couldn’t have done a worse job. Elmer Gantry had more substance, in terms of reducing red tape.

What have we got here? I hate to sound repetitive. We’ve got nothing. The member for Victoria–Swan Lake pointed out, quite rightly…. I think in the chamber you can exaggerate and you can say things that are completely off base, and the member for Chilliwack probably said that a bit today. But when the member for Victoria–Swan Lake said he knows of essentially no political party that’s campaigned on the basis that it wanted to increase red tape, I suspect that he was probably dead on.

And yet that side of the House and the minister who introduced this bill would have you believe that over here on this side we are quartered away in dark corners, writing regulations like mad in anticipation of the day we might actually be on that side of the House, that we are gathered around cauldrons of alphabet, swirling it around waiting for that precise moment when we can pass it all out in great soup bowls around the province so that everyone can choke on red-tape alphabet soup. I have no doubt that that’s what the members opposite want to believe.

I suppose that might give them some tiny excuse for, like the most interesting array of cheerleaders, standing up and repeating the same lines over and over again in defence of the indefensible, which is a bill that says it’s going to reduce red tape when all it does is tell you we’ve got a red-tape-reduction day.

Even the Lord took seven days. This government proclaims small business reduction day, week or whatever it was back in January. And here we are today. Talk about gilding the lily. This is not a lily of the field. Solomon in all his glory was never arrayed such as one of those, but much less so do we see before us today a piece of legislation worthy of debate and worthy of the interest of the people of British Columbia.

We have before us one of the most stripped-down, insignificant, useless pieces of legislation that has ever been introduced here. If this moved the agenda forward one iota and I thought that it was a sincere effort on the part of the government to do so, I’d happily support it.

[1610]

But instead, like other members of this chamber, I am called to debate and participate in some silly little comedy dreamed up by who knows who, we assume in the buildings somewhere — maybe in one of those dark corners where the Liberals believe that the NDP gather, where something like this was seen to be good for the politics of the B.C. Liberals.
[ Page 9361 ]

I get the politics, okay? I get the politics. We just spent another day debating a project that’s proudly proclaiming itself 60 days underway and hundreds of millions of dollars already spent — debating whether or not it’s supported. So we’ve already pretty much, I would argue, wasted the time of the good people of the province of British Columbia yesterday. And then today we’re engaged in it one more time.

I fear that the B.C. Liberals are gaining an appetite for wasting time. I see a growing interest on the part of the B.C. Liberals not just to diminish the work that we do in this House in terms of its importance but, in fact, to reduce that work to a kind of political pablum, some puerile mess that means nothing and achieves nothing and isn’t worthy of our time. That’s what I fear. Gosh knows next week what we’re going to see.

I mean, later today, if we get to it, we’re going to debate the Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act. I think it’s got nine sections. It’s a much more substantive bill, I must tell you, than the Red Tape Reduction Day Act. It is a much more substantial bill. But this isn’t my first rodeo. I’ve spent 15 years in this chamber — on the government side, on the opposition side. I have to tell you: we have a vehicle for the stuff that isn’t terribly controversial and that is necessary and needs to be done. It’s called a miscellaneous statutes amendment act.

If the Red Tape Reduction Day Act is symbolic of where we’re going in the B.C. Legislature, then I just have to say it is going to be a very long fall session. I mean, we’re going to have to take this like the best chewing gum in the world and just keep stretching and stretching to try and fill the time.

Pretty much what we’ve done to date has been a complete and utter waste of time, and this bill is no exception. It is no exception.

Interjection.

L. Krog: The member for Cowichan Valley suggests that maybe it’s red tape. Well, the erudite remarks of the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, when he talked about the origin of the term “red tape,” covered that, I think. I don’t care how many ribbons you tie around this stuff; it ain’t going to look any prettier, Member.

I have to say to that member that no matter how many times we put the red ribbon around it, it’s still not going to look any better. As I said the other day about the motion: you can put lipstick on this, but it’s still a pig, and it’s not going to look any better.

Now, when the member for Vancouver-Kingsway made the remarks he did, and having passed that knowledge to many of us prior to coming into this chamber this afternoon, my reaction was one of embarrassment and sorrow, not anger — embarrassment and sorrow. Embarrassment for my colleagues on the opposite side.

You know what? They’re all fine people. They’re well meaning. They’ve served their community. They’ve served their political party. They have a certain level of ambition. They’re doing their best. They’re trying to make this a better province. I believe that about every member of this chamber, notwithstanding how sarcastic and vicious I may be from time to time, and how critical.

Interjection.

L. Krog: My old friend from law school days says: “Say it ain’t so.” I hesitate to correct the minister, but it is so. And the embarrassment comes from where I started my remarks earlier today.

What we do in this place is important. It does have an impact on people’s lives, it does have meaning, and it does have symbolism.

[1615]

There is a level below which debate should never sink, and we, unfortunately, today have essentially reached that place. We have reached that place through the most cynical kind of politics, the kind of politics that many members have spoken of eloquently earlier today. We have reduced the importance of this place.

Will it win or lose the next election for any of us? No. Is it going to be the subject of one of those leading columnists’ columns that they’re always happy to write? No. Is it going to be a headline in the Vancouver Sun? Probably not. Will it get a little bit of press coverage somewhere? Perhaps.

But each of the members of this chamber know and have to know what they’ve participated in over the course of this debate and how and what they’ll be voting for. I don’t believe for a moment that anyone can in good conscience tell themselves that what we’ve been debating today is worthy of the debate, is worthy of the time and is worthy of the discussion.

There are many, many ways to honour the small business people of this province, the people who face that stress every day of doing what I talked about earlier — meeting the payroll, hiring and firing employees, trying to borrow money, trying to stave off things when times are tough, trying to expand their businesses, trying to meet the regulatory regimes that are imposed upon them by municipal governments or regional districts or the provincial government or the federal government or perhaps a regulatory body, as I said, like the Law Society of British Columbia or the College of Physicians and Surgeons — meeting all of those things.

I understand and I get that, and that’s important. It’s so important that we respect those people who are prepared to do it, just as we respect the 25-year-old single mom who gets up and does the early shift at McDonald’s with no great chance or hope of reward, who gets her kids off to school, who manages to keep them clothed and fed.

We’ve got to respect those people too. What we should be talking about in this chamber is what’s important, what
[ Page 9362 ]
is actually going to impact or improve or make better the lives of the people of British Columbia. That’s where the remarks of the member for Vancouver–Kingsway so moved me today to stand up and speak.

I’m going to go back to my father. Some of you might remember. I know that the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows was there that morning when I spoke about the Chinese apology.

My father was one of those hard-driving entrepreneurial types. He wanted to get that self-propelled repair barge and that prototype Timberjack called a Wagner up to the logging site with some of his crew. He wanted to get going. He wasn’t going to wait. And so he set off that day, not bothering to have a radio installed.

I suspect at the time, 1958, that wasn’t in a regulation anywhere. It probably came later and might even have come as a result of what happened. But my father took to a watery grave himself, a man who had worked for him for years, his cousin and the cook from Chinatown. When the motor conked out and they were in a storm, they had no way of contacting anyone saying; “We’re in trouble.”

Now, that is an aspect of regulation, and I say this deliberately to catch the attention of members. That’s an aspect of regulation. That kind of safety regulation is what’s important and that, unfortunately, is what forms, often, the bulk of the regulatory things that government does. So regulation is important.

Red tape is a different thing. Today in this chamber, when we talk about red tape and the things that frustrate me and that frustrate small businesses, I understand what that stuff is. But I also know what the other extreme is.

But most importantly, I come back to what we do in this chamber. We have engaged in a debate today which is a farce. It is a complete and utter farce.

[1620]

The member for Vancouver–Kingsway pointed out that we have had five days in the history of this province when the members of this assembly have chosen to proclaim a day as being special and to set it aside and approve it by way of legislation. There’s the Family Day Act. You know what? It was political. Let’s be blunt about it. The Premier gets to hang her name on a family holiday. Who could oppose a family holiday? Knowing, in the modern working world, that we’re working longer hours and spending less time with our family, who could oppose that?

There’s B.C. Day, to recognize the rich history and culture of this province — again, another opportunity for families to get together; Douglas Day, honouring one of our great founding leaders; and Terry Fox Day. I bet you there’s not a person who was alive when Terry Fox died who didn’t cry.

Today, this government is asking the members of this assembly to give the same honour to the Red Tape Reduction Day Act as the Holocaust Memorial Day Act? It is shameful. It is utterly and completely shameful.

I was hoping to hear one of the members opposite this afternoon stand up and respond to the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, to lead the debate in this issue, to exercise one moment of humanity and compassion, and I didn’t hear it. That’s why, today, I am embarrassed by this place, and I am in sorrow that we have spent a day doing this, instead of doing the right thing and honouring what previous legislatures have done in terms of those days. These are special days. It debases the coinage. It debases what we do in this place.

This needs to stop now. It’s up to the government to do it.

J. Thornthwaite: March 2, 2016. That’s going to be red-tape-reduction day. Our government is planning on using this day on an annual basis to highlight government’s efforts to reduce red tape and reduce the regulatory burden on businesses. We will be working across government, something that I have been working on for years — on cross-government collaboration and cooperation on many, many issues. But this is good news.

We will be working cross-government with several ministries, all ministries, to identify outdated regulations that can be repealed or removed entirely. This is good news.

Red-tape-reduction day will be an honorary day that will highlight government’s commitment to a net-zero increase in regulatory requirements to 2019 and demonstrate government’s continued commitment to reduce red tape and the administrative burden imposed on citizens and businesses.

It establishes an annual day devoted to highlighting our progress in regulatory reform, reducing red tape through streamlining and modernizing the provincial regulatory framework and repealing outdated or unnecessary regulations as required.

Since 2001 our government has reduced regulatory requirements by over 43 percent. We’ve removed more than 155,000 outdated and unnecessary requirements, and British Columbia is recognized as a leader in cutting red tape. For four years in a row, we have received an A in red-tape reduction from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. We know that by modernizing and repealing unnecessary regulatory requirements, citizens and businesses can save time, money and frustration when searching and using government services.

Our government is committed to the thriving small businesses. In fact, today our Minister of Small Business and Red Tape Reduction proclaimed this month as Small Business Month, and it has been Small Business Month for several years.

Our government values small business as an economic engine, demonstrated by the creation of her ministry, the Ministry of Small Business and Red Tape Reduction. This is a commitment to small business — again, a good thing.
[ Page 9363 ]

[1625]

We recognize that small business plays a vital role in developing both the economic and social fabric of our province. I’d like to just pinpoint a couple of examples in my riding of how small businesses contribute to the social fabric in North Vancouver.

I’ve got Delany’s. It’s a coffee shop, a small business owner, and they devote countless time and energy and money to causes in North Vancouver. One of my favourites is they sponsor the Friday night concert series in Lynn Valley, a family affair, every Friday night throughout the entire summer. People come together. We have bands, live bands, and sing and dance. It’s a real community affair. Small business did this.

Grant and Jasmine Botto — two of my favourite people in North Vancouver — also contribute a lot of time in their business lives to contributing to the community in North Vancouver, in addition to also co-sponsoring the Lynn Valley concert series. I’m looking forward to coming to their Pumpkin Patch in the next couple of weeks and hanging out with all the little kids and the families that really, really enjoy their efforts on this special day.

Then, of course, I’ve spoken numerous times in this House about Deep Cove brewery and the efforts that they did by making that special beer, Shredder beer, for our beloved friend who passed, Tim Jones, the leader for North Shore Rescue. They made this beer, and they advertised it, and all the proceeds go to the Tim Jones legacy for North Shore Rescue.

These are just a few of the examples of how government, our government, is helping small businesses by reducing red tape so that they can not only be prosperous and an economic engine for British Columbia and provide jobs but also help the communities with which they do business and the citizens that they serve.

Small businesses provide nearly 54 percent of all private sector jobs — the third highest in the country — and more than one million British Columbians are employed by small business. Small businesses represent 98 percent of all businesses in British Columbia and generate 33 percent of the province’s gross domestic product, tied for first place in this country.

In 2014, approximately 382,600 small businesses were operating in the province, providing almost 32 percent of the wages paid to B.C. workers, well above the national average of 26 percent. And our small businesses account for 86 percent of all provincial exporters, impacting every sector of British Columbia and the B.C. jobs plan.

In summary, I’d just like to reiterate our government’s utmost priority in making sure that small businesses thrive in British Columbia, and that’s why we are doing more and more every day to try and reduce red tape. And when we celebrate, on March 2, 2016, red-tape-reduction day, then we, of course, will be celebrating further regulations that we’ve cut red tape for.

D. Eby: You know, when I read this bill, I reflected on when I first ran to be elected to this place. I thought about how all of us, when we ran to be elected in the Legislature here in Victoria to represent our communities, what our goals and our aspirations were, what our hopes were for the kind of work that we would be doing when we were elected, for the ways in which we hoped to represent our community.

When I heard the member for North Vancouver–Seymour talk about Delany’s, when she talked about Deep Cove brewery…. I’ve got businesses like that in my community that, like her, I’m very proud of. I don’t think that that’s a difference between that side of the House and this side of the House, nor is our wish that they prosper and do well and that there’s a regulatory environment that supports them.

We work really hard to get elected. It’s not just that we’re backed up by, on our side, a much smaller team, but on the government side, a much larger team of public servants…. These are people who have done incredible education. They’ve done law degrees. They’ve done master’s of public administration degrees.

[1630]

They are experts in their field. I have no doubt that they have incredible ideas about how to encourage small business in our province, about how to grow the economy of our province, about how to write good and effective regulation and legislation. And then we get this bill.

You know, when I saw the minister stand to introduce legislation…. She’s also responsible for liquor policy in the province. When I saw her stand to introduce that bill, I turned to a colleague and said: “Great. They’re fixing some of the problems that their liquor changes have created for industry. They’re listening to industry.” I’ll admit I said it a little more snarkily than that. But that’s what I said: “They’re fixing it.”

Instead, we got a bill totally devoid of content, unresponsive to the concerns of business. That was the real frustration for me, that somebody could have the responsibility and the power of being a minister in this place, the opportunity of incredible minds within her ministry working to assist her to bring forward effective legislation to address those concerns, and to waste all that opportunity and the time of everybody who staffs this place with this piece of legislation — proposing to make it equivalent to Terry Fox Day and Holocaust Memorial Day — Red Tape Reduction Day, a two-line act that duplicates an existing proclamation made for January. What a waste.

What’s especially frustrating for me about this waste of minds, of resources, of time, of money, of effort, all of our effort…. I don’t know what the hourly cost is of this place — considerable, I would say. It’s especially frustrating to know that there are direct concerns that have been brought to this minister, to her predecessor, on the liquor file, that I have brought from small businesses in my community to the Minister of Finance, saying: “Here are
[ Page 9364 ]
some issues to deal with.” Instead of dealing with those issues, this is the legislation that we get.

The minister who is introducing a new law about how little the government likes to introduce new laws is also responsible for liquor policy. This is the liquor policy when the B.C. Liberals addressed wholesale price reform. This was to make regulation simpler and better for wine, beer and spirits producers in British Columbia. When they went to reform that regulation, what happened? It spiked the price of craft beer across the province.

I understand that you can put in a law and not realize what all the consequences will be — that that could happen, that mistakes will happen. But when it became apparent that the price of beer had gone up for small B.C. producers across the province…. The craft beer industry literally visited MLAs on both sides of this House and said: “This is a problem. Your new regulation has created a problem for our industry. It’s very price-sensitive. People will choose cheaper products because they don’t have a lot of money, and we want them to choose B.C. products made by small companies. Will you help us?”

R. Fleming: Was there a press release?

D. Eby: What happened? Well, maybe I should read the press release, my colleague suggests.

Nothing happened. So when the government introduced a new set of licences for grocery stores, when they brought forward this new set of licences, when they introduced the idea of selling wine in grocery stores, there were big issues. They said it was about levelling the playing field, but one set of the licences had special privileges. These were privileges that were given to support the B.C. wine industry — preferred pricing, exemption from the one-kilometre rule.

What happened was these licences ended up being transferred to some of the most profitable big companies in British Columbia. Instead of advantaging the B.C. wine industry, it ended up advantaging the Pattison Group.

We pointed out this isn’t actually a level playing field. You’re giving price preferences to some of the largest and most profitable businesses in the province, and small grocery stores and mid-sized grocery stores are totally excluded from this process. They can’t participate. When we said this was a problem, what happened? Nothing.

[1635]

Did the minister stand up today and introduce a bill to fix it? No. Today in question period, when we raised the concerns of small and medium B.C. wineries…. They are coming forward and saying: “Your grocery store plan is very worrying to us. We’re worried that we’re going to be shut out of that market. We’d like to talk to you. We’d like to meet with you and raise these concerns.” They had to issue a press release saying they weren’t being listened to, and they had concerns about this plan.

The minister stood up and said: “Come hell or high water, we’re doing it as we said. We’re not listening.” That’s what she said in this House today. That’s the respect for the impact of regulation on small business that we see in this House. That’s on one file that this minister who introduced this bill is responsible for.

Tourism. Here’s another example. Tourism Vancouver agrees to underwrite $100 million of the B.C. convention centre cost. Why would they do that? Because they believed that it would increase tourism in Vancouver and that it would be beneficial for their members. Of course. So they step up with $100 million for this project that went way over budget, to help out the provincial government. They take on that debt.

Here we are, almost a decade later. They’ve paid off none of the $100 million. In fact, they’re further in debt. They owe $112 million to this government. The reason why they owe more money is because the interest rate on that debt is 6 percent, which is more than the government borrowed the money at to lend it to them in the first place for.

Again, I understand there can be unintended consequences. I don’t think anybody in that negotiation with Tourism Vancouver was sitting down and saying: “We can really take advantage of them on this interest rate thing. They’ll owe us money forever. It’s going to be great.” I don’t think anybody said that.

But when I raised that in this House over and over again, and not just raised the issue but pointed out that it’s costing tourism businesses in Vancouver big public events…. We lost a New Year’s Eve event in the city of Vancouver because Tourism Vancouver didn’t have 100 grand to pitch in to make the budget for the event. It was cancelled.

When I bring those issues to this House, and I raise them again and again, what happens? Nothing. I heard the member for Prince George–Mackenzie say: “This is a great debate. We’re hearing about all these concerns. This law is already working.” Well, I can tell him that I have brought these issues to this House. They have been ignored. They directly impact small business.

I’ll tell him some more, and I’ll tell the minister some more. Just like the member for North Vancouver–Seymour has those businesses in her community that she is proud of, so do I. When they come to me and they say, “I have a concern,” as the MLA, I step up, and I say: “Absolutely, I’m going to do my best for you to address this regulatory issue you’re facing.”

I had not one but two businesses in my community come forward and say: “We sell products in this community, and we collect the PST.” But one said there’s a company in Ontario, and the other said there’s a company in Alberta that sell the same products as they do on line. They sell them into British Columbia. They sell more than the minimum amount required to collect the PST, but they do not collect the PST. We’re at a disadvantage. It’s an unfair disadvantage.
[ Page 9365 ]

It’s not a disadvantage that…. I don’t think anybody on the other side of the House said: “You know what’s going to be great? We’re going to have companies in Ontario and Alberta selling in without tax to British Columbia, and that’s going to really disadvantage B.C. business.” Nobody on that side of the House said that. We’re all in agreement that this is foolish. Everybody should be collecting PST on an equal playing field, whether you sell from Ontario, Alberta or British Columbia, to British Columbians, period. All of us would agree on that.

When I wrote to the Minister of Finance, I expected to get a letter back saying: “Absolutely, this is an important issue. We’ll look into it. We’ll address it. Thanks for the name of the company.” I wrote one letter, wrote another letter, wrote a third letter. I am still waiting for a response.

When the business owners come to me and say, “What are you hearing about this issue? It seems to me they’re still doing it. Why isn’t anybody acting on this?” what can I say? I’ve raised it in the House now. Put that on the list.

[1640]

Instead, we get a two-line bill from this minister, wasting our time, wasting our money, wasting taxpayer money, wasting the minds of the bureaucrats working hard in her ministry, for a cheap political trick, a duplication of a day that was already proclaimed by order-in-council, which is the way all of these days are, except for the most special days — except for Terry Fox Day, except for B.C. Day, except for Holocaust Memorial Day, the most important days.

The rich, rich suggestions coming from the other side of this House about their track record on this are astounding, given the way they’ve conducted themselves on just a few of these examples. I could literally stand here, and we could go through these things for a long time.

The worst — and this is not me — public policy in memory for red tape brought in by this government, according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, is MMBC — the worst public policy in memory, a national award–winner for red-tape creation, a creature of this government.

When this government heard about…. When I contacted this government about a garden centre in my community that has four locations so is considered a large business, has four locations being crippled by paperwork, incredible costs — a small, independent garden centre…. When they’re recognized by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business as a national award–winner for a disaster of a program, do they say…?

Again, I don’t think that anyone on that side of the House looked at this thing and said: “Wow, this is really going to go off the rails. This will be great — to force a bunch of paperwork and extra costs on small businesses.” Nobody said that. These things happen.

When you put the regulation in place and it doesn’t work as you intended, you’ve got to fix it. You’ve got to fix it. And you can’t tell me that the minister for red-tape reduction doesn’t have a bunch of smart bureaucrats in her office that could figure it out. You can’t tell me that’s not the case, because I’m sure she does. Instead of fixing it, we get this bill, a cheap political trick that puts red-tape-reduction day on the level of some of the most important days of this province.

I am sorry that this is her first bill. I am disappointed that this is her first bill. What a waste of her time and energy and the people who sent her here to do a good job on behalf of businesses in British Columbia and our community. Hopefully, we’ll get better next time.

G. Kyllo: On behalf of the good people of the Shuswap, it’s a pleasure to speak to Bill 34, the Red Tape Reduction Day Act.

It was pointed out by the continual doom and gloom by the members opposite, specifically the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. Things are going great in this province, and we should be extremely proud of the economic growth that we have in this province, our record on job creation.

I’m very proud that we’re taking the time to actually legislate Bill 34 in legislation with respect to the importance of red-tape reduction in this province. It’s extremely important to small businesses around this province, and I’m very proud to stand here and speak in support of Bill 34.

This bill is very important to me as a small business owner, because I share the concerns of every small business owner in our province. Let’s face it. Nobody likes red tape, and for owners of small businesses, Bill 34 is great news. How appropriate that it is announced on the first day of Small Business Month.

As some of my government colleagues have said earlier, our government has reduced regulatory requirements by more than 43 percent since 2001. In fact, we have slashed 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 reason for that.

In October 2012, the B.C. government announced it would create the 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. More than 35,000 individuals provided feedback through community meetings, an on-line survey and the #BCBizChat Twitter town hall.

[1645]

On February 5, 2013, a small business accord forum, made up of 15 business owners and operators from various regions and sectors around B.C., used the feedback from the consultation period to determine the accord principles and establish action items for the provincial government.
[ Page 9366 ]

As a result of these efforts, the small business accord arrived at the following principles: consider the needs and impacts of small businesses in 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; design provincial government programs and resources affecting small business 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 businesses and the labour talent that is developed; and create long-term growth opportunities for small businesses 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. Reducing red tape streamlines and simplifies processes to make it easier and faster for citizens to deal with government. That means fast, easy access to services, saving British Columbians time. For businesses, it means simplified processes, saving them time and money that can be reinvested in their businesses. We understand that red tape can create unnecessary confusion and increase the costs and time of doing business or accessing government services.

The rationale for red-tape-reduction day is quite simple. It’ll make our government publicly accountable to our commitment to reduce red tape and to continually review and improve regulations. Our government wants to save people time, money and frustration. We also want services to be consistent across government and, wherever possible, to be digital to ensure citizens can access the digital services they need 24-7.

Our government is planning on using this day on an annual basis to highlight government’s efforts to reduce red tape and reduce regulatory burden. We know that streamlining how British Columbians interact with government and improving how we deliver services to the public reduces frustration. That is why our government continues to make it a priority.

The provincial government will continue to work with small business owners and operators to ensure that we are the most business-friendly jurisdiction in Canada and the world. We will continue to do so by steadily slashing unnecessary red tape and regulations that obstruct the private sector.

J. Shin: I rise to take my place in the debate for the second reading of the government’s Bill 34, the Red Tape Reduction Day Act.

Members of this assembly, on both sides of the House, spent our first week back in session taking our time to wholeheartedly celebrate the many contributions of small businesses in our province, with October, of course, being Small Business Month and October 18 to 24 being Small Business Week.

It was my pleasure to make a private member’s statement in support of our small businesses on the first day of the fall session, this past Monday. Of course, on behalf of the official opposition, I joined the minister in welcoming to the Legislature a very special group of B.C.’s entrepreneurs and their advocates, which we had earlier today for the launch of Small Business Month.

Now, I’m very happy to support any initiative that recognizes and supports our small business community. They are the employers for over one million British Columbians, providing more than half of all private sector jobs and contributing nearly a third of our provincial GDP, with $14.4 billion worth of merchandise shipped to international destinations, which accounts for almost half of the total value of goods exported from our province.

When one speaks of recognition and support…. As well intended as the ceremonial sentiment that’s expressed in this act claims to be, I can’t help but notice the irony of it: a day for the government to essentially remind itself, by law, of its commitment to cutting red tape. That’s what this bill is.

The problem is that not only is it not specified anywhere in this whole one-sentence-long bill that this is meant for small business…. I mean, my colleagues on this side of the House have already raised multitudes of concerns with the generality of the language and, therefore, the corresponding ambiguity that comes with the bill.

[1650]

They have legitimate reasons for their skepticism, considering the devastating track record of this government on their string of deregulations of addictions and recovery homes, child death reviews, forestry worker deaths, farmworker safety, rail safety and derailments and, of course, to the tune of the latest tragedy at Mount Polley.

Let’s take all of that aside and consider that this bill is for small businesses, even though the bill doesn’t specifically read so. It’s still strange. It’s just strange, as one would think that all members here strive, without having to be held accountable by legislation to do so, to serve our small business community with our level best. I don’t think we need legislation to do the obvious that we’re called in the House to do.

If this is a trend that the government is setting, I don’t want to imagine how many more days we’ll be debating in this chamber, on the taxpayers’ dime, all sorts of other bills that this government will apparently need to remind itself to do the obvious job. I would argue that what our hard-working entrepreneurs really need from this government is policies and resources of substance, which go beyond just another repetition of hyper-partisan rhetoric embodied in a ceremonial bill, such as this, for nothing
[ Page 9367 ]
more than what really feels like a round of self-congratulation by the government.

Now, 81 percent of all of our small businesses in this province — that’s 310,000-some — are microbusinesses with fewer than five paid employees, and 53 percent of these have no paid help at all. It’s a one-man operation for a lot of our small businesses in B.C. Such microbusiness and self-employed setups are often the case for many immigrant families throughout the province — owner-operated, run by a couple or partners with occasional help from their immediate family.

These are 310,000 microbusinesses and owner-operated businesses with a high turnover rate, and many struggle with a gross lack of representation to voice what really hinders their success. It’s not the minimum wage or the benefits for employees when over 50 percent of all businesses in B.C. don’t have any employees to begin with.

Of course, sweeping away the outdated, cumbersome and irrelevant regulations will be welcome news, and my colleagues and I on this side of the House fully support that. But I’m not sure when red tape reduction became such a trophy-worthy initiative, as one would think that it’s only a natural standard for any regulatory body to continue to strive towards better policies and leaner regulatory processes.

Another thing that I do have to mention is that the government certainly seems to pick and choose what they want to see and do. From the consultations upon consultations that they claim to have done, the only thing they come back to us to debate in the House this session, something so sorely called out by the small business owners of our province, is this bill. I mean, are they serious? Our entrepreneurs are crying out for a legislated red-tape reduction day? That will make all the difference for their business? I don’t think so. I’m not sure who this government is talking to.

What really hurts the small businesses is not the fact that we didn’t have a ceremonial day designated for red-tape reduction. What hurts them is the skyrocketing costs of operation — like the latest hydro hike of 28 percent, which is making running their machinery and their facilities that much more expensive. A pet store in my community, a local small business, will be paying $4,000 more this year just for that extra electricity bill alone.

The small business owners I talk to are telling me how they’re feeling underserved by this government’s current Commercial Tenancy Act, articulated in very complex language and, of course, mainly in the landlords’ interest.

They voiced their opinions in this precinct this spring about the fine print of long franchise contracts in favour of the franchiser. They’ve talked about the rates of rent and triple-net for their operations quite literally forcing even the successful businesses to close their doors and be bullied out of their locations.

Why is this government not ringing any alarm bells on the diluted consumer protections for all the bank fees undisclosed or poorly disclosed? An average 3 percent charge seems to be the regular standard for every credit card transaction.

[1655]

What that means for a bustling little family-run bakery in my community whose gross revenue is about $800,000 before expenses is paying as much as $24,000 just in credit card levy. That could hire a whole full-time staff to add to their operation, but that’s not the case. Nobody’s saying anything about that in the House.

It would have been just wonderful for me to be able to rise in the House today to support the government’s bill on…. How about a day to recognize, a day dedicated for the importance of adult basic education and English language training for our small business community? In a province where over a quarter of our residents are immigrants, and we welcome another 42,000 every year, one would think that accessible ABE and ELL programs are government’s responsibility — to raise not just a skilled workforce that our small business communities desperately need, but our entrepreneurs also, especially the ones with a language barrier and those with foreign credentials that are not recognized here.

This government knows that they created more red-tape nightmares than any red tape they claim to have cut. Like the mess that was the PST to the HST, back to the PST transition — that took forever, for years, and the taxpayers are still on the hook for that. The private bureaucracy of Multi-Material B.C. And I have to mention, again, that even the food safety inspection remains inadequately acquainted with the various food preparation processes in ethnic cuisine, in a province that’s as diverse as ours.

I had one small restaurant in my community that complained about how inadequately trained these inspectors were. They had over 50 pounds of red beans that were perfectly fermented and ready to go for their restaurant, but when they came, they had wax poured all over it due to the fact that they simply weren’t familiar with the procedure. These are the stories that I’m hearing at the doorstep.

Many of our entrepreneurs make less than the minimum wage by the hour. The so-called underinsured working poor, with just enough income to be disqualified for exemptions or subsidies, are crippled by this government’s relentless increases to user fees. MSP has doubled, another 6 percent hike for ICBC, all the while facing the same unaffordability challenges in housing, daycare, transportation and tuition — like the rest of us who are employed but who often have benefits that come with our jobs, which our entrepreneurs are without.

Despite this bill by the government to give itself another pat on the back, the reality is that tomorrow for the 310,000 of our microbusinesses and owner-operators, their disadvantage has not changed. It’ll be the same challenges with or without this bill. They’ll be disadvantaged
[ Page 9368 ]
in understanding the laws and their rights for effective negotiations and fair protection.

Many of these small business owners are challenged to claim, let alone be aware of, what resources may be available. They seldom have the luxury of the time or the funds to be able to participate in public consultations. They don’t have the time and the availability to, of course, hire specialists and lobbyists, find support and get training or take out memberships at various advocacy bodies.

Now, all these are not what I googled on line. They’re not stats that I pulled up from Stats Canada, necessarily. I’m not sure where and who and when the government consulted for feedback from the small business community — I mean, to think that there are, of course, more than 380,000 of them, to begin with.

I’m certainly not claiming that I’ve talked to every one of them either, but I know that those who are struggling the most are the ones that are also least likely heard. These are the entrepreneurs that are working 12-hour days every day at their businesses, and they wouldn’t be at the public consultations. They wouldn’t have the lobbyists. They wouldn’t have memberships at various advocacy bodies.

I didn’t put on some event and blast some invite on social media. I actually physically went to them, and I showed up at their doors. This summer I visited over a dozen communities by car. I parked on one side of the street, and I literally walked into every shop on the right side and circled my way back, stopping by every shop on the left side. The reason that I did that was because the people that are the busiest to talk to us, to let us know what really hurt them, are not available to talk to us and join us at these small round tables, public hearings, at the forums.

It was my absolute pleasure to connect with over 200 entrepreneurs right in their businesses, be it at the quaint downtown stretch of Penticton or the main road through Lillooet, from an older Korean couple taking over a bed-and-breakfast business to a young college graduate starting a new organic tea line.

[1700]

These are the stories that they shared with me directly as they poured coffee for their customers, as they checked the inventory of their stocks. You know what, hon. Speaker? Guess what. Not a single one out of the 200 entrepreneurs that I visited this summer asked for a legislated day for red-tape reduction.

Small business owners are some of the hardest-working people in our province, and that’s especially true for those in a microbusiness or owner-operated businesses. As we know, many of them work long hours, and they look after all aspects of their business, whether it’s advertising or accounting, with minimal resources and often lacking expertise.

I know there are many members across the floor that deeply care for the well-being of their constituents that they were elected to represent. I challenge the government with all due respect: take a break from the photo ops. I look forward to rising in the House in the near future to support bills that will make tangible differences for the least heard and the most struggling entrepreneurs of B.C. who are just a few empowering policy improvements and accessible resources away from the sustainable success that they deserve and that our community and people can benefit from.

Deputy Speaker: The minister will close the debate.

Hon. C. Oakes: It is truly my honour and privilege to stand in this House, representing the hard-working men and women of Cariboo North, and to speak to Bill 34 before I move to committee.

The purpose of this bill, which has become abundantly clear, is worthy to note. I do say it with sorrow, that had the members yesterday listened to the introduction of the bill, listened to exactly what the bill was designed to achieve, they would have clearly understood that this bill is much more than supporting small businesses.

This is a bill about how we can build on the significant success that our government has had in focusing on red-tape reduction and understanding how we can apply that same framework to engaging with citizens from every single part of this province. Understanding how services that interact with how your constituents who engage with services that we provide, on how we can improve….

I heard from the member for Delta South, who called this bill that we are bringing forth silly. She said: why don’t we focus on reducing red tape, on change that we can make to Social Development, to look at cutting lengthy forms, or maybe on how we can change some of the disability forms? If the members had listened to the introduction of the bill, they would have clearly understood that the next step that we are taking is about engaging citizens across British Columbia on the types of red tape that we could reduce across ministries. That is important work for citizens in each of your communities.

We heard the member for Victoria–Swan Lake talk about the issues that were raised by his constituents or by his CA, who are on the front line. That is exactly the purpose of why we as a government are making that commitment to go out and to engage with citizens, to understand how we can improve the services that we provide to our constituents. It is clear to me that members did not listen to the introduction of the bill or take the time to understand exactly the purpose of this bill and its intent.

[1705]

Government is taking the same principles and applying those to a process that will invite British Columbians to submit ideas, to streamline how they use or access services that they depend on. In October, the province will launch a public engagement opportunity, inviting British Columbians, who are the experts — your constituents are
[ Page 9369 ]
the experts — in understanding how we can better access government services and share ideas about simple fixes that can make services easier and simpler for all to use.

All of the suggestions will be considered. When we celebrate red-tape-reduction day in March, these are the types of initiatives that we will bring forward, hold to account and ensure that British Columbians understand that we are listening to their concerns.

We heard from the member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I know that his family has a strong history in business. We heard from the member for Vancouver-Fairview, who talked about the respect that they have for small business, that we take it seriously.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

We heard that the member for Vancouver-Kingsway said: “Obviously, we do not want to increase red tape.” But let me go through a few of the facts on why we as a government know that it’s important to enshrine accountability on red-tape reduction for this government and future governments. That’s why we’re legislating as opposed to a proclamation.

By the time the NDP left office in 2001, there were over 360,000 regulations. These regulations cost millions of dollars to administer, cost the economy billions of dollars.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Oakes: I would be glad to go through them. Here is an example, to the hon. member opposite. In order to be an accredited ICBC automobile glass dealer under the NDP, the government required each small business to employ at least one person to meet and greet the customers, have plenty of soap and toilet paper in the washroom, use a computer screen at least 15 inches wide and have a well-maintained landscape.

The NDP brought in the forest practices code, which strangled the forest industry with red tape and made the industry one of the highest-cost producers in timber in the world. It added $1.8 billion a year to the forest sector’s production costs. At its height, the paperwork associated with the forest practices code stood at 70 feet.

In 1999, the B.C. Business Summit gave the NDP government a failing grade on taxes and red tape. The government scored a D on taxation and a C-minus for its efforts in red tape.

Examples continue in the 1990s with NDP regulation. For example, forest companies were being told what size of nails to use when building bridges. Restaurants were told what size TV they could have in their establishment. Children needed two permits to bring a tadpole to show-and-tell. These are just a few of the examples and why our government supports the idea of understanding the importance of reducing red tape for citizens and ensuring that we enshrine it so that it’s accountability for this government and future governments to come.

The member for Nanaimo talked about the embarrassment and sorrow. He said he understood the difference between red tape and regulation. Yet the members opposite, several of them, spent their speeches talking about deregulation. If the member understood the difference between red tape and regulation, perhaps he could have shared that with some of his members that spoke.

The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill talked about the importance of citizenship engagement, and this is exactly what this is about. This is about engaging with citizens from across British Columbia. If the hon. members had done their research and understood exactly what was being brought forward, they would understand that reducing red tape for British Columbians…. They could go to engage.gov.bc.ca to have an opportunity to share with us.

My message is to the citizens of British Columbia. We’re listening to your concerns. We want to make improvements. We’re committed to do that, and that’s why we understand the need to ensure that we’re holding to account through this bill.

[1710]

The member for Saanich South talked about the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. When the member for Vancouver-Kingsway said that he has not heard from small businesses that red tape was an issue, I suggested that the two members have a dialogue, because in survey after survey, small business owners across Canada continue to say that red tape is a top concern and express frustration that too many governments are not taking the problem seriously enough.

We are taking it serious. That’s why, on the small business side, we’ve reduced over 155,000 unnecessary pieces of red tape. That is why we are going to continue our efforts to ensure that we hold this government and future governments accountable for ensuring that we are reducing red tape.

That is why we have citizenship engagement where we can have conversations with citizens from across British Columbia about those frustrations that they see in interacting with government. This is also about ensuring — within government, across ministries, in every single mandate letter of every single minister — that we understand the importance of focusing on the importance of reducing red tape.

Let me remind the members opposite of some of the types of initiatives that we’re looking at. The Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation developed a form in consultation with the advocate. It has a number of ways that direct clients may receive assistance.

This includes 82 locations that provide in-person service, outreach and after-hours access for urgent needs, toll-free numbers for people to talk to someone if they
[ Page 9370 ]
need further assistance, on-line services where clients can access their file form 24-7. In-person or face-to-face service will always be available to clients who require it.

This is the type of citizen engagement that we are going to continue. We’re going to listen to citizens across British Columbia to understand how we can better serve their needs. The members opposite may not take citizenship engagement seriously, but on this side of the House, we do.

WorkSafe is making it easier for businesses to register for WorkSafe insurance. This is important to British Columbians. This is important to small businesses. The members opposite can make fun and think that there is no relevance. It demonstrates their clear disregard for understanding the importance of a strong economy, creating stability and ensuring that we are attracting investment into British Columbia.

In closing, it is no surprise that the member for Nanaimo was complaining that this bill was not long enough, that members opposite wanted a great big long bill. This is a government about ensuring efficiency, ensuring we’re listening to citizens and ensuring that we’re making sure there’s accountability now and into the future.

With that, may I kindly move second reading?

[1715-1720]

Second reading of Bill 34 approved on the following division:

Hon. C. Oakes: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 34, Red Tape Reduction Day Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, second reading on Bill 32.

BILL 32 — FAMILY MAINTENANCE
ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 32, Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 2015, now be read a second time.

The proposed amendments make needed changes to sections of the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act. These are changes to correct and clarify sections and a change to create a six-year limitation period for the collection of default fees imposed on persons who neglect to pay child and spousal support.

This limitation period, following this bill being passed, should it be passed, begins only when the debtor has paid all support, arrears on support and interest owed on arrears. It will allow for the collection of a large number of default fees that otherwise would not be collected because the current limitation period would have expired before collection was possible.

Sometimes these spousal orders run for many years and the ordinary limitation period will have expired. This allows for the limitation period to begin at the end of the order so that then the default payments can be collected.

[1725]

There are other changes proposed in the bill which lead to efficiencies in the act. I’m tempted to say it reduces some of the red tape involved in the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act.

The bill proposes changes that eliminate the need to obtain a certified copy of a B.C. Supreme Court order filed for enforcement in the B.C. Provincial Court; permit the director of maintenance enforcement to serve a notice of attachment received from another jurisdiction on an income source in B.C.; clarify that notices of attachment can be served on indemnifiers of persons who owe money to persons who owe support; permit a judge to immediately sanction a debtor who has failed to comply with a financial disclosure order, rather than only issuing a summons to have him or her return another day; and assure that debtors receiving federal income assistance are treated the same as debtors receiving provincial income assistance regarding the collection of default fees assessed when they are receiving income assistance.

These amendments will strengthen the program that provides an essential service to many families and chil-
[ Page 9371 ]
dren across British Columbia. And the bigger picture is this: British Columbia’s family maintenance enforcement program is focused solely on making sure that children in our province receive the support they are entitled to.

Each year, the program provides services to 85,000 parents and 65,000 children by enrolling support orders, monitoring and disbursing payments and, where necessary, taking administrative and court-based enforcement measures.

This is a very successful program helping families in British Columbia. Last year, over $210 million was paid through the family maintenance enforcement program to families and children. In fact, since it was created over 25 years ago, the family maintenance enforcement program has enrolled and enforced maintenance for more than 135,000 families and has collected over $3 billion for British Columbia children and families.

These amendments reinforce the commitment of our government to improve the lives of children and families. Earlier this year, through the Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation, we made a significant change for families that are receiving income assistance to help them to provide for their children.

As of September 1, we have exempted child support payments as income for parents on income assistance. In other words, parents will be able to keep every dollar they receive in child support over and above what they receive in assistance. This makes a great deal of difference to families. Exempting child support payments as income for parents on provincial assistance will help approximately 3,200 families and provide them with an additional $32 million over the next three years.

As I said, the family maintenance enforcement program is an extremely valuable program, with $210 million paid through the program last year and $3 billion over the last 25 years, much of that collected on behalf of the lowest-income families in the province.

There’s more that we can do, and these amendments, if passed, will allow us to make further improvements. Together, these amendments strengthen a program that, since its inception, has collected billions on behalf of B.C. families and made an extraordinarily significant difference in many lives provincewide.

L. Krog: The Attorney General says: “It reduces some of the red tape.” Well, I’m glad we finally actually got to a bill that will reduce some red tape, as opposed to one that just added to the legislative agenda and wasted so many hours of time while the Liberals tried to play political games in this chamber.

I’m quite fascinated by the remarks of the Attorney General, who reflects the born-again, road-to-Damascus epiphany that the government had around the issue of allowing people on social assistance to keep child welfare. My goodness. It’s just like it got hatched out of nowhere, so quickly, as a great beneficence distributed from the Liberal government.

Proudly now today, we’re bragging about $32 million over the next three years that are going to end up in the hands of the children of the poorest families in British Columbia. That is absolutely a wonderful thing. But it’s rather like A Christmas Carol, isn’t it?

[1730]

Scrooge spends his whole life hoarding up money, praying to Mammon, losing his friends, losing his soul and then, at the end of the story, starts to distribute some of his wealth, look after Tiny Tim and poor old Bob Cratchit and, of course, therefore becomes one of the great heroes of English literature, making Charles Dickens even more money than he’d already accumulated through a brilliant writing career.

Forgive me if I’m somewhat cynical that the government took literally 14 years to arrive at what the Attorney General has bragged about today. How many children went without in this province all those years because the government decided that, you know, their families could get along and it was better for the province of British Columbia to have that money?

In a roundabout way, it’s like when I encourage people to donate to my political party. I tell them that the wonderful news is that if you pay income tax, you’ll get a tax credit. And you know what? Probably a Conservative voter will be contributing that tax credit, and a Liberal voter will be contributing that tax credit.

But in this case, the government, through the family maintenance enforcement program, which the Attorney General bragged about today, was in fact taking money from the mouths of the children of the province of British Columbia to put it back in general revenue so that they could allow, for instance, that wonderful tax break for the upper 2 percent of income earners of the province. You see, that’s the way I look at this. So to listen to this today, from this government in particular, bragging about how they’ve done that, I want to say, in the words of the cliché used by our leader just the other day, “a day late and a dollar short,” with great respect.

What exactly does this bill do? It’s reflective of the government’s commitment, I think, to support the lives of children. Well, it’s a new-found kind of commitment, I must say. If we’re really concerned about children and maintenance enforcement, why doesn’t the government try and figure out, in conjunction with its colleagues, as I have requested from every Minister of Justice since I’ve been critic…. Why don’t they try and work on making it simple, as this bill proposes to do, for people who have orders made in the Supreme Court to vary those orders so that, in fact, they’re not stuck with a debt that they’ll never actually pay?

The reality is that there are a number of people who are the subject of orders, who owe tens of thousands of dollars, who are on social assistance, receiving disability payments, and they’re never going to pay it. They’re
[ Page 9372 ]
never going to pay it.

The simple reason is, firstly, they don’t have the intellectual wherewithal or the educational wherewithal to go back into Supreme Court and cancel the arrears so that FMEP can actually take this stuff off their books and stop wasting taxpayers’ dollars trying to enforce it. Or alternatively, even if they had a desire to do so, they can’t go to legal aid and get any assistance to provide them with counsel, who could then take it back to court on their behalf and fix the problem.

We’re not talking about millions of British Columbians. We’re not talking, probably, even about tens of thousands of British Columbians. But we are talking about a significant group of people in our province who will never be able to pay the orders that were granted against them and who — if they could get their matter in front of the appropriate court, the Supreme Court — would in all likelihood, based on the current law, be able to have those arrears cancelled or reduced. That would actually be a real step forward today, instead of touting what I must admit is a much more substantive bill than the one we just finished with.

This one — gosh — runs to 2½ pages, for heavens’ sake. Wow, we’re mounting up. I think by next week, given the half page given to the Red Tape Reduction Day Act, we might even clear four pages sometime next week with the introduction of new bills. But I can’t talk about future legislation, hon. Speaker. I certainly don’t wish to be seen to be critical of government’s very substantive legislative agenda, which is before us now. After all, these 2½ pages, I’m sure, could have been — I don’t know — an ornament to a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. But no, we’re going to give it a separate bill and a separate title. We’re going to spend some more time debating it separately, as if somehow it couldn’t be fit into….

Interjection.

L. Krog: You know, the Minister of Jobs can have her time if she wishes to rise and speak. I’d be delighted to hear from her later today.

[1735]

But the point is that these changes give FMEP the authority to try and collect their extra charges, if you will — the default fees. Those are appropriately levied sometimes. I get that. But there are cases where levying the default fee on people who have no ability to pay and never will is just insult to injury, and it becomes a preposterous bureaucratic nightmare.

If you want to talk about reducing red tape, then stop employing folks to chase other folks who will never, ever, realistically, have the ability to pay, unless of course, maybe, they’re buying lottery tickets or some wealthy relative passes on and leaves them some reasonable inheritance. That’s the reality of this.

With respect to the program itself, Mr. Beresford and his team do an amazing job. It is a wonderful program. I can tell this chamber from experience as a young lawyer in the ‘80s that getting an order for somebody was one thing, getting it enforced was another.

When the province of British Columbia brought in this program in 1989, it was a major step forward. It meant that getting a support order was actually worthwhile. It was worth the expense. It was worth the time of the courts. It was worth the time of counsel. It was worth the money of the clients who were paying for it. It was also worth the money that was paid to lawyers in legal aid who actually sought these orders in court.

But of course, that disappeared back in 2001, when this government made a massive 40 percent cut to the legal aid budget to the point where it’s never been even restored, in the raw dollar amount, to what it was 14 years ago. So we find ourselves, 14 years down the road, bragging constantly about a balanced budget, which is based partially on the backs of the poorest people in British Columbia, who can’t get assistance in our justice system anymore.

Forgive me if I’m not in a mood to crow today about how well the government has done and how important this bill is and how it represents their commitment to support the lives of children in the province. In fact, if they really wanted to support the lives of children in the province, then, why don’t they beef up some welfare rates for children? You know? Seriously, it’s not a big proposition.

The government is so thrilled and so proud of itself for actually giving over now to children the very moneys that the courts ordered their payer parents to pay. Is it so difficult now to consider perhaps a modest increase or — I don’t know — a school lunch program or something that might actually assist the children of this province, as opposed to, as I say, a separate bill brought forward today making some very modest changes — some progressive; yes, absolutely — that should have been contained in a miscellaneous statutes amendment act?

I mean, I’m beginning to think that — I hate to say it, and I don’t mean this too critically — basically, this is just to fulfil the Premier’s mandate letter to the minister in one tiny section. If we actually put it in a separate bill, it will make it look like something more important.

Earlier today, I talked about the Wizard of Oz. When you cut through all of this, this is pretty much…. We’ve put the facade of a few section changes in the format of a bill, much like the facade for the Wizard of Oz, and now we’re going to call it a separate piece of legislation and a bill. That shows the government’s incredible and sincere commitment, supposedly, to actually improving the lives of the children in this province, which is what the Attorney General talked about in her introductory remarks.

Now we’re going to give, as well, a special limitation period for the benefit of the government to collect de-
[ Page 9373 ]
fault fees. Based on my legal experience and having run across a few folks, you know what? There are some folks who’ve never paid who should be pursued to the ends of the earth and to the end of their days. They spend their whole lives deliberately hiding their income. They spend their whole lives avoiding their legal and moral responsibilities to an ex-spouse or their children.

I get that, but realistically, that’s a fairly small percentage of the folks ordered to pay support. This may, indeed, see a few of those folks get their just desserts from a legal perspective down the road. But to pretend for a moment that this is going to make a substantive difference, either to the revenue of the province of British Columbia or to the lives of the children who might be the recipients of this money or to the lives of the mother or father who might be the recipient of this money from their ex-spouse, is just not terribly realistic.

I have no hesitation in telling the Attorney General that the opposition will support this bill, but I’m more impressed, as I say, by what it doesn’t do than by what it does do. It confirms, I think, for the opposition that what we’ve seen to date is that we don’t have much of an agenda.

[1740]

As much as I’m thrilled to be here in Victoria debating in this House and enjoying the privilege and honour that it is to be here, what it tells me over and over again is that the government really doesn’t care about people. It has no great interest in moving forward with a progressive agenda that would make a difference in the lives of British Columbians. It is, instead, putting out legislation which will have limited benefit and limited effect and limited value.

But you know what? When you’re the opposition, and in fairness….

Interjection.

L. Krog: I know the government wants to hear this.

When you’ve been in the opposition — and we have been the opposition in this province now for, lo, these 14 long, dark, horrible years — I must say that we’re almost grateful now to have the government do anything that might be regarded as modestly progressive. So we’ll take this tiny bit of gruel. We won’t have the cheek, like Oliver Twist, to continue to ask for more.

But we might just suggest from time to time, as I have today, that as much as this tiny, tiny step forward is appreciated, as much as this tiny offering — just as the tiny offering of allowing the poorest children in this province to actually receive, through their mothers or fathers, the support that the courts ordered their parents to pay…. Just as much as we appreciate that, I hate to tell the government that we’ll still be tempted to ask for more.

Perhaps someday, instead of just bragging about cutting red tape by bringing in a half-page bill that has nothing in it and instead of bragging about doing the right thing 14 years after they assumed office, which is to see the poorest children get the benefit of support, they’ll actually do something terribly substantive. Because right now what we have in front of us today is not substantive.

It’s going to get support. It’s a modest step forward. But please, let us not try and dress this up for anything more than what it is. It is a very modest proposal. It may advance things a little bit for some people, but it ignores the continuing reality of those British Columbians who are the subject of enforcement and the subject of court orders and who will sometimes, and probably never, be in a position to pay those orders.

What I’d like to see is a system that the Attorney General can only bring about — and I appreciate the legalities involved — in concert with working with the federal parliament to deal with those issues. But someday, when that happens, that would be something to crow about, not this. That would be something to crow about.

I look forward to the opportunity for the Attorney General to stand up in this chamber and say that she has met with her counterparts across this country, she has met with the federal Minister of Justice and actually done something that makes sense that will reduce bureaucracy and red tape, that will actually give a ring of fairness to the existing process and actually, perhaps, by that fairness, restore some respect for our diminished justice system, which plunks along without funding legal aid in the way that, virtually without exception, every lawyer and every person involved in the justice system of British Columbia acknowledges and says is simply and absolutely inadequate. I look forward to that progress.

In the meantime, I know that my friend across the way is anxious to speak. The hour grows late. I hate to deny him the opportunity to say a few words today, so I will take my place.

The opposition will support this, but, to come back to Oliver, we want more.

D. Plecas: On behalf of the constituents of Abbotsford South, I’m happy to speak today in support of Bill 32, the Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, and to be following on the heels of my learned friend the member for Nanaimo, who I’m happy to see is supporting this bill. And not surprisingly so.

The bill introduces changes which will create program efficiencies that benefit children and families in the province. These changes will provide more time for government to collect default fees from parents who have missed two or more spousal
[ Page 9374 ]
or child support payments per year. The default fees can only be collected once all support payments have been paid in full to families and at which time, government will have six years to collect the fee. Previously, this six-year period began at a time the first default fee was charged.

The default fee is an administrative charge that is applied when an individual has missed two or more spousal or child support payments in a year. The fee is $400 or one month’s maintenance, whichever is less.

[1745]

The change to when the six-year period begins provides the government more time to collect the default fees. The changes to this bill could result in an additional $1 million in default fees collected each year.

The amendments in this bill strengthen the family maintenance enforcement program. Since its inception 25 years ago, $3 million has been collected on behalf of B.C. families. The program has enrolled and enforced maintenance for more than 135,000 families. This has made a significant difference in many lives provincewide. Last year alone, more than $210 million went directly to families that might not have otherwise received their support payments.

The family maintenance program strives to ensure that more than 45,000 cases each year are properly supported and fairly supported. This represents 85,000 parents and 65,000 children. The program enrols support orders and monitors and disburses payments. Where necessary, the program takes administrative and court-based measures to ensure that B.C.’s children receive the support they are entitled to.

About 95 percent of orders enrolled in the program have received some payments. At any given time, about 30 percent of the orders are fully paid, another 65 percent have been partially paid and about 5 percent of orders enrolled have not received a single payment. Currently, there are over 25,000 payers that have been charged with a default fee. There is no cost to enrol in the program. In fact, any B.C. resident with a support order or an agreement filed with the court can enrol.

Most parents pay part or all of their support obligations, but those who don’t voluntarily make their payments are subject to administrative action to collect the support. This includes being denied a driver’s licence, having their wages, bank accounts and payments from the federal government garnished and being subject to court enforcement.

These amendments also give judges the ability to deal with someone already before the court. For example, if someone has refused to provide proper financial information, a separate court appearance would not need to be scheduled. This will speed up court processes and lead to earlier resolutions and faster collection of payments for families.

The amendments included in this bill also eliminate default fees assessed to individuals while they were receiving federal income assistance.

This bill also allows the program to split payments between two or more families receiving support from one payer, from indirect sources of payments like wage garnishments. This makes for more fair distribution of support.

As well, the process for serving out-of-province garnishee or attachment documents has been modified to make the process faster and more efficient. Most of B.C.’s interprovincial cases are within other western provinces. B.C. has led a project with our western neighbours to ensure that support enforcement services continue uninterrupted if a parent moves across provincial borders.

To conclude, our government is committed to helping families and making sure that we have the best possible supports in place for our children.

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

Hon. S. Anton: I thank the members for their comments.

I move second reading of Bill 32, the Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 2015.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 32, Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 2015, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.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