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 8, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 29, Number 7

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

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2015

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Standing Order 35
(Speaker’s Ruling)

REQUEST TO DEBATE A MATTER OF
URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE —
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO
PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES IN SURREY

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the member for Surrey-Whalley rose in the House on October 8 requesting, pursuant to Standing Order 35, that the House do adjourn to discuss the disturbing trend of gang-related crime in Surrey. Comments were provided on the motion by the hon. Minister of Finance. The Chair deferred.

Pursuant to the standing order, the matter must be of urgent public importance. While the Chair is indeed concerned with the level of violence as outlined by the member, the Chair must follow precedents of this House. Two leading decisions are those of Speaker Barnes on July 11, 1995, and Speaker Shantz on March 6, 1961. Both Speakers stated that, in effect, it is not the urgency and importance of the issue being raised but the urgency of the debate.

There are many other Speaker decisions which speak to the essential criteria that have been consistently applied to Standing Order 35 applications. In the instant case, it can be fairly said that crime has been on the increase in this area for some time — some considerable time, not just in the immediate past — and has been and continues to be a topic of debate in this House in this session. Therefore, the application by the member fails to meet the test under Standing Order 35.

Orders of the Day

Hon. B. Bennett: Continuing second reading debate on Bill 39, Provincial Immigration Programs Act, 2015.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 39 — PROVINCIAL IMMIGRATION
PROGRAMS ACT

(continued)

D. Plecas: It gives me great pleasure on behalf of my constituents in Abbotsford South to rise today to speak in favour of Bill 39, the Provincial Immigration Programs Act.

[1335]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Last month, we heard the news that for the very first time there are now more Canadians 65 and over than there are under the age of 15. This directly filters down to the workforce, as fewer younger people are entering the workforce than older people are leaving the workforce. We have reached a tipping point.

British Columbia is in an enviable position. We need workers to fill the jobs that come with a growing economy. While our priority is to always have B.C. workers first in line for the job opportunities that come with a diverse and growing economy, we know that if every single British Columbian was trained, we would still not have enough workers to fill all of the openings.

Economic immigration plays a role in driving B.C.’s economic growth and in attracting the best and the brightest. The Provincial Immigration Programs Act supports B.C.’s continued role as a leader in economic immigration programs.

This act lays a foundation for the province’s role in selecting newcomers to British Columbia. It provides the legislative framework to select newcomers under the existing provincial nominee program and any future immigration agreements with the federal government. Now, of course, the primary authority for immigration lies with the federal government. But the Canada-B.C. immigration agreement sets out the terms for federal and provincial cooperation on immigration matters.

The provincial nominee program is an economic immigration program. It is designed to help B.C. meet its dynamic labour market and economic development priorities. The program allows B.C. to select foreign workers and international graduates who have the skills and experience to contribute to B.C.’s economy. The program also selects entrepreneurs who are ready to invest in our economy and create jobs. The provincial nominee program assesses applications and nominates candidates for permanent residence. Citizenship and Immigration Canada makes the final decision on each application.

This program has been so popular that effective September 1 of this year, new applications are no longer being accepted for the majority of the skills, immigration and express entry categories. The quota of PNP nominations for British Columbia is set by the federal government. For 2015, this allocation was 5,500 people. We continue to work with the federal government to receive more PNP allocations.

Since January, the program has issued more nominations than any other province, under express entry B.C. Every year, this province achieves 100 percent of its nomination quota, and we are well on track to use the full allocation again this year. Recent changes to the federal immigration programs have increased the number of applications to this program. Of the total immigrants that came to B.C. in 2014, 80 percent came through federal
[ Page 9544 ]
immigration streams. Only 20 percent of B.C.’s total immigrant population came through the provincial nominee program.

This legislation has three main objectives. First, we are increasing transparency in the administration of immigration programs, and we are doing this by assigning decision-making authority to a director of immigration programs. As well, we are implementing a process for reviewing applications that are refused.

Second, we are protecting the integrity of immigration programs. We are improving collection, use and disclosure of applicant information with the federal government. We are identifying and stopping fraud by allowing the province to cancel applications where fraud is discovered. We are also banning those found to be making fraudulent applications from applying to the provincial program for two years. As well, we are conducting inspections to monitor compliance with program requirements.

Third, we are respecting the taxpayer by clearly outlining the province’s authority to collect and set fee amounts for applying to provincial programs. This ensures that program costs are recovered.

[1340]

B.C. was an early adopter of the federal express entry priority system. Express entry is a new on-line application management system introduced by Citizenship and Immigration Canada. We are also the first province to introduce a new provincial nominee program stream to align with the federal express entry priority system. This allows the provincial nominee program to use the express entry system to meet B.C.’s specific labour needs.

Economic immigration will continue to play an important role in driving B.C.’s economic growth. We have introduced this bill to ensure we have a strong legislative foundation for the provincial nominee program. This is why we have made targeted changes to the program, so that it’s better aligned with B.C.’s current labour market and economic development priorities.

H. Bains: It is a pleasure to stand and speak on this bill. Bill 39, I would say, is an important one, because over the past number of months and years, I think, a number of issues were identified and brought before this House just to deal with the difficulties for those people who came to British Columbia through this program.

I must say, one must look at our history, how Canada was built and the role the new immigrants played in building our province and our country.

First Nations. They were here before anybody came, and then, everyone else came who are immigrants. Some came earlier than others, but nonetheless, they all played a major role in building this country, a country that we proudly say, around the world, is the best country to live, raise our families and work.

When you look at the histories and the difficulties that the new immigrants went through, history is full of incidences where we, today — today’s population — would loudly say: “What were they thinking? How could they treat fellow individuals in such a bad manner?”

We have come a long ways, with so much work done by so many people before us. It’s not only outside of this House, but many people who came to this House made our lives better, worked towards changing for the better. As a result, we are a better society. We are a better country.

That’s why we should learn lessons from history, that our actions today…. Will they stand the test of time? When our children, their children, will be looking back at decisions that we make here in this House, we want to make those decisions so that they will feel proud that we made the right decisions — that even 50, 60 years down the road, they will pass the test.

I think I want to give this to the minister. From all ministers, I think this minister does understand the issues that are faced and brought to her in her ministry, and she generally tried to fix them. But I think I must say it seems sometimes that between her good intentions and the ideological way of doing business by the Liberal party, there’s a big, thick wall.

That is the issue that we always have to come here and remind people out there that there are some good people out there trying to do a good job, and they should let them do that. This bill here, when we are talking about Bill 39, touches on a few things, but it still has left many issues that were brought to the attention of this minister and this government — not only here, but many by activists and the workers and their representatives outside.

[1345]

The reason I brought the history here, of Canada, is that we built this country through permanent immigrants. But the shift now, going back a few years, has turned to more of a temporary type of immigration than permanent immigration.

If you look at the sheer numbers, in Canada today there are 500,000 temporary foreign workers. B.C. takes a larger portion of temporary foreign workers, with about 50,000 arriving in 2012. Today we have like 74,000 temporary foreign workers in British Columbia. And if you go back, through this program, about 20,000 were admitted on a permanent basis. So 20,000 on a permanent basis admitted since 2001, and 74,000 temporary foreign workers are here today.

Now, I must say that the temporary foreign workers idea was a right idea at one time, if it was applied for the right reasons. It was to recruit, temporarily, skilled labour that we did not have here — on a temporary basis. We bring them here, and then in the meantime, we will train our own and make sure that our work continues on and we do not harm our economy because we did not have the skills that we needed at that particular time. But now we’ve seen more non-skilled workers on a temporary foreign visa than skilled.
[ Page 9545 ]

What happens when that is allowed? Under the watch of this government, they come in — and we have example after example brought to this government — and they are exploited, abused. There’s always a reluctance, and they’re afraid to raise any voice if they feel that the rules are not applied to them. The minister that you have heard here previously, and other members of the government, has said this: “Well, the Employment Standards Act of British Columbia applies to them.”

Yes, it does. But without enforcement, none of the act or the regulations matter. Without resources to enforce, none of them matter. And that is exactly the situation here.

When you look at some of the other jurisdictions — Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick — these provinces took this issue seriously, based on Canadian values that we believe in — that no one should be exploited in this day and age, regardless of the circumstances, and that everyone must be treated equally and within the law. They put regulations and enforcement tools in place, where they require these employers to register if they have temporary foreign workers, and they are given permits. The employment standards officers then would be able to go and to have spot checks — check the records, speak to employees, speak to employers. That’s how they enforce it.

Well, we don’t have that, and this bill does not cover that either. Here was an opportunity. The government again squandered that opportunity to have that one part attached to Bill 39. It’s not there.

How does this whole system affect Canadians? I believe that our immigration system should be to improve our economy, to help our employers by bringing in permanent immigrants, or bring them and then give them a pathway to immigration. This system should not be allowed to use, to exploit, their workers, nor should it be to bypass our Canadian workers. We have seen both here.

[1350]

We have seen the cases where Canadian workers who were available for that work were being bypassed in favour of temporary foreign workers. We have seen cases on the other side of temporary foreign workers exploited and abused. There is no enforcement, or hardly any enforcement, unless someone speaks up. And that’s the last complaint they will have. You know what happens after that; they will no longer be employed. I have seen those cases. They came to my office.

Then again, also, the components of this program…. You are given a work permit, and it’s employer-specific. If that employer treats you not within the law, and you complain and lose that job, there’s no other place for you, the worker, to go. They cannot go to the next employer who may need their skills.

There are so many areas that this bill could have addressed, and the government neglected that opportunity again. This is not right. Why isn’t there, in this bill…? A piece that is missing is to have a component that would address the needs of British Columbian employers and, at the same time, look after the needs of those immigrants or the workers. Why aren’t there built-in safeguards to prevent abuse, and also, in the event that happens, a mechanism to deal with it?

Why isn’t this bill giving authority to the Employment Standards Act, or the director — giving the director powers to have all those employers register with the employment standards branch? And then give them the resources to enforce the rules and regulations under which these workers are employed.

As you heard, the minister and others will stand up here and say: “Well, employment standards work. They can go and make complaints.” You know how that system works. Even for employment standards complaints, there’s hardly any investigation and hardly any enforcement there, never mind the temporary foreign worker side, because there are no resources. I’ve seen cases where six months later, they’re still waiting for employment standards to get back to them.

Then, you wonder: “What is the purpose behind this bill?” All of those necessary and really essential ingredients that were needed to fix the problems that were brought to the minister’s attention for the last six months to a year or even longer — if those issues are not addressed, what’s the purpose?

Now, this bill talks about…. There will be a director appointed by the government. Sure. If it was done by any other government, they would stand up and say: “There’s another red tape being added.”

I think there are some good components in the bill, but the real issues that needed to be addressed aren’t being addressed. I think the catchy name to any program that sounds like they’re actually helping someone, an employer or the potential worker, is just that. In fact, when you read them, they do sound like they’re there to fix the problem. But they’re not. They are even making it more difficult for the employer and the potential worker to work through the system.

[1355]

When you look at your immigration system, Canada, by and large, in recent history, was developed and built through reunification of families. That is essentially almost shut down now.

What it’s being replaced by is the so-called super visa. It sounds pretty good: super visa, right? It sounds pretty good, but it is just a visitor visa, under which you can bring your parents here, on a visitor visa, for up to ten years. But you’re responsible for their health care. You’re responsible for every cost they might incur when they’re here.

Fair enough, but real immigration, through which parents immigrated here and your siblings came with them…. Those are the younger-generation folks who come here, go through our school system, understand the Canadian system, go through our Canadian education, become very productive members of our society
[ Page 9546 ]
and contribute towards building our economy, creating jobs. We’ve seen example after example.

Those are probably some of the most industrious entrepreneur folks that you could find — creating jobs. That is essentially shut down, because it takes about eight or ten years for that kind of application to be processed. In the meantime, if you’re 70 years old, ten years later it’s not very good, because many times you don’t get to utilize it. That’s not how the Canadian immigration system should work.

With the super visa you have to buy insurance, and you know that when you’re 70 years old and you’re trying to buy insurance, it’s very, very expensive. I think this shift that we have seen, moving from permanent immigration to temporary immigration, leads to exploitation, abuse. You see that all the time, and it’s brought to the minister’s attention all the time. It’s not something that we should be proud of. It’s something that the minister must pay attention to. How do we cut that abuse? If there are temporary foreign workers, how do we look after them when they’re here? What is our responsibility to them?

The other area that the minister hasn’t looked at is that of foreign-trained professionals. We go all around the world, and we ask those countries and those people there: “We need your skills. If you’re a doctor, or you’re an engineer, or you’re a tradesperson, we need your skills in Canada.” Based on those skills, immigration is granted to those folks. But soon they land at Vancouver or Toronto international airport. They soon realize that those credentials don’t mean anything here in Canada. And no one, at least in this government, has done anything to fix that.

Other governments have tried, and they are moving in the right direction — Manitoba and Ontario by bringing in legislation directing the self-regulating bodies to update their bylaws to meet today’s needs and standards, and pieces such as the fairness commissioners that are appointed. That sets a standard for those self-regulating bodies, to ensure that the intent of the bill is complied with, or those bylaw changes are deemed to have included those changes that the government brought in through legislation. We don’t have that here either.

So we have a shortage in many of those areas. We have a shortage of doctors. Our member for New Westminster, our Health critic, will tell you how many families are without a family physician here in B.C. Is it 15,000 families?

Interjection.

H. Bains: More than that.

Interjection.

H. Bains: A quarter of a million? Wow.

[1400]

We have doctors who are qualified and with proper education. They end up doing drywall or driving taxis. It’s not that anything is wrong with those professions, but because those credentials aren’t recognized here, they end up doing whatever they can find.

What have we got? We have a population, a big number of people, who don’t have a family physician. But on the other hand, we have people with those qualifications that are not able to practise and utilize their skills to the maximum of their potential. So we’re both losing. They’re losing, and we as a society and as a province are losing.

That goes in other skill categories as well, whether you’re an engineer, a nurse, a teacher or a lawyer. All of that is the area that the government needs to pay attention to. I think they could have included some of that in Bill 39, the Provincial Immigration Programs Act, which actually talks about…. So you could have included sections of that in here, but no.

I think it’s disappointing that we have so many issues with PNP. We have so many issues that emanate from the PNP program, such as temporary foreign workers and the abuse that existed around that area and that those people are subjected to, but there’s no solution, no remedy available, even in this bill. The government had an opportunity, and they chose not to act on it.

I hope that through the committee stage there will be a number of questions that we could be asking. But what it looks like on the surface…. It does go a ways to deal with some of the problems, but the real issues are neglected, even in this bill. That is a disappointment, and we will continue to push to make sure that those areas are addressed by this government, if not in this bill, then in the future. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

M. Morris: Listening to the members opposite…. A couple of comments from Vancouver-Kensington, I guess it was, this morning, prior to our break — some of the comments that she was making with respect to temporary foreign workers…. I think I quoted her right. “They’re just contributing their labour” — nothing more, is what she was inferring. Low skills. She also referred to them as second-class workers. That’s certainly not the case that I’ve seen. The workers that we get in British Columbia here are valued by every sector of our economy.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, order, please. Members.

Member, take your seat.

The member will continue.

M. Morris: One of the other things I’ve noticed so far about the discussions from members opposite, as well, is that they’re focusing a lot on the temporary foreign worker program, which has nothing to do with our provincial nominee program and nothing to do with this bill before the House. That’s a totally federally regulated
[ Page 9547 ]
program that is being looked after by the federal government, and the province has no authority to enter into that program at all.

[1405]

We’re looking at the provincial immigration program to augment the economic development that we’re seeing in British Columbia. We are going to be leading Canada with the number of jobs that we have. The policy of this provincial government is to make sure that British Columbians have access to the jobs. But we’re going to have many more jobs than we do people available in the province here, so we are going to be looking at having to bring in folks that have the skills and the abilities to do some of the jobs that we have.

The argument that’s being presented from the members across the way, like I said, pertaining to the temporary foreign worker program…. Basically, what they’re saying, recommending, is that we put some clauses in this bill that’s before the House right now that will authorize enforcement of existing legislation.

I’ve never seen that before, where you have to have something in a bill or something in legislation that authorizes somebody to enforce another existing piece of legislation. There are enough bills and statutes and legislation out there, of course. We talked about it with our red-tape-reduction issues before the House here. There’s enough legislation out there already that covers a myriad of things that they’re already talking about over there. There are remedies in place for us to look after those pieces.

With this bill, the priority is for us to ensure that British Columbian workers are first in line for these opportunities. We know that even if each eligible British Columbian was trained to fill these positions, we still wouldn’t have enough workers available. That’s why economic immigration is going to play a critical role in moving B.C.’s economy forward.

The existing Ministry of International Business Immigration Act gives the province the authority to develop and implement provincial immigration programs, and that’s exactly what we’re doing. This new Provincial Immigration Programs Act is intended to complement this existing act by dealing specifically with the administration and the integrity of provincial immigration programs. The new act will ensure our immigration programs help us attract the best and brightest to British Columbia.

Here are the steps that we’re taking to ensure that this act will be supported in B.C. We’ve made targeted changes to the provincial nominee program, so it aligns better with our province’s current labour market and economic development priorities. B.C.’s quota of provincial nominee program nominations is set by the federal government. For this year, that allocation is 5,500. B.C. continues to work with the federal government to receive more provincial nominee program allocations.

Since the 2001 inception of the program, more than 28,000 workers and entrepreneurs have been attracted to the province through the provincial nominee program. B.C. was an early adopter of the federal express entry priority system and the first province to introduce new provincial nominee programs streamed to align with the federal express entry priority system.

Since January, the provincial nominee program has issued more nominations than any other province under express entry B.C. Every year the province has achieved 100 percent of its nomination quota and is on track to use the full allocation again in 2015.

In addition, we’re protecting the integrity of immigration programs. We’re improving collection, use and disclosure of applicant information with the federal government. We’re identifying and stopping fraud by allowing the province to cancel applications where fraud is discovered and banning those found to be making fraudulent applications from applying to provincial programs for two years.

We’re conducting inspections to monitor compliance with program requirements. As well, we’re respecting taxpayers by clearly outlining the province’s authority to collect fees and set fee amounts for applying to immigration programs, ensuring program costs are recovered.

The new Provincial Immigration Programs Act is the next step in putting the province in a position to continue to attract those high-paying jobs that we’re going to be providing to all the workers coming into B.C.

This bill is a step in the right direction. British Columbia is going to see and experience a phenomenal amount of economic growth over the next period of time, over the next few years. We’re going to need every available worker in the province, including temporary foreign workers, to fill the void.

[1410]

One of the problems that I see up in my area of the province…. Northeast B.C. is a good example, where we have a lot of high-paying jobs out in the gas fields there, in exploration and the drilling and the work surrounding that. It’s attracting just about every available worker up there. There’s nobody left in the service industry to work in the hotels and the restaurants and those kinds of things. That’s where the temporary foreign workers have been attracted — into jobs like that.

We can’t seem…. I know lots of the employers from up in that neck of the woods that have come down to the Lower Mainland, come down to the populated areas in the province, put on job fairs, trying to attract the truck drivers and the types of workers that they need up there. Nobody wants to move from the area, from down in the Lower Mainland here.

They’ve got no choice but to go and look for, perhaps, temporary foreign workers or somebody that’s willing to hold these jobs down in order to provide that level of service for the folks in the more rural areas of the province here.
[ Page 9548 ]

I’m fully supportive of this bill. I think it’s going to do great things for British Columbia, and I look forward to some more discussion from the members opposite on this.

S. Simpson: I’m happy to get a chance to speak to Bill 39, the Provincial Immigration Programs Act.

I’d like to start with the comments of the member for Prince George–Mackenzie and what I would suggest was a fairly cheap innuendo that the member for Vancouver-Kensington in some way was suggesting that race was an issue here.

I’d say to that member and every member here…. I’ve known the member for Vancouver-Kensington for decades. I don’t think there’s anybody in this House who has committed their worklife to the protection of vulnerable workers, and particularly vulnerable foreign workers who come here and are exploited…. That member for Vancouver-Kensington certainly has nothing to apologize for. Maybe the member for Prince George–Mackenzie might want to learn something before he spouts off.

This bill — Bill 39, the Provincial Immigration Programs Act — has a number of key components, and they are components that improve and add some value. It creates a director of immigration programs. It’s probably a good thing. We need somebody to be in charge of these programs.

It does strengthen timelines and processes for the application review. That’s important as well. There’s so much uncertainty from people who are applying.

It changes the roles around information collection. That generally can be a good thing, but we’re going to have to be careful about the protection of privacy here. Fraud protection is enhanced, including the ability to cancel applications if fraudulent information or activity has gone on. That, again, is a positive step. There are some improvements in compliance, and authority is set around collecting fees.

All of this, as has been said by members opposite in that, is linked to the provincial nominee program, which essentially was a program created to allow British Columbia to make choices on 5,500 or so people coming here, generally intended for high-skilled workers and people who can come in through that program who can make the case.

The problem with this…. Generally, as I said, the stuff the program does is good. The problem is that it does tweak those things and improve them, but we know that the problem that the PNP program has had in the last while relates directly to the temporary foreign worker question.

We’ll know that when the government found the need to suspend applications, that happened because of people who were in the TFW program, who were looking to make applications to be heard under PNP. We know that when that occurred, it created a chaotic situation, to say the least.

I would thank the Minister of Jobs for arranging a briefing from her senior staff for me, around that question, when the short-term suspension of the program was announced. So I had the opportunity to talk to some senior officials and better understand that and know that it was a significant issue that needs to be addressed.

[1415]

What I’m not sure of is that this program, or this bill, addresses a number of other matters, but I don’t think it gets at that question. I think part of the challenge will be — as we know, it continues to be — whether, until the TFW program is amended, corrected…. Until there’s action there, we will continue to face the kinds of challenges that I think have been in front of us all along.

The problem, of course, that we’ve seen around the temporary foreign worker program, which is part of that, is that we’ve made significant use of that program. As has been pointed out, we’ve got about 70,000 workers or so under the program working in British Columbia now. They work across the country and in a whole array of areas. But in B.C., we have taken an inordinate number. Where we have 12 percent or 13 percent of the population, about 22 percent of the temporary foreign workers are here. That, obviously, is significantly higher than our average around population.

The other thing we know is that when you look back at who those jobs…. In the temporary foreign worker positions, I think, initially, you had workers who were working in the agricultural fields. They had historically come for harvest time. They have come primarily from Mexico, but from elsewhere. That’s been a long-standing program.

You’ve always had the issue about where there are skills shortages. We know that we’ve had skills shortages because of challenges in the skills training area that the government has been looking to address. But we know that problem continues to exist because of timing, if nothing else.

We also know that there has been a significant and dramatic increase in the number of workers who are being brought in, TFWs, for what are low-skilled jobs. In 2012, about 28,000 labour market opinions were approved. A labour market opinion is a matter, of course, where there’s an assessment of a need around the labour market, there’s an approval there, and that’s an important step in generating approvals around temporary foreign workers.

Of those labour market opinions in 2012, 25 percent of them were for low-skilled jobs. Now, to contrast that, in 2005, less than 3 percent of the approved labour market opinions were for low-skilled jobs. So we have seen a significant shift in who those temporary foreign workers are — a shift from what was less than 3 percent in low-skilled jobs to 25 percent in low-skilled jobs.

As we see that, we see a different dynamic. That’s why…. We’ve talked about this issue, and we’ve talked about the temporary foreign workers question, which I don’t think you can separate from this legislation entirely,
[ Page 9549 ]
by any means. It drives many of the challenges with PNP. We have not got a handle on that program.

The federal government has careened around a little bit. They’ve made some changes. We know the federal government. When Minister Kenney decided to enforce the expiration dates for people’s time here, that’s what triggered a whole lot of the move to people making applications under PNP.

Part of the challenge we have, though, is that the government in British Columbia has not chosen the path — I think the correct path — that has been adopted by a number of other provincial governments.

That’s to have a more proactive role around the temporary foreign workers, whether it’s around registrations, whether it’s around making the case for some joint management of programs or whether it’s the case around ensuring that employment standards levels, as members have spoken of earlier, are enhanced so those workers who are here are protected and have the protections that they are not afforded under the conditions of a temporary foreign worker program.

That means that employment standards has to step up. While employment standards uses the self-help model for people in this province, a model that is flawed, to say the least, it’s particularly problematic for people who have no rights and who are basically at the whim of their employer and can be essentially exited from the country by their employer.

[1420]

They are at more risk than a low-wage Canadian worker, who at least has some rights under employment standards that it’s hard to say exist much for temporary foreign workers. That’s part of the challenge here. That’s why I think that while this piece of legislation is going to take some important steps…. I think a director is a good idea. I think that the ability to deal with fraud makes sense. Everybody wants to deal with that, but it has to go further, as a legislative package or be seen as a legislative package. Maybe the minister will tell us when we get to committee stage that it’s part of an ongoing package, and there’ll be more to come. We’ll see what the minister has to say when we get to committee stage.

What we need to do at this point, without doubt, is make sure that nobody gets satisfied that what will be accomplished in Bill 39 is going to address the fundamental issues that we have about people who come to this country, under whatever circumstances, and want to work here — and we hope want to come here and live here and raise their families and make Canada and British Columbia their home. That should be our objective, to create that opportunity for people who are looking to come and build a life for themselves and their families.

How do we enhance that opportunity for that to happen? We know the temporary foreign worker program fails to create that opportunity for people. It brings people in. It does, in fact, bring them for their labour, and then they leave. That’s what the program is designed to do. It was originally designed, of course, to meet some shortages, particularly high-skill shortages and particular demands in areas like agriculture. But it has become something else, and we know that far too many of those 70,000-plus temporary foreign workers who are in British Columbia today do not fit that criteria, so we need to do more.

It would be my hope that we’ll have an opportunity to understand from the minister how this program, how Bill 39, is going to deal with the challenges now in front of the PNP, provincial nominee program, because of the demands that are being made that continue to put pressure on the program in ways that it doesn’t seem to be able to deal with effectively — just simply, I think, because of volumes, more than anything else — and how that’s to be addressed. It’s not entirely clear how that gets addressed. We’ll get to talk about that some, hopefully, when we get to committee stage. We’ll get to talk about the authorities of the director.

We’ll get to have some discussion about a couple of the areas where I think that there are some challenges — obviously, I’ve talked about the temporary foreign workers — and some questions about where the protections are in terms of the powers around inspection of immigration applications and how that works. There are authorities that will be given to the director. We’ll just have to see where those safeguards are, whether it is around their capacity to investigate, to audit, to deal with records — all things that may be quite appropriate to do. We’ll have a conversation about how privacy is protected and how the interests of people are protected.

I think what we have to do here is see the legislation for what it is — a piece that takes one bite out of this complicated pie, but does not address the more fundamental issues that we face in this province around foreign workers, particularly, wanting to come and either come to just work or come to make British Columbia their home, and how we accommodate that in ways that are better for those workers and for British Columbia.

Until we solve that problem, or at least get our heads around it…. It probably means strong advocacy with the federal government, who obviously has primary responsibility around immigration and will maintain that. But this is British Columbia. This is our province. This is our place. Other provinces have taken steps to take more control of the situation or partner in the control of the situation. I think that’s a good thing to do. It’s where we should be going as a province. While this legislation deals with some other matters that are certainly important, it does not get at that issue. That’s the issue that’s a more fundamental one, I think, for us in the long term and one that we need to deal with.

[1425]

I look forward to committee stage and to hearing from the minister her views on how we begin to address a number of these issues that stand in front of us.
[ Page 9550 ]

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, I want to reserve my right and on behalf of the member for Vancouver-Kensington the right for a question of privilege with respect to the comments of the member for Prince George–Mackenzie.

Debate Continued

D. Barnett: British Columbia is on the verge of a workforce transition. In 2016, fewer young people will enter the workforce than older workers will leave it. It puts B.C. in an inevitable position. Our province needs workers to fill those jobs that come with our growing economy.

Bill 39, the Provincial Immigration Programs Act, supports B.C.’s role as a leader in economic immigration programs. We always prefer to have British Columbians fill the job openings that arise in our diverse and growing economy, but we know that even if every eligible British Columbian was trained and qualified, we would still come up short of workers to fill all of the job openings.

Economic immigration will play an important role in driving B.C.’s economic growth. This act will make sure our immigration programs allow us to attract the best and the brightest. This act ensures we have a strong legislative foundation for the B.C. provincial nominee program and any other immigration programs the province designs. That is why we have made specific targeted changes to the provincial nominee program — so it is better aligned with B.C.’s current labour market and economic development priorities.

The PNP is an economic immigration program designed to help B.C. meet its labour market and economic development priorities. The program allows B.C. to select foreign workers and international graduates who have the skills and experience to contribute to B.C.’s economy. The PNP also selects entrepreneurs who are ready to invest in our economy and create jobs for Canadian citizens and permanent residents.

Operated by the province of B.C. in partnership with the federal government through Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the PNP assesses applications and nominates candidates for permanent residence. Citizenship and Immigration Canada makes the final decision on each application and issues permanent resident visas to successful applicants.

B.C.’s quota of PNP nominations is set by the federal government. In 2015, that allocation is 5,500. However, we are working with the federal government to receive more PNP allocations. In fact, the number of people who want to bring their skills to B.C. exceeds the number of PNP allocations we receive from the federal government. People want to come here, and we want them to come here.

In my riding of the Cariboo-Chilcotin, there have been quite a few immigrants apply to our PNP program. Some are family of others who have immigrated to Canada and become successful business people in the Cariboo. Others came to the Cariboo-Chilcotin and fell in love with our beautiful province. And yes, some fell in love with a real lover.

Since the creation of the program in 2001, B.C. has received more than 28,000 workers and entrepreneurs through the program. We are ready for more. The new Provincial Immigration Programs Act is the next step in putting the province in a position to continue to attract high-demand skilled workers and investment-ready entrepreneurs to grow our economy.

The Provincial Immigration Programs Act will help B.C. meet its economic development priorities by providing a legislative framework to select newcomers under the existing provincial nominee program as well as any future immigration agreements with the federal government. The primary authority for immigration lies with the federal government. The Canada-B.C. immigration agreement sets out the terms for federal and provincial cooperation on immigration matters, including the provincial nominee program.

[1430]

This new act will provide a transparent framework to strengthen the administration of immigration programs in B.C. The legislation has three main objectives: to increase transparency in the administration of immigration programs; to protect the integrity of immigration programs; and to clearly outline the province’s authority to collect and set fee amounts for applying to immigration programs, ensuring program costs are recovered and the taxpayer is respected.

Our province’s diverse and growing economy means many people want to come to B.C. to work, live and raise a family. We recognize that welcoming newcomers to B.C. will be an important part of supporting the significant economic opportunities in our province. We have redesigned our provincial nominee program to make sure we are aligning our nominations for permanent residents with our labour market priorities.

The new Provincial Immigration Programs Act is the next step in putting our province in a position to continue to attract high-demand skilled workers and investment-ready entrepreneurs to grow our economy.

D. Eby: I just want to begin my remarks, in light of the detestable comments made by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie earlier, to recognize the context in which this bill is presented and the opposition’s comments.

The member for Vancouver-Kensington spent a significant portion of her adult life fighting for the rights of temporary foreign workers. She’s done incredibly proud work that I think makes all of our caucus proud of her efforts. She’s not unique in our caucus.

Certainly, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds has done incredible work on behalf of farmworkers, vulner-
[ Page 9551 ]
able farmworkers, making sure their rights are protected. Many, many members of our caucus have fought for the rights of these very vulnerable workers. That is the context of the comments that you’re hearing from our caucus, concerned about those rights, concerned about protections for workers. His misrepresentation of that, frankly, is unacceptable.

Now, I’m very glad to see that the government has moved to amend and formalize the process for the provincial nominee program in British Columbia. This is a very important program for our province which can and will shape the future of British Columbia.

Immigration is incredibly important to the future of our province. We have a huge province with a low population density and incredible opportunity for people who come here. By opening our doors to the best and the brightest in the world, whether they’re students or scientists or engineers or doctors or entrepreneurs, we’ll ensure a prosperous future for our children. By opening our doors to the vulnerable, we’ll teach our children about the value of compassion and the importance of helping others.

After all, everyone in this province, except for B.C.’s First Nations, is an immigrant to British Columbia. Chinese Canadians worked hard in British Columbia to build our province. I’ve had the opportunity to read some early accounts of our province. You cannot read these accounts without coming across descriptions of Chinese Canadians working in British Columbia to build our province — to start business, to build railways, to build buildings and otherwise help make British Columbia what it is today.

South Asian Canadians, a very proud history — in my own community of Kitsilano, the first Sikh temple in British Columbia. The importance of that immigrant community to the economic life of Vancouver and British Columbia cannot be overstated.

My own family benefited directly from immigration policy in Canada and British Columbia. My son’s grandfather — my wife’s father — was a Scottish immigrant with his family. His parents brought him from life overseas in Scotland to life in Vancouver, where they built a family home in Kitsilano and helped build British Columbia, as they love to remember, through hard labour — and if I could say it with a Scottish accent, I would. It was a life-changing event for their family and certainly for me, as I married into that clan.

The legislation before us will hopefully present the opportunity for the province to ask the difficult questions that we need to ask about how we allocate just 5,500 spaces from our federal government for the nominee program. How can we use these very limited spaces to best promote the interests of all British Columbians?

[1435]

Now, there’s no question but that the highest and best use of these spaces is not simply to replicate the federal program, requiring new British Columbians to pay fees twice, first to the provincial government and then to the federal government as well. Our nominees spaces should address a gap in the federal program, a chance for us to say British Columbia needs a particular type of person to ensure the success of our province into the future.

Too often the requirements of our program have simply replicated the federal program. This legislation, I hope, will bring in a director who will review that duplication and eliminate it so that these limited spaces are used as constructively as possible.

In addition, with a very limited number of spaces, we have to ensure that the manner in which these spaces are allocated is transparent and fair. Demand for immigration to B.C. far exceeds the number of spaces provided by the federal government to this provincial nominee program, by the thousands. New British Columbians should learn from their first contact with our province that we prize, that we value, fairness, accountability and transparency.

Now, the federal immigration program posts on line their policy manuals for staff so that everybody knows the process by which applications are adjudicated. Our provincial nominee program does not post these staff manuals. It’s my hope that the new director of this program will address this gap between our two programs immediately upon commencing work. There should be no secret about how these highly sought-after placements are evaluated and administered in British Columbia.

Now, most importantly, I think, this new legislation is long overdue on the part of people who come to British Columbia and are frustrated with requirements and programs that change, seemingly overnight, as a result of a posting on a website, without the discipline, as well as the accountability — both of which are, quite frankly, limited in this process — of the provincial regulation-making process.

I spoke with an immigration lawyer today, who told me about one of her clients who spent nine months in the low-skilled stream of the provincial nominee program. He worked in a very dirty, unappealing job for nine months. The program said: “If you work in this job for nine months, you will be on a path to permanent residence. You’ll be able to stay in B.C. and raise your family here.”

The man took the promise seriously. He worked the job. He did the job that he wouldn’t have otherwise taken, and then the program was cancelled without notice or opportunity for him to complete his permanent residence application. It’s still not clear to him whether he will be able to be a permanent resident in British Columbia, after investing nine months in a low-skilled job in B.C. for possibly no reason.

These kinds of arbitrary and sudden policy changes can destroy a family’s plans and waste precious time for people who don’t have that kind of time. They want to
[ Page 9552 ]
be here in B.C. to help build our province, and they’re investing the time to do it.

It’s my hope that this legislation and the new director and the discipline of the regulation-making process — rather than simply changing a posting on a website — will reinforce for government the significance of policy changing and the impact that it has on real families and real people in our province.

What’s notably missing from this act is any mention of penalties for those who abuse this program. Presumably, the provincial Offence Act will apply. We need to think about the importance of penalties and the significance of those penalties for those who abuse this program. What good are the director’s new powers of inspection, if he or she cannot impose significant penalties on those who would seek to break the rules for their own financial advantage? I hope the government considers this obvious omission, and I imagine it will be canvassed during the committee stage.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a second.

Is the minister seeking leave to make an introduction?

Hon. J. Rustad: Yes, if I could seek leave.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Rustad: My apologies to the member from Point Grey, but thank you very much for ceding the floor.

It is a very great pleasure here today to make a couple of brief introductions. I had a great opportunity to meet with Chief Coreen Child and Norman Champagne from the Kwakiutl First Nation. We had a very productive discussion, and I would just ask the Legislature to please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

D. Eby: My welcome, as well, to the Chief.

Finally, I cannot help but note that the wait-lists for the entrepreneur immigration program are unacceptably long. Now the people who applied under the entrepreneurial stream in British Columbia in April of 2015 are told on B.C.’s website that it may be as long as three years before their application is adjudicated by the province.

[1440]

Now, this delay in the application process surely jeopardizes the intent of this program. The idea is that if you have money to invest in B.C. and there’s a B.C. business that needs your investment, this program connects those people. But three years is, obviously, completely out of sync with the business cycle in British Columbia today, leading to the obvious question of whether the program is fulfilling its intent. There are serious questions that arise from this delay. I hope that the new director will address these questions of delay and this unacceptably long wait time.

British Columbia is one of the best places in the world to live. We’re a province with a strong history and presence of First Nations governance, culture and community shaping our past, our present and our future. We’re a province that has a strong history of immigrants shaping our past and our present and our future.

It’s my hope that this bill helps inform our processes so that our immigration program, from the day it passes and well into the future, continues to strengthen our province. Our diversity, in welcoming of people from around the world, is our strength. It’s my hope that this bill will help us continue the best of our province’s history in that regard.

M. Dalton: It’s a pleasure to support Bill 39, the Provincial Immigration Programs Act.

Canada’s population is about 4 percent aboriginal, which means about 96 percent of Canadians are immigrants, or our fathers immigrated here. I will say that even of the 4 percent aboriginal, about one-third of those are Métis, with native wives and French, Scottish, Irish men. It’s virtually most everyone except for First Nations.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

About 20 percent of the population that currently lives in Canada is born abroad, which is over seven million people from all over the world. There are 33 ethnic groups of over 100,000 people from which Canadians trace their ancestry, of which ten have over one million people. Canada is one of the most multicultural nations on earth, and one of the most open to immigrants. Over a quarter of a million immigrate to Canada every year, of which over 40,000 come to British Columbia.

Canada has been a magnet for immigrants, for economic well-being, for quality of life, for a place of refuge from war and from strife. But over the centuries, effort has been made to attract immigrants to help our economy and to make our land more prosperous and viable

Jean Talon — this is a history lesson — was the first intendant of New France and took over from governor Frontenac, of Château Frontenac fame. He was appointed by King Louis XIV. Talon attempted to change the economic base of the colony from fur trading to agriculture but found that this could not happen without a larger population. He arranged for settlers to come from France, including over 800 women known as the filles du roi, the King’s Daughters. These were young orphans that came to New France to marry men here. He encouraged population growth through marriage grants and baby bonuses, which was a financial compensation.

I don’t know how many of you have had an opportunity to look through ancestry.ca. I did a few years back and traced a lot of my French-Canadian roots through my
[ Page 9553 ]
mom to this period. My grandmother was 16 years old when she got married, and she had 18 children. I have a great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother that was alive at that time. She was 12 years old, and, I think, one of the filles du roi, and the youngest ever recorded to have been married. I’m not advocating this, but this was an interesting historical personal piece.

Another political figure that comes to mind, during immigration, is Lord Selkirk. In the early 1800s, he was a driving force in bringing settlers to what would become the Red River Colony, in what is now Manitoba. He was from Scotland. He was concerned about the plight of his fellow Scots, who were in a distressing economic situation, and helped develop the colony, which later became the province.

Another political figure that comes to mind is the Minister of the Interior, Clifford Sifton, in the late 1800s, early 1900s. He was instrumental for the government of Canada to attract millions of European settlers to set up farms, particularly in the Prairies.

[1445]

They were looking for hardy Northern Europeans at that time — Ukrainians, Russian Doukhobors, German Mennonites — who, they thought, were used to the cold climate and knew how to farm. That was primarily on the Prairies, but hundreds of thousands of British Columbians also trace their roots to this period.

Immigration has been very important for British Columbia and for all of Canada. It’s obvious by looking at our demographics. It’s the most multicultural province of one of the most multicultural nations in the entire world.

We are in a position where B.C. needs workers to fill all the jobs that come from a growing economy. We have the strongest growth in Canada, and that comes with a diversified economy.

Last night I met with representatives of the Coalition of B.C. Businesses. They represent 50,000 B.C. employers across the province, including associations like the B.C. Hotel Association, the Building Supply Industry Association, the Canadian Home Builders Association, the restaurants association, Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters and others.

Just in discussions with different representatives, I know one of the concerns that they have is, basically, labourers — people to come. There are jobs throughout the province, and they need people to fill them — people that are qualified, but basically people to help in these industries. That’s for our own economic well-being.

While our priority is to have B.C. workers first in line for job opportunities that come from a diverse and growing economy, we know that if every eligible British Columbian was trained, we would still not have enough workers to fill all these openings.

We have a program in B.C. that is designed to help meet our labour market and economic development priorities. The provincial nominee program is an economic immigration program. In fact, it’s the province’s only direct economic immigration tool for bringing in new British Columbians. The program allows B.C. to select foreign workers and international graduates who have the skills and experience to contribute to B.C.’s economy and create jobs for Canadian citizens and permanent residents.

The program is operated by the province in partnership with the federal government through Citizenship and Immigration Canada. The provincial nominee program assesses applications and nominates candidates for permanent residency. Citizenship and Immigration Canada makes the final decision on each application and issues permanent resident visas to the successful applicants.

The federal government sets B.C.’s quota of PNP nominations. For 2015, that allocation is 5,500. Every year, the province has achieved 100 percent of its nomination quota since the early 2000s and is on track again to meet its full allocation.

We are working with the federal government to receive more PNP allocations. It’s important for our province. Last year, 80 percent of B.C.’s total immigrants came to B.C. through the federal immigration streams. Only 20 percent of B.C.’s total immigrants came through the PNP.

This act supports B.C.’s continued role as a leader in economic immigration programs, maintaining strong economic outcomes and protecting integrity. It provides a legislative framework to select newcomers to B.C. under the provincial nomination program.

The new act will provide a transparent framework to strengthen the administration of immigration programs in B.C. These targeted changes to the PNP make it better aligned with B.C.’s current labour market and economic development priorities.

We are increasing transparency by assigning decision-making authority to a director of immigration programs. As well, we are implementing a process for reviewing applications that are refused. We are protecting the integrity of immigration programs by improving the collection, use and disclosure of application information with the federal government. As well, we are identifying and stopping fraud by allowing the province to cancel applications where fraud is discovered.

We are also respecting the taxpayer by clearly outlining the province’s authority to collect and set fee amounts for applying to immigration programs. This ensures that program costs are recovered and the taxpayer is respected.

[1450]

British Columbia is an excellent place to live, work and raise a family. This is why we have more people who want to come to B.C. than we have PNP allocations from the federal government. Economic immigration continues to play an important role in driving B.C.’s economic growth,
[ Page 9554 ]
as it has in the past, and this program allows us to attract the best and brightest.

S. Hammell: I am pleased to rise and take my place in debating Bill 39, the Provincial Immigration Programs Act.

I’m particularly delighted to join the debate because I’m familiar with the program as it was originally established in the late 1990s. God forbid — right? — that something that was established in the 1990s is still here, existing, flourishing and being supported by both sides of the House.

I think it was actually in 1998 that it was established, and certainly it was part of the Ministry of Multiculturalism when I had the good fortune to be the minister. I remember having lots of spirited debates around the program as it was forming. We had, at that time, and I’m sure they do now, fabulous staff who worked in developing and creating a program that would meet the needs of our community.

So it is delightful to see that we are moving this process along, that we are now taking this — what was originally just a program within a ministry — and actually lifting it up in terms of enshrining it in a bill, Bill 39, and providing many things around what was a program and often less regularized or less transparent than it would be or could be under a law.

Here’s the other sort of ironic thing about this moment in time: we are creating more regulations. Now, I think there was a bill that was here about getting rid of regulations or celebrating the lack of regulations or red tape, but here we are, creating regulations and laws around a program, which I think is quite wise. Because when we are actually talking about selecting the people who come to this province….

As most of the members of the House would know, immigration is, in fact — can be — a shared jurisdiction with the federal government. Both the province and the federal can draw down immigration in terms of the constitution. And it is then….

If we take a significant or active role in recruiting and encouraging newcomers to come to British Columbia and put them on a path to citizenship, then it seems to me that we should be very clear, very transparent and very regulated about how we do that, because we are, in essence, through this program, granting citizenship into our country. That is a pretty significant act or a significant thing to do. We have seen through this federal election, unfortunately, a lot of discussion — not only through the election, but prior to it — around the nature and sanctity of Canadian citizenship.

The bill provides the legislative framework to select newcomers under the existing provincial nominee program, as well as any future agreements. So it does foreshadow the possibility of other agreements and drawing down more action in terms of immigration.

The bill is designed to create or to increase the transparency of program administration. If you are creating a program, and you are enshrining it in law, then it becomes very important that you do it consistently and clearly and transparently.

I think that’s all good. I mean, when you are using a vehicle through which a person can join or engage, and the consequence of those actions is citizenship, again, I do think it’s important to be transparent.

[1455]

Of course there is not anyone here that would argue that we should not have…. Certainly, with a program that ends up in citizenship, it should be very, very fraud-proof. We should have very, very strong anti-fraud provisions and ensure that when someone comes to British Columbia under regulations that are created by the provincial government, those regulations are not subject to any criminal activity. When you put this into the construct of a law and bring it into the House, you are enshrining that principle and the actions that allow you to execute that principle, and you put that into law.

And of course, what else would you absolutely want to do? That is to be able to change and charge, or charge differently, application fees.

So this is a good bill. This is something that has evolved. It has arrived here over a length of time. It’s here in the House now as kind of the maturing of a process that began a long time ago. When you start to look at some of the powers, then you do understand why it is incredibly important to have a bill surround the activity.

The bill creates a director of provincial immigration programs, appointed by the minister. The director is given power to review and approve or deny immigration program applications such as the PNP. Now, that is a lot of power. If you are going to exercise that kind of power, it’s like life or death over people in the sense that they can come to Canada and participate in a country that welcomes immigrants and encourages economic activity and tries, in some form or other, to be equitable and fair in terms of economic return.

You want to ensure that anyone exercising the power that says “You can come” or “You can’t come” does it enshrined in law. Now the director of provincial immigration programs is appointed by the minister through this law.

The act, as probably has been mentioned, also provides the ability to enter into information-sharing agreements with the federal government.

The bill provides further accountability and oversight of the PNP program and other programs. However, the PNP program in this bill is focused on high-skill workers and will not impact anything outside of the PNP program.

We all know we do have temporary foreign workers, and there has been a principle of a path to citizenship, as people have worked in this country and contributed to
[ Page 9555 ]
the country. This doesn’t reach out and embrace those people, but it certainly does give the regulations and the tightening up of this program and presents it, in fact, in front of us as a bill for us to pass or not pass.

In closing, I would just like to say that I am pleased to join all of those in the House who are supporting this bill. I think it is important that the PNP program, having reached some length of maturity, now comes into this House and becomes enshrined in a bill that then gives it a lot more credibility and more transparency. It gives me pleasure to have joined this debate.

[1500]

J. Thornthwaite: On behalf of my constituents of North Vancouver–Seymour, I rise in the House to speak in favour of Bill 39, the Provincial Immigration Programs Act.

Last month we heard the news that for the first time ever, there are now more Canadian citizens 65 and over than under the age of 15. This directly filters down to the workforce, as there are fewer younger people entering the workforce, and people that are older are leaving the workforce. As our minister said earlier, we’ve reached a tipping point.

British Columbia is in an enviable position. We need workers to fill the jobs that come with a growing economy. While our priority is always to have B.C. workers first in line for the job opportunities that come with a diverse and growing economy, we know that even if every single British Columbian was trained, we would still not have enough workers to fill all the openings.

Economic immigration plays a role in driving B.C.’s economic growth and in attracting the best and the brightest. The Provincial Immigration Programs Act supports B.C.’s continued role as a leader in economic immigration programs. This act lays a foundation for the province’s role in selecting newcomers to British Columbia. It provides the legislative framework to select newcomers under the existing provincial nominee program and any future immigration agreements with the federal government.

Now, of course, the primary authority for immigration lies with the federal government. But the Canadian-B.C. immigration agreement sets out the terms for federal and provincial cooperation on immigration matters.

The provincial nominee program is an economic immigration program. It is designed to help B.C. meet its dynamic labour market and economic development priorities. The program allows B.C. to select foreign workers and international graduates who have the skills and experience to contribute to B.C.’s economy. The program also selects entrepreneurs who are ready to invest in our economy and create jobs.

The provincial nominee program assesses applications and nominates candidates for permanent residence. Citizenship and Immigration Canada makes the final decision on each application. This program has been so popular that effective September 1, new applications are no longer being accepted for the majority of the skills immigration and express entry categories.

The quota of PNP nominations for British Columbia is set by the federal government. For 2015, that allocation is 5,500, but we continue to work with the federal government to receive more PNP allocations. Since January, the PNP has issued more nominations than any other province, under express entry B.C. Every year, the province achieves 100 percent of its nomination quota, and we are well on track to use the full allocation this year.

Recent changes to federal immigration programs have increased the number of applications to PNP. Of the total immigrants that came to B.C. in 2014, 80 percent came through federal immigration streams. Only 20 percent of B.C.’s total immigrants came through the provincial nominee program.

This legislation has three objectives. First, we are increasing transparency in the administration of immigration programs. We are doing this by assigning decision-making authority to a director of immigration programs. As well, we are implementing a process for reviewing applications that are refused.

Second, we are protecting the integrity of immigration programs. We are improving collection, use and disclosure of applicant information with the federal government. And we are identifying and stopping fraud by allowing the province to cancel applications where fraud is discovered. We are also banning those found to be making fraudulent applications from applying to provincial programs for two years. As well, we are conducting inspections to monitor compliance with program requirements.

Third, we are respecting the taxpayers by clearly outlining the province’s authority to collect and set fee amounts for applying to provincial programs. This ensures program costs are recovered.

B.C. was an early adopter of the federal express entry priority system, and express entry is a new on-line application management system introduced by Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

We’re also the first province to introduce a new provincial nominee program stream to align with the federal express entry priority system. This allows provincial nominee programs to use the express entry system to meet B.C.’s specific labour needs.

[1505]

Economic immigration will continue to play an important role in driving B.C.’s economic growth. We have introduced this bill to ensure we have a strong legislative foundation for the provincial nominee program. This is why we have made very targeted changes to the program so that it is better aligned with B.C.’s current labour market and economic development priorities.

Deputy Speaker: The minister closes the debate.
[ Page 9556 ]

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the opportunity to make some closing comments, despite the threat by one of my friends opposite that he planned to speak for two hours. Thus, my hesitation to leap to my feet.

Mr. Speaker, you can tell by the discussion that we’ve had here in the Legislature this afternoon that this is an important issue for members on both sides of the House. Part of that comes from the fact that we are very proud of the place that we live in — British Columbia — and the fact that, as Canadians, we recognize that there are many, many people who want to come and to work and live and raise their families here in our province.

The point of the act…. I know that we’ll get a chance throughout the course of committee to have a discussion about some of these issues. But I do want to just be sure that we understand that what this bill attempts to do is to take the very small area of jurisdiction that the provincial government has over the provincial nominee program and ensure that it is transparent, that it has an appropriate legal framework for the decisions that are being made.

I think that’s incredibly important, because while we might want to add a whole bunch of things and think about all of the other things we may want to change, the primary responsibility for immigration, for the temporary foreign worker program, for other like-related programs rests with the federal government.

The point of having the bill that we have in front of us is to say: how do we best administer those very, very important 5,500 nominations that British Columbia gets to make? I think that this bill reflects our desire to be transparent, to be fair, to make sure that by having a designated person manage this process, these decisions are made outside of the realm of political discretion, because that is critical when we look at the issue of immigration. There will be lots of time, I’m sure, during committee to talk about the importance of that.

We should be clear that while there has been discussion about the number of nominations that are in line and a variety of other things, the primary changes that have resulted in seeing a larger number of people than we can accommodate with our allocation are a result of changes to the temporary foreign worker program and other changes made by the federal government.

There are things that we can actually look at in law and things that are beyond our purview. Some of the discussion today was outside of the realm of what we could include in provincial jurisdiction. But I think there have been some very thoughtful comments, and obviously, there have been some passionate ones. This is an incredibly important topic to all of us.

In closing, I think we have to recognize that we have the responsibility to ensure that with the critical needs that we have moving forward, we need to be very, very careful and strategic about the use of our 5,500 nominations. That’s why we led the country in saying: “We’ve got to take a look at this program.” We have to make sure it’s focused on our economic and social interests and the impacts that that has. How do we find that balance? It’s even more complicated, because we have a whole lot more people that want to come than we can accommodate in our 5,500 nominations.

We have led the country. We led the country when we argued that British Columbia’s share of the provincial nominee program was too small. As a result of that, we saw an increase. We are going to continue to actively pursue a higher allocation of PNP nominations, as I said post-election.

This is about ensuring that we have a program that maintains the integrity and cost-effectiveness of immigration programs, remembering that B.C. only has a very small jurisdictional role to play in what is largely a federal government jurisdiction.

[1510]

With those comments, I will move second reading.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

[1515]

Madame Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 39, Provincial Immigration Programs Act.

Madam Clerk.

Deputy Clerk: Nemine contradicente.

Second reading of Bill 39 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. S. Bond: We always like hearing the Clerk say those words. That’s fantastic.

I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 39, Provincial Immigration Programs 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. T. Stone: I now call second reading of Bill 37, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2015.

BILL 37 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2015

Hon. S. Anton: I move that the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2015, now be read a second time.

This bill amends a variety of statutes as part of our routine statute revision and housekeeping corrections process. Statutes from 11 ministries are amended, all of which amendments are minor, technical corrections and adjustments.

Sometimes these kinds of amendments are brought forward by regulation of the executive branch of govern-
[ Page 9557 ]
ment under the Statute Revision Act, which regulations then have to be validated by this House in legislation, or, if the House is sitting and there is an opportunity to do so, we can make the corrections efficiently and directly in legislation brought before the House itself.

[1520]

[R. Lee in the chair.]

This is the kind of act where people like to have a little bit of fun with it, because it’s periods and commas and other minor changes. But there is an important principle behind it, which I would like to observe, which is that you don’t want people going into acts and making changes to them. It does need to be done with the authority of the Legislature.

As our very skilled legislative counsel work through legislation, as people use legislation — sometimes people in the community use legislation — these little mistakes are turned up. They are gathered together and, from time to time, brought forward routinely by the government of the day, which is what is going on here.

As I said the other day, our office of legislative counsel applies extreme analysis and care and rigour to what they do when these mistakes are turned up. They do like to correct them. The goal is to keep our statute books orderly, correct and in fine shape, and that’s what these housekeeping amendments will do.

L. Krog: I’m so pleased to rise and speak to Bill 37, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2015.

Before someone steals the line, I do want to give credit to a legislative assistant working in the New Democratic Party caucus who wisely and cleverly said today that perhaps we should propose an amendment to this bill with respect to the title. Instead of calling it the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), we would call it the comma-sensical act, 2015.

I know that the government has….

Interjection.

L. Krog: To the member for Vancouver-Kingsway: well, the young man did insist that I give him attribution. I don’t think any opportunity to recognize the talent who work in the NDP caucus should go unnoticed or unpraised in a public forum.

Having said that, I feel like a character in what I referred to a few weeks ago. We were maybe even talking about movies — talkies and silent films. I feel like making out like one of those characters in one of those dreadful talkies that were so disrespectful to women, where they showed a woman swooning back on a couch, overcome with the excitement. In this case, I’m trying to develop that kind of excitement when I’m talking about this bill, which might cause me to actually swoon here in the Legislature.

I’m cognizant of the fact that in my 15th year in this chamber…. I’ve had the opportunity to review many pieces of legislation, the opportunity to give consideration to some pieces of legislation that were somewhat more substantive and weightier and more important and, certainly, that would draw more public interest to what we do here.

We have so far in this legislative session dealt with the incredible importance of picking a day with a half-page piece of legislation. We had the great pleasure of debating a two-and-a-half page piece of legislation the other day.

Interjections.

L. Krog: For two days, yes. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast point that out. I’m always….

Interjection.

L. Krog: They’re all good at arithmetic. I very much appreciate the opportunity to receive the support of my colleagues here on the opposition benches as we discuss, at length, this important step forward in British Columbia’s legislative history.

That aside, one really has to ask why we are debating a separate bill for matters which…. Even I can say at the outset, having given it cool consideration…. I can assure the House that the opposition, to the last woman and man, will no doubt be voting in favour of this particular piece of legislation. I’m only hearing excitement from the opposition benches as we stroll down this lengthy lane of linguistic purity.

[1525]

Now, I’m really quite excited. The explanatory notes, I think, give one a small hint of the depth of this legislation, when it says simply: “Sections 1 to 22: ‘Various statutes’ make housekeeping amendments.”

Usually the explanatory notes are somewhat more substantive. They represent the brilliance of legislative counsel, who labour so hard in places unknown and unseen by the public, often going without the gratitude of legislators or the public of British Columbia. But here, today, they are demonstrating, through the Attorney General — how shall I say? — a consistency, simplicity and brevity that is virtually breathtaking: various statutes make housekeeping amendments.

It’s no better reflected than in the important change which is section 1 of the act. There are many changes contained in the course of this statute — or bill before the House, I should say in fairness, because I want to try and be perfectly correct today in everything I say. After all, this is a bill about corrections and mistakes, and one never wants to belabour too long things that might lead you to say something you’d regret.

We are making an incredibly important change. We are changing that singular error in section 45(1)(a)(i) of
[ Page 9558 ]
the Chartered Professional Accountants Act by changing the period incorrectly inserted between section 44(1), (4) and (5) to a comma — very important.

I can’t begin to describe the excitement I feel when we get to section 2, where we are changing the Livestock Identification Act, which obviously has something to do with cattle-rustling, I suppose. It says: “by striking out ‘section 9.1;’ and substituting ‘section 9.1, or’.”

A. Weaver: That’s important.

L. Krog: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, I know, is so anxious to take his place in the debate, but I assure the hon. member that I don’t intend to speak until six o’clock. If he’ll simply hold his excitement, I’ll give him full opportunity to fill this chamber with his wisdom. May it be filled with commas and more periods, if possible.

In the meantime, I simply want to say that we are now going to make that change to a very important section of the act, where it says under offences, 9(1), that a person must not do any of the following: “(b) unlawfully possess livestock branded with (i) an unregistered brand, (ii) an identification brand not authorized by an organization designated by an order under section 9.1;” — changing it to “section 9.1, or” — “(iii) a brand other than the livestock owner’s brand.”

Here in this change, we have a monument to the long history of the raising of cattle in British Columbia. I’m always reminded by the beauty of those lovely murals in the outside dome of the four great founding industries, if you will, or occupations of British Columbians — forestry, mining, fishing and agriculture. Here we have today something that is certainly going to be of importance to the farmers of British Columbia.

I know, I have no doubt, that the government is just simply holding back sending out its press release on this particular bill. Gosh knows, the minister responsible for the red tape reduction act was certainly extremely excited during the course of debate by the press releases that were going out for government on that particular bill. So I can barely begin to contain my anticipation at what we’re going to say about cattle-rustling, perhaps, when we get to part 2 of the agriculture amendment in the Livestock Identification Act.

That is followed by the even more exciting section 3 of the act, where we’re “striking out ‘under 202.1,’ and substituting ‘under section 202.1,’” — as if anyone would have any doubt that it was a section of the statute to which we were actually referring during the course of the statute.

That’s covered further — this seeming inability to distinguish between periods and commas — by the Environmental Management Act. This is section 5: “Section 139 (1) of the Environmental Management Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 53, is amended by striking out ‘a director,’ and substituting ‘a director’.”

Interjection.

[1530]

L. Krog: The member for Cowichan Valley says: “This isn’t red tape?” No, I have no doubt this is the elimination of red tape that was promised by the passage and introduction of the red tape reduction act.

We are moving down this path with such incredible swiftness that we make the runner from the Plain of Marathon announcing victory over the Persians look like a nobody. His name will come to me, unless any of the other Latin or Greek scholars present in the chamber can fill my mind again. The name seems to have eluded me.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Pheidippides, yes. The member for Surrey-Whalley, a well-read classical scholar of English training, has been able to fill in the name Pheidippides to complete my remarks on this important section.

That’s followed by a very important change to the Integrated Pest Management Act — section 6 of Bill 37: “Section 13 (2) of the Integrated Pest Management Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 58 is amended by striking out ‘the committee,’ and substituting ‘the committee.’”

Now, I have no idea where this is going to end, but we’re certainly getting a lot of periods instead of commas. I want, in fairness…. It would ill behoove me to comment on this, but I do notice that through the rest of the act, there are occasions…. I miss the opportunity to hear the dulcet tones of some of the members opposite who would want to rise and comment.

I do want to point out that some of these mistakes may, in fact, have been made during what the members opposite refer to as the dismal decade — some of them. I admit it. I open my heart here today and confess honestly. Some of them may have been made in the dismal decade, but, so far, all I’ve noticed are bills that were actually passed after the inauguration of Gordon Campbell as Premier of the province of British Columbia in 2001. So perhaps a much-vaunted devotion to reading was, in fact, not carried through in terms of the legislative agenda by this government.

Now, I’m not saying sloppy. I’m not saying they rushed legislation through. I’m not saying the fact that they didn’t bother to fund the official opposition of two, which wasn’t given status…. I’m not saying that that had anything to with the fact that legislation was jammed through, leaving these substantive errors in the legislative record for all these years, which we’re only now finally getting around to correcting. I’m not saying anything about that. It’s not like me to say that.

Then we have the most interesting…. This is section 8 of the bill: “Section 84 (d) of the Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, S.B.C. 2015, c. 8, is amended by striking out ‘subsection 2’” without any brackets “in both
[ Page 9559 ]
places and substituting ‘subsection (2)’” with brackets. That is important.

You can see now, as I try and take the members through some of this bill, why it was so necessary, so absolutely necessary, for us to put this in a separate piece of legislation, to highlight the devotion to governance which the B.C. Liberals demonstrate every day in this chamber by bringing forth the best legislation their brilliant minds on that side of the House can possibly create and put before the people of British Columbia, showing tremendous leadership.

I just want to bring up the name of Pierre Berton, one of my favourite Canadian historians. Now, I know there are many….

Interjection.

L. Krog: Yes, Oak Bay High, 1937, the member reports. But he’s really a Yukon boy, as the member well knows, and he was very proud of that.

I want to bring up his name because it’s just too bad he’s not here, not here to be recognized in the way he deserves. You know, there was the man who popularized the history of the War of 1812. That was a Canadian who brought us the full knowledge and depth of the Canadian victory over the Americans when they invaded.

It’s an interesting part of Canadian history, and we have been fighting with the Americans, on and off, over many important issues, for a long time since. But there was nothing so unconscionable, setting aside the invasion of Canada, as the creeping nature of the destruction of Canadian spelling.

[1535]

Oh, shame, shame, that Pierre Berton is not here to witness that finally this government has risen up off its haunches and defended Canadian spelling in the kind of way that it merits and Canadian nationalism would suggest.

In section 10 of the bill: “Section 22 (4) of the Tobacco Tax Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 452, is amended by striking out ‘willful’ and substituting ‘wilful’.”

So there’s a victory for Canadian nationalism and Canadian spelling. My goodness, maybe we should go down and burn the White House for a second time just to remind them that we’re still in charge of our language and spelling.

Now the next one. Honestly, I’ve looked at it very carefully, and I’m not sure I can see the difference. But I know that the minister, during the course of committee stage, in section 11, is going to explain to me the difference between “striking out ‘Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada),’ and…‘Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada),’.” It’s with a period beyond the quotation mark.

I’ve heard of distinctions without a difference and differences without distinction, but I’m looking forward. I know that mentally — and perhaps it’s my eyes — I can’t make out the actual difference here.

One may, over time, be able to explain that, but I think that the term “redundancy” does perhaps apply here. If the minister can lead us to the truth in the importance of section 11, in which I see no difference between what is proposed and what has been the law in British Columbia for a time, I look forward to that.

Then section 12, again dealing with the Tobacco Tax Act. I was going to say: “Obviously, an act that was not passed with a great deal of thoughtfulness,” or perhaps everyone was smoking some other prohibited weed at the time, because there are no less than four separate sections dealing with amendments to the Tobacco Tax Act.

B. Routley: What were they smoking?

L. Krog: Exactly. The member for Cowichan Valley says: “What were they smoking?”

Again, striking out on behalf of Canadian nationalism and Canadian spelling, we’re substituting “wilfully” with one “l” for “willfully” with two.

It warms the cockles of my heart to know that, notwithstanding the important issues that face the province of British Columbia, when we have important matters to discuss in this Legislature, somewhere there are people beavering away to ensure that we spell “wilfully” correctly in the Tobacco Tax Act.

Now, there are several other sections. You know, we’re adding in the odd period in the Land Survey Act and the Land Title Act. We’re correcting one that I find really annoying and that, I must say, offends me greatly. That is section 16 of the bill, where we’re now going to strike out in the Land Title Act section 231(2) “mortgagor’ interest” and substitute “mortgagor’s interest” — apostrophe “s.”

I am sure that there were many lawyers in British Columbia who didn’t and couldn’t possibly think of reading an “s” into that and figuring out exactly what section 231 meant, but now that problem has been solved by this legislative amendment. That problem has been solved. We are going to move forward.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Now, I know the professor is anxious to get his words in, but I really wish he would stop interrupting the flow of this important dissertation on the value of commas and periods and apostrophes to the people of British Columbia, who I know are riveted by the discussion here today.

There is one that’s really quite offensive, and that is under Part 7. It’s the health amendment. The minister will want to listen to this one. “Section 17 of the Health Care Costs Recovery Act” — oh yes, that would be under the B.C. Liberals — “c. 27, is amended by striking out ‘heath’ and substituting ‘health’.”

[1540]

How did that slip by the B.C. Liberals? Where in health care recovery could you ever think that one would have to include or make the mistake of not realizing that heath and health may, in fact, be different? It’s shocking.

By the way, just to correct the record — I’m sorry — this is section 18, for those members who are following carefully everything I have to say today. So we’re moving from heath to health now. There’s a progressive step forward. We won’t be lost in the heath anymore; we’ll be moving into perfect health, no doubt.

Then this one is really quite shocking. Election Act, section 20 of the bill, striking out “British Columbia Statistics Act.” How did everyone make an error this substantive? And this is substantive. This is not a comma. This is not a period. This is not a colon or even a semicolon. Striking out “British Columbia Statistics Act” and substituting “Statistics Act (British Columbia).” How did that slip by? How possibly have we managed to run the affairs of the people of British Columbia, lo these many years, with that mistake there in the statutes of British Columbia?

Interjection.

L. Krog: The Opposition House Leader talks about no hyphen unhyphenated.

I’m not going to suggest for a moment, of course, that we have a government so devoid of a legislative agenda that they would bring this before the House at this particular time. But as I say, we have debated so many small matters in the last little while that I’m beginning to think that we’re lost…. The literary reference I’m thinking of is Gulliver’s Travels. Aren’t the Lilliputians the little ones? The little ones are Lilliputians — correct?

Interjection.

L. Krog: I hear from the minister of Lilliputians, the one who brought in the two-section act. I knew she’d want to thrust herself into this debate. I’ve heard of small, but it doesn’t get much smaller than that. I mean, for heaven’s sake, when you added in the cover, that doubled the size of the whole piece of legislation. So I’m sure the minister will take her full opportunity to rise in this House, because I know she’s concerned with very small things and will want to contribute to this important piece of legislation, where we’re thrusting ourselves through the jungle of the comma and the period and the semicolon.

In fairness to the House Leader, I’m not sure we had any hyphens in this corrective statute. Perhaps the Liberals haven’t done enough research to try and figure out how to fill a legislative session to discover any misplaced hyphens, or hyphens that perhaps shouldn’t have been placed in the first place. One never knows.

I just want to assure the Attorney General that notwithstanding the pressure of the opposition to always oppose what the government does, on this occasion the opposition will vote in favour of this bill, if for no other reason than to show the kind of camaraderie and friendship that people in British Columbia expect us to extend across the aisle — just as I know they wanted us to support the red-tape-reduction-day bill.

Again, in a gesture of friendship — because if we can’t unite on the really important things in British Columbia, like child welfare, taxation, environmental protection or public security, we can always get together over a good old comma discussion. We can always get together over the misplaced period, over the lost semicolon.

With that, I will take my place, having been so honoured by the opportunity to support the B.C. Liberals as they struggle through this session, trying desperately to fill a void created by a governing party that is so utterly out of steam that the best we can do is a miscellaneous statutes amendment act, the only one in my experience — and I look forward to anyone correcting me — that has ever devoted itself solely to the correction of typographical errors.

[1545]

My congratulations to the B.C. Liberals for their tremendous effort and fine showing this fall. It puts me in mind of the changes to the school system. You know, in my day, there was a great deal of marking and criticism, and you sort of knew when you were at the bottom of the class. As my wife said, the crows knew they weren’t the robins in the class. I hate to suggest for a moment that the government isn’t up to task or that if I was marking, I would suggest they were the crows instead of the robins. It would never be for me to say that.

I appreciate the effort that has gone into this, but I think if I were marking, I would probably say something to the effect that: “The B.C. Liberals are showing some effort. More progress is hoped for, but incomplete. Expectations diminished. Not sure about passage to the next grade.”

Congratulations to this government for demonstrating, once again, how when you’ve truly run out of steam, you’ve really run out of steam.

A. Weaver: I bound to my feet in enthusiasm to speak in support of Bill 37, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, (No. 2), 2015. Like my colleague from Nanaimo, I have been waiting many months to read about the many provisions that have been made here with respect to commas and periods.

Now, I take social media very, very seriously. I believe it’s important, as legislators, for us to engage our constituents and ask them what their views are on bills. So I form my opinion based on the opinions of the constituents and the input I get from talking to my staff and so forth. Now, I had a torrent of information come my way — really, more enthusiasm — as to this bill.

I had a couple of other suggestions that I think are relevant, and I think a couple of them should be read
[ Page 9561 ]
in, because there are new ideas that the people of British Columbia are bringing to this government. They’ve offered me an opportunity to give this government some more ideas for bills that they can bring forward this session to complete the legislative agenda.

Here are a couple — I quite like these — from a fellow called Dave Hutchinson. He suggested Bill 39 be introduced, an act to replace the dash with the semicolon. I’m impressed with that. He has also suggested Bill 40, the act to eliminate redundancies act. Quite clever, actually.

We’ve had a comment from an Andrew Park, who was quite taken aback by the fact that the government’s agenda seemed so void of ideas. He said: “What’s up next — a bill to outlaw the selling of Twinkie bars in months that have two full moons?” Now, hon. Speaker, you will not believe it. It must have been a boring day on Facebook, because a discussion ensued after that comment as to whether or not you could still buy Twinkie bars in Canada.

That’s the state and level of the discussion that this bill is provoking in British Columbia. It turns out there is good news. I was able to provide my constituents with an address that they could write to, to order Twinkies on line. But it doesn’t end there. There have been other ideas.

Truly my favourite, which we could debate for probably a couple of days, was suggested to me by my press secretary. That would be Bill 41. Those going back as far as my fellow alumnus Pierre Berton, a 1937 grad from Oak Bay that I mentioned in a statement today….

Sadly and ironically — just a sidebar with respect to the statement — for the first time in recorded memory, the Hansard blacked out. But it didn’t black out; it greened out. A green screen came up through my statement, so it’s no longer available as a video with other than a green screen there. Appropriate? Perhaps it’s seeing something in the future, I don’t know.

But let’s come back to the bill. I sway. I move off it. Bill 41 — Mat Wright, press secretary — the double space after a period re-enactment bill, 2015. That’s an issue that we should debate. Some people, sloppily, only put one space after a period. Within the legislation here, there are sometimes two spaces, sometimes one. We should have consistency on this — consistency.

[1550]

Bill 42, the wilful and willingly act of willingness act, 2015. Bill 43, the healthy heath act, 2015. And one that I’d like to expand upon further, Bill 44, the two l’s or one act of decision, 2015.

Let me expand upon that a bit more. You know, we wonder whether “wilful” was willingly and wilfully worded wisely in the bill brought before us. Why I say that is that it appears, as the member for Nanaimo pointed out, that government has chosen to pay tribute to my former alumnist Pierre Berton from Oak Bay but has done so not consistently.

It turns out that there are a further 15 acts that have spelled “wilful” wrong, one of them being — and I say this with the deepest sadness and shame on the government — the School Act. Heaven forbid that the School Act is not being corrected to change the way “wilful” is spelled. Yet we are doing it in others.

The Community Charter, Insurance Premium Tax Act, the Local Government Act, the Logging Tax Act, the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement Act, the Mineral Tax Act, the Motor Fuel Tax Act, the Perpetuity Act — I don’t even know what some of these are — the Personal Property Security Act, the Property Transfer Tax Act, Railway Act, Tobacco Tax Act — we’re amending that one; that’s good — Trustee Act, and Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act.

Why are we just wilfully changing the spelling of “wilful” in a couple of acts when staff, in a matter of literally maybe 30 seconds — maybe it was 45 seconds — did a simple Google search with “site: B.C. Laws” and you can find all these other acts that have the misspelling? I don’t really quite know what’s going on here, but it actually goes further.

There’s an inconsistency with the use of the number of l’s in other areas. One of my staff researchers gave me a lot of fuel to actually further this discussion. “Fuelled” is either spelled with one “l” or two l’s throughout the legislation in British Columbia. It’s sloppy. The environment act, the Environment Management Act, the Clean Energy Act, the Motor Vehicle Act, the Safety Standards Act and the Wildfire Act — the regulations there — have “fuelled” spelled with double l’s.

“Fuelling” is spelled with double l’s in the Assessment Act, the Nisga’a Final Agreement Act, the Park Act, the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act, the Clean Energy Act regulations, the Environment Management Act regulations, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act regulations, the Utilities Commission Act regulations.

Yet single l’s in “fueled” are used in the Local Government Act, the Wildfire Act and regulations, the Workers Compensation Act regulations, and “fueling” with single l’s is used in Forest and Range Practices Act regulations, the Wildfire Act and regulations and so forth. In fact, what’s even worse is that in some, double l’s are used and single l’s are used, so it’s not only inconsistent across laws but within laws.

The same thing. As you travel through these documents, you quickly realize that “travelled,” indeed, also is spelled with single l’s or double l’s. I won’t belabour the point. But why I’m raising this….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The hon. member for Nanaimo, very hon. member, points out that…. As soon as I get downstairs, I will be tasking my staff to search “colour” and “color” and “labour” and “labor” spelled with “our” or “or,” because this is critical. “Honour,” as multiple colleagues along….

Interjections.
[ Page 9562 ]

A. Weaver: The member for Cowichan Valley points out that this is a can of worms that has been opened. British Columbians from Victoria to Fort Nelson, from Rossland to Haida Gwaii are going to be combing through B.C. bills looking for spelling mistakes. We’ve already started with the School Act, because we really wanted to find a few more spelling mistakes in the School Act. We’ll work on it. It’s a long act. We’ll find a couple. But it’s a challenge that I put out today to all British Columbians.

[1555]

We’ve got nothing to do in this Legislature. Go through the act, find the punctuation errors, find the spelling mistakes and send them to me — andrew.weaver.mla@leg.bc.ca — and I will bring them to the Legislature to enable discussion for months ahead as we debate the matters of importance to British Columbians.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: I’m getting comments on my e-mail as not being correct from the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I’m sorry. I cannot say my name, the member points out. But I think I was quoting an e-mail.

You could do…. It’s a good point. The e-mail is member.memberslastname.mla, where I am that member, at leg.bc.ca. Thank you to the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

With that, I do encourage my fellow citizens of British Columbia to please spend hours…. Send us more of your money so that we can spend hours to go through with a fine-tooth comb and find those misplaced semicolons, to find those split infinitives, to rightly find those split infinitives, because that doesn’t do justice to our fine English language.

I really don’t have much more to say on this. But I do realize that the people of British Columbia expect us to debate these issues, and I’m having a hard time filling up the time with any more substance here, because I’ve just run out. I just don’t know what to say. I honestly don’t know what to say.

Here I thought, being elected an MLA, you would actually debate matters of substance — and I say “debate” matters of substance. Here we are talking about spelling, talking about red tape, while real issues affecting British Columbia go by.

I would love to talk about LNG. I would love to talk about the fact that that recent news article out of Malaysia points out that Petronas is actually going to move on, to the mid-2020s. I’d love to talk about that. But no, we have to talk about punctuation.

With that, I thank you for your time.

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

Hon. S. Anton: Well, I’m certainly glad I was able to offer the members opposite a time where they could entertain themselves at such length. I think some of the people around them were laughing as well. I appreciate that when you’re talking about small things like this that it’s an opportune place to make a remark or two.

I don’t know if the member from Oak Bay was here earlier when I said, and I will say it again, woe would be the day when any government went in and started messing around and correcting statutes without the authority of the Legislature. If that is what the member opposite is suggesting, then that would be an unfortunate day and certainly not one that anyone on this side of the House would be in favour of.

I move second reading of Bill 37.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 37 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 37, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 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. T. Stone: I’ve never been so thrilled to move on to the next item on the docket.

We’re going to call committee stage of Bill 38, intituled the Franchises Act.

[1600]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 38 — FRANCHISES ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 38; R. Lee in the chair.

The committee met at 4:01 p.m.

On section 1.

J. Shin: Thanks to the minister and her staff for the next couple of hours ahead that we have together to go through the sections of the bill for the committee stage. I would also like to thank the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill and, of course, the member for Surrey-Whalley for their work on this particular issue. I expect that they’ll be chiming in and joining us in this discussion.

I mentioned this in my response during the second
[ Page 9563 ]
reading of this bill yesterday. I believe the minister had just stepped out of the chamber at that point, so I’ll say it again. I’m very happy that the minister wasted no further time in bringing in this bill when she took office in her new ministry, as this legislation is long overdue in British Columbia. Thank you for that.

I’m certain that, when we conclude the committee stage on this bill today and this becomes law to be in effect, it’ll make encouraging differences for small businesses in our province.

During second reading yesterday, I also raised a number of great difficulties, both financial and emotional, that the franchisees experienced in our province in view of the regulatory void that we had. I do take kindly that during her closing remarks, the minister did reassure and address that in the House so that such stories of tragedy, hopefully, won’t happen anymore or at least be minimized with this legislation.

I have both Bill 38 and Bill M219 that was introduced by the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill as a private member’s bill on May 13 during the spring session. I must state that the recommendations by BCLI and the industry stakeholders have been for the most part honoured. The two bills, from what I can tell at least, read almost identically.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

While I’m in general agreement with the contents of this bill, I would like to open the discussion by asking the minister to please outline the differences that do exist between Bill 38 as opposed to what was drafted and put forward by BCLI and, of course, the corresponding rationale for those differences.

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the opportunity again to answer questions that are extremely important in this House. It’s an important piece of legislation that I’m proud that we have the opportunity to bring forward.

The official opposition’s private member’s bill that was modelled on the B.C. Law Institute’s draft legislation that was contained in their 2014 final report…. It’s very similar to the private member’s bill for the most part. Part of the B.C. Law Institute’s recommendations were included.

[1605]

The Ministry of Justice were the ones that went through to request a review of that. The difference between the B.C. act and the private member’s bill relates to provisions that were included to improve the act on increasing business certainty, modernizing the delivery methods for disclosure documents and improving the clarity of the act following the Ontario court decisions that were made and some uncertainty around a few of the provisions.

Some of the differences include, in section 1, clarification that a payment under a classic distribution arrangement that is excluded from the application of the act does not trigger the definition of “franchise” and require disclosure. Alberta’s franchise legislation has the similar intent in a different provision.

As well, in section 5, including e-mail delivery in the method of delivery for disclosure documents. This accords with common commercial practice and is found in the regulations in Manitoba, New Brunswick and P.E.I., as well as the uniform regulations. This was not brought forward by the NDP.

Removing registered mail and fax delivery of both disclosure documents and notice of rescission to modernize delivery methods.

As well, clarifying the exemptions from disclosure by removing the potential for abuse by franchisors that renew one-year franchise agreements to fit within the exemption from disclosures for short-term franchise agreements of less than one year. This responds to a court decision that was in Ontario.

This provision has been updated to clarify that it is an exemption for grant of a franchise, including a renewal or extension of the franchise for less than one year, and does not involve the payment of a non-refundable initial franchise fee, renewal fee or extension fee, including an exemption from the disclosure for large investments in situations where the franchisee’s cost to acquire the franchise is over a prescribed amount, anticipated to be somewhere between $3 million and $6 million.

In these situations, the franchisee is a sophisticated party with legal and financial advisers. They are not the typical franchisees that need the protection of the act. Ontario has this exemption. B.C.’s exemption modifies Ontario’s exemption, for greater clarity, to only apply to the acquisition of the franchisees.

Finally, the most significant and most important, is that we ensured that we went out and consulted and ensured that we listened closely to franchisors and franchisees across British Columbia.

A. Dix: Just on that, perhaps the minister could lay out that consultation. As I understand it, and this is not unusual, but it’s really an extraordinary success of the B.C. Law Institute to have a draft bill that is — with very small exceptions that the minister has described, and we’ll get into those sections as we go through the legislation — adopted in total.

Was the B.C. Law Institute involved in the drafting stages? Were others who are experts in the field — Mr. Tony Wilson and others — involved in that process? Could the minister describe that process that led to legislation that is so significantly similar to what was proposed by the B.C. Law Institute?

Hon. C. Oakes: First, of course, I was remiss not to have introduced our staff that have worked diligently on this particular act: Renee Mulligan through the Ministry of Justice, Bruce Macallum, through the Ministry of
[ Page 9564 ]
Justice, and Tim McEwan, deputy minister for small business. They have done a tremendous amount of work. I’d like to thank them personally for the incredible work they did.

The consultation process began in…. First of all, the Ministry of Justice did ask the British Columbia Law Institute to review the Franchises Act, so the government completed a public consultation in two phases. The first was an extensive on-line and in-person consultation process that began in the fall of 2014 and continued in the summer of 2015. It was important to listen to stakeholders in the franchise community to ensure that the new act protects the rights of B.C. franchisees and creates business certainty for franchisors.

The consultation was based on recommendations from the British Columbia Law Institute that B.C. enact franchise legislation, basically and generally, on the uniform conferences of Canada’s Uniform Franchises Act, which was stated earlier. Nine of the stakeholders responded to the consultation. We also had an adviser group that did a significant amount of work on this particular bill.

[1610]

The hon. member opposite mentioned a comment of Tony Wilson. I think it’s important to note that unlike in the United States and in Ontario, this franchise agreement is a more business-friendly approach to franchises’ statutes in Canada and in terms of franchisor compliance. It goes a long way in protecting B.C.’s large and growing number of small businesses and operators.

More importantly, we looked at this legislation through the consultations that we did and through working with the adviser group. We looked at how the Franchises Act that we are bringing forward would make sure that it was business-friendly.

A. Dix: I’m sure it would have been more business-friendly, in fairness to our friends in Ontario, had the government brought it in earlier than 15 years later than Ontario.

Perhaps the minister, if she’s able, could share with us the members of the advisory committee — and, if she will, to save time, the composition? In other words, she said she had nine responses to the consultation. Who did they represent? Did they represent primarily organizations, franchisors or franchisees?

Hon. C. Oakes: I would like to correct. Actually, the nine I was referring to were the folks that supported putting this legislation forward. We have Tony Wilson, Blair Rebane and Peter Snell, who are private lawyers that worked on this. As well, we had Greg Blue, BCLI; Sheena Mitchell of the CBA; and Stuart Rennie from the CBA.

Just in response to how this legislation is different from Ontario’s. The member opposite referred to Ontario. I would like to go back and just comment on what Tony Wilson said:

“The proposed B.C. legislation is a vast improvement over Ontario’s Arthur Wishart Act. For example, franchisors in British Columbia will now be able to accept refundable deposits and can require prospective franchisees to execute confidentiality agreements prior to the FDD being delivered to the prospect and waiting for the 14-day cooling-off period to expire, just as they can in Alberta.”

We learned through the consultations across British Columbia and in talking with various organizations. We learned from what had happened in other jurisdictions and made sure that the Franchises Act that we’re bringing forward today recognized that, improved upon that, and ensured that we have the best Franchises Act.

J. Shin: Looking at section 1 of the bill for the definitions, for the “franchise agreement” it reads that the franchise agreement “means any agreement that relates to a franchise and is entered into between,” and it goes on.

I’m wondering about the generality in the wording of “any agreement” — if the minister can please comment on any potential point of concern right there. Is it referring to verbal agreement? Would that be considered sufficient as far as “franchise agreement” is concerned? Should it be written? Should it have any legal context or framework around it? If you can just comment on what we mean by “any agreement” and what would be a sufficient definition for that, that would be great.

Hon. C. Oakes: I’m sorry. We had problems hearing the question. Could I kindly ask…?

[1615]

J. Shin: Okay. Sorry about that.

Under the definition for “franchise agreement,” it reads that it “means any agreement.” So I was hoping for the minister maybe to supply the House with a comment on whether that generality is intended or if there is any need for further specification. It’s unclear at this point if even a verbal agreement would be considered sufficient as far as this franchise agreement is concerned.

Does that make sense?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

The definition is broad by definition. It closely conforms with the definitions in the Uniform Franchises Act, and the provisions match the legislation in Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick and P.E.I. in order to provide certainty and clarity for both franchisees and franchisors operating franchise businesses. Then, as you go into…. We describe that as we go through the rest of the act.

A. Dix: On that point, I think the clarification…. Part of the purpose of the debate for us and for people who will be following the act is to ensure that we understand the government’s intent.
[ Page 9565 ]

Just to be clear, I think one of the issues that some of the participants in the process have expressed concern about with respect to this definition of “franchise agreement” is that it potentially could mean any subsequent amendment of an agreement between a franchisor and a franchisee, which could, in fact, if one perceived any agreement to be that way, kick off, again, a renewal of all the disclosure provisions.

That’s just as a supplementary to the question from the member for Burnaby-Lougheed. Is the government confident, given the experience in other jurisdictions, that this satisfies it? I think the intent here is you enter into a franchise agreement, or a renewal of a franchise agreement, and you go through these significant disclosure agreements. But it’s not intended to deal with — shall we say? — minor changes that might happen in the course of that agreement.

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the question.

Yes, this satisfies the intent of the act. The courts have looked at the definition of this franchise — and are confident that it’s satisfied with the intent of the act.

[1620]

J. Shin: I will move on to other definitions.

I was looking at the definition for “franchisor’s associate.” In subsection (b), in the second paragraph, it goes on to say that the franchisor’s associate is a person who “exercises significant operational control over a franchisee and to whom the franchisee has a continuing financial obligation in respect of a franchise.”

I was just noticing the difference between how there’s an omission of the franchisor’s associate’s responsibility, so to speak. In the previous definition for “franchise,” you see that in subsection (a)(ii) there’s a second point that’s being made that “the franchisor or the franchisor’s associate exercises significant control over” and “or offers significant assistance for” the franchisee.

I’m curious to find out why that omission is there between the definition that we see for the “franchisor’s associate” under “franchise” versus the “franchisor’s associate” definition as it stands that we see in that subsection (b)(ii).

Hon. C. Oakes: There are actually two different applications in the act.

J. Shin: Now, going on to the definition for “franchisor’s broker,” I’m just a little curious about the actual difference between the franchisor’s broker versus franchisor’s associate — how it reads in the act. As far as the main definitions go, both the broker and the associate seem to be granting, marketing or otherwise offering to grant a franchise.

I was curious to find out, then, if a clarification can be afforded in the House. Can the minister just confirm the fact that perhaps the only difference between an associate and a broker, then, is really that the broker won’t be reviewing and approving the grant of the franchise?

[1625]

Hon. C. Oakes: The franchise broker is more of an external role, so they are less likely to be involved in the actual sale, whereas the franchise associate is more deeply related to that end. As to the question that you had, the courts would determine that.

A. Dix: Just to follow up on that, though, a lot of the issues around franchisees and franchisors are related on occasion, as the minister will know, to the activities of franchise brokers. So this is a section of the act that’s of interest, and the decision of the government to define it, I think, is important.

Can the minister say, in the consultation process, whether some discussion was given to assessing this question of franchise brokers — their role in the system and whether that role needs to be more strictly restrained — given that a remarkable number of the complaints around these systems relate to franchise brokers, who are, in fact, almost the sole people that franchisees are interacting with in developing franchise arrangements with franchisors?

[1630]

Hon. C. Oakes: The advisory group talked about the definitions in great detail because, as we alluded to, it’s incredibly important, with the premise of this act, that there is uniformity. As far as the liability that the member opposite alluded to, we do cover that later on in the act.

B. Ralston: I’m looking at the definition of material change. There’s a description there that says it’s a change, essentially, in the business that would have “a significant adverse effect on the value or price of the franchise to be granted or on the decision to acquire the franchise.”

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, can we have some quietness here, please? The minister has to listen to the question.

B. Ralston: Well, it’s the government members who don’t seem to have any interest in this particular bill. Frankly, I’m not surprised, Mr. Speaker.

The Chair: Carry on, Member.

B. Ralston: They’re clearly bored by the government’s lack of any kind of agenda and feel free to chat among themselves.

This definition of material change. Is it related to or legally analogous to definitions of material change in the Securities Act?
[ Page 9566 ]

Hon. C. Oakes: Yes, there are similarities between the definition of material change and the Securities Act. They both mandate a form of disclosure to a potential purchaser.

B. Ralston: In the latter part of the definition of material change, it reads as follows: “….a decision to implement the change made by the board of directors of the franchisor or franchisor’s associate or by senior management of the franchisor or franchisor’s associate who believe that confirmation of the decision by the board of directors is probable.”

Now, that seems to me to be rather vague. If they don’t believe that it’s probable or could claim that they didn’t believe it was probable and it’s subsequently confirmed — and that’s something that they choose, on that basis, not to disclose — it seems to me this definition is not a very strong one.

Can the minister explain why the choice of that particular language, “believe that confirmation of the decision by the board of directors is probable,” was decided upon?

[1635]

Hon. C. Oakes: As was stated previously, if you look at the definitions…. It’s critically important that the definitions do conform to the Uniform Franchises Act. That was a significant part of this legislation. As well, it clearly aligns on this with the other five statutes across Canada. There is a degree of certainty. Is it probable? Material change actually triggers disclosure obligations.

B. Ralston: I understand the argument about legal comity across the country. But if the definition is weak, then it might be an argument that that might be the one occasion not to engage in an identical choice of definition.

Is the minister aware of any legal interpretation of this definition of material change in any of the five jurisdictions that this very similar definition is in force?

Hon. C. Oakes: The advisory group in the consultations, in fact, did not feel that this particular definition was weak. Again, it has been modelled after a uniform decision that the other statutes across Canada also have in their act.

[1640]

B. Ralston: Well, clearly I’m not getting an answer to the question I posed, which was: were there any legal interpretations of that section in any of the five jurisdictions across the country? I would have thought that that would be a question that the minister could answer, given that this is a very significant part of the proposed act. I’ll just leave the public to judge why the minister may not be able to answer that question.

I do have a question about material fact, as opposed to material change. In the definition of “material change,” it speaks of a change in the capital or control “that would reasonably be expected to have a significant adverse effect on the value or price of the franchise to be granted.”

In the definition of “material fact,” it speaks of information very similar, I think — almost any information “that would reasonably be expected to have a significant effect on the value or price of the franchise.”

In the former case, of material change, it’s an adverse effect. In the material fact, it’s a significant effect. The value could go up, or it could go down. One would presume that these were the options there.

Can the minister explain why there’s that difference in language between the definition of a material change and the definition of a material fact?

Hon. C. Oakes: The relevance of the material fact is that it achieves the goal of making relevant information about the viability of the franchise business available to the franchisee prior to the franchisee’s investing in the franchise. The material change is in reference to after.

J. Shin: If we can get the minister’s attention to the definition of “misrepresentation.” Obviously, the definition of misrepresentation is an important one because it is the ground on which franchisees can often exert their rights against unfair dealings.

When we were looking at “misrepresentation,” I couldn’t help but notice, of course, that it reads: “(a) an untrue statement of a material fact, or (b) an omission to state a material fact….” Of course, given that material change can occur during negotiation, not necessarily always after, and given the significance of a material change, I’m curious to hear from the minister about the omission of the material change — not being included in the misrepresentation definition.

[1645]

Hon. C. Oakes: They’re two completely different definitions. The “misrepresentation” relates to a statutory remedy, and “material change” relates to disclosure obligations.

A. Dix: One question, just on the definition of “prospective franchisee” and “franchisee.” I guess the question is: when do you cross the line from being a prospective franchisee to being a franchisee?

I ask this question because later on the freedom-of-association rights of franchisees are protected from interference from franchisors or brokers of franchisors. The question is whether that group of prospective franchisees….

Say someone is entering into a franchise agreement or on the road to entering a franchise agreement as a prospective franchisee. At what time do they become, under the definition in that process, a franchisee? Is it at the signing of the final agreement, after the disclosure? Is
[ Page 9567 ]
that when they’re defined as a franchisee under the act?

Hon. C. Oakes: Until you sign the franchise agreement or pay money, you are a prospective franchisee.

B. Ralston: Looking at the definition of a “subfranchise,” it says it’s “a franchise granted by a subfranchisor to a subfranchisee.” Is this something that’s capable of infinite regress, in the sense that there could be a subfranchisor, a subsequent subfranchisor and so on? Or is it intended that there would be simply a franchisor and a single subfranchisor? That does not appear to be clear in this definition.

[1650]

Hon. C. Oakes: There are different layers to this, and there could be the potential for more than one subfranchise.

J. Shin: Going to the definition for “franchise system.” For subsection (d): “…the goodwill associated with the franchise.” I would like to ask the minister about the definition of goodwill.

Of course, as it turns out — somebody actually pointed this out to me — there are two definitions of goodwill. One is: “Friendly, helpful or cooperative feelings or attitude.” The second one is: “The established reputation of a business regarded as actually a quantifiable asset.” There is a difference between something that’s a good gesture versus something that implies a quantifiable asset that can be asserted.

I appreciate that there is a great amount of generality on the use of that term “goodwill,” and a broad definition is useful. But, given that there is such a big spectrum in the definition or the particular choice of that vocabulary, can the minister please clarify: to what extent can we interpret the latitude that is associated with the vocabulary “goodwill?”

Hon. C. Oakes: It would be a quantifiable asset, your second definition.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

J. Shin: For section 3, “Fair dealing,” the three subsections all refer to “a party” or “each party.” So is it correct for one to assume, because it doesn’t necessarily read it in the act as we have it, that when we talk about the parties that are involved, it actually specifies the “franchisor,” the “prospective franchisee,” the “actual franchisee,” the “franchisor’s associate” and, of course, the “franchisor broker”? Can I assume that that is the case — for all five parties to be involved?

Hon. C. Oakes: All parties who have signed the Franchises Act…. It relates to the “good faith” and “fair dealing.”

J. Shin: Just to clarify on the minister’s answer, did I hear her correctly — that only those that sign onto…? She referred to the act, so I’m just a little bit confused if she means the act or the agreement.

[1655]

The Chair: Maybe both of you can speak up a little bit. You know, you are very soft-spoken. That’s right. I can’t hear. Thank you.

Hon. C. Oakes: I stand corrected. I am sorry. It’s franchise agreement.

B. Ralston: A further question on section 3, fair dealing. The definition says it “…includes the duty to act in good faith and in accordance with reasonable commercial standards.” What is meant by “reasonable commercial standards”? Is that comparable to other British Columbia legislation or consumer protection legislation? Is it in accordance with the common law?

It’s very broad and would seem to be, potentially, a very flexible definition. So I’m wondering if this has been judicially interpreted, or if there is some expanded reference that the minister could provide that would perhaps shed more light on this definition.

Hon. C. Oakes: Hon. Chair, with your permission, could I kindly request a short, five-minute recess?

The Chair: The House will be in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:58 p.m. to 5:03 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. C. Oakes: This section is consistent with the interpretation in British Columbia as well as other jurisdictions. It is an intentionally broad and flexible standard. It’s also consistent with the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision on the duty of fair dealing and good faith.

B. Ralston: The minister has said that there was some discussion about the Ontario statute, and there’s a sense that in some ways, this statute was somewhat different from the Ontario statute. Is this section, the definition of “fair dealing,” similar or identical to the one in the Ontario statute?

I understand there’s been a fair degree of judicial interpretation of the duty to act in good faith and fair dealing in the context of franchise agreements. If that were the case, there would be a ready-made body of law that
[ Page 9568 ]
would assist interpretation, were these matters to be litigated.

[1705]

Hon. C. Oakes: This is similar to the Ontario act of duty of fair dealing agreement.

A. Dix: I think it’s similar to the Ontario act except for the inclusion, if I understand it correctly, of the phrase: “…including in the exercise of a right under the franchise agreement.” Is that correct? Why did we include those changes? As you know, this is much litigated in Ontario. It has been since 1990, as you’d expect. You actually added a significant change to the Ontario act here, and I just want to know the purpose of that.

Hon. C. Oakes: Yes. We did improve upon this provision by following the Uniform Franchises Act’s language. It was accepted by the Uniform Law Conference to better protect franchisees.

[1710]

It allows decisions made under the franchise agreement, at the discretion of the franchisor, to be included under this duty — for example, a decision to renew or not to renew an agreement. There is a duty to act in good faith.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

J. Shin: Moving on to section 4, the right to associate. The right of association is a very fundamental one — to be able to join or leave groups of one’s own choosing and for the group to be able to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members against, often, a much larger entity of greater power and resources. So this particular section is not just a welcome one but a very important one in this act.

Subsection (5) does read: “If a franchisor or a franchisor’s associate contravenes subsection (2) or (3), a franchisee has a right of action for damages against the franchisor or the franchisor’s associate, as the case may be.”

Of course, we all know that, in reality, the franchisees are largely unaware of the fact that such a right is now legislatively empowered for them to exert. Even if they knew, of course, their legal literacy as well as their organizational capacity is often very greatly limited to pursue their right of action for damages against the franchisor, should they contravene this particular section.

I’m hoping that the minister can maybe talk a little bit about what the government’s role would be to make sure that this particular provision is reinforced. What kind of educational efforts will be afforded by the government to ensure that this law is well understood by the franchisees and that they’ll be fairly protected?

Hon. C. Oakes: We will be producing an information guide that will be distributed and on our website. As well, we’ll be reaching out to the advisory group. They’re very excited about the opportunity to be talking about these important changes. We know that, on the professional development side, they’re excited about these changes. Finally, we’ll ensure that, through our Small Business Ministry, we circulate it through the different associations.

J. Shin: Thanks for that answer.

Just as important as it is for the franchisees to be aware of this, will there be a communication strategy to make sure that the franchisors or the parent companies will have easy access to the changes that are brought in?

[1715]

Hon. C. Oakes: The Canadian Franchise Association was out in British Columbia. We’ve had those discussions with them. They’re very supportive, and I know they’ll be circulating that information, the changes, as well, through the franchisor community.

A. Dix: This section, section 4, is an interesting section of the legislation in that the principle of fair dealing applies to a lot of the detailed regulation of the relationship between franchisors and franchisees that might exist. In general, those have been covered in section 3 by fair dealing.

However, the government and other Canadian jurisdictions have chosen to be specific in this case. I mean, violating someone’s right to associate with other franchisees might, in principle, be considered to be interference or not fair dealing. I think a fair person would conclude that.

However, the government has chosen to explicitly address this question of the right to associate, in the law. I wanted the minister to describe — because it seems to me that we’ve run into these cases — the problem that the government is choosing to address here. In other words, is it the case and is the government aware of examples of franchisors trying to limit the ability to associate or the right to associate of franchisees?

[1720]

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, this section is consistent with the Uniform Act, the legislation. What it is designed to do is, really, to protect the ability for franchisees to have that conversation. We know how critically important it is to be able to have that open dialogue, and to form an organization is a means of reducing the power imbalance. That’s the whole strength of this legislation. This provision is similar to the five other franchise statutes across Canada, and like I said earlier, it’s consistent with the Uniform Act.
[ Page 9569 ]

A. Dix: Is the minister aware of a case in British Columbia where franchisees have been denied the right to associate?

Hon. C. Oakes: We did hear, through consultations, that franchisees had identified that there was a problem. The BCLI, through consultations, also heard that. The challenge on this particular issue is the sensitivity around the franchisees coming forward and wishing to remain anonymous.

A. Dix: I want to ask the minister whether, in her view, this provision, because it doesn’t include a prospective franchisee, would apply to a prospective franchisee. In effect, that is…. It’s not the only key moment, but it is a key moment.

If, for example, one were…. I was going to name a franchise operation that’s only in Ontario, so it wouldn’t affect us here. But let’s say franchise A, and you are thinking of getting involved in franchise A. You’re a prospective franchisee. You haven’t signed the final agreement, but you want to talk to existing franchisees, and you’re given a list of them, in fact. Under the disclosure provisions, you’re given that list. The protection isn’t for the prospective franchisee but for the franchisees who would be asked questions that would be really significant.

The franchisor is trying to sell to prospective franchisees. The other franchisees have a business relationship with the franchisor. Is this right to associate extended to a prospective franchisee in those circumstances, and should it be?

[1725]

Hon. C. Oakes: Section 4 only is in reference to a franchisee, as we described before. That’s somebody who has signed a document or has put money down on an agreement. There’s nothing that would suggest or govern the suggestion that prospective franchisees could not go out and have a conversation with a franchisee.

A. Dix: Except, I guess, that we’re passing a law that says: “(1) A franchisee may associate with other franchisees and may form and join an organization…. (2) A franchisor and a franchisor’s associate must not interfere with, prohibit or restrict, by contract or otherwise, a franchisee from associating with other franchisees….” Those provisions and those that follow from them are guaranteed in the law.

What’s not guaranteed in the law for a prospective franchisee is that same right. In other words, the government has chosen to protect that right — and presumably, other governments. I understand the need for uniformity, but we’ve defined “prospective franchisee” here in the act, and it’s at that time, surely, that your right to associate is, in a way, most important, right?

It’s true, I suppose, that you could fall back on the law of fair dealing again, in that case — that it would not be fair dealing for a franchisor to interfere in that right — but you’re not specifically prohibiting it here. I guess I’m asking: what would be wrong with prohibiting franchisors from interfering with a relationship between franchisees and prospective franchisees?

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Hon. C. Oakes: The member opposite is correct that it doesn’t govern a prospective franchisee.

[1730]

A. Dix: Well, I understand I’m correct. That really isn’t at issue.

I think the question is whether it should be the case — right? — because this is an important moment in the relationship. You could argue — if you were the minister, I suppose — that the relationship is slightly different. In other words, there may be commercial activities that otherwise govern that franchisees who both have existing arrangements are different than prospective franchisees. But, presumably, an act that gives primacy to disclosure wouldn’t consider that important.

I guess I’m asking the minister, in this section, section 4, why the right to associate in section 4 wouldn’t be extended or shouldn’t be extended to prospective franchisees.

It seems to me that given the definition of prospective franchisees and the importance to the decision of having access and ability to associate with franchisees for a prospective franchisee, why wouldn’t that also be guaranteed in the law — other than the sort of self-explanatory reason that it’s the same as the other acts? Why would it actually not be a good idea to include that?

Hon. C. Oakes: The prospective franchisee has different interests than the franchisee. They have, up to this point, not put any money on the table. It’s more of an exploratory discussion, and there’s been no commitment made.

This is a policy decision that this act is between a franchisee and a franchisor, and we’ve defined a franchisee as somebody that has committed by signing an agreement or by putting money on the table.

But I will say that just because it’s not governed within this act, it certainly doesn’t preclude a prospective franchisee from having that conversation with other franchisees.

A. Dix: Of course, we’ll get into section 5 in a little while or later on in the debate. But section 5, the section around disclosure, is very much centred on the question of the prospective franchisee.

Interjection.
[ Page 9570 ]

A. Dix: No, we’re not. We’re on section 4.

On section 4, I guess one argument that might be used is that the result of subsection (5) of section 4 indicates that you’d have a right of action for damage, which, as a prospective franchisee you wouldn’t have, because presumably, there wouldn’t be any damages. You haven’t signed an agreement yet. I guess the interests are different, but they’re not more serious.

I guess the first question I would ask the minister is informing this. Does she think there should be any impediment to the right to associate with franchisees for prospective franchisees who are about to make a very significant life and business decision?

[1735]

In other words, would she see it as contrary to the government’s view of the act for franchisors to exercise any influence over the right of a prospective franchisee to associate with existing franchisees?

[1740]

Hon. C. Oakes: We want to have the opportunity to have a thorough discussion about this because we do feel that there is a difference between a prospective franchisee and a franchisee, that there are different levels of seriousness.

Again, going back to the definitions, a franchisee has put money on the table. A franchisee has made a significant commitment. They’ve signed a document. If you look at a prospective franchisee, you know it’s an exploratory relationship that is being explored. Once you sign a document as a franchisee, you’ve entered into a legal relationship. And within this section, the right to associate…. It is a policy direction. It’s a policy decision that we’ve made to be uniform to the five other statutes across Canada. It’s also, you know, a policy decision on how prescriptive you are when it comes to making statutory requirements.

In this particular case, again, if you look at a prospective franchisee…. We feel that, being governed by the idea that you sign a disclosure document, you sign a contract, you go to the bank, you financially put money down, is significantly different with that. But I’ll go back to what we also said. While this is an act that refers to the relationship between a franchisor and a franchisee, there is nothing within this section on a right to associate that would stop a prospective franchisee from having a conversation with a franchisee.

A. Dix: Well, I would hope there’s nothing in a section entitled “Right to associate” that would deny that. I mean, I think that’s self-evident.

Obviously, there is a difference. One of the differences that the minister is saying exists is that the rights to associate of a franchisee are superior to the rights to associate of a prospective franchisee. That’s what the government is saying by not including a prospective franchisee in this section. I mean, a prospective franchisee is someone waiting for a disclosure document, for example, who has initially…. They’re significantly down the road. They’re not just someone who’s driving past a Wendy’s and saying: “What if.” They actually are in the process of an agreement. They’re still a prospective franchisee.

So it seems unusual that one of the differences that government would define between franchisees and prospective franchisees affects their right to associate, which most people would argue would be a fundamental right in a democratic society.

Moreover, for the person in that period — in other words, in the period where they are receiving a disclosure document and are a prospective franchisee — that period is a period where the right to associate is important. In other words, I understand that the right to associate of franchisees amongst themselves doesn’t take away from their right to associate with prospective franchisees, but it’s also not guaranteed here. The explanation as to why seems to be kind of opaque.

I guess what I’m explicitly asking the minister is, notwithstanding the fact that the government has chosen not to believe that the right to associate of prospective franchisees should be guaranteed in the Franchises Act, does she think there should be any limitation on the right to associate of prospective franchisees with franchisees?

[1745]

Hon. C. Oakes: This is a commercial relationship; it’s not a labour relationship. I would remind the member opposite of what was very clear in all of the consultations and all of the discussions that we had with the advisory group. The significant piece of this act is about the uniformity and the fact that we are ensuring that we are consistent with the other statutes in the other provinces — to ensure that uniformity. That is on the right to associate. It matches with the uniformity act.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

J. Shin: On section 5, for disclosure, this is the largest and the most complex section of the bill, requiring the disclosure by a franchisor to the prospective franchisee of the financial information and other relevant information so that the franchisee can make an informed decision.

Now, this section also does include the requirement for material change in subsection (6), although I do want to mention one more time that the need for the material change is omitted in the definition in section 1 under “misrepresentation.” Nonetheless, section 5 is an important section in protecting small businesses and prospective franchisees and helping them make an informed decision.

[1750]

Again, my question to the minister is similar to the one that I posed to her for section 4. I’m curious to find out…. Of course, if the minister can elaborate a little bit more as far as the information campaign to ensure that these provisions are enforced….

Can the minister explain a little bit about what kind of staff and, of course, budget allocations and what performance indicators will be in place so that maybe in a year’s time we can have a chance to review how effective the information campaign by the ministry would be?

Another consideration is, of course, given that many of the franchisees and the prospective franchisees…. As challenging as it is for us to navigate through the legal language of an act, will there be a commitment from the government to make available some of this information in, of course, simpler language and also in other languages, be it Chinese, Punjabi, Korean, so on and so forth?

[1755]

Hon. C. Oakes: Really, this section and this act is, in fact, setting a framework for a relationship from a legal framework, to provide franchisees with the ability to guide that relationship and to ensure that we’re levelling that playing field. We will be monitoring the effectiveness of this, and we’ll be guided by the best practices of other jurisdictions.

Noting the hour, I move the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:56 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. T. Lake: I move that the House at its rising stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, October 20.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned. Safe travels and happy Thanksgiving.

The House adjourned at 5:57 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