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)

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 29, Number 9

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

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2015

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Lake: I call continued committee stage on Bill 38, the Franchises Act, 2015.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 38 — FRANCHISES ACT

(continued)

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

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

On section 5 (continued).

A. Dix: Just to go to section 5.2, for the record especially here, this issue…. The minister spoke to it as a major advance for the Franchises Act over other franchises acts: the explicit recognition that a disclosure document may be delivered by e-mail. Certainly, it appears to be the experience in Ontario and other places that there are some difficulties in Canada today using the mail, and one would assume that the Electronic Transactions Act would apply.

Can the minister just take us through two things? One, the rationale for this, which seems obvious — the rationale, I mean, for having it explicitly in the legislation as opposed to defaulting to the Electronic Transactions Act. I think part of the utility we discussed earlier in the exchange was that as this act is used by lots of people — you know, often without a lawyer to provide assistance — it’s important that the act be clear. So that’s one important point.

Secondly, in terms of the paper delivery of items, of course, one can sign for them and so on. How does the government perceive, or will the government be addressing in regulation, the issue of receipt of an electronic transaction? In other words, is it sufficient simply to do a return e-mail that’s explicitly from the person, as opposed to an automatic e-mail that might be sent out, to make the transaction valid?

[1340]

Hon. C. Oakes: During the consultations with the B.C. Law Institute, the advisory group, as well as in conversations with the franchises, both franchisees and franchisors, it was certainly requested that we look at electronic means to support this legislation.

Several weeks ago, when we started this conversation, the member opposite brought up the fact, as you know…. If you look at Ontario as an early adopter, why…? There was the opportunity for us to look at putting in the Franchises Act back then. What we can say is that there have been considerable changes since. There have been early adopters. Those, like British Columbia, that have looked at introducing this legislation now…. We’ve learned from the experiences of other provinces, and that is why we have included this, as some of the other later adopters of this legislation have as well.

I can also confirm that we will be looking at the receipt of electronic transactions when we go into the regulatory stage of this legislation.

A. Dix: I note that it is, I suppose, a major and significant fact that we’re adding this provision around e-mail, even though it might otherwise be satisfied under the Electronic Transactions Act. I’m not sure that it justifies the 14-year delay in the legislation since Ontario, especially since British Columbia had been the centre for undercapitalized franchisors in the interim period.

In any event, it is the case, I think, by terms of the Electronic Transactions Act, that that requirement would be satisfied by e-mail acknowledgment, as that act applies. There wouldn’t be anything in the regulations that would be counter to that act, I’m guessing.

Hon. C. Oakes: When we had the dialogue with the B.C. Law Institute, we looked at ensuring that for those individuals that may not be familiar with B.C. law, it was important that we included this piece within our legislation.

A. Dix: Am I correct in saying that under the Electronic Transactions Act that requirement would be satisfied by an e-mail acknowledgment?

[1345]

Hon. C. Oakes: Yes, this would satisfy the Electronic Transactions Act in British Columbia. However, what is important…. This legislation…. When we’re bringing it forward, it is important that if there are franchisees and franchisors that are operating in multiple jurisdictions, in order to ensure that we have the business certainty and similar uniformity, we provide that it was in the best advice of the B.C. Law Institute, we ensure that it is in legislation and we work through it, as well, with regulations.

A. Dix: On section (3), just so that we understand the purpose of the legislation…. The intent is for the disclosure document to be provided at one time and completely. This is one of the issues for, I presume, franchisors who are dealing with multiple jurisdictions which contain slight differences.

Is the idea that they would use, say, their Ontario model of disclosure and just adapt it, even if it has slight dif-
[ Page 9588 ]
ferences? That’s called a wraparound, I guess. Is that the intention of the government in this case?

Hon. C. Oakes: It is not the intention of subsection 5(3). The purpose of this subsection (3) is that franchisees document…. They receive all of the information all at once. In regards to the wraparound documents that the hon. member opposite mentioned, we’ll be dealing with that in regulations.

A. Dix: Does the minister support such a provision?

Hon. C. Oakes: The advisory group and the B.C. Law Institute looked favourably at looking at the wraparound documents. As we go through and have that dialogue, when we get to the regulatory stage, we look favourably at them bringing forward that information.

A. Dix: Is that a yes?

Hon. C. Oakes: As we’ve stated several times previously, we need to do the work in preparing for the regulations. Again, we will look favourably at the work that’s been brought forward by the B.C. Law Institute as well as other stakeholders in consultation, as we move through the regulations. We look favourably to that when we go through that process of developing the regulations.

[1350]

A. Dix: Wow. Not even going to tell us about that.

You know, one of the purposes, of course, of designating by e-mail — which, otherwise, could have also been done by regulation, I would suspect — was to make it explicit in the bill. So it is reasonable, as a committee, for us to ask questions about these issues that are significant in the regulations that flow from this bill. That’s the opportunity for that to occur in public, as I guess it is reasonable for the minister to not even answer the most simple of questions.

A sort of secondary part of this section of the bill is who the disclosure document provisions don’t apply to. There’s a series of categories listed. Some of them are what we might broadly call business insiders — people who already have the same franchise and so on — obviously, in the case of a franchise being passed on or granted through an executor, etc. Can the minister summarize and explain the purpose for allowing these exemptions?

[1355]

Hon. C. Oakes: There are a number of policy rationales for the exemptions of disclosures. For example, the franchisee already has knowledge of the financial information about the franchise so that there would be, for example, no need to require information — so where the franchisee has been an officer or director of the franchisor for a substantial length of time, or the franchisee is purchasing another franchise that is substantially the same as the existing franchise.

A. Dix: Well, that’s one of the exemptions. I presume the minister, in her next answer, will complete that section.

With respect to this question, I guess, presumably the franchisee, in these circumstances, is deemed to have a sufficient knowledge if they are a director of a franchisor. One of the challenges in this area has been, if you look through the cases and the case work, the sale of franchisees, approved by the franchisor, between insiders and outsiders, if you will — insiders in the arrangement who then sell or receive, after a franchise is taken back by a franchisor, a franchise. Was this consideration dealt with by the ministry and its staff in forming these exemptions?

G. Hogg: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Hogg: We are joined in the House today by 36 grade 9 students from the best high school, I think, perhaps, in the world — and not just because I graduated from it. There are lots of really good reasons.

Interjections.

G. Hogg: Look them in the face and try and tell them that it’s not the greatest school. Please welcome the students from Semiahmoo high school.

Debate Continued

Hon. C. Oakes: We worked closely with the advisory group, and the advisory group and the B.C. Law Institute brought forward a number of concerns based on their practical experience. We were guided by these recommendations by both these organizations, and we’re confident that we consulted thoroughly on these exemptions.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

[1400]

A. Dix: We were, I think, breathing in the excitement of leaving section 5 behind and moving on to section 6, which is almost as good a section as section 5 to deal with. We’ll see how we do on this.

One of the key provisions here is saying that a franchisee “may rescind a franchise agreement, without penalty or obligation, within 60 days after receiving a disclosure document, if (a) a franchisor failed to provide the disclo-
[ Page 9589 ]
sure document or a statement of material change within the time required by section 5, or (b) the contents of the disclosure document did not meet the requirements of section 5,” which we’ve been talking about.

Are there circumstances where this would be limited in some way?

Hon. C. Oakes: The purpose of this provision is to restore the parties to the position that they were in prior to the acquisition of the franchise — for example, requiring a full settling of these accounts — by removing hurdles currently faced by franchisees under the common law and accessing a legal remedy for non-disclosure or insufficient disclosures.

A. Dix: Just in terms of this, just so I understand it, the franchisor could take civil action, notwithstanding, without penalty or obligation. What I’m asking is simply: what constitutes a penalty or obligation? Are there conditions under which the franchisor would be able to take action against such an effort by the franchisee, or is it simply unlimited?

Hon. C. Oakes: There is an overarching provision that both parties have a duty of fair dealing. The franchisor — under, actually, section 3 — has a remedy to address unfair dealing.

A. Dix: Subsection 6(4) states: “A notice of rescission is effective, (a) if delivered personally, on the day the notice is delivered, or (b) if delivered by any other prescribed method of delivery, on the day determined in accordance with the regulations.”

[1405]

Would one be able to provide a notice of rescission…? Presumably not, since it says it “must be in writing and delivered to a franchisor…at the franchisor’s address.” I’m curious, because on the issue of the disclosure from franchisor to franchisees, it was widely viewed that e-mail was a sufficient method. Yet in the delivery of the document of rescission, it has to be on paper and in writing. Can the minister explain why e-mail wouldn’t be used in this case?

Hon. C. Oakes: No other jurisdiction in Canada currently allows a notice of rescission by e-mail. But it’s part of the course of development, as we look at the regulation, that we are breaking new ground on the Franchises Act that we are bringing forward. That is why it’s so critical that we work closely with our advisory group to work through these types of discussions. We are breaking new ground within the regulations, looking at a number of things, including the electronic use for notice of revision.

A. Dix: So the minister is saying that it’s okay for a franchisor to send by e-mail pretty critical disclosure documents — we see throughout the legislation its centrality to the legislation — but it’s not okay for a franchisee to send one back.

I guess the question is…. I appreciate that, I guess, the answer is: no one else has done that before. But the minister was saying that this whole question of e-mail was one of the things she was proudest of in the legislation. So I’m curious as to: if it’s good enough for a franchisor to a franchisee, why isn’t it good enough for a franchisee to a franchisor? And why isn’t clarity on that point…?

I mean, the franchisor is much more likely to have the legal staff on board — although it frequently isn’t the case in B.C., which is kind of the wild west of these things — than the franchisee. Much more likely to have a wide number of franchisees and franchise agreements. They’re allowed to send it by e-mail, but the franchisee is not allowed to with respect to the right of rescission.

Given some of the issues in Ontario, with just this kind of provision in terms of disclosure documents, it does seem curious. If the minister could explain the difference between the section 5 explicit sanctioning of e-mail and section 6, which states: “A notice of rescission must be in writing and delivered to a franchisor.”

These are very different provisions. They’re obviously different documents. What’s the difference? Why not an e-mail for this? When it says it “must be in writing and delivered to a franchisor, personally or by any other prescribed method” — I guess, conceivably, regulation, but no — “at the franchisor’s address for service….”

Why the difference between the two?

[1410]

Hon. C. Oakes: We were guided by what is currently common practice with other jurisdictions around the disclosure documents, and electronic means of circulating disclosure documents is a common practice. Where it’s separate on the rescission side of the documentation, with respect that this is groundbreaking…. The advisory group’s advice is that we should be exploring this in further detail instead of embedding it in the legislation — exploring it in more detail when we look at moving it forward through regulation.

A. Dix: I’m just reading it. “A notice of rescission must be in writing and delivered to a franchisor, personally or by any other prescribed method, at the franchisor’s address for service or to any other person designated for that purpose in the franchise agreement.” Does that not exclude e-mail?

Hon. C. Oakes: “Any other prescribed method” could, in fact, include electronic mail.

A. Dix: I just want to be clear. The notice of rescission being in writing and delivered to a franchisor — that could be at an e-mail address. Is that what’s being suggested?

[1415]

Hon. C. Oakes: Yes, and that is what we are looking at addressing through regulation.

A. Dix: Including, just so I understand this, “at the franchisor’s address for service.” In that case, what the government is suggesting…. If it’s the case that that envisioned e-mail, why doesn’t it simply say e-mail?

This seems to imply, if you’re reading in plain language…. I just recall the provision of section 5 that argued, around statements of material change, that they “must be set out accurately, clearly and concisely.” This provision (3), “A notice of rescission must be in writing and delivered to a franchisor, personally or by any other prescribed method, at the franchisor’s address for service….” This isn’t clear or concise if we’re supposed to take it to mean that it could include e-mail.

I’m just curious. The minister is saying explicitly that they may allow such rescission documents to be provided by e-mail. If she is saying clearly that that’s the intent of this provision — although one would think the provision might be written differently if that was the intent — I’ll certainly take that as gospel from the minister — that that is in fact possible and that the intent of this wasn’t something different.

Just to be explicit, the minister is saying…. You know, these are critical issues, remember. There are critical timing issues here around 60 days. It seems like a long time — about the time of the federal election campaign, really, and another week, but it’s actually not that long once the documents come across.

On that note, I just wanted to be clear, just one last time. There was no explanation, other than that other provinces haven’t provided it. What’s the difference between these documents? Surely, the government isn’t suggesting that a disclosure document is somehow less important. I’m just curious. If we can just be clear one more time, is the government actually and specifically looking in regulation to allow e-mails to be a possible form for the delivery of this type of document? If so, why did they write this provision (3) in this way?

Hon. C. Oakes: Yes, the government is looking at that.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

A. Dix: We’re making such progress. I’ll take that as encouragement. I mean, I think section 6 passed considerably quicker than section 5.

Just specifically here, this involves a series of other people who can conduct a misrepresentation. All of these people are defined in the definitions section — “franchisor’s broker,” “franchisor’s associate.” What this talks about is the issue of damages. I wanted to just ask the minister about section (2), perhaps to explain, under section 7(2), why there would be any exception for this at all.

[1420]

Is what’s being envisioned here the idea that somebody knows it’s different and then somehow is playing a trick by relying simply on the statement of material change or the disclosure document, even though they know something else to be true, that there might be circumstances in which this has occurred under franchise law in another jurisdiction?

Why would there be a need for, shall we say, another section, section 8(1), to deal with these issues? Why isn’t 7(2) enough?

Hon. C. Oakes: This follows one of the B.C. Law Institute’s recommendations, and it’s about the fairness policy. It provides a franchisor or the person being sued with a defence, if the franchisor or person proves that the franchisee had actual knowledge of the misrepresentation or the material change and still entered into the franchise agreement.

A. Dix: Just on this question, I guess…. I suppose what is allowed for in the legislation is a challenge.

I agree that this is the recommendation of the Law Institute that we’ve all been relying on, and so on. I’m just asking this question. Doesn’t it in some ways take away from the need to provide accuracy in disclosure if one side can challenge — through an expensive process — and make the knowledge of the franchisee the subject of the defence?

In other words, what you’re allowing…. You’re creating a loophole which says: “If we disclose inaccurately.” But if we can somehow prove that they knew anyway, that’s a defence against disclosing inaccurately.

[1425]

Does the minister or the government not think that that might weaken the clear intent of the disclosure provisions, which is accuracy in disclosure?

S. Hamilton: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

S. Hamilton: I’m actually a little concerned the member for Surrey–White Rock isn’t here, because earlier I heard him introduce the greatest school in the world.

Interjections.

S. Hamilton: Oh, here he is. Wonderful.

He asserted that he had the greatest school in the world in the chamber.

Contrary to that, I’d like to introduce the greatest school in the world now in the chamber: the students,
[ Page 9591 ]
some 30 of them in the chamber and 30 more waiting in the wings to arrive, from Seaquam Secondary School in my riding, along with their teacher Ms. Hardman. Would the House please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. C. Oakes: It doesn’t, we feel, weaken the disclosure statement. It is around a fairness issue.

A. Dix: Well, I guess it’s enough to say that it doesn’t do it. I mean, what it does do is provide the defence to a misrepresentation of claiming that the franchisee knew anyway in some fashion. In that way, it is weaker than not allowing any exception under the law. So there may be some practical reasons why this is the case, including some legal ones, and that’s what the question was.

Hon. C. Oakes: Was that a statement or a question? If it is a question, could I kindly ask you to reframe it?

A. Dix: The issue is whether the existence, formally recognized, of an exception to this issue of misrepresentation — the existence of being able to claim, even though the disclosure document contains misrepresentation, that the franchisee in this case, because it would apply to the franchisees, might have known, anyway, to make that the subject of the defence — does seem, on the face of it, anyway — and it may be a necessary constraint on disclosure — to take away from the very strict need to have accuracy in disclosure.

Saying that we don’t agree isn’t an answer to that. It presumably is, in fact, a constraint, but maybe a necessary one. I am asking why it was necessary.

[1430]

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, the B.C. Law Institute put forward this recommendation. It is part of the uniformity act that is consistent with the other provinces that have this act. It provides franchisors with business certainty and also provides consistency and fairness across the country.

A. Dix: Just to be clear, the intent of this is to provide a measure of defence to the franchisor against specific circumstances where the franchisee can cite a misrepresentation but reasonably ought to have known that and should have asked questions about it.

The minister talks about other jurisdictions. Has this question been tested in case law in other jurisdictions? Are there cases where this defence has been successfully prosecuted using a similar provision to the law?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. C. Oakes: The member opposite alluded to reasonable knowledge. What this section actually pertains to is that defence is…. It has to be actual knowledge, so it’s much narrower in scope than the member opposite alluded to.

Again, the member is incorrect that the defence can’t be based on what is reasonable knowledge. In fact, in this clause, the argument is that it is actual knowledge.

A. Dix: I’ll ask a simple question. The government is basing this provision entirely on other jurisdictions. Have there been cases based on this section where people have proved knowledge is a defence against misrepresentation?

[1435]

Hon. C. Oakes: We are not aware of any significant cases that have dealt with this particular provision in the act. What I can say is that in order to achieve the uniformity across the provinces, we looked at a balance of the franchisors, but, again, we’d be happy to take another look to see if there are any specific cases.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

A. Dix: We’re, in some respects, on the same subject. Just one more question. Presumably, the concern here is that in spite of the fact that the disclosure document is supposed to be ironclad here, to make it an absolute offence would be a problem. That’s the reason for all of this, which adds to the complexity of the legislation, in fact, and creates potentially fact-based challenges of these issues of misrepresentation.

Is that the case? Is it just a means to provide some balance here for the franchisors in those circumstances, to be able to make some sort of defence? Even if they’ve misrepresented, if their intent was obviously not that, is that the case — to avoid this being an absolute case where, really, the franchisees win every time if they can prove any form of misrepresentation? Or is there something else at play here? This seems to be a fairly lengthy way of dealing with a relatively small class of cases.

Hon. C. Oakes: The hon. member opposite is correct that the intention of this section is to have a balance of rights for both the franchisee and the franchisor. Again, actual knowledge in defence has to be proven, and this is a very high threshold for franchisors to meet.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

A. Dix: This section, which addresses the issue of substantial compliance, is one that has been a discussion in the development of the Franchises Act and franchise acts
[ Page 9592 ]
everywhere. What the section says…. I think it’s important to…. We want to just have a small discussion here about what it means. It says:

“A disclosure document or a statement of material change complies with section 5 despite the presence of a defect in form, a technical irregularity or an error, if

(a) the defect in form, the technical irregularity or the error does not affect the substance of the disclosure document or the statement of material change, and

(b) the disclosure document or the statement of material change is substantially in compliance with this Act.”

[1440]

Presumably, the intent here is for us not to have legal actions based on what are essentially unintended errors in documents — misspellings, small misinterpretations. Is that correct? What the minister, I’m sure, will say in response to what I’m asking — because people will be relying on this in future — is that this isn’t intended to deal with anything substantive. In fact, in this case, a technical mistake is a technical mistake, and this hasn’t been relied on in other jurisdictions by franchisors to avoid compliance with agreements they’ve signed.

Hon. C. Oakes: That is correct.

Sections 9 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

A. Dix: This is an important section. It’s important to understand that British Columbia franchisees frequently have to go to other jurisdictions, often across North America, to seek, usually under very difficult circumstances…. Of course, you don’t go to another jurisdiction if you’re doing well or if the arrangement is doing well. You only go if the arrangement has put you in some difficulty, and in most cases, that includes financial difficulty. Often it’s with companies and circumstances which are imposing, essentially, the rules of foreign jurisdictions to British Columbia, whether they be Canadian national ones or whether they be American ones principally.

This is an important change, and I applaud the government for adopting this change.

As the minister, I’m sure, knows in her work on this, this has really no substantial effect, or will not have any additional burden, on anyone who is complying with the law elsewhere in franchise act jurisdictions. So from the franchisor’s point of view, this isn’t really a huge impediment except for those franchisors operating only in British Columbia or in the United States.

I just wanted to say on this one that it’s an important provision of the law, but also, it seems to me, it’s a reason why it’s important to proceed with some speed with the bringing into force of the regulations of a law such as this. Right now there are franchisees in British Columbia who are engaged in legal action in the United States and in other Canadian jurisdictions because we don’t have a franchise act in British Columbia and we haven’t had one before.

I just make the point to the minister, because this is normal in debate, that these are important provisions and that they affect — and they could potentially affect, if there was a substantial delay in the development of the regulations — other British Columbia businesses and other British Columbia entrepreneurs who are dealing with this unfair circumstance.

Again, I encourage the minister to move with — what do they call it? — all deliberate speed in bringing into force the regulations.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

A. Dix: This is just important to know. I think it’s important in terms of the education done around these questions and why I think it’s also important that people understand and know their rights, not just through those that…. In British Columbia, there are franchisors that get their franchise agreements off the Internet without legal assistance, and they use the fact that this is a non–franchise act jurisdiction to do that. And there are franchisees who need to know their legal rights, who, if they’re buying franchises — and there are franchises that are relatively inexpensive as franchises go — wouldn’t be seeking legal assistance. Their rights cannot be waived in an agreement.

This is an important provision. It’s why I think that some education is required from the ministry, including information that at least points people in the right direction, in other languages. It’s so that this important provision of the act, that rights can’t be waived, that you can’t have an “If you want this franchise, this doesn’t really apply to us” kind of rule in place — that that not happen.

[1445]

This is an important provision, so I again encourage the government to do what I suggested earlier, which is to have an education campaign designed at potential franchisees, not just at the small community of franchise lawyers.

Sections 13 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

A. Dix: Having told the minister that we’re going to deal with issues around the regulations as we went through the bill, I won’t spend a substantial time on this section, which does just that.

Again, just on this section as we go through this, the last section, to say that I think, in this case, this is in some ways model legislation, in the sense that the B.C. Law Institute initiated, really of its own accord, the franchise act process — spurred on not by people in the community
[ Page 9593 ]
but by some lawyers who saw its necessity and centrality. They also provided, as the minister will know, draft regulations. Since the bill is very close to the draft bill, I assume the regulations may well be close to the draft regulations.

Again, to say that this is important legislation, one that people have advocated for and one that businesses and job creators have, in some cases, missed in British Columbia and have been hamstrung in British Columbia with the lack of just such regulation.

Just to make the point to the minister that this kind of legislation, designed to increase entrepreneurial activity, also increases the number of regulations we have in B.C. What is central, in fact, to the law in British Columbia — and to the success of businesses in British Columbia, beyond anything else — is not what’s in law sometimes but the rule of law and its application.

In this case, I’m sure the minister will agree, these regulations will improve the climate for business. This addition to the regulatory burden will improve the climate for business. All of these regulations that are pursuant to this, which will add to the regulatory total of the province, will improve the business climate in this case. We know that’s true, because all members of the House voted for the legislation at second reading and the government has brought it forward.

I just make the point as we go through the regulations, as we pass this section 16, which seeks to increase the number of regulations in the province, if not the regulatory burden, that we note the irony of that when it’s coupled with other legislation that’s before the House.

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Oakes: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:48 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 38 — FRANCHISES ACT

Bill 38, Franchises Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Introductions by Members

S. Hamilton: I would like to, at this time, introduce the second half of the contingent from Seaquam Secondary School and their teacher, Mr. Onukwulu. Once again, the member for Surrey–White Rock is also in contention for the best school in the world, but I think Seaquam’s got them beat. I also warned them about the rancour and ruckus and about how rowdy this stage of debating a bill can be, so they were on the edge of their seats expecting what we delivered. So I’m quite certain….

Interjection.

S. Hamilton: Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Polak: I call committee stage debate on Bill 34 and, Madame Speaker, beg the House’s indulgence for a ten-minute recess.

Madame Speaker: Granted.

The House recessed from 2:50 p.m. to 2:56 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 34 — RED TAPE REDUCTION DAY ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 34; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:56 p.m.

On section 1.

A. Dix: On section 1, the minister will know that this section of the bill establishes by law, by legislation, a red-tape-reduction day. This procedure of legislating a day has been done five previous times in the legislative history of British Columbia.

We have five laws on the books: one is B.C. Day, which is obvious; one is Holocaust Memorial Day; one is Terry Fox Day; one is Douglas Day; and the final is Family Day. Some of these have been legislated in this House since the minister was elected and, in the case of Terry Fox Day and Family Day, in the previous session of parliament.

Most of these pieces of legislation have come forward after very significant and broad public consensus around the need for them — and the centrality of those questions. Can the minister explain in any way how red-tape-reduction day meets the test of those five days?

You have B.C. Day marking our collective history, I think, as a province — one we all celebrate together, regardless of political stripe. Douglas Day indisputably, I think, most people in B.C. understand, and other jurisdictions have days named after famous historical figures.

Terry Fox Day — equally so. There’s probably not a member in this House who hasn’t participated in a Terry Fox Run or attended a Terry Fox Run or been part of that.
[ Page 9594 ]
Indeed, many of the family members of people in this House will have done the same.

Holocaust Memorial Day came out of an extensive process that went beyond the Jewish community. It was an enormous thing where everybody in the Legislature spoke unanimously and movingly about it. They didn’t give a partisan speech like the minister gave at second reading on this speech.

Family Day — well, one or two members voted against it, but they were voting not against the idea of the day. It recognizes, also, something collective in activity but is a significant day. There were one or two members, I think, who had concerns about the statutory holiday provision related to that day.

Can the minister explain how red-tape-reduction day meets the test of having a legislated day in British Columbia, and can she compare it with those other days and explain how this could in any way be seen as justifiable?

[1500]

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Red-tape-reduction day is a significantly important initiative for us to help us support our government’s commitment to looking at the removal of outdated and counterproductive regulations, to help save citizens the frustrations and unnecessary red tape that sometimes burden success in everyday life.

In stage 2, I had the opportunity…. Thank you very much to the members opposite for bringing forward lots of suggestions and ideas about what we should as government be looking at achieving for red tape. It was identified that as a government, we have supported red-tape reduction to the tune of 155,000 pieces of unnecessary, outdated red tape.

One of the members opposite asked a legitimate question: why can’t we legislate those types of initiatives? If this was a piece of legislation that looked at how we are going to be removing some of those 155,000 pieces of outdated red tape or regulations, that is something that we could look at.

Well, having brought forward a number of pieces of legislation, the idea of bringing forward legislation on 155,000 pieces of regulation and red tape that we have been able to reduce is just simply…. It would be a problem of bringing it in. So we’ve brought forward a day so that we can ensure we have a focused approach, a disciplined approach for this government and future governments to ensure that we are consistently working towards ensuring that there are pieces of unnecessary red tape that we look at. We are making that commitment to do just that.

A. Dix: Why does the minister think that red-tape-reduction day, and the partisan, pro-government speech she gave celebrating that, is at the same level as Terry Fox Day or Holocaust Memorial Day?

Hon. C. Oakes: This is a piece of legislation that we are bringing forward to ensure that this government and future governments remain committed to the significant work that we have been doing on ensuring that we have a net zero when it comes to red-tape reduction. It streamlines and modernizes the regulatory environment.

I may have had in the committee stage of this…. The reason why this is so significant is this is part of a secondary phase that we have launched as government, red tape for real people, where there is an opportunity across ministries, in every single ministry, to look at how we can be looking at ways to reduce red tape that supports frustrations.

The member for Delta South brought forward: why doesn’t government look at…? If you’re bringing forward reducing red tape, why aren’t we looking at other ministries? In fact, that is exactly what we are doing on red-tape reduction for real people. This is a considerable piece of that commitment that we are making to citizens across British Columbia to reduce, streamline and modernize the regulatory environment so it can keep pace with the needs of both citizens and businesses in British Columbia.

A. Dix: The minister gives another speech in this light. Five times in B.C. history — the whole history of this Legislature, 1871 to the present — we’ve legislated days. There are all kinds of ways. Government has all kinds of powers, by proclamation, which they exert hundreds of times every year to recognize days and weeks. But five times in our history we have used this mechanism, and all of those occasions have been done after significant consultation with the community and reflected our collective selves.

[1505]

This is true in other jurisdictions. You can’t find other political stunts like this in any other jurisdiction. We talked about a previous bill just in this House where the government relied on other jurisdictions. It’s the same purpose in Ontario, it’s the same purpose in Alberta, and it’s the same purpose in Canada — not for a government to trumpet its own horn but to recognize significant events in our collective history such as B.C. Day, such as Holocaust Memorial Day in British Columbia, such as Douglas Day, such as Terry Fox Day.

Can the minister tell this House why she thinks red-tape-reduction day is at the same level as Terry Fox Day and Holocaust Memorial Day? That is the purpose of this; it’s not a discussion of red tape. That’s the purpose of this legislation. It’s to say that there should be a sixth day — Holocaust Memorial Day, Terry Fox Day, Douglas Day, B.C. Day, Family Day and red-tape-reduction day.

One of these is not like the others in any way. All of those came forward after significant process and respected and reflect our collective spirit. Can the minister provide any defence, any defence whatsoever, why she has raised red-tape-reduction day to the same level
[ Page 9595 ]
as Holocaust Memorial Day — one defence? Will she address the actual question?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for raising that. Again, we remain committed as a government to ensuring that we are a citizen-centred government. We are listening to our constituents across the province of British Columbia.

I would draw the member opposite’s attention to a statement that the hon. member for Victoria–Swan Lake mentioned, that in his office, as constituent assistants, we do hear from citizens across British Columbia that there are ways that our government can look at improving the ways we do government.

Whether it is looking at ways that we make it simpler for people to register for organ donation…. And I do not think that there’s a member on either side of this House that doesn’t know how significantly important it is to ensure that we have processes in place to ensure things such as organ donation.

Whether it’s ensuring that there are opportunities to improve…. Again, the member opposite for Delta South said: why can’t we look at, through the Ministry of Children and Families, ways to improve the way government operates? I have heard through my constituency: are there ways through the Ministry of Agriculture that the RAPP line can be improved?

There have been a number of items across British Columbia where citizens have said that they want our government to be looking at how we can improve efficiencies, how we can be ensuring that we’re eliminating unnecessary, frustrating pieces of red tape that are barriers for citizens across British Columbia. This was a first step on that.

The second step of this is ensuring that we are doing a significant outreach across British Columbia to ensure that we’re engaging with citizens from all over British Columbia to ensure that they have an opportunity to provide to us those levels of frustration, those pieces of red tape that just do not make sense anymore.

This act, this Red Tape Reduction Act, is a significant piece in ensuring that we are citizen-centred, that we’re providing an environment that improves efficiencies and processes, and it ensures that by making it an act that the reduction of red tape and our commitment to net zero, commitment to 2019, is maintained.

[1510]

A. Dix: The question, for the member for Chilliwack-Hope, was why we felt red-tape-reduction day was at the same standard as Holocaust Memorial Day, and I’m glad that that answer was something he deemed worth celebrating.

I note the preamble to Holocaust Memorial Day.

“WHEREAS the Holocaust refers to the state-sponsored, systematic persecution and genocide of 6 million European Jewish men, women and children by the Nazis and their collaborators between 1933 and 1945;

“AND WHEREAS the Nazis also persecuted and murdered many other people because of their physical or mental disabilities, race, religion or sexual orientation;

“AND WHEREAS systematic violence, genocide, persecution, racism and hatred continue to occur throughout the world;

“AND WHEREAS the government of British Columbia is committed to using legislation, education and example to protect British Columbians from violence, racism and hatred and to stopping those who foster or commit crimes of violence, racism or hatred;

“AND WHEREAS the Day of the Holocaust, Yom Ha’Shoah, as determined in each year by the Jewish calendar, is an opportune day to reflect on and educate about the enduring lessons of the Holocaust and to reaffirm a commitment to uphold human rights and to value the diversity and multiculturalism of British Columbian society;

“AND THEREFORE HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, enacts as follows:

“Holocaust Memorial Day

“The Day of the Holocaust, Yom Ha’Shoah, as determined in each year by the Jewish calendar, is Holocaust Memorial Day throughout British Columbia.”

As I’ve noted to the minister, only a very restricted number of other days have been assigned legislative status in British Columbia. They reflect our shared history and our shared belief as a province, not efforts to celebrate one government at one point in time but our collective history and issues that have affected ourselves and our world.

There are numerous proclamations by the government on very, very important topics — including, by the way, Red Tape Awareness Week, which is already proclaimed by the government. So the need to do this is not necessary.

The question is to the minister. I’ve read to her the Holocaust Memorial Day Act. We can go over the British Columbia Day Act, the Douglas Day Act, the Terry Fox Day Act and the Family Day Act. Why does she think this act, this Red Tape Reduction Day Act, meets the test of having a legislative day in British Columbia? Because that is the purpose of the legislation.

Hon. C. Oakes: With all due respect to the hon. member opposite, that is not the intent of this particular act. This is an act that is consistent if you are looking globally at other jurisdictions that are looking at how they can make a commitment to reduce red tape.

For example, in March of 2014, Australia established legislation designating a day in the autumn and a day in the spring to repeal regulation. This Omnibus Repeal Day Act aims to repeal one billion inefficient regulations each year. I would remind the members opposite that you had the opportunity to meet with one of their MPs who was visiting several weeks ago. I had the opportunity to talk with that member about the importance of governments making these kinds of commitments.

The United Kingdom, as well, has legislation that provides broadly defined powers of the minister to remove or reduce regulatory burdens to promote effective inspection and enforcement, and establishes regulatory principles and a code of practice.
[ Page 9596 ]

New Zealand has the Rules Reduction Taskforce in place, which is a committee of politicians that holds meetings to find areas to cut red tape.

In 2011, California enacted into legislation Senate Bill 617 requiring each state agency to prepare a standardized regulatory impact analysis for the adoption, amendment or repeal of major regulations.

To the member opposite, this reduction day is ensuring that we are following what is modern across the globe and ensuring that we are maintaining our commitment to reducing unnecessary red tape and looking at how we support citizens with unnecessary red tape and frustrations.

[1515]

A. Dix: All this bill does, unlike what the minister is talking about…. It says: “The first Wednesday in March is Red Tape Reduction Day.” It establishes, by legislation, a day in this province, something that has been done five times in the past.

The minister apparently thinks that this day meets the standard of B.C. Day, Terry Fox Day and Holocaust remembrance day. I mean, I think it’s just an extraordinary statement, on the part of the minister, of disrespect for this process. There are already proclamations every year. The minister has already done this.

They bring this piece of legislation to the House, in spite of the fact that legislated days in British Columbia are absolutely intended to celebrate different things than this. This is something the minister just does. Can the minister explain…? Can she show elsewhere in Canada…? We have days where very similar histories are celebrated and very similar common values are celebrated in every jurisdiction in Canada.

Can she explain why she thinks red-tape-reduction day meets the same standard as Terry Fox Day, for example? Can she explain that? Can she explain how raising this…? There’s already a proclamation. They’ve already proclaimed a week. Yet this is something special that we do for extra-special things in British Columbia, extra-important things, extra-solemn remembrances. It becomes just another trick for the minister to give a partisan speech.

Hon. C. Oakes: The member opposite said that they support small business. My question to the member opposite…. Small business is upset that red tape is a significant burden that they have on businesses.

Hon. Chair, do you support the message that we hear from our constituent assistants from across British Columbia? They have said that they want to raise to government the opportunity on how their voices can be heard, to ensure — there’s unnecessary frustrations due to red tape — that there is a voice or a vocal point, that they can bring that to government.

This is about accountability. If the member opposite does not want accountability, then they should say so. This is about ensuring, through the red-tape-reduction day, that we have transparency, that we have accountability, that we are supporting small businesses from across British Columbia. This is what this bill is about supporting.

If the member opposite wishes to stand forward and say that they do not support ensuring that we are providing the best options with a citizen-centric government…

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

Hon. C. Oakes: …supporting small businesses across British Columbia, they should say so.

A. Dix: Just so everyone watching is clear, I asked the minister why red-tape-reduction day was at the same standard as Holocaust Memorial Day, and that is the pathetic response we got back. It is an embarrassment to that government that they engaged this. They passed new legislation — creating more red tape, presumably — to do this.

This is only five times — the Minister of Health thinks it’s okay — B.C. Day, Douglas Day, Holocaust Memorial Day, Terry Fox Day and Family Day — days that have all involved significant discussion beforehand.

The Minister of Health thinks it’s fine, that red-tape-reduction day, as described by the Minister of Small Business — when there’s already a red-tape-reduction week and when the cabinet could proclaim, along with hundreds of days and weeks, a red-tape-reduction day — that it’s okay, that this meets that test, that this is the same thing.

I’ve asked the minister this before. She gives another partisan speech, pointing fingers and everything else. It’s exactly opposite. I ask her to review every single debate on every single other day and see if anyone ever gave an attack on another person or party in the Legislature and used it as a pretext for that. They certainly didn’t do that on the Liberal side of the House when we collectively discussed Holocaust Memorial Day. We certainly didn’t do it when we discussed Terry Fox Day. We did no such thing.

[1520]

We saw no such pathetic example of a government that has no legislative agenda — none — bringing forward this kind of proposal instead of serious issues. We had a day that was moving for everybody. The same is true on B.C. Day, every single year.

I think that is what we’re doing here. We’re not having a debate, because this bill doesn’t do the things that the minister talks about. That, she deals with in a press release. All it does is say: “The first Wednesday in March is Red Tape Reduction Day.” Can the minister explain why red-tape-reduction day meets the test previously applied to things such as B.C. Day and Holocaust Memorial Day?

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, the Red Tape Reduction Day Act is a piece of legislation that we are bringing forward,
[ Page 9597 ]
which other jurisdictions across the globe have looked at, to ensure that governments have maintained their commitment to create a focal point, to ensure that we are continuing our net-zero commitment to 2019 on ensuring that we are not creating unnecessary red tape.

The member knows full well…. The member asked: “Why not a proclamation? Why wouldn’t you put a proclamation for red-tape reduction?” Proclamations do not hold our government or future governments to accountability for this necessary legislation to ensure that we are repealing, that we are reviewing, that we are reducing that we are ensuring that we’re meeting the test of ensuring that we are supporting reducing eliminating frustrations for citizens from across British Columbia, while supporting our economy to thrive.

A. Dix: Well, the minister just spoke to diminish the days that are proclaimed every day here by the government of British Columbia. Every Girl Matters Day, for example, just diminished by the minister. World Suicide Prevention Day. Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Prevention and Support Day. Consistent with the minister, all of those things could be brought forward in legislation, but they’re not. It’s seen, I think, even though those are extremely important subjects, that it is sufficient to have a proclamation, as it is sufficient in this case.

What the government has done is taken legislative action to say that there are five days that are enshrined in legislation, and this needs to be one of them. The minister simply does not and has not answered the question as to why red-tape-reduction day is more important than all of the days proclaimed by the cabinet that the member is involved with on a weekly basis.

Why is it more important, for example, than Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Week, which could also be enshrined in legislation? Why is it more important than Mental Health Week? Why is it more important than Asian Heritage Month? She’s lifted it above those levels. I think governments of every political stripe have done this, until this one. Until this Premier and until this minister and until this government, we’ve saved this process for a few select days — until now.

I’m going to ask the minister again, because she was here in this House when we passed Terry Fox Day. Does she really think that that day, where members on all sides got together — the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, the member for Port Coquitlam — and talked about how significant Terry Fox and the Fox family was in the life of British Columbia…? How does this meet that test? Why was it necessary to have a legislated day?

The minister just said, “Oh, it’s because we need a test in the future,” except there’s nothing in the legislation that supports her position. This is the only effective clause, the only effective section, of the legislation. So she’s simply wrong about that.

Can the minister defend, take this bill and compare it to any of those five bills, and say why this meets the test of, say, Holocaust Memorial Day and why it meets the test of B.C. Day or Terry Fox Day?

Hon. C. Oakes: We have been very effective as a government in ensuring that we are reducing unnecessary regulations — in fact, to the tune of over 155,000 pieces of unnecessary or outdated regulations.

[1525]

This act is about ensuring that we continue with this success of reducing unnecessary red tape. We are choosing to put it into legislation because that is how we can ensure that it is accountable. As a proclamation, it would not hold future governments to account.

A. Dix: The minister talks about holding future governments to account with a one-line bill. That holds them accountable for nothing, specifically. Except, what it does is it elevates what the minister just said.

This is talking about her government, the B.C. Liberal government. Think of these other initiatives — B.C. Day and Douglas Day. It’s not about the B.C. Liberals or the NDP or the Conservatives or Social Credit. It’s about British Columbia. And they want to acquire British Columbia and make it about them. It’s really disgraceful. I mean, there’s no defence.

The minister, apparently, is unable to provide any defence as to why they decided to go this route, which does none of the things that the minister says, because there’s no clause, there’s no section 3. It’s just section 1, which is one line, and section 2 that raise red-tape-reduction day — already proclaimed in the form of a week by the cabinet this year — to the same level as Holocaust Memorial Day, to the same level as B.C. Day, to the same level as Douglas Day, to Family Day and to Terry Fox Day.

The minister can take any one of those days, any one of those five days, and tell me why this legislated day meets the standard set by all of the previous governments of British Columbia. In 144 years, we’ve done this five times. Why does this meet the standard to be No. 6 of those previous five days?

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, red-tape-reduction day is a day that will ensure that we shine a spotlight on our progress towards reducing red tape in British Columbia. And it makes government formally and very publicly, every year, accountable to that commitment.

We are ensuring that there is a venue for citizens from across British Columbia to provide to us those outdated pieces of regulations, those processes, those forms that they feel are unnecessary or could be improved. We heard from the members opposite about forms that perhaps are too lengthy that perhaps, as a government, we could look at.

The legislation that we are bringing forward puts a spotlight on that. It is not to be comparable to days of
[ Page 9598 ]
significance in the sense that…. I, like all of us, know the significant contributions that Terry Fox has made to British Columbia. What this piece of legislation is about ensuring, as other pieces of legislation we bring forward, such as the Franchises Act…. We ensure that we have the ability to provide an opportunity for citizens to engage in government.

Every year on this day, citizens will be able to look to their government — whoever is in government — and say: “What have you done to ensure that you have continued to focus on reducing red tape or unnecessary burdens for the citizens of British Columbia?”

A. Dix: Can the minister name one business group that said that it was necessary to elevate red tape reduction to the same level as B.C. Day or Terry Fox Day? One business group?

Let me make it easier. One business that said raising this to…. Remember, there’s already a week, already proclaimed by cabinet. Is there one business in British Columbia that would publicly say that it is as important to have a red-tape-reduction day as it is to have a Holocaust Memorial Day? One business. Just name one.

Hon. C. Oakes: The Canadian Confederation of Independent Business asked for this legislation.

A. Dix: Does the minister think that they agree with this, that they agree that with five days in all the legislative history of British Columbia this should be the sixth?

[1530]

Does anyone think that the principles and ideas of those other five days are met by this partisan initiative by a Liberal government trying to celebrate itself by using a legislative and a legal idea that has been previously used only to celebrate our collective initiatives? Is there anyone who really has defended the idea that red-tape-reduction day meets the test of B.C. Day, Terry Fox Day or Holocaust Memorial Day? Name one.

Hon. C. Oakes: This isn’t an either-or. This is about ensuring that we have good governance. It’s ensuring that we have the proper housekeeping, as other jurisdictions from around the globe have introduced legislation into their Houses.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses identified to us that putting it into legislation as opposed to a proclamation ensures that there will be that commitment. It is not an either-or. It is about ensuring that we are doing a responsible, committed, focused, disciplined…. To ensure that we are putting a focal point on listening to citizens from across British Columbia and ensuring that we are reducing unnecessary red tape….

A. Dix: Can the minister name another jurisdiction where a government initiative is celebrated by a legislated day — another provincial jurisdiction of this kind? There are, I should say, in the province of Ontario significant numbers of days. They all do the same things that the existing B.C. days do — right? — either by reflecting international tragedies, such as events in the Ukraine and in Europe and other parts of the world that address our collective efforts to support children and families, that support our collective history. Ontario, for example, has a day celebrating Lincoln Alexander, who is a significant, more recent person in their history.

Can the minister tell us why? Can she find any examples of other Canadian jurisdictions that have proceeded in this manner? Because this is what we’re talking about. We are not talking about red tape reduction here. We’re talking about red-tape-reduction day, which, of course, adds to the legislative size of the province — the number of laws in the province. Can she find any other jurisdiction that uses days in this cheap way?

Hon. C. Oakes: The government of Canada and six provinces and territories do have laws that provide for the annual repeal of enacted statutes that have not yet come into force after a period of time. As well, a jurisdiction — Australia, as I mentioned before — established legislation designating a day in the autumn and a day in the spring to repeal regulations.

A. Dix: But remember, those…. They’re actually repealing regulations. Is that my understanding? I mean, this is simply incorrect. All we’re doing is having a sixth legislated day in British Columbia. That’s all the purpose of this is. There’s nothing else in the legislation. That’s all it is. The first Wednesday in March is red-tape-reduction day. That is all that it is.

What the government is saying, in its view, is that this meets the same test as all these other days — this is at the same test of Terry Fox Day — when it most clearly does not. This is legislative filler, which demeans that process. It doesn’t enhance that process.

They already have proclamations on this question. They already have them. We’ve passed motions in the Legislature on serious issues, and here they are in the Legislature filling time with this kind of debate which diminishes it.

I ask the minister again. Meet the test. Explain to us why this is more important than all of the other days and months you proclaim every year, and why it meets the test that this Legislature has done through all of its history over the last 144 years for days in British Columbia.

Hon. C. Oakes: It is not either-or. This is legislation as legislation has been brought in in other jurisdictions, such as Australia, and the benefits of this act will remove outdated and counterproductive regulations.

It saves time. It saves money and frustration on behalf of citizens who are searching and using government ser-
[ Page 9599 ]
vices. It also streamlines and modernizes the regulatory environment so that it can keep pace with the needs of citizens and businesses. And it makes it easier for businesses to understand and meet the regulations that they must comply with.

[1535]

This will be met through the test of ensuring that on one day — the first Wednesday of March — citizens, businesses, community groups across British Columbia can hold whatever government is in power to account.

G. Heyman: Could the minister explain which clause specifically in this bill or where in the particular clause we’re discussing this afternoon there is streamlining and modernization and elimination of unnecessary regulation and red tape?

Hon. C. Oakes: From this day forward, our government will be required by law to focus its efforts on red tape reduction. It provides a focal point for a citizen-centred process with improvements in government services. This is about ensuring that we have accountability, transparency, continuous improvement.

One day per year will be the focus — red tape reduction, regulation, repeal day.

G. Heyman: What specific, legally binding language in this act requires the government to do anything other than recognize a single day per year with the name red-tape-reduction day?

Hon. C. Oakes: Pure and simple, it’s the citizens from across British Columbia who, one day a year, know that they can look to our government to ensure that we report out and showcase and put a spotlight on the unnecessary red tape reductions that we have focused on — not just in small business but across ministries.

G. Heyman: The minister very clearly said that from this day forward, when this bill becomes an act, the government will be legally required to eliminate red tape. She has not answered the question about where in this bill the legal requirement exists. I would ask that she answer the question specifically. Where is the legal requirement for the government to eliminate red tape that is contained within this bill?

Hon. C. Oakes: It provides a focal point for citizens across the province on red-tape-reduction day to know that there will be a course throughout leading up to that where citizens have the opportunity to engage with the provincial government on ways that they can improve and do things more efficiently.

I think what is also critically important is we’re listening to our public service, who are saying that there are ways and there are pieces, within their particular ministries, that they can be improving things, whether it’s forms, whether it’s phone trees, whether it’s the way that we do business as government.

[1540]

By shining a focus on a red-tape-reduction day, it’ll ensure that progress will be made on important housekeeping and ensure we are maintaining our commitment to the citizens of British Columbia for efficient government.

G. Heyman: I’ve asked twice where the legal requirement that the minister claimed is contained within this bill, for government to reduce red tape, exists. Twice she has answered by saying: “It will provide a focal point for citizens.” If the minister cannot answer the question to tell this Legislature and the people of British Columbia exactly where in this bill a legal requirement exists that will hold government to account for eliminating red tape, a legal requirement for government, will she withdraw her previous statement, because it is misleading, if she cannot answer the question?

Hon. C. Oakes: We are required by law to have a red-tape-reduction day each year on the first Wednesday of March.

G. Heyman: How is the requirement to have a red-tape-reduction day the same as the requirement to actually reduce red tape, when in fact it just puts another piece of legislation on the books?

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, this will ensure that we remain focused on red-tape-reduction day of every year. There will be a requirement through law to have this day. What I provide citizens from across British Columbia…. We will be ensuring that we are doing the necessary outreach. We have started it, but we’ll be more formally enhancing upon that citizen engagement process across British Columbia to talk to citizens, to talk to folks in every single one of your communities about how government can be run more efficiently.

Are there pieces of regulation that just do not make sense? Are there ways that, as a government, we could do things better? If you are looking at, for example…. Say there is a form that takes 13 pages. Is there a way that we can actually look at making that a reasonable two-page form?

What this does. By making sure that we have legislation that ensures we have a red-tape-reduction act, it makes sure that every year the government will maintain its focus on what we have heard throughout British Columbia: that there is a strong need to ensure that the government continues with our efforts on reducing unnecessary red tape; that we are supporting engagement with citizens from throughout British Columbia and ensuring that the success that we’ve had on the small business side of reducing over 155,000 pieces of unnecessary
[ Page 9600 ]
red tape and regulation — that we are moving that more broadly across ministries within government.

G. Heyman: Perhaps the minister could explain to this Legislature and the people of British Columbia exactly which legally binding words in this bill require the government to go out and consult with British Columbians about reducing red tape or even provide an enabling provision for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to enact regulations to do that. Which specific words?

Hon. C. Oakes: I’ve just spent a considerable part of the day with the Franchises Act, a piece of legislation that I would suggest — well, I know — both sides of this House think and know is critically important. Within that, we know that we will go out and consult, and we’ll work on education with citizens from across British Columbia. It is not embedded within the legislation.

As other pieces of legislation, it is a piece of…. If you look at the Franchises Act, as you go to explore other pieces on the regulations…. As you go to create legislation, of course you go out and consult. But it’s not written into the legislation.

[1545]

G. Heyman: We are in committee stage on a bill. We’re discussing the sections of the bill and the words within the sections. Which specific words, was my question to the minister, require this government to do anything at all other than name a particular day?

Hon. C. Oakes: In section 1, the bill mentions the day of the act.

G. Heyman: As my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway has pointed out, it is quite within the power of cabinet to proclaim days and weeks for various events and various elements of awareness to recognize a variety of things, and in fact that has been done. That has been done with an entire week devoted to red-tape reduction.

It is, as the member for Vancouver-Kingsway and others have pointed out, a very unique and rarely used tool for an act of this Legislature to proclaim a particular day for a particular purpose. It has been used simply five times.

It is, at least according to my understanding, something that is done in a non-partisan nature with support from both sides of the House because of the importance of the act, the importance of recognizing a very specific and historic event in British Columbia history, something in the world that we wish everybody to learn from and never repeat, to recognize a very rare and unique individual, to celebrate a very important British Columbian holiday.

Twice in my time in this Legislature, we have been in the rotunda to note Holocaust Memorial Day on Yom HaShoah. Joining us in the rotunda are survivors of the Holocaust, their families, members of the community. They come because it’s important to remember what happened in the middle of the last century in Europe, when six million Jews, Roma, gay and lesbian people and others were murdered. They were disappeared.

It was a genocide. It was not the last genocide we’ve experienced in this world, and that is why people whose own lives and histories and families have been scarred by the Holocaust spoke so movingly in the rotunda of this Legislature about how it was not just a remembrance of the Holocaust. It wasn’t just Yom HaShoah.

It was important to understand that other genocides had taken place and that there has to be solidarity and common cause with other victims, with other communities. It had to be a process of recognition and solidarity and constant, constant reminder to people around the world but, particularly in the case of Holocaust Memorial Day in British Columbia, one of the five days recognized by an act of this Legislature, that acts of genocide can happen at any time and, in order to prevent them, we need to recognize what happened in the past, we need to honour the victims, we need to talk about the future, and we need to discuss the conditions that lead to such genocides. We need to educate. We need to be aware. We need to not pretend that it is simply something that occurred in history and is unlikely to ever happen again.

This bill would place red-tape-reduction day on a par with only five other days recognized by this Legislature. Is the minister intending to attend Holocaust Memorial Day in the rotunda of the Legislature next year and say to the assembled families of survivors of the Holocaust how their memorial day compares in import, impact and importance with a two-line act, an unnecessary act because it contains nothing concrete, nothing substantial and nothing enabling to actually reduce red tape — how the bill that recognized the horrors that they and their families and their communities lived through is now on a par with a day to reduce red tape?

[1550]

Hon. C. Oakes: Of course, on both sides of the House, when we look at the significance, importance, of recognizing days such as Holocaust Memorial Day, Terry Fox Day, B.C. Day, Douglas Day, it is critically important to us. This piece of legislation is not an either-or. This is an important piece of legislation to provide a focal point for our government, as other governments from around the world are currently doing.

I would like to quote, if I may, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which has stood forward and said that this piece of legislation is important. “In survey after survey, small business owners across Canada continue to say red tape is a top concern and express frustration that too many governments are not taking the problem seriously enough.” We are taking it seriously, and that is why we are introducing this piece today.
[ Page 9601 ]

I go on to quote Laura Jones from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. “It makes sense to have a specific day for the people of British Columbia to reflect on progress being made by their government on clearing out unnecessary rules, sweeping away old and cumbersome regulations and ensuring that red tape doesn’t clutter the environment for small business.”

It is not either-or. It’s about ensuring that as governments, we are continuously looking at ways to improve our efficiency, and this is an important piece in that.

G. Heyman: Earlier this year I was asked to speak at Holocaust Memorial Day in the rotunda of the Legislature. I believe I was asked to speak because I grew up in a household with my grandmother, who had been locked up in the Warsaw ghetto where so many people were killed. She escaped through the kindness of neighbours who smuggled her out.

I grew up in a household with a father who knew his parents had died but did not know how they had died, did not know where they had died — just knew that they had died, in all likelihood, either in a death camp or on their way to a death camp during the Holocaust.

We can make many decisions about how we recognize important actions that the Legislature can take. But there is a hierarchy of values. There is a hierarchy of impacts.

I would ask again of the minister why the minister believes that there is any similarity in the impacts and import of recognizing the reduction of red tape, as one of six days recognized by this Legislature in this province, is equal to the remembrance of the murder of six million people and millions of others in other genocides and the importance of raising awareness so that this will never happen again.

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, this is in no way meant to diminish any of the other days. It’s not an either or an or. This is about ensuring that we remain a committed focus to the important work of ensuring that we are looking at unnecessary red tape. Complying with rules and regulations cost Canadian businesses of all sizes $37 billion in 2014, including $5.2 billion in British Columbia.

[1555]

Small business owners believe that the regulatory burden could be reduced by about another 30 percent, for an annual savings to the economy of $11 billion. And 70 percent of business owners say excess regulation adds significant stress to their life.

This act is about ensuring we remain focused and committed to our focus on reducing red tape — ensuring that we are providing an environment that supports the greatest success for small businesses; ensuring that as we reach out to citizens across British Columbia, we are listening to ways, as a government, that we can do things more efficiently.

By ensuring that we are legislating a day and ensuring that the focus is maintained consistently, we will ensure that we move forward on the significant efforts to ensure that we are supporting removal of outdated and counterproductive regulations, that we are saving time and frustrations on behalf of citizens, that we’re making it easier for businesses to understand and meet the requirements that they must comply with.

It encourages investments from businesses attracted by a straightforward regulatory regime. It’s not either-or. It is about ensuring that we remain committed, that as government we have a focus legislated through a day in British Columbia when we shine a spotlight on maintaining our commitment to a net-zero regulatory count.

G. Heyman: I have stood in this House, other members of my caucus have stood in the House, and we have acknowledged that unnecessary or duplicate regulation need not and should not exist, that red tape should and can be reduced. Red-tape-reduction week is committed to that. We believe in that. We can support that.

My question to the minister was: how would the minister explain it to people who came to the rotunda of this Legislature next year in memory of Holocaust Memorial Day — in memory of six million Jews and Roma and gays and lesbians who were murdered or disappeared, whose families were scarred and who also, in the midst of their pain, recognized victims of the Armenian genocide and others?

Her answer, when I asked her how she would explain to them that the import of their day was the same as red-tape-reduction day, was that she equates it with $11 billion attributed cost to red tape and the unnecessary anxiety and stress on businesses, all of which every member of this House is committed to address in other ways. That was the answer of the minister.

My question for the minister this time. Should this House, for example, at some point in the future decide to come together and recognize the injustices that were committed against the First Peoples of this province and nation — the residential schools, the inequities, the taking of their land, the destroying of their property, the health risks that were introduced, the elimination of their languages — by something like an aboriginal reconciliation day, will the minister also put the same kind of price on that?

She can explain to the First Peoples, as she apparently is willing to explain to Holocaust survivors, that that is why she equates the importance of a day that may be proclaimed in the future for them, as it was proclaimed in the past in memorial of the Holocaust and that it is now on a par, in the view of the Legislature of the people of British Columbia, with red tape reduction.

Hon. C. Oakes: As I’ve stated repeatedly, this isn’t an either-or. It isn’t a comparison.

[1600]

This is a piece of legislation that we are bringing forward to ensure that the government maintains our focus, on an annual day, to ensure that we’re establishing a commitment to reduce red tape and the administrative burden imposed on citizens and businesses. This legislation demonstrates our commitment to institutionalizing ongoing reforms, streamlining and modernizing the provincial regulatory framework for good governance and economic well-being.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

V. Huntington: I’d just like to ask…. Or I’ll perhaps quote a couple of things that the minister has said in the last short while. She has maintained or has told us that this statute will “provide a focal point” for her government and her ministry and for the people of the province to hold her ministry accountable. It will ensure her government “maintains focus,” and it will ensure her government “remains committed and listening.”

I would like to just follow up on those comments and ask the minister: is she telling this House that without this statute, her ministry will have difficulty maintaining focus and remaining committed to red tape reduction?

D. McRae: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. McRae: Today I was here earlier, and I know the member for Delta North and the member for Surrey–White Rock were talking about what great schools they have. I think one said best in the country, and one said best in the world. Well, one of the best schools in the universe is happy to be visiting the Legislature today from the Comox Valley.

There are 28 students from Miracle Beach Elementary. They are joined by their teachers, their teaching assistants and parents to tour the Legislature and enjoy all that Victoria has to offer. Would the House please make Miracle Beach welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, this is about ensuring that we do have a focal point as a government, to ensure that we are maintaining our commitment to reduce red tape. We’ve had significant success, with the focus on looking at small business, with reducing red tape.

The hon. member for Delta South did, in the committee stage, ask a question: what about looking at social development? What about the feeling that there was a sense of disconnect or an expectation of citizen engagement? The member opposite raised that in the committee stage.

This is exactly the thoughtful type of dialogue that we are engaging in with citizens across British Columbia. We are opening up an engage B.C. to talk to citizens across the province. We would ask that you work with your CAs, if there are those items that come forward in your office, on ways that we can improve things in the various ministries.

We hear it regularly canvassed during question period: as governments, why can’t we work to improve the way governments do business? Why can’t we look at ways that we can be more efficient as government? Why can’t we look at ways to improve just the general nature of how we do business? That is the work that we are committed to doing. We announced and are working through this process of engage British Columbia.

Having a red-tape-reduction day is about ensuring that we maintain that focus. I know, all too often, within governments we get great ideas. We remained focused. We have ideas around civic engagement. As we go forward, sometimes future governments do not carry forward with that.

[1605]

We think civic engagement, citizen engagement, ensuring across ministries that we remain focused on good housekeeping, good governance and efficiency is critically important. The way to do this is to ensure that we have a red-tape-reduction day where we, as citizens from British Columbia, can hold the government to account.

V. Huntington: All I can say is that if it takes a statute of this nature to help the government maintain its focus on reducing red tape, then this province is in really bad trouble. I hope the minister actually listens to how she’s defending this really indefensible statute.

If the minister is serious in suggesting that I, for instance, ask my constituency assistant to keep a list of how we know — and we do know — how red tape could be reduced in social development ministries, perhaps she would like to elevate the quest for red-tape reduction to the level that this statute would suggest the government holds and create a non-partisan, all-party committee to help the government search for reductions in red tape, especially in the social ministries that I think haven’t received one single piece of attention, to date, from this project the government’s had since I arrived in this House and which I understand has been ongoing since 2002.

Would the minister consider striking a committee that would assist her and her ministry in looking for red-tape opportunities to reduce and create a better environment for the public to do work and receive assistance in?

Hon. C. Oakes: I think perhaps one of the frustrations I felt on this particular side is that in conjunction, on the day that we introduced this bill, we also introduced an engagement process that we are going to have across British Columbia. That is that we are opening up
[ Page 9603 ]
a significant dialogue with British Columbians across the province to engage with our government on how we can improve upon things.

There will be a series of questions that we are going to be asking citizens on how we can make those improvements. I think the first question is coming up very shortly. We announced this at the same time as we introduced this bill.

The frustration for me, and maybe it’s naïve, is that that background information on anytime a bill is being included…. I guess I miscalculated and made an assumption that people would read the background information of what this is — an overarching initiative that the government is taking.

I take that to heart. So as we start introducing the dialogue, which is happening this week, we’ll make sure that members on both sides of the House have a clear understanding of what that engagement will be looking like. We feel that the best person in the province of British Columbia to provide us with the feedback on how government can be working more efficiently is the citizen who is actually using the service of government.

We are going to be doing a comprehensive engagement process across British Columbia. There is a mandate in every single ministry to be reviewing and listening to what British Columbians are saying about what needs to be improved, whether it’s regulatory, whether it’s general housekeeping, whether it’s a form or what have you. The citizens of British Columbia have an opportunity to provide that forward, and within the mandate of every single minister, there is the commitment to work towards success.

V. Huntington: Again, I ask: why wouldn’t the minister then ask this entire House to assist the government in what she correctly states is an admirable pursuit — the reduction of red tape across the ministries? Why wouldn’t you ask this House to help you in that regard?

[1610]

Why wouldn’t you raise it to a level where the people in this province could trust the consultation process by making it non-partisan and part of the routine of this Legislature?

Hon. C. Oakes: It was, in fact, in the first reading. I identified exactly what we’re doing. There was so much heckling in the House that I do not believe anyone heard, in the first reading, exactly what the nature of the bill was meant to intend to do.

As well, it was in the backgrounder — the press release that was put out, in conjunction with the Red Tape Reduction Day Act, about this comprehensive engagement process that we are embarking on as a government of British Columbia — that every citizen in British Columbia has the opportunity to engage with us, to engage with their constituency assistants, to look at ways that, as government, we can improve.

We did ask every member in this House. I discussed it. I described it in the first reading of the committee stage of this bill. That is the frustration I feel. We have this engagement process.

Hon. Member, you mentioned: “Wouldn’t it be great if this is what it was about?” Well, that is exactly what the nature of this process is. It was described to members of both sides of the House. I just don’t think anyone read it.

V. Huntington: We read it, and we understood it. What I’m trying to say to the minister is that unless you want to try and include this House into an active engagement, it’s going to remain a piece of cynical — well, just cynical. Right through the public and by all members of this House, we understand what engagement with the public by this government means. I think a lot of that problem could be overcome if she really meant this — to include this side of the House in your process. But I’ll go on.

In light of the ministry’s focus on this issue, could the minister show us her project management schedule for the continuing, ongoing reduction-in-red-tape process that she and her ministry have established?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for that question. The process is that we’ve launched the engagement process. The first set of questions that we’ll be asking citizens from across British Columbia will be going out this week, on the red-tape reduction for real people in British Columbia. In December, it will be the first phase of us pulling together a review of that. A report will be produced in March around that. As well, we have an obligation to produce our annual report on achieving a modern regulatory environment. That is also a requirement of this process.

K. Corrigan: I have just a couple of questions. I’m wondering if the minister could define “red tape.” There’s no definition. If the minister could define it.

[1615]

Hon. C. Oakes: Red tape. We look at items that create administrative burdens — regulation of citizens, businesses; improving the quality of regulatory requirements; modernizing government processes; aligning services and processes into fewer, more accessible points of contact for citizens; providing citizen engagement opportunities and easy access to government information; and aligning regulation to reduce duplication across levels of government.

If the member opposite wishes to know where…. This is something that we table annually. It is in Achieving a Modern Regulatory Environment, through Regulatory Reform British Columbia. That describes red tape.

K. Corrigan: I don’t think that was a definition. I heard about engagement. I heard about duplication. I’m asking
[ Page 9604 ]
what the definition is of red tape. This act consists of one section, other than the beginning of it, the introduction — section 1, the only section. There are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten words, and two of them are “red tape.” I’m asking for a definition of what is red tape.

Hon. C. Oakes: Burdensome and often unnecessary government administrative processes and regulatory requirements.

K. Corrigan: Well, thank you. That wasn’t too hard.

Principles of Legislative Drafting says every word — this is the B.C. Principles of Legislative Drafting from about two years ago — of an enactment is intended to have meaning and legal effect. What is the expectation of the legal effect of this piece of legislation?

Hon. C. Oakes: In a situation like this, it would be defined by what is stipulated in a dictionary or other sources.

K. Corrigan: Is that the legal opinion you got from your legal drafters — that the legal effect of this would be defined in a dictionary? Have you received any kind of legislative opinion as to what the legal effect is of this? I’m just asking about what the legal effect is of the words in this one-line bill. What is the legal effect? What does it achieve?

To be clear, I’m not talking about all the things that government plans to do to draw attention to itself with this stunt. I’m asking about what the legal effect is of the words in this act and what advice the minister received as to what the legal effect was.

[1620]

Hon. C. Oakes: Hon. Chair, if you would permit me, I would like to introduce the team. I have a different team than the Franchises Act. With that, Jim Fowles, with legal; Tim McEwan, deputy minister; and Amber Crofts, on the policy. Thank you very much for coming and supporting us today.

To the member opposite, it declares the day.

K. Corrigan: I’m going to assume the answer means that there is absolutely zero legal effect from this act. The Principles of Legislative Drafting say that when you’re drafting a piece of legislation…. This is from the B.C. Principles of Legislative Drafting. The drafting is giving a legal opinion, based on the application of the principles of statutory interpretation, that the words they are writing will have the intended legal effect. So what the minister is saying is that this piece of legislation has absolutely no legal effect.

My question is to the minister. If this piece of legislation has no legal effect — other than to declare that we have a day which has absolutely no content, no meaning, no legal effect — then why would it not be the very first piece of legislation that is scrapped for red-tape day?

Hon. C. Oakes: Our legal counsel places interpretation with the plain meaning of the name. The member asked how we define red tape. We look at the plain-meaning interpretation of that.

K. Corrigan: I don’t intend to pursue this anymore. It is a horrific waste of time to be dealing with this horrific act that belittles and demeans the other very worthwhile days — like Holocaust Memorial Day, Family Day, Terry Fox Day. It certainly diminishes the stature of those days by putting it in the same class.

I will say that the minister has acknowledged that this will have absolutely no legal effect. Therefore, it is absolutely redundant, unnecessary and would fit the minister’s definition of red tape for red-tape-reduction day.

A. Weaver: I have a number of questions. The first couple will build upon some of the earlier questions, and I want to follow up with that.

The minister, in response to the member for Delta South, suggested that in the first reading of the bill, the issue and notion of consultation were raised. I’d like to correct the public record on that and ask the minister further on that. In the first reading, which I have before me, it says:

“I am pleased to introduce Bill 34, the Red Tape Reduction Day Act for 2015. Bill 34 introduces a commitment by our government to host an honorary day devoted to reducing red tape through regulatory reform and the repeal of outdated or unnecessary regulatory requirements on the first Wednesday of March of each year. This legislation institutionalizes accountability and transparency of regulatory reform. It demonstrates our government’s commitment to ongoing…commitment to reduce the red-tape burden imposed on citizens and small businesses.

“Since 2001, we have reduced regulatory requirements by over 43 percent. Bill 34 will impose on government a requirement to reduce red tape and demonstrate its continued commitment to regulatory reform on the first Wednesday in March of each year. Reducing the regulatory burden on citizens and small businesses is critical to ensuring British Columbia’s economic competitiveness and providing all citizens with easy access to government services and programs.”

[1625]

There is no mention of any consultation in first reading.

May I ask the minister if she will correct the record — agree with this for the Hansard record?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you. I actually meant second reading. My apologies.

A. Weaver: Another thing the minister said, which I think is very telling. As a direct quote, the minister — in response to, I believe, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway — said this: “This act, this Red Tape Reduction Act, is a significant piece in ensuring that we are citizen-centred, that we’re providing an environment that im-
[ Page 9605 ]
proves efficiencies and processes, and it ensures that by making it an act that the reduction of red tape and our commitment to net zero, commitment to 2019, is maintained.”

Now, there are two questions that come from that. The first question is…. The minister refers to “Red Tape Reduction Act.” As far as I can tell, there is no red-tape-reduction act before us. My first question to the minister is: are we to expect a red-tape-reduction act in light of her comment earlier in the discussion today?

Hon. C. Oakes: I dropped the word “day,” obviously, in that statement. Thank you for allowing me to correct that in Hansard.

A. Weaver: My second question on this statement, then, is: what does the minister mean when she refers to “our commitment to net zero”? Is this a commitment to: if you add a regulation, you must remove a regulation? Could the minister please expand upon this?

Hon. C. Oakes: We made that commitment publicly, on a net zero to 2019. We report out on that in our annual report Achieving a Modern Regulatory Environment, which we put out each year.

A. Weaver: If ever there was proof that there’s nothing liberal about the B.C. Liberals…. I would refer members to the Statutes of Canada, chapter 12, assented to on the 23rd of April, 2015, wherein the Harper Tory government introduced a bill. This bill was entitled as follows: the Red Tape Reduction Act.

Now, the federal government made a big deal of this Red Tape Reduction Act, wherein it legislated, as a matter of law, that the requirement to add one regulation must be met with removing one of similar magnitude. That didn’t serve them very well, did it?

It’s a glorious day to be talking about the red-tape-reduction day here in the Legislature. We saw what happened when the public turned against a government that became cynical towards the people it represents. Here we have the same thing manifesting itself right before us: this government proposing Red Tape Reduction Day Act.

My question, then. Who in the general public has the ministry actually consulted, with respect to people — not organizations, the one organization that was quoted — individual people? I have heard, literally, from scores of constituents who are absolutely offended by the introduction of this bill. Who has the government consulted in preparation of the bill before us?

[1630]

Hon. C. Oakes: The member opposite had a few questions in that. I will start. He asked the question of who we’ve heard from. Survey after survey of small businesses continue to say that red tape is top concern and express frustrations that governments are not taking the problem seriously enough.

To the second part. This government is committed to ensuring that we have citizen engagement. That is why, if you look at the citizen engagement process that led up to the liquor changes, the liquor reform included more than 40 meetings and 2,000 stakeholder e-mails. There was a significant level, by our government, to ensure that we had citizen engagement.

We had citizen engagement on the distracted driving, engagement with citizens of British Columbia. We engaged with citizens on the ten-year transportation plan — the ten-year British Columbia on the Move.

In the same respect, red-tape reduction for real people will ensure that we are doing citizen engagement across the province of British Columbia, with the commitment to ensure that we maintain focus on what we have heard is significantly important for British Columbians.

Further, we have, as we’ve mentioned earlier, a process in place where we will be capturing a number of questions from citizens throughout British Columbia. We’ll have a formal process to put that information out to the public so that members on both sides of the House can read what citizens are saying throughout British Columbia. Then there will be the opportunity, through the Red Tape Reduction Day Act, to ensure that government is accountable.

A. Weaver: I take that answer as nobody is being consulted. Clearly, we’re not talking about liquor regulations here. We’re talking about the Red Tape Reduction Day Act. We’re not talking about distracted driving. We’re talking about the Red Tape Reduction Day Act.

We’re not talking about these other acts that the minister referred to, and we’re not talking about reducing red tape. Every single person on this side of the House, the independents and the official opposition, would agree that red tape that exists for the sake of existing should be reduced.

However, we’re discussing why this act came to be. The only answer, for the record, based on this response and previous responses, is that not a single individual person in British Columbia was consulted. It was dreamed up as gimmick, a cynical gimmick, in back rooms.

[1635]

Now I’ll come back to another specific question. The member for Surrey-Whalley introduced a private member’s bill called the Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (“Holodomor”) Memorial Day Act. Now, that bill was personal to me, because as I spoke, when Holodomor was recognized in this Legislature, I discussed my family’s history, my family who grew up and lived through Stalin’s collectivization of farms. Yet this act was not even brought through first reading to second reading to discuss.

We are debating the Red Tape Reduction Day Act, and we are not even willing, in this Legislature, to debate
[ Page 9606 ]
the Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (“Holodomor”) Memorial Day Act. What message is this government sending to the Ukrainian community in British Columbia? Let me tell you what message this is. This is a message that you don’t matter, but red-tape reduction matters.

My question to the minister is: will she encourage her cabinet colleagues to bring the Ukrainian Famine and Genocide Act forward subsequent to this bill?

Hon. C. Oakes: The member opposite knows that that is just untrue. The member opposite knows that it’s not an either-or. This is a piece of legislation that we are bringing forward to ensure that we have a focus, a focus on ensuring that we are reducing unnecessary burdens and red tape.

The member is also untrue when the member said that we did not talk to people. I would like to know if the member opposite thinks that small businesses aren’t people. The last I looked, small business owners have a right to communicate with government. Small business owners are individuals that are important.

We heard from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. We heard from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. We heard from the Coalition of B.C. Businesses that this was important. We heard from small business owners on the front lines of dealing with everything from dumb rules to lacklustre government service.

The simple fact that the provincial government is open to hearing some of these issues firsthand through their new public engagement strategy on red tape is a great way to kick off Small Business Month.

Members on both sides of the House were at our rotunda to celebrate the importance of small businesses in British Columbia. I expect that members on both sides of the House…. We have heard them say before that small businesses are, in fact, important in British Columbia. They have said that reducing red tape was critically important to ensuring that they are successful.

We are listening. We are going to continue the important consultation that we have committed to, not just for small businesses. We are going to commit to ensuring that this engagement process is cross ministries. We are ensuring that in every single minister’s mandate letter, there is a responsibility to take action on what we have heard from citizens throughout British Columbia, and we’ll be showcasing that on red-tape-reduction day, the first Wednesday of March.

A. Weaver: Wow. It may come as a surprise to realize that I didn’t think that businesses were people. In fact, businesses are businesses, and people are people. Businesses don’t vote; people vote. People are the ones who elect governments — not businesses, not unions. So clearly, no people were contacted with respect to this bill.

Coming back to the question of small business, this side of the House is very supportive of small business. But the actions matter. Gimmicks don’t. Red-tape-reduction day is not helping small business. As the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake pointed out, it’s actually creating red tape, ironically. The fact that we’re debating this, ironically, is creating more red tape.

[1640]

As a final thing on this topic, I’d like to correct the record again. The evidence is very clear. The minister said that it’s not either-or. The evidence is clear. The member for Surrey-Whalley put forward a private member’s bill, which is on our order papers. That private member’s bill was the Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (“Holodomor”) Memorial Day Act. That bill was never brought to this Legislature for discussion. That is a fact. Anybody can go to Hansard to check it.

The Red Tape Reduction Day Act — we’re discussing it now at committee stage. The facts are clear. This government cares more about its cynical, small business apparent…. It’s actually not. It’s increasing red tape. It’s caring more about a gimmick — it’s not about reducing red tape — than the actual issues out there that matter to British Columbians.

My question to the minister again is this: have you discussed with the Ukrainian community of British Columbia with respect to whether or not they support your act here to create red-tape-reduction day and not even bring for discussion the Holodomor act that the member for Surrey-Whalley brought forward?

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, the member opposite knows full well it’s not an either-or, that this is about introducing a focal point of our government that we’ve heard from citizens across British Columbia is important. It makes sense to have a specific day for the people of British Columbia to reflect on progress being made by their government on clearing out unnecessary rules, sweeping away old and cumbersome regulations and ensuring that red tape doesn’t clutter the environment for small business.

Small businesses — survey after survey after survey — have identified that red tape is a concern and a frustration to them if governments do not take it seriously. Complying with rules and regulations — and the member opposite talked about the federal approach to red-tape reduction — cost Canadian businesses of all sizes $37 billion in 2014, including $5.2 billion in British Columbia. Small business owners believe that the regulatory burden could be reduced by about 30 percent, for an annual savings to the economy of $11 billion.

I would suggest to British Columbians that reducing unnecessary red tape and burdens and ensuring that we are creating a competitive environment for small businesses is important to British Columbians, while enhancing the process that we are doing to engage with British Columbians across ministries to ensure that the success we’ve had with small businesses — that support — can
[ Page 9607 ]
be engaged through citizen engagement, through ministries across government.

A. Weaver: Well, of course. We all agree with that. But this bill is not reducing red tape. We’re not discussing reducing red tape. We’re discussing legalizing a day in March that is known as red-tape-reduction day. That’s what we’re discussing, and we’re discussing section 1 here.

Which brings me to an obvious question that I’m surprised has not been asked yet by the official opposition. Why was the first Wednesday in March chosen as the date? Why are we choosing that date?

[1645]

Hon. C. Oakes: We wanted to ensure that the day that was selected was one that coincided with the Legislature being in session so that any outdated regulation or repeal of regulation could be included in the reconciliation count database. We do a reconciliation on a fiscal year basis, which ends March 31.

A. Weaver: Well, it’s the appropriate time that I bring forward and move the amendment which I have on the order papers on notice, that I amend this section 1 as follows:

[SECTION 1, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

Red Tape Reduction Day

1 The First Wednesday in March is April 1st is Red Tape Reduction Day]

This has been on the order papers for a while, and I’ll give an explanation as to why, once you grant me permission to do so.

On the amendment.

A. Weaver: On the amendment, the rationale is twofold — well, threefold. The rationale is threefold.

First, in the spirit of this legislation I’m reducing three words in the bill — three words are being reduced. So now it is “April 1st is Red Tape Reduction Day,” as opposed to the first day in March is red-tape-reduction day. So the government should like this. We’re reducing some red tape.

Secondly, unlike the government, I’ve talked to people. I will quote a person who actually supports me in this. His name is Lawrie McFarlane. He wrote an editorial in the Times Colonist, and in this editorial, he outlined numerous pieces of red tape that have actually grown under this government’s watch — numerous pieces. I won’t have the time to read them all, but he does end his argument — it was done last week — with the following words: “If the Premier must persist in this ridiculous celebration, April Fools’ Day would be a better choice.”

I have actually quoted a person, a real person. The government has just cynically brought this bill forward in some back room trying to trumpet its own successes. And not only that. I must quote this one example. The one example that this person raises which justifies bringing this to April Fools’ Day is as follows: “And the list of fineable traffic infractions has been expanded to such an extent (I count 132) that you’ve broken the law before you get out of your driveway in the morning. Do we, for instance, really need an $81 fine for driving over a firehose?”

I could go on and on here. So the rationale for this amendment is first, it saves red tape. Second, I’m actually quoting people. I have people who’ve supported me on this, including emails and Facebook posts that I’ve read.

[1650]

Third, it sends a message to the government that this side of the House is, frankly, disturbed by this cynical bill, this bill that puts red-tape reduction on the same level as Terry Fox Day, B.C. Day, Family Day, Holocaust Memorial Day — the same level we have red-tape-reduction day. We’re going to have kids in schools standing up and taking a moment of silence for it and now put in the curriculum modules to talk about red-tape-reduction day. Shall we re-engineer our education system for red-tape-reduction day as well?

It’s remarkable. This bill is a joke. It should be treated as a joke, and so I move that the date be put to April 1 instead of the first Wednesday in March.

Hon. C. Oakes: Well, it is no joke to small businesses in British Columbia — the value of red tape reduction. And if the hon. member opposite wants to actually listen, perhaps he should go out and listen to small businesses.

To the member opposite: are you suggesting, with your brilliant idea of April 1, that we now meet Fridays? Is that what your suggestion is? We chose this day to ensure that we had the ability that it reflect that if there were legislative repeals or reconciliation, that they would be able to be accommodated before the end of the fiscal year.

Small businesses are critically important to us, as are citizens across British Columbia. We remain committed to listening to them. We remain committed to understanding their value, their significance in this province, and this is a piece of legislation that will support them in their success.

H. Bains: I would like to speak on this amendment. As much as I sat here and looked at this bill and how we are making a mockery of this democratic system and of this House’s time, this amendment also doesn’t do justice to all those important days that we have declared previously — B.C. Day, Terry Fox Day, Holocaust Memorial Day. Those are important days. To have this bill on April 1, on April Fools’ Day — first of all, it does not match, even come close to, the importance that we have given to those very, very important days.

And this bill itself doesn’t do anything. It’s a waste of everybody’s time. It does not do anything to reduce red tape. We talked about it before. Speaker after speaker said that this bill had nothing to do with reducing red tape. But having an amendment to have a day declared on April
[ Page 9608 ]
Fools’ Day — I think it clearly diminishes the importance of declaring all those important days that we have declared previously. So I must speak against that amendment.

Again, failing having any definition…. I looked at a number of bills here, and in every bill — a new bill that was brought in — there’s a definition to everything that goes into the bill to define what that is. The minister stood up and read something from the annual report — that that’s supposed to be the definition. Why isn’t a definition included in this bill? It just does not make sense.

[1655]

We were brought into this House, rushed in, brought earlier, changed the whole calendar. We thought there would be some important business to do here. What did we do? None of the important issues are before us, and now we’re talking about an amendment to this Red Tape Reduction Day Act. I just don’t think it does any justice or that the importance that this House has given to all those important days that are declared prior — that we match this one somehow. Also, to do it on April Fools’ Day does not make sense, so I, with respect, must disagree with the mover.

I think those days are so important that we should not turn this into a joke. I think that this bill itself is a joke, in my view, but it should not sit along with all those important days that we have already declared.

A. Weaver: I’d like to speak on the follow-up there. I accept the arguments from Surrey-Newton, and I respect those arguments. I agree with those arguments that the amendment will not actually do justice to the day. My concern, of course, is that this bill is going to be brought through by a government that’s going to vote it through, despite the fact that we’ve had some….

Well, we haven’t actually had opposition to it. At second reading, the opposition voted for it. I don’t quite understand it, but the fact is that this bill is going to get put through. I do accept that, but I will still leave it on here as just a statement, because I do think that this is telling government that this is not what people of British Columbia want.

This is not about small business. There is only one provincial party in the province that’s actually looking after the interests of small business. It is the B.C. Green Party. To say we’re not concerned about small business, when we run a series of articles celebrating small business….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Oh, I’m joking about that. The member for Saanich South is concerned about my statement about the only party. The reality is that the statements are so ludicrous that it’s implying that because we don’t support red-tape-reduction day, somehow we’re against small business. It makes no sense. So I rest with this on the amendment, and I certainly hope government will support in recognizing that this bill need not pass.

If it does pass, it is considered a joke. It’s considered a joke by all of the pundits out there. It’s considered a joke by the people that I’ve spoken to. It’s considered a joke by the small business owners that I have spoken to. The only people who don’t think it’s a joke is this government. It’s shocking.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order. Order.

V. Huntington: I think what the debate going on across the floor here was all about was whether or not we’ve spoken to our small business community about red tape. Yes, I think we’ve all spoken to our business community about the need to reduce red tape. That’s what we’ve been saying on this side of the House for days and days, ever since this silly piece of legislation was introduced.

Reducing red tape does not mean that you have to proclaim by statute a red-tape-reduction day. When I spoke to this bill at second reading, I called it an insult to our democratic institutions and to the people of this province.

The Chair: Member, on the amendment.

V. Huntington: On the amendment.

It’s an insult to suggest that a legislated or even proclaimed red-tape-reduction day would do anything to reduce red tape, no matter what day of the year it falls on. And it’s a further insult to enact a day as puerile as this when, as the member for Vancouver-Kingsway said, it is given a precedence over recognitions like Terry Fox Day or Holocaust Memorial Day.

This bill is an embarrassing waste of our time, and I’m afraid my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head may be giving this legislation a little more attention than it deserves. But I believe that his amendment is a supportable one, and I will be joining him in treating this bill with the disrespect that it deserves.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers for the amendment, I’ll put the question.

[1700]

Amendment negatived.

A. Weaver: I was concerned that in fact this would fail, so I did provide the Clerk with a proposed additional amendment. I move as follows:

[In Section 1 by deleting text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

Red Tape Reduction Day

1 The first Wednesday in March is The second Tuesday in May in the fourth calendar year following the general voting day for the most recently held general election is Red Tape Reduction Day]

On the amendment.

A. Weaver: The reason why I’m proposing this is that I borrowed language from our constitution act, very important language from our Constitution (Fixed Election Dates) Act. Now in my view, the most efficient way of reducing red tape would be to eliminate the government, vote out the government that brought in all the red tape in the first place.

The logic behind this proposed amendment is unarguably that a government that brought in the red tape surely should be celebrated, and we should celebrate that on the fixed election date when the government is voted out and replaced by another government that will reduce red tape.

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, you are making a mockery of what we’ve heard from small businesses across the province. We will not be supporting that amendment.

I would remind the member opposite of the importance of small businesses in our communities across British Columbia in creating jobs and in driving the economy of British Columbia. In survey after survey after survey, small business owners across Canada continue to say that red tape is a concern and express frustrations with governments that do not take the problem seriously. We take the problem seriously, and that is why we are introducing this act.

Further to that, complying with rules and regulations, with Canadian businesses of all sizes, costs businesses $37 billion in Canada. It is important that we remain committed and focused on ensuring that if there is regulation, we can reduce regulations and unnecessary housekeeping to support a growing, vibrant small business economy in British Columbia — that we do everything we can to maintain that.

The member opposite makes a mockery. I would have expected more, with the amendments that you have put forward. The fact that you have not even done the research to understand the day that you are bringing forward the information makes a mockery to small businesses across British Columbia and to citizens who have asked us in constituency offices and who have asked us through public engagement that they want to see our government look at ways that we can improve governance efficiency and that we should be committed to housekeeping and that we should be looking at a day that we can measure the performance. We will be doing that by having this legislation, Red Tape Reduction Day Act.

A. Weaver: Let’s be very clear. I am not making a mockery of small business. I am making a mockery of this government. This government somehow believes that it is helping small business by bringing in a day — a day that is legislated — called red-tape-reduction day.

Small business cares about red tape. They care about action, not about inaction. They care about policies being brought in, not gimmicks — red-tape-reduction days brought to the same stature as Holocaust Memorial Day or Terry Fox Day or B.C. Day or Douglas Day or Family Day and brought above the stature of the Ukrainian genocide on Holodomor Memorial Day, which we can’t even debate here.

Yes, I am making a mockery, but it is a mockery of this government’s lack of vision. It is a mockery of this government being out of ideas. It’s a mockery of this government’s inability to deal with red tape, so it has to pat itself on its back to claim that it will through the introduction of that day.

With that, I will look forward to the vote on this particular amendment.

[1705]

Hon. C. Oakes: To the member opposite: you can’t have it both ways. Action is 155,000 pieces of red tape that we’ve reduced on small business. Action is about being the only jurisdiction in Canada that has the vision to do this exact commitment, to ensure that we have this focus. Action is what we’ve heard from stakeholders throughout British Columbia. Action is about the Canadian Federation of Independent Business giving the government of British Columbia an A for the efforts that we have made.

Action is about ensuring that we remain committed to listening to citizens through an extensive engagement process, understanding from them the unnecessary red tape that is burdensome to them, that’s a frustration to them, and ensuring that we have a performance measurement process. By that, we have the Red Tape Reduction Day Act.

A. Weaver: With that, I must rest my case by saying that I certainly hope I don’t get a $81 fine on my way home for driving across a firehose.

Amendment negatived.

B. Routley: Well, I’m tempted to use the word “jiggery-pokery.” I do want to reserve on that, and let me tell you why. I’m sure a lot of folks in this room look at me and say: “Oh, there’s old Union Bill.”

Well, the fact is that I was a small business owner, along with my wife, back in the 1990s. My wife wanted to buy a Decorating Den franchise. I actually joined with her in the purchase of the Decorating Den business. She had a van and all of the paperwork that went along with that. Some would call it red tape. My wife really doesn’t like red tape herself. She doesn’t like it. She calls all paperwork “red tape.” I found that I spent a lot of my evenings doing this paperwork for the small business.

So in spite of what people may think, I am concerned about the issue of red tape. But I’m alarmed to hear the vision of this government and what’s been stated here today.
[ Page 9610 ]

Now I’m to believe that this minister…. And I want to hear this answer from the minister herself. All of the cabinet ministers, all of your MLAs, even opposition MLAs are now urged to focus like a laser beam of light on a day. A Wednesday in March is red-tape-reduction day. No other day of the year is red-tape-reduction day, so we’re going to ignore the wishes of small business throughout British Columbia to reduce red tape on an ongoing basis. Why can’t we do red tape reduction tomorrow and the day after that and the day after that? We should be able to do red tape reduction anytime it stands in the way of small business in British Columbia.

You know, just last week I was down, and Mr. John Les, I can now say, was with me on an agricultural tour, a small business tour. We were touring, and there was one of these small businesses that I’m sure the minister is referring to and that she was talking of.

They were standing out there telling me how they had three different Liberal ministries to deal with. It took them more than two years to get their cheese business started with goats because of all of the red tape that this government forced on these four young farmers trying to get started in the Cowichan Valley. Could they get started? No. And now I have to be alarmed and report back to them that we can’t do anything until red-tape-reduction day, because we have to save it up.

[1710]

I want to know from the minister, does she look forward to her ministers in the cabinet…? Has she served instructions on everyone to bring forward only on this day, these red-tape-reduction days…? Does it not count if you eliminate red tape on a day other than reduction day? Well, I guess that’s a follow-up question — on whether that will count on red-tape-reduction day.

Back to the original question. Are we to hold all of our red tape until this magic day of the first Wednesday of March, which is the red-tape-reduction day?

Hon. C. Oakes: I appreciate the passion of the member opposite, the same member that I believe had not two kind words to say for our chamber of commerce organizations.

The type of work that we are looking at…. We went through the process. The member for Delta South asked what the process will be. We’ve opened the engagement process. There is a process in December where, again, there are those checks and balances. As well, in March, as we have stated before, there will be that opportunity to reconcile those pieces of regulations that we need to look at before we go to the Public Accounts at the end of March.

The hon. member mentioned the importance of agriculture. I, too, have a passion for ensuring that we’re supporting our agricultural communities. One of the things I’ve heard in my constituency office and I’m sure the members opposite have heard as well, across the aisle, is that sometimes the RAPP line is an area that we could improve. I’ve heard that in my office. So I’ve encouraged our citizens in my community to put that type of engagement process in Engage B.C., to provide that feedback to government that we should look at that.

As well, we heard from engagement processes that we needed to modernize the Animal Health Act. With the implementation of the new Animal Health Act, we’re better equipped to manage and respond to animal diseases and implement these disease management practices, such as inspections, seizures, quarantine and surveillance orders. We heard that through an engagement process.

We heard that we needed to look at improved autism funding processes. We heard that there needs to be a common standard for home inspectors. We heard that there needs to be the new family-friendly fishing regulations. The types of initiatives that we’ve heard are streamlined process for hazardous waste applications, that there needs to be a single umbrella for natural resource decisions, that there needs to be a simplified contact process for the B.C. Parks capital facility improvements.

We heard that there needs to be a streamlined and modernized building code process, that we need to look at a new system for employer adviser offices, that there need to be modernized training platforms for commercial trucks. What we hear from citizens are actions that we are able to implement.

We have a commitment to go out, to engage with citizens from across British Columbia on ideas across ministries, on ways that we can improve our efficiencies. We are doing that. In the mandate letter of every single minister, there is that obligation to look at ways that we can improve efficiencies, that we can look at removing outdated regulation.

I would like to speak to a specific outdated regulation that I had in my previous ministry. It was about land use contracts. We know that in the 1970s, we put in land use contracts that really didn’t meet the official community plans. We heard from local governments that there needed to be a review of that.

Sometimes when you have acts from the 1970s, governments do need to be moving forward and ensuring that there’s a constant process, ensuring that we’re reviewing, that we’re updating, that we’re doing the necessary housekeeping, that we’re doing the type of modernization and that we’re doing streamlining that meets the needs of citizens today, that meets the needs of other stakeholders, such as local governments, that are critically important — to ensure that we are doing the type of work that makes governments just work a little bit more efficiently.

[1715]

Having an act that ensures that we have a red-tape-reduction day — one day in the province annually — provides a laser focus so that we can hold to account all of the work that as government we do throughout the year. To hold our government, to hold any government in the
[ Page 9611 ]
future accountable is critically important. When we eliminate unnecessary red tape, we support creating jobs, we support growing the economy of British Columbia, and we provide better service to our citizens of British Columbia.

B. Routley: I do want to just correct the minister, who talked about a personal matter. I found it kind of a personal attack. I would hope that the minister would stick to policies and issues, that kind of thing. I’ve been forgiven by the chamber of commerce. If she chooses not to forgive me, that’s fine. But I think you ought to apply the same test or standard to all of the members in this House and not just to NDP members. I don’t think it gets us anywhere in having useful and meaningful debate for you to raise a personal issue.

Interjection.

B. Routley: I had a wonderful meeting, for your information, with the chamber of commerce. We had a meaningful event together. We had a nice lunch together, and we had a recent meeting where they attended at my office.

Back to this section here, I want to be clear: does this Red Tape Reduction Act…? As you have stated it…

Interjection.

The Chair: Order. Order, Member.

B. Routley: …it seems to zero in on small business throughout British Columbia, which I understand that small business needs. But there are other groups. There are other unions, like the teachers unions, which I’m sure have regulations or issues that concern them. The Steelworkers might have them, the pulp and paper workers, building trades — I could go on and on.

So are there going to be opportunities for red-tape-reduction vetting for all organizations, all people in British Columbia? Is this only for small business? At what point does it get into being big business? Does big business get in on this, as well, or is it only small business?

Hon. C. Oakes: Not to repeat myself many, many times…. This is, in fact, a process that we are building upon because we had significant success with the small business community. We understand intrinsically the value of reducing red tape when we look at the small business community and the success that we’ve had. That is why we have a commitment to broaden this approach across ministries.

Whether it’s the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Social Development, the Ministry of Agriculture or the Ministry of Health, if there are opportunities where citizens feel that the British Columbia government could look at ways on how we can reduce unnecessary burden, frustrations, pieces of red tape that just do not seem to meet….

The hon. member opposite mentioned the importance of trades. Well, we heard through B.C. Bid that there is an important…. If you’re putting in a contract, for contractors, the process was too onerous. So we listened to that, and we’ve now streamlined that process. It’s now a two-page application. This is the type of work that as a government we are doing to ensure that we are meeting the needs of citizens, to ensure that we still have all of the levels of public protection that are so necessary for governments to provide.

Where there’s an opportunity for governments on an unnecessary piece of regulation or policy, where we can look at making it just a little bit easier for citizens of British Columbia, that is what our intent is. That’s why we have said, time and time again, that we are building on the success that we had on reducing red tape for small businesses. We are enhancing that through Engage British Columbia. We’re engaging citizens from across British Columbia to ask them the question. They are the ones, our citizens in British Columbia, that utilize our services, so we are asking British Columbians what services they would like to see improved around red tape.

[1720]

If there is unnecessary red tape, if there are burdens and frustrations that they feel when they have to deal with government, we have a series of questions that we’ll be launching to ask and engage and listen to citizens from throughout British Columbia.

B. Routley: The red tape that is going to be reduced…. Will there be any kind of a public vetting of the procedure to determine that something is red tape and cut it?

The kinds of issues that I would be concerned about are…. For example, there was a massive cutting of what was called red tape of WCB regulations. I mean, one business could determine that something is red tape because they have to go through a safety procedure and involve fallers or workers, for example, in some kind of accident investigation. Let’s just use that as an example.

Now, just because someone wants it cut or feels it’s inconvenient or feels it’s not advancing their business case doesn’t mean that there aren’t some regulations and rules that are meaningful and worthwhile for the people of British Columbia and that a lot of citizens wouldn’t agree meet the test of so-called red tape. So I worry about such things as….

In the rush to have a day and to have people save up issues for red-tape reduction, could there be a problem in that way?

Hon. C. Oakes: To the member opposite, I do absolutely appreciate your concerns that you’ve raised. When it is public safety, health, the environment, of course we ensure that there are those protections.

The types of red-tape reductions that we’re looking at are the redundancies. Some of the things that we heard
[ Page 9612 ]
on the small business side…. I apologize if I continue to go back to our success of what we’ve had. For example, we heard that in bars, you had to have a specific size of television behind the bar. We found that was just an unnecessary piece of red tape. We heard that if you had a comedy club, you were required to have a dance floor.

We put regulations in place over decades and decades and decades that made it difficult for citizens of British Columbia to do business. So what we’re saying is we want to make it simple. We have done significant housekeeping. We’ve done significant reviews of how we can streamline and look at how we can make those improvements on the small business side. We know that there is an opportunity within other levels of other ministries to do the same kind of work on looking at governments and looking at efficiencies.

[1725]

Sometimes we know that red tape just isn’t about legislation. It just isn’t about regulations. Sometimes it’s about that policy process interface between government and the citizen. If there are ways that we can look at to improve that process, that engagement with citizens of British Columbia, that is the conversation that we are opening up through this engagement process.

B. Routley: Again, I’m just reaching back to some of my experiences — some of the negative things that I saw. There are, obviously, some positives as well. There used to be contests for achieving production records. One shift might try to achieve a record over another, and there would be these friendly competitions.

It turned kind of ugly when it started to be more rewarded with financial incentives or contests that provided, you know, jackets or steak dinners or a dinner with your wife, that kind of thing — when it started getting elaborate.

Those kind of contests…. I’m wondering: does the minister contemplate any contest between the different ministries? Is there going to be a mandate letter from the Premier ordering all Liberal cabinet ministers to have a certain number of pieces of red tape reduced?

Hon. C. Oakes: No. There’s not going to be a contest. Again, it’s about…. Our public servants take the responsibility — they take the job that they do to serve British Columbians — very seriously.

This is an opportunity to engage with citizens from throughout British Columbia, to listen, to hear from them, so that our public servants and our government have the opportunity to look at ways that we can improve the way that we do business.

The member opposite did mention Work B.C. The type of work that we’re talking about on reducing red tape and regulation is that we have a new, enhanced Work B.C. website. Work B.C. is an on-line access point to the world of work that helps British Columbians successfully navigate the B.C. labour market.

Work B.C. now includes career tools such as a blueprint builder, which integrates more than 50 tools to make it easier for workers to find the resources they need. The new apprenticeship job match tool connects apprenticeships with employers looking to hire, and Career Compass provides resources for teachers and parents and secondary school students. With over eight million annual visits and more than 10,000 registered users, the Work B.C. website is a primary source of access for information from workers.

This is the type of improvement through red-tape reduction that we’re looking at. We’re also looking at improved access to social assistance data and tools. British Columbians now have easier access to their personal income and disability assistance information with the provincewide launch of My Self Serve.

My Self Serve is an on-line service allowing people who receive income and disability assistance to access their personal information, including their monthly cheque amount, status of their monthly report and annual earnings exemptions limits and important reminders and messages. My Self Serve offers people more flexibility as to how, when and where they access ministry services, which will increase convenience and foster independence for those who need it most.

We are also working with improved teacher certification processes. We’re reducing barriers for apprenticeship. We’re looking at an innovative trades seat finder. The innovative trades seat finder is developed in partnership with the B.C. Trades Training Consortium.

The new trades seat finder provides easy access to current information about where and when its trades training spaces are available to all 14 public post-secondary institutions offering trades programs. The site is linked. So once a trade is selected, students are able to go to the institution’s website, register and get more information.

As well, we are looking at a British Columbia major planned events guideline.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The B.C. major planned events guideline is the first of its kind. This guideline assists stakeholders to reduce the potential for public disorder and is designed to proactively assist with the prevention and management of emergencies and disasters resulting from public gatherings.

We also have the special occasions licence on line. Several years ago, if you wanted to have a special occasions licence — well, actually, up until this year — you had to go from the municipality. You had to go to the RCMP. You had to have several points. We’ve found a way, by utilizing technology, to ensure that government services that we are providing are more efficient.

[1730]

We’re looking at ways. We have new on-line resources to support First Nations economic development. We
[ Page 9613 ]
have a new user-friendly, web-based application to integrate information about First Nations communities, companies and economic development agreements, as well as their relationship to major projects throughout the province. This database integrates information from a number of public sources and helps connect businesses and investors looking to partner with First Nations communities and companies in a more effective and efficient manner.

As well, we have a new economic mapping tool. Investors and businesses now have access to multiple government databases as well as the ability to link with open-source, public data through the B.C. Economic Atlas mapping tool. Easy access to free, integrated, on-line data provides economic and natural resource information, aiding entrepreneurs and potential investors in making business investment decisions, identifying investment opportunities and undertaking business case analysis.

This is about ensuring that we maintain a focus, a disciplined focus, on ensuring that we are looking at ways of helping citizens across British Columbia by reducing red tape and looking at efficiencies that we can bring into government — whether it’s through governance, whether it’s through technology, whether it’s through other methods — to ensure that we have jobs, that we create jobs in British Columbia, that we respect the environment, that we are protecting public services and health care and ensuring that we grow a vibrant economy.

B. Routley: I know the minister was trying her best to encourage me that this is not the case, but then she goes back to talking about the focus, like a laser beam of light, on having a focused one day of the year to have red-tape reduction. It, again, leads me to believe that small businesses — now, I think, we’ve got included unions, religious organizations — if they have some red tape, they’re going to have to hold it or build it up and wait for the first Wednesday of March for red-tape-reduction day.

This does, Minister, incentivize, in a way, by creating a day, a special day, a day as important as B.C. Day or now on the same list as Terry Fox Day, Douglas Day, Family Day and Holocaust Memorial Day…. Surely, there’s now going to be an incentive for people to save up their red tape in order to have it counted and be part of the plan for red-tape-reduction day.

I guess one final question for me would be, in addition to follow-up on that, if you’d care to clarify how you’re going to incentivize ongoing red-tape reduction wherever and ferret out this nasty stuff wherever we find it. Is that somehow also going to be incentivized or just red-tape-reduction day? And how much red tape will have to be accomplished for it to be a successful day, in your mind?

One of the things you don’t set is any benchmarks. There’s no established number. We’ve heard numbers right out of the minister’s mouth, as many as one million, which is really scary when we’ve heard 155,000 over the last more than a decade have been reduced. I would hope that after more than a decade, the government is well on its way to achieving the kind of red-tape-reduction goals that they may have — could have, should have, would have — had over that ten-, 12-year period. There obviously has been some work, so I would be hoping that it’s slowing down.

Will we achieve red-tape-reduction day if there’s only one piece of red tape reduced? Does it need to be ten? Does it need to be 100 or 1,000? Does it need to be 10,000? Can I just have some idea? Again, because this bill is so short, it allows our minds to run wild with all of these hypothetical horribles on what could be hidden in the meaning of this legislation.

So we do have this laser beam of focus to somehow not save it up but, at the same time, have something ready to declare for red-tape-reduction day, and I’m not clear at all on what the goal is in terms of volume or numbers. Or are we going to be satisfied with a little bit?

[1735]

Hon. C. Oakes: If I may ask of the member opposite…. I certainly have used the number 155,000 pieces of red-tape reduction. I certainly don’t ever recall using one million. I just would like to put that on record, if I may.

The process that we’ve put in place is not just about…. The Red Tape Reduction Day Act showcases the work that we are doing on an annual basis. We have a significant commitment to engage with citizens from across British Columbia. The interesting thing about engagement processes are it’s difficult to predetermine what citizens are going to provide to us. I would never, ever suggest or come forward with a number without first having the opportunity to have dialogue, to first have the opportunity to engage.

We are pivoting from the focus that we’ve had on small businesses. We’re pivoting that to ensure that the engagement process that we have is with all citizens of British Columbia, that it could cover all of the ministries. We are measuring that process in a number of ways.

The first way that we’re measuring that process is we’re opening up engagement processes with citizens from throughout British Columbia on ways that we can improve efficiencies, governance with our government. We’ll have several points throughout this process where we’ll be reporting out the processes and things that we have heard and listened to.

We encourage everyone to participate. It is a transparent process. It’s on line. You can hear the type of feedback that citizens are providing to us. It goes on line. It is posted, so it’s transparent for all to see. We’ll be ensuring that that information is gathered at several points and that there is a constant stream of that information going back to the ministries.

In every single mandate letter of every single minister, there is that commitment to ensure that there is a focused
[ Page 9614 ]
approach to reducing unnecessary red tape. That doesn’t just mean regulatory legislative; it means policies as well. It points, again, to policies such as better information for landlords and tenants — ensuring, for example, that we have a new updated website that’ll help tenants and landlords access information that they need to maintain successful rental relationships.

It means that we’re looking at a collaborative capital markets regulatory system and an innovative on-line tool for better waste management.

Anyone can now access science-based information on water supply in the northwest region of British Columbia with the release of the Northwest water tool. This is a leading-edge program that supports decision-making on water use planning and approvals.

These are the types of processes and policies that we are excited about the opportunity to engage citizens in from across British Columbia, to listen to what they are telling us on ways that we can improve how they interact with the government. There is the opportunity at several points throughout the year — whether it’s through public documentations, whether it’s through engagement processes which we’ve launched — that we’re going to listen and see firsthand in a transparent format on line what citizens are saying.

Then we have the opportunity through the red-tape-reduction day to celebrate, to see where improvements need to be made, to look at the measurement. Is it good enough? Do we need to work harder? Where do we need to put our resources?

This is our opportunity, through the introduction of this act, to make sure with our comprehensive plan — which we, as government, have to engage citizens across British Columbia — that there is the ability for us to maintain a strong focus — whether it’s this government or governments in the future — to reduce red tape for real people in British Columbia.

L. Popham: I had to come up and join this debate because when I was in my office watching the minister responding to the questions and comments from the official opposition and opposition, I noticed that the minister was becoming more and more frustrated and indicated that there might be a lack of understanding of the importance of this day in British Columbia.

[1740]

I can tell you why there’s a lack of understanding. I would say that most of us on this side of the House — maybe all of us — believe that this day is absolutely bogus and it’s a sham. This legislation does not need to go through the Legislature. If the minister was serious about reducing red tape and making things easier for small business, the minister and the government would just continue doing their jobs.

We heard something very interesting from the minister in her last statement. She said that this day will give us the opportunity to showcase the work they have done. So really, red-tape-reduction day is a way for the government to celebrate themselves. As we lead up to an election, it occurs to me that this is a way that the government can give itself a pat on the back before we head into an election cycle.

If the minister is absolutely committed to reducing red tape and making things easier for small business, I have one question for the minister. It will lead to others. Has the minister heard of MMBC?

Hon. C. Oakes: Yes.

L. Popham: That’s surprising, because the minister said that there’s going to be an authentic engagement process with small business to make sure that the government and small business have a way of communicating in order to reduce red tape. There have been businesses, small businesses across B.C., that have been trying to communicate to this government that MMBC is one of the worst policies ever brought in by this government. They did it because they didn’t consult.

Let’s be clear on one thing: most consultation that this government does is never authentic. You’re not going to fool this side of the House into thinking that all of a sudden, because we have an official day in British Columbia, we are now heading into a different time, a new era of official consultation. We are not.

My question to the minister is: will she be reviewing MMBC?

Hon. C. Oakes: If it comes through the engagement process that we’ve launched, we’ll have a look at it.

L. Popham: That’s interesting. The minister is saying that anything that’s happened previous to this legislation doesn’t count.

I know the minister has heard from the communities across B.C. about MMBC. You can go into any community. Any community that every MLA in this House represents has businesses that are suffering right now from MMBC. They are going out of business. I’m sure that we all have businesses like Lordco, like M&M Meats, like Buckerfield’s. These businesses are suffering due to bad legislation and severe red tape. This policy actually got an award from CFIB, the Paperweight Award, as the worst red tape in history in Canada.

If the minister is very serious, then the minister, I believe, should be reviewing MMBC right now. We all know there’s a problem with it.

Should I direct all the businesses that I’ve been talking to…? I can tell the minister across the way who implied I don’t speak to businesses, that’s mostly what I do with my job. I consult with small businesses. Is the minister wanting me to direct all the complaints about MMBC to this minister so she can immediately start reviewing MMBC? Is that what we’re supposed to do now?
[ Page 9615 ]

Hon. C. Oakes: There is a process of engagement, not just for small business. The member opposite may have missed that part in the dialogue that we’ve mentioned today. This is an opportunity for us to engage across ministries on necessary opportunities for us about ways that we can improve governance and efficiencies with the provincial government. We are excited to see the results of what citizens’ feedback they provide to us. We’ll be looking at what citizens are providing to us, and we’ll be passing that on to the appropriate minister.

L. Popham: Does the minister want me to direct all complaints about MMBC to her ministry right now?

Hon. C. Oakes: Could the member kindly repeat the question?

[1745]

L. Popham: Would the minister like me to direct all complaints about MMBC and the onerous red tape that it puts on small business…? Would she like me to direct all those complaints to her ministry as soon as possible?

Hon. C. Oakes: As we’ve stated multiple times here, we welcome in this engagement process all policy reviews or regulatory items that citizens want to put forward. We welcome it.

L. Popham: Does the minister want me to send every letter of complaint I’ve received since 2012 about MMBC to her so she can get caught up on this file?

Hon. C. Oakes: The member opposite knows that, of course, that is within the purview of the Ministry of Environment.

But again, this is an engagement process. Through the engagement process, if the member opposite wants to open up dialogue — as I encourage all members of this House — there is a process of Engage British Columbia.

We’ll get you that information. We’ll make sure we circulate that information to members of both sides of the House to ensure that they understand the process for engagement. We’ll be reviewing all of the submissions that come forward on Engage, through this engagement process, on red-tape reduction for real people in British Columbia.

L. Popham: From what I understand, then, the opportunity for engagement is quite narrow, and it comes with a lot of red tape. I just suggested that the minister review the problems with MMBC, and she deflected it off to the Ministry of Environment, when she just finished saying that this was a cross-ministry process.

So what should businesses do when they have a problem with red tape? Do they direct their input right now to the minister or not?

Hon. C. Oakes: If the member opposite would go to engage.gov.bc.ca, there is that opportunity. That engagement process has been opened up. We’ll be beginning a series of questions that start this week.

It is citizen-based. It is reaching out to citizens in each of your communities. If the citizens in your community wish to put forward a recommendation, the process for that — which we have mentioned many times earlier in this House — is that we’ll be referring that to the appropriate minister. That is part of the process that we look at ensuring that we maintain our commitment to reducing red tape for real people in British Columbia.

L. Popham: Okay. From what I understand, the minister is actually not consulting with businesses. If you were consulting, you would ask for input, regardless. The minister is saying that in this process, they’re going to ask businesses specified questions. Then they’re going to pat themselves on the back when they address the questions the ministry has asked businesses but not the other way around. This doesn’t sound like an open process.

[1750]

Tell me what would happen so I understand this legislation more clearly. If somebody who owns a small business, a regular British Columbian, has basically found themselves in a position where they’re going down because of MMBC red tape, where can that input go so that it is taken seriously and reviewed as soon as possible?

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, I encourage the member to go to the website — engage.gov.bc.ca. It’s not just for small businesses. As I’ve said before, it’s for open citizen engagement.

Engagement means that we put it out to citizens across British Columbia. If there are unnecessary pieces of red tape across ministries, we encourage them to put that into the website.

I know that the member opposite is going to go back out and ensure that we’ve got a good engagement process, because I know how passionate the member opposite feels about engagement. She’ll be making sure that people in British Columbia know that there is that opportunity. And that information, as it comes in, will be reviewed by government.

L. Popham: Has the minister already decided what the ministry and the government are going to pat themselves on the back about on the first red-tape-reduction day? Have we already made that decision?

Hon. C. Oakes: You know, I hope that the member opposite isn’t suggesting that public engagement means that you come up and…. Public engagement is all about ensuring we go out to citizens in British Columbia to ask the questions. That is the process that we are embarking on.

We have had significant success in this process with
[ Page 9616 ]
small businesses. We have been able to help support small business to eliminate unnecessary red tape. We know, through the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, that there is about 30 percent more regulatory reduction that we can look at. That is why our government believes it’s so significantly important to ensure that we have a focus on that. That focus will be on red-tape-reduction day. That ensures that all of the work that we do throughout the course of a year through this engagement process….

We know that the member opposite is going to support and ensure that if there is unnecessary red tape — whether it’s through the Ministry of Agriculture, through the Ministry of Social Innovation and Development, through the Ministry of Health, through the Ministry of Technology — if there are opportunities for our government to improve on efficiencies and reduce red tape for the real people in British Columbia, there is an ongoing opportunity to provide that feedback through the website, which I have clearly laid out on multiple occasions to the member opposite, to engage citizens from across British Columbia.

We remain committed to ensuring that the necessary work on reducing red tape remains a commitment and a focus of our government.

L. Popham: That’s clearly not true. It’s not a focus, because these businesses have been complaining since 2012. The minister’s answers are extremely vague. I’m not talking about anything except the red tape of MMBC right now. This is a red-tape monster, and it has affected many, many small businesses. Some don’t exist anymore.

Can the minister tell me: if the businesses that are affected by MMBC sign into the website and participate in Engage B.C. and discuss the problems they’re having, what happens next? Is this going to be a waste of time? Right now businesses are already wasting their time on all of the regulatory affairs of MMBC. They’re running out of time. How many more hoops do businesses have to jump through in order to have this red-tape issue addressed?

[1755]

Hon. C. Oakes: We know, and we’ve recognized and have stated in this House, that there’s more work for us to do. That’s why it’s critically important that we enshrine this in legislation. That is the legislation that we brought forward today. I encourage the member opposite to support this piece of legislation, because small businesses are the front line.

L. Popham: I don’t think that minister understands the weight of MMBC on small businesses. Right now we’re talking about a day to celebrate everything that this government is going to do, a “pat yourself on the back” day for the government that we’re going to put into legislation — “pat yourself on the back” legislation.

On the MMBC website — this is a heads-up for the minister — it instructs businesses to consult with their lawyers and regulatory affairs departments to comply with the rules of MMBC. Now, if you’re on the ground talking to small business — I’m not sure how many small businesses have those departments — they’re grappling with onerous amounts of paperwork. They believe in recycling. They believe in having a green company, but their paperwork is onerous. Will this red-tape-reduction day specifically address the onerous paperwork of MMBC?

Hon. C. Oakes: The member opposite mentioned the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I would like to take a moment to provide the member opposite with what they’ve said. “Over the past decade, the B.C. government has consistently been a leader in red-tape reduction and received the only A grade on the annual CFIB Red-Tape Report Card for the last four years. B.C. has cut red tape by more than 40 percent since 2001 and has committed to a no net increase in overall regulatory requirements through to 2019.”

The reason why we continue with this engagement process is that we know that there’s more to do. We recognize that there is more work to do. That is why we are opening up the engagement process for all British Columbians, whether you are a small business, a teacher, an individual who works on a construction site or an individual that is just a passionate supporter in your community. We’re opening up the engagement to all British Columbians. We know we have more work to do. That is why we’re enshrining this legislation, the Red Tape Reduction Day Act, into legislation.

L. Popham: The minister is vague, and so is the legislation. Right now we’re supposed to be getting some details. Is the minister going to address MMBC with red-tape-reduction day? It’s a simple question. Will the minister address MMBC with red-tape-reduction day?

Hon. C. Oakes: The members have the opportunity, for the red-tape-reduction day, to go to the website.

An Hon. Member: So the answer is no.

Hon. C. Oakes: It is yes. The members have the opportunity. If the member opposite would kindly listen, the member opposite asked a yes-or-no question. Yes, every member and every citizen in British Columbia has the opportunity to provide the input to government on how we can look at reducing red tape.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell me…? Red tape. Sometimes it’s red tape, and sometimes it’s red tape that should be gone. We would all agree on that. When it’s redundant and it’s unnecessary, it should be gone. Sometimes it’s regulation, and it’s regulation that has value.
[ Page 9617 ]
I know that the minister spoke, a little bit earlier, to earlier questions about what some may deem to be red tape.

[1800]

I want to focus on just a couple of areas for a second. We’ll look at environment and occupational health and safety issues — i.e., workplace safety and environment.

Does the minister see the responsibility — her responsibility and the responsibility under this legislation, with the work and the engagement that she’s spoken about pretty extensively today — to also ensure that those regulations that make good sense in fact get protected? Is it the sense of the minister responsible that that’s what should occur? And how does she delineate those differences?

Hon. C. Oakes: We’re going to ask the member opposite to kindly repeat the question.

S. Simpson: Absolutely. Happy to. When we talk about regulation…. We could call it red tape, call it regulation. I’ll call it regulation for the purposes of this — but something that certainly some may call red tape. It could fall into the environmental categories. I just picked two that aren’t specific to small business — and we’ll get back to that — but they certainly could relate to small business: environmental regulation, health and safety regulations.

I know that the minister has no interest in getting rid of regulatory regimes that make sense. She spoke to that earlier — that if they make sense and they have value, that’s not what the purpose of this is.

The question I have is: what is the process? Engagement — the minister has talked pretty extensively about citizen engagement, and that’s fine. We know the use of websites, of blogs, of other things has value. We saw that in the liquor review. That was the primary method to get to the recommendations in the liquor review, and you know, they’ve been a bit mixed in some areas.

With those regulations, when they involve things like environment, health and safety; where it’s science and other issues that are involved — more so than simply: what does the public think, or what’s the view of business person A about what aggravates me on paperwork? — what is the process that gets followed over and above asking small business, asking CFIB, to make sure that those things don’t get caught in red-tape reduction, when they may have more value than that?

[1805]

Hon. C. Oakes: I thank the member opposite for the question. I thank you for repeating the question. We want to ensure that we answer this in a satisfactory way. It’s an important question. I’m glad that you’ve raised that.

We’ve talked a lot about the engagement process. We open it up. We have that dialogue with citizens. The next stage, of course…. It goes to our public servants. We all know, on both sides of the House, the incredible, valuable job they do to provide support. They’ll be reviewing the ideas that come forward to government against established legislation.

Where it is in health, safety, environment, obviously, the public servants will be reviewing that. Where there is merit, where it doesn’t contravene legislation — such as we’ve talked about: public safety, health, environment — we’ll be looking at bringing those forward. So again, thank you for that. There is a thoughtful process in place that engages our public servants.

If I haven’t been clear, the other important process of this is that our public servants have the opportunity to engage in this process as well. They’re the ones…. While citizens are on the front line providing that, our public servants are also…. Many have committed…. I know that members of both sides of the House have attended the Long Service Awards, where we have members of our public service that have celebrated 25, 30, 40 years of service to our government.

They have important ideas. Through this process, there’ll be the opportunity, that engagement process, for them as well. If there are opportunities within what they’ve seen as public servants on ways that we can improve efficiencies, the way that we do business with government, reducing redundancies…. They probably, more than anyone else, will understand clearly the redundancies that, perhaps, we have within government.

The other interesting thing we’ve seen through this process is that there’s a great opportunity to have great dialogue across ministries. I think that anytime there’s that opportunity to have engagement as well as really empowering our public servants and empowering citizens in a dual role, it will help meet the citizens of British Columbia to the highest extent possible.

S. Simpson: I think I understand this. You have this engagement process — the minister has talked fairly extensively about it, and I’ve listened to most of the committee stage — with the citizenry, with small business owners, with those folks and getting the feedback that the minister talks about there.

Then we get to this process, which we just spoke about in the minister’s answer to the question, where the civil service may take what’s been heard from that process or from the engagement the minister has had with the public or however that exercise works. Then they will take that, presumably….

The minister is saying they will dig deeper, then, as to the merit and whether there are implications that maybe aren’t immediately seen. How do you deal with those implications? In that process…. And that’s the process that is more detailed, that is more complex often and that requires certain expertise on all sides.

What’s the expectation of the minister in that process about stakeholders? I’m not talking the public now. I’m talking stakeholders who bring legitimate expertise,
[ Page 9618 ]
whether it’s academia, professionals, unions, business groups, science, whoever they are.

[1810]

How do they then get involved in that more engaged discussion over and above the first cut, which is the engagement with citizenry that the minister talked about? How do they get involved and be part of that? How does that process become transparent so the public gets to judge whether this red-tape cut makes sense, whether it should stay or it should go? How do they then judge that discussion or have a place in that discussion?

Hon. C. Oakes: This is a good opportunity for us to talk about the process. We’ve talked about the engagement. We receive these ideas that come forward to government. Then they go into the ministries. The ministries have routinely…. They consult with stakeholders on whether it’s practices or whether, for example, it’s a citizen-facing website.

There will be that outreach to stakeholders, depending on the ideas and the scope of what is being brought forward. There is the requirement, through the public service and through ministries, to ensure that you have that proper policy analysis and processes in place.

S. Simpson: I think I understand the answer. Every ministry will conduct itself somewhat differently, depending on how those ministries function, and they all do it a little bit differently. I appreciate that.

My question…. If the minister has already answered this question earlier and I missed it, my apologies. We have red-tape-reduction day. This is the day that I’m assuming, among other things, the government will want to give some indication to the public — whether it’s announcements, whatever it is related to that day — about how it has conducted itself over the previous year to reduce regulations, what that looks like — presumably some kind of reporting out to the public on what happened and what got reduced and why that’s a good idea or whatever.

How does the scheduling work for that? You’ve got 20 ministries. I believe I heard the minister say earlier that the expectation is, in all the letters that will go out to ministers, with the Premier’s expectations…. There is going to be a clause somewhere in those letters that says: “Red-tape reduction is one of the things I expect you to look at within your ministry.” Fair enough.

Is there some scheduling there that is going to say to these ministries and to the ministers and to the bureaucracy: “You have to move this forward to be able to complete, in order for this to be reported out in and around this particular day”? How does that work? Or is it going to be just: “Do your work as you see fit over the time, and if we don’t get you this year, we’ll get you next year”? Or whatever. I think the minister knows what I’m saying here.

[1815]

How does this affect the scheduling and pressure? We know, for example, that there are pressures. We know in the budget development process, obviously, all the ministries are under pressures to do their work and make decisions in the budget process and make sure that they have whatever information forwarded to the Ministry of Finance on time. And all the deadlines — lots of deadlines to meet there.

How does the deadline process work in terms of red-tape regulation and what the minister has been talking about today?

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

The engagement process is currently opened up. We start the first round of questions. They’ll be launching this week. We’ll be capturing those ideas from citizens from across British Columbia.

It’s transparent. It’s on a website so anyone can see the types of ideas that are being brought forward by citizens throughout British Columbia. Then we will be preparing an inter-engagement report, which will be going out in December. That will be the opportunity for us to see what this engagement process has really brought forward.

Again, it’s difficult for us to gauge what citizens in British Columbia are going to submit without actually having that process opened. I hope the member opposite appreciates the fact that….

You are absolutely correct. It’s something that…. We’ve certainly had that dialogue behind the scenes. This could be a process where 100,000 people put in ideas for changes, removing redundancy or reducing red tape.

The process will be, then…. It gets triaged through our service delivery boards and through multiministries to look at what we assign priorities to. What is something that is on the priority…? Based on the resources that we currently have within government, is it something that we have the ability to move forward quickly with? Is it something that’s going to require significantly more resources and we need to look at doing more analysis?

There will be a variety of levels on the ideas that come forward and on the amount of work that will be required. Then the whole discussion of what we should be talking about today, the legislation for the Red Tape Reduction Day Act, will be, really, the formal report card on how we are doing — and not just this year but years moving forward — and that we have a process in place where we engage with citizens.

We listen. We hear. It goes into a process within government and across ministries — multiministries — where we retain that focus and that commitment. We assign priorities. We work with the public service through the service delivery board. We ensure that we have reports that go out so that we’re transparent to gov-
[ Page 9619 ]
ernment. Quite frankly, at the end of the day, we know that on the third Wednesday in March the citizens of British Columbia will hold us to account on this plan.

[1820]

S. Simpson: I understand all of that. I know now that if I put forward to the website my ten ideas…. I’m a small business person, and I put forward my five ideas, my ten ideas, for how to reduce red tape. I don’t maybe get to the specifics of it: “It should be this regulation or that one.” But: “Here are the things you should do because they bug me, and there’s too much paperwork, etc.” And I do that.

I understand how if, as government, the government says: “Okay, well these five or these six, we essentially agree. We did a review, and we agree, and we’re going to deal with those five or six, either streamline them or eliminate them or whatever. We’re going to reduce the red tape around those five or six areas. But on these four areas, we don’t agree because we think they have regulatory value. There’s a reason for them, and they shouldn’t be touched because they have value, and we shouldn’t mess with them.”

I know how I get satisfaction to know what you did with the five or six that you said: “We essentially agree” or “We’re going to streamline them.” Is this process going to tell me about the ones you heard about and you said: “No, we think we should be keeping those ones as they are. We shouldn’t mess with that because we’ve deemed, after analysis, that they have value and they shouldn’t be touched.”

Hon. C. Oakes: We will be reporting out in December with an interim report on all of the ideas that come forward. Then we’ll also be reporting out in March about the ideas that we have moved forward on.

There is a process in place that we will be reaching out to folks that have put ideas forward to government. We’ll try to explain if, for example, it’s health or safety or there are pieces that are in the public’s best interest from a safety perspective, environmental perspective. We’ll send that information out to the individual who provided us with that feedback.

Again, there’s a process where all ideas are listed in December, and then in March, we’ll be reporting out what we’ve moved forward with.

B. Routley: I guess my question can be summed up in the first part by whether or not there’s any kind of an appeal process. But I do want to highlight for those folks at home an example of the Liberals failing small business in a community in the Cowichan Valley.

This was a small business called the Purple Orchid. I actually spoke and wrote letters in this House. I know I was trying to. I think I might have got shut down by the Premier at the time, but I was set to do a question in question period, and I did write a letter to the ministry about this issue.

That was doctor fish. You may or may not have heard of doctor fish, but doctor fish are used in Australia. They’re certainly used in Great Britain, in Ireland and Japan. The doctor fish help people with skin diseases.

We actually had people coming up from the United States to the little community of Duncan to go to the Purple Orchid to have these doctor fish chew on their feet or whatever. I guess they could get up to their knees in these big tanks. They were regularly cleaned and managed by the owner, and they were in business. They got a business licence from the good community and the folks at city council in Duncan. They awarded them a business licence.

[1825]

Lo and behold, somebody from the Liberal Party got a report and rode in on their white charger and decided that they were going to shut down this business. There were all kinds of letters. I saw the letters from people in the community writing on behalf of this business, saying: “Look, this is a business that’s an individual choice. I choose to go to this business. These businesses are in Japan. They’re in other parts of the world. There’s no evidence, no medical evidence, for shutting this down.”

Yet it was the Minister of Health and a doctor — a doctor that, by the way, happened to be involved in the Cowichan Lodge closure as well…. He also decided that this small business couldn’t exist, and they were shut down. They were basically told: “No, you can’t do this.”

I might add that this small business did so, with all of the investment that they did. Again, imagine a small business. They get approval by the city of Duncan. They think they’re in business, so they go out and buy the tanks. I mean, this lady was in tears in my office, talking about how crushing this was, to lose her small business opportunity as a result of this process.

Again, because this thing happened once in my constituency, I want to be able to assure the good people of British Columbia that if there’s a new process, there is at least contemplation of some kind of an appeal process. How would someone appeal?

If it goes wrong…. They are provided with approval at their local community level, like the city of Duncan. It gives them a business licence. They go ahead and invest. Surely, there’s got to be some appeal process so that there should be some kind of compensation paid or some kind of help.

Surely, we’re not going to just abandon, turn our backs on small business — on small business. Here we are, red-tape-reduction day, and we’re going to abandon small business and not give them the help they need. That’s what happened in the Cowichan Valley.

My question again: is there going to be a thoughtful appeal process — yes or no?
[ Page 9620 ]

Hon. C. Oakes: The member opposite talks about an issue that was a health and safety issue. It was an example.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:27 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. R. Coleman moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:28 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

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