Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 46, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 46 — SOUTH COAST BRITISH
COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2018

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 46, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2018, be now read a second time.

I’m pleased to introduce this legislation, which will help meet our commitment to support regional funding efforts to improve transit and transportation services in Metro Vancouver. This bill will allow TransLink to set a rate of parking rights tax up to a maximum of 24 percent of the purchase price for off-street parking.

The amendments directly support TransLink’s ability to invest in and expand the regional transportation system. In June of this year, the Mayors Council approved its phase 2 investment plan. That plan includes major transportation and transit investments in TransLink’s service area, which includes major bus and rapid transit improvements.

[2:40 p.m.]

In order to meet its regional revenue requirements to fund phase 2 of the Mayors Council 10-Year Vision, Trans­Link included a 3 percent increase in parking rights tax in its investment plan. Parking rights tax is a sales tax paid on the purchase price of off-street parking in TransLink’s service area. The existing legislation caps the tax at 21 per­cent. This bill will enable TransLink, by bylaw, to set a parking rights tax of up to 24 percent. That 3 percent increase would mean, for example, an additional 15 cents on $5 of off-street parking.

Along with other measures, this modest increase will fund increased bus and handyDART services, better and more SkyTrain service and rapid transit options and better roads, bridges and other infrastructure for residents, for transit users, for drivers and for businesses. TransLink consulted with Metro Vancouver residents on the proposed increase during its phase 2 investment plan consultations. The increase is scheduled for July 2019, and TransLink calculates that it will raise an additional $10 million a year for these investments.

As a government, we are doing things differently. That is why we committed to fund 40 percent of the capital costs of every phase of the Mayors Council 10-Year Vision. We also committed to work with the mayors and support regional funding efforts to improve the transit and transportation services that people need.

Our government is making life more affordable, delivering the services that people can count on and building a strong, sustainable and prosperous economy that delivers benefits for everyone. Working together with communities and the federal government, we are investing in transit and transportation infrastructure to get people and goods moving more quickly, more safely and more affordably.

The investments in the Mayors Council 10-Year Vision are essential for people throughout the region, especially as Metro Vancouver is expected to grow by over a million more residents in the next 25 years. This legislation provides TransLink with the ability to raise revenue for phase 2, which is making investments in transit and transportation infrastructure to help people spend less time stuck in traffic and more time with their family and with their friends.

It’s important that we get moving on phase 2, which is why we have worked with TransLink and with the mayors to give them the ability to increase the parking rights tax rate. This bill also includes some housekeeping amendments to remove obsolete references to the Social Service Tax Act.

Prior to 2010, the parking rights tax was administered by the province as part of PST. References to the Social Service Tax Act were added to the legislation in 2010 as part of the transition of the parking rights tax to TransLink. The Social Service Tax Act was then repealed in 2013, and the replacement provincial legislation, the Provincial Sales Tax Act, does not contain provisions pertaining to parking rights tax.

These housekeeping sections only remove the obsolete language. They do not alter the administration of the parking rights tax in any way. With this legislation, we are supporting TransLink’s ability to invest in Metro Vancouver’s transportation system. I hope that everyone here joins me in support of Bill 46.

With that, I move second reading.

T. Stone: I rise today to speak to second reading of Bill 46. We all agree that working with the Mayors Council in Metro Vancouver and funding their ten-year plan is to be applauded.

In fact, I’m proud of what a strong record of transit investments, in Metro Vancouver and across B.C., we were able to make in our former government, which I was a part of. Our former government was the first in Canada to sign a bilateral agreement with the federal government to pave the way for the most significant injection of federal investment in transit infrastructure and in transit service in British Columbia’s history.

I was fortunate to be the minister responsible at that time when we got that deal done. We were able to work with the Mayors Council to assist them in the development of a very good plan. The mayors put some exceptional work on the table, and they came up with a plan for transit investment across the Lower Mainland. Phase 1 was fully funded, as per all the partner contributions.

[2:45 p.m.]

The service improvements that have flowed from those investments have been significant. We’ve seen an increase in handyDART service across the region, enhanced SkyTrain service, more B-lines, dozens of new SkyTrain cars and upgraded stations.

Of course, prior to these investments, we also know that the Canada Line, the Evergreen Line and other significant investments represented important investments, though more is needed to address and deal with the growth that Metro Vancouver is experiencing. In fact, we all know that about one million more people are expected to come to and live in Metro Vancouver over the next 25 years.

I’m very proud of the work that we did when we were in government and very supportive of the work that is being done by the Mayors Council in working with TransLink. Again, that has culminated in what is a very good ten-year plan. That all being said, as we saw last week, those transit plans can change dramatically.

We do know that this Bill 46, while there is a partial housekeeping portion to it, as the minister previously noted, does bring yet another additional cost that will hit British Columbians in their bottom line. That’s this increase in parking fees. On top of increased property taxes and, of course, ever-increasing development cost charges, community amenity fees, and so forth, folks in Metro Vancouver must now get ready to pay more for parking.

We are told that what this bill enables, which is to provide TransLink with the authority to increase the parking tax from 21 percent to 24 percent…. We are told that this provides TransLink with the revenues that it will need to, in part, fund the major investments that are planned for the region, including LRT in Surrey.

Well, we know that the new mayor of Surrey, seemingly backed by the new mayor of Vancouver, has been very clear that he plans to revoke his council’s support and his city’s support for the use of LRT, in favour of a SkyTrain extension instead. That revocation of support within the city of Surrey could take place literally any day. Now, I know that the government and the Premier, in particular, have been asked about this rapidly unfolding reality, but they’ve waved it off so far. However, in the context of this Bill 46, it seems that we should explore this a little bit further.

The government has often touted the claim that they will work with the mayors. I would suggest that dismissing the claims of the new mayor of Surrey — less than a few weeks after he was elected on a signature campaign platform promise to replace LRT in favour of SkyTrain in Surrey — is not working with mayors. Dismissing the new mayor’s intentions — and, indeed, the tens of thousands of Surrey residents who voted for him — certainly doesn’t represent a collaborative approach.

This government needs to listen to their concerns, as Surrey is the fastest-growing community in British Columbia. The voters there deserve to know whether this government will fund Surrey’s transit expansions utilizing SkyTrain technology. Of course, this is assuming that the city of Surrey goes through with its stated intention to revoke their previously granted approval for LRT technology.

We also see that the government is continuing to fail to collaborate with Delta with respect to the Massey bridge tunnel replacement project. Of course, I think everyone in this House knows that this is the largest bottleneck in the province and that it needs to be fixed now. Yet we continue to see — and, of course, the commuters and the residents in the Delta region continue to face — unbelievable gridlock and congestion each and every day, as this government continues to dither on moving forward.

We know that a report is sitting on the Minister of Transportation’s desk. In fact, she had it last summer. She has opted not to make the contents of that report public, let alone act upon its recommendations. The new mayor of Delta is making it his number one priority to get a new crossing built, and this government hasn’t even released that report that they received last summer.

Back to Bill 46, which increases the parking tax. This increase comes on the heels of similar increases in the fuel tax earlier this year, which has resulted in the Lower Mainland having amongst the highest fuel taxes in North America. That’s not affordability.

[2:50 p.m.]

Frankly, so much for making life more affordable. It’s in­creas­ingly hard for folks in the Lower Mainland to not feel like they’re under siege. This parking tax is yet another attack on those taxpayers. In fact, it’s an attack on drivers across Metro Vancouver.

The government says: “Don’t worry. It’s only 15 cents per hour on $5 of parking.” In reality, it’s expected to raise $10 million of additional revenue per year. That’s $10 million per year that will be extracted out of the pockets of Metro Vancouver’s drivers.

I’m very concerned about where the level of those charges actually are today and where they may go in the years ahead. We know that this parking tax has increased in the past from 7 percent to 21 percent, and now the ob­jective of this legislation is to authorize TransLink to increase it again to 24 percent.

We know how this government is fond of increasing taxes. I don’t see this government standing up to TransLink in the years ahead and saying to TransLink: “No. You know what? We’re not going to authorize additional increases in fees and charges like the parking tax.” I just don’t see that happening. I certainly hope that I’m wrong.

The other context here is the overall cost of the projects in the mayors’ ten-year plan, which remains…. I would suggest the word “fluid” is probably an apropos description at this point. I’m worried about TransLink’s appetite for revenue. I’m paying close attention and the opposition is paying close attention to how the costs are escalating, particularly with respect to the major rapid transit projects.

It wasn’t that long ago that the total cost of the three major rapid transit lines was $6.3 billion. It was only about four years ago that that number was the estimated or the projected cost of these major projects. Just months ago, the TransLink CEO, Kevin Desmond, released further details of these transit investments. As part of that, he indicated that the total cost of these rapid transit projects has actually ballooned from $6.3 billion to $7.3 billion.

The Broadway line cost has escalated to $3 billion. That’s up 20 percent since the cost projection in 2015. The Surrey L-line is now estimated to cost $1.65 billion. That’s up considerably. The proposed rapid transit line to Langley is now estimated to cost $2.83 billion.

Where it gets really worrisome is when you hear a comment like the one that was made publicly by the TransLink CEO, who, I will say for the record again…. I have said this many times. I do have tremendous respect for him. I think he’s doing a very good job for the organization. It’s certainly not an easy job, but he’s doing a good job.

He was asked: “What’s your level of confidence with these costs, considering they’ve gone up $1 billion in the last cou­ple of years?” Mr. Desmond’s exact response, his answer to that question, was: “By the time we go through the procurement process, the numbers could change again.” I’ll say that again: “By the time we go through the procurement process, the numbers could change again.” I would suggest that they’re probably going to change again and again, certainly following on the significant change coming out of Surrey during the recent municipal election.

What’s going to happen if the costs of these projects continue to escalate? Is TransLink simply going to come back to the well again? We all know that when we refer to the well, we’re talking to the taxpayer. TransLink will be provided, through this legislation, an increase in parking tax revenue to raise the revenue that they need. Is this where it ends? Is this as high as this parking tax is going to go? Again, it’s $10 million of additional revenue per year that this measure alone will enable. Is this it? I think that we should be asking that question. We should be worried about further increases that might be in the offing in the years ahead.

How will this increase in the parking tax impact job creators? During Small Business Week, of all weeks, the government introduced legislation that did absolutely nothing to provide relief to small businesses via potential changes to class 5 and class 6 assessments.

[2:55 p.m.]

In fact, I moved an amendment to legislation that would have required the government to appoint a task force to look at how accommodation could be made for class 5 and class 6 assessments, particularly in the context of the Lower Mainland, where assessed values have skyrocketed 200 to 300 percent in the West End just in a couple of years, as one example. Of course, this has resulted in small businesses having to lay off employees and/or close due to dramatically increasing property tax bills.

Beyond that…. I mean, the government voted against that last week. They opted not to provide that relief to small businesses. But then, to add insult to injury, or perhaps in their way of showing further appreciation for small business, a week later, this government follows up by introducing this legislation — Bill 46 — which, frankly, is just another slap in the face of small businesses across the Lower Mainland.

By increasing the parking tax to 24 percent, downtown Vancouver businesses are concerned that the increased cost of parking will simply make it too expensive for people to visit. That’s a concern that I hear in Port Coquitlam. It’s a concern that I have heard in Surrey, as well, and other communities across Metro Vancouver.

As Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association CEO Charles Gauthier expressed: “What we’re sensitive to is whether it’s going to impact people’s discretionary visits to downtown.”

I think he has reason to be concerned. According to a recent survey, 40 percent of people said that the cost of parking certainly impacts their choice of whether they will go downtown in Vancouver. It’s just another example of how B.C. is losing its competitive edge and how many small business owners are worried for their future under this government.

Of course, this all comes as the government brings in a new MSP replacement tax, which hits small businesses very, very hard. Operating in a world of tight margins, the average small business owner will be on the hook for more than $15,000 under the employer health tax.

Now the government is hitting them and their customers with higher parking fees as well. That’s in addition to all of the new and increased fees and taxes that this government has brought in, including increases to the fuel tax; the gas tax; the Airbnb tax; the luxury vehicle tax; an increase in the property transfer tax; their phony speculation tax; their reintroduction of photo radar — I call it photo radar 2.0, coming to a community near you; increases to the carbon tax; of course, the removal of the carbon tax’s revenue neutrality; income tax increases; increases to the corporate tax; and many, many others.

Many small businesses have expressed a deep concern about the slew of taxes that this government is hitting them with — again, particularly the employer health tax and increases to the carbon tax, both of which will seriously impact their bottom lines.

Of course, by driving away customers through increased parking costs — thanks to this government — this piece of legislation will also impact a small business’s bottom line as well. You’re going to pay more to see your doctor in downtown Vancouver. You’re going to pay more to park at the hospital, whether it’s Surrey Memorial, Jim Pattison Outpatient Care and Surgery Centre, Langley Memorial, Royal Columbian, Burnaby, Eagle Ridge, Peace Arch, Lions Gate, Richmond Hospital, and on and on the list goes.

Parking costs….

Interjection.

T. Stone: The minister is doing a lot of chirping, so we’ve obviously touched a nerve here on this issue of taxes, taxes, taxes. The NDP have not met a tax that they don’t like. That’s what British Columbians are worried about. They’ve seen $8 billion worth of increased taxes since this government took power.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

T. Stone: This represents another attempt by the government to reach deep into the taxpayer’s pocket and extract even more out of them, and $10 million per year is no laughing matter. Parking costs for students and staff at schools and universities will go up. We already know that many students live close to the line. This is one more example of how the government is squeezing British Columbians for every penny. This bill will make life just a bit more unaffordable for British Columbians.

On top of that, we don’t have any certainty at this point whether the projects that TransLink has mapped out in their ten-year plan, in light of the very significant changes that have taken place in the recent municipal elections and the change of direction that seems to be flowing from a number of the mayors of the largest communities that represent or make up the Mayors Council…. We don’t know if these signature projects and priorities will remain intact.

Therefore, out of respect for taxpayers, out of respect for drivers, out of respect for small businesses, the official opposition will not be supporting Bill 46.

[3:00 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Thank you for this opportunity to speak to Bill 46, the South Coast B.C. Transportation Authority Amendment Act, and just to provide my comments, our comments, on behalf of the B.C. Green caucus.

After hearing the member of the official opposition speak to this bill, it really does kind of make your…. It’s quite shocking, frankly, to hear the perspective that was put forward, this perspective that we are going to be one of the only metropolitan areas in the world that’s going to be fighting for parking and not taking the money that we need to be and investing it in transit and moving people around metropolitan areas like Metro Vancouver in a more efficient and effective way.

To the member’s comments, “How are we going to support small business?” or “How does government support small business?” well, it provides proper transit and transportation infrastructure in this province, something which hasn’t happened over the years. Part of the reason why we’re facing congestion in getting into the areas of Surrey and Delta is because there isn’t a proper long-term transportation plan in this province that was inherited by this government just a few, 15 or so, months ago.

To hear this ridiculous argument that was made just a few minutes ago about how the impact on job creators…. You know, the impact on job creators has been tremendous — the fact that there hasn’t been enough investment in the Lower Mainland. Frankly, the former government forced the people into a referendum just because they simply could not bear to have a discussion about raising the money that was needed to be raised in order to make the investments that needed to be made to support the families and the people — frankly, my generation — and those that need the transit and the transportation networks. Those investments weren’t made.

It was really difficult to stand up here and speak to Bill 46 and not get dragged into the swamp and have to make some of these comments in direct response to, frankly, the ridiculous arguments, the absurd arguments that were made about Delta and about Surrey — dragging me into issues around the Mayors Council and what a new mayor of Surrey’s campaign was about, ignoring the fact, of course, that that new mayor of Surrey has got a council.

They’ve got to work through those issues. Then that mayor has got to go and have the conversation at the Mayors Council with all the other mayors. The Mayors Council actually has a job to do, and we here in this place, or at least this member from this seat and maybe even representing the two other seats to my left here, respect the fact that the Mayors Council has a job that it will do.

It will sit down, and it will take a look at what the Mayors Council ten-year plan will be. It will maybe revise some of those things. Maybe it won’t. Maybe it will come forward and say: “Look, we still stand on this plan that we’ve got.” I expect that for the most part, we’re going to hear that the vast majority of that Mayors Council plan is going to be moved forward. There might be some amendments, and that’s the job they have to do.

To have members opposite here stand up and speak on behalf of the Mayors Council, like has been going on in the last few days, to me is, frankly, completely inappropriate. It should be called out for that. The mayor of Surrey will stand up and speak on behalf of what he heard during the election and speak on behalf of his constituents. But frankly, he’s got a very important job ahead as he and his new council sit down.

Unless things have changed since I got from the council table just a few short years ago, the mayor has to also reflect the will of his council. As well, the Mayors Council, which is the broader group in Metro…. The chair of that Mayors Council will have to reflect the will of the council in its entirety.

It’s really critical here that we’re not standing up in this place and inappropriately reflecting views that I think have yet to be formulated, frankly. I find that very problematic.

[3:05 p.m.]

To the point of increasing the cost on parking, the reality is that the world is changing. The former member who spoke was the former Minister of Transportation. The fact that during his time in this place as the Minister of Transportation…. That we don’t have ride-hailing, to me, is absolutely ridiculous.

The fact that that was allowed to just continue to go on the way it was, that we’re not providing people in our society, people in the Lower Mainland, the answers to the transportation questions that they have, the needs that they have…. Then you can stand in this place and talk about what the cost of this is going to be.

What’s the cost of congestion for those families? What’s the cost of congestion for a father or a mother, my peer group, who are sitting in their car because they couldn’t get access to the right kind of transportation infrastructure because the former government wouldn’t make those investments in improving the transit system? They’re sitting in their car while the dance class is going on or while the soccer practice is going on.

We hear a lot of bluster about it, but the fact of the matter is that there’s an incredible cost to congestion. While we’re here fighting for more parking, we’re not making the investments and the decisions that are needed to generate the revenue to invest right back into the community in transportation and transit.

We look across North America, and we see other metro areas that have been able to do this in a responsible, respectful way, been able to generate the revenue that’s necessary to invest back in. This is what Bill 46 starts to do. It starts to recognize that we are actually in a changing world.

I know that some members opposite don’t like to admit that the world is changing. They’d like to just see the world remain in the status quo, the same way that it’s always been for the last 16 years or whatever it was, to just stay right where it was.

The fact of the matter is that the world is changing. We have got to get on with being a part of that world that’s changing and not dig our heels in and still fight for the same old things that we’ve been fighting for, like the dinosaur world. We need to actually start to embrace the change that’s here. This is one part of it. Transit will be a major part of the changes ahead.

I’m going to sit down. I think that, from my comments, you might sense that I and my colleagues will be supporting this bill. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to it.

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

Hon. S. Robinson: I really appreciated hearing the various perspectives in this House. I just want to take two minutes to close off here.

I really want to express appreciation for the member for Saanich North and the Islands, who asked a very good question. The question is: what’s the cost of congestion? It has a real cost. When he said that and he talked about the mother and the father and the car and missing the dance class…. There are nods, certainly, on this side of the House, because I think it’s exactly what people have experienced. They experience it today.

I can remember that cost when my children were in daycare — working in Kerrisdale and having to get right across into Coquitlam because there were no transit options. Congestion was pretty significant. The promise of investments in the Port Mann Bridge promised me that there would be no more congestion. Well, that certainly didn’t happen. There was significant congestion.

It cost a dollar a minute that I was late, so it had some real, tangible costs when I was trapped in congestion and couldn’t get to my children. It wasn’t just missing a dance class or missing a soccer practice. It also cost me dearly in the times that I was trapped in congestion.

We’ve committed to working together with the Mayors Council and with TransLink to deliver on significant transit infrastructure that has been missing for years. We’re about a decade behind in terms of where we should be at.

The opposition member talked about businesses. Well, businesses and their customers will benefit greatly from the investments in transit and transportation projects that are going to be funded with this new parking rights tax revenue. We also need to remember that the Mayors Council and TransLink went out and did a significant consultation. They talked with businesses. This is their plan that they put forward in order to raise the kind of revenue that we need in order to invest in transportation.

[3:10 p.m.]

This is an investment. It’s an investment so that we don’t all suffer the costs of congestion. It matches quite well what we’ve done around also making sure that we remove bridge tolls, which were essentially a tax for people south of the Fraser, and in line with getting rid of MSP, which was another tax that we eliminated.

We’re working hard to make sure that British Columbians have the opportunities to get home to be with their families in a timely way. That’s what this is about at the end of the day.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 46.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 46, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act (No. 2), 2018, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. S. Robinson: I now call second reading Bill 48, Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act.

BILL 48 — TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKER
PROTECTION ACT

Hon. H. Bains: I move that Bill 48 be read a second time now.

As Minister of Labour, it is my job to ensure that the B.C. employment standards and the worker safety laws are understood, followed and enforced, to ensure that the workers are treated fairly and with respect. This includes workers that come here from outside of Canada.

B.C.’s workforce is bolstered by international workers. Our economy and our province are stronger and more diverse because of these workers. But temporary foreign workers can be vulnerable to abuse. The people that come to us as tem­porary foreign workers come seeking opportunities that don’t exist at home. They apply or are recruited to fill jobs that would otherwise go empty, jobs that without workers would shut down businesses, scale down businesses in orchards, restaurants, retail, service sectors, construction, hotels and live-in care facilities.

I remember how I felt as a newcomer to this country. You have challenges with the language. You have challenges with the system. You have no clue who to turn to, what laws protect you, because you are still thinking about your old country and how those types of situations are handled there. In many countries, the workers’ voices are not heard.

I clearly understand that. Temporary foreign workers face even greater challenges, different than many who come to Canada for a better life, because the work permits are tied to one single employer. They know that if they lose their job, the next thing is deportation. The thousands of dollars that they paid to come here for that job — and their family depended on that — would be forever lost.

These temporary foreign workers often pay recruiters illegal fees for the promise of a job, and they arrive here with­out a safety net. Once here, they are sometimes underpaid or not paid at all, sometimes working or living in conditions that are unfit and unsafe, sometimes bullied or intimidated by employers that threaten to deport them if they don’t comply with their demands. Sometimes passports are illegally taken so people feel trapped.

If you have paid thousands to get here for a promised job, if you and your family’s financial well-being depend on it, if you don’t know that our laws extend to all workers regardless of your immigration status, or if you don’t have the language skills to ask for help or are afraid of the repercussions if you do, you remain in these situations that should never exist in the first place.

[3:15 p.m.]

This is unacceptable. For far too long, their unique situation and vulnerability to abuse have been overlooked. As a government, we are stepping up to increase provincial oversight that will help prevent these situations of abuse. That’s what the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act will enable us to do — to better protect vulnerable workers in B.C.

Yes, the temporary foreign worker program is federal. Yes, the issues can span multiple ministries, including Health, Housing and, within the Ministry of Labour, employment standards and occupational health and safety. But the province has an important role to play, one that has been overlooked for far too long and at the expense of far too many.

As a host province, we need to ensure that those coming here feel equally protected as any other worker would. This legislation is needed because foreign workers who come to work in our province under the temporary foreign worker program have a work permit that does not let them leave their employer and work elsewhere. This has led to situations of foreign workers feeling they must endure violations of the law in order to stay working in B.C. That is not acceptable.

The Ministry of Labour is where we can make a change with direct impact, where we can address many of the issues of injustices — first, by requiring foreign worker recruiters to be licensed. Licensing will require recruiters to be responsible for all work entrusted to their employees, partners, affiliates and agents, including those based in other countries. The far-reaching nature of this licensing requirement in legislation is unique in Canada, and it will help to ensure the recruitment process complies with B.C. laws from start to finish.

For a licensed recruiter, you will not only need to comply with the law, but you will need to act with integrity and honesty. Licensed recruiters will be made public, on line, so that employers and workers will know which recruiters will meet the standards.

Second, we are requiring employers who hire temporary foreign workers to be registered with our province. That means that if you are an employer who wants to hire a foreign worker, you must be registered with the province before moving ahead with a labour market impact assessment with the federal government.

Right now, because responsibility for the well-being of foreign workers is spread throughout many agencies and jurisdictions, it can be difficult to get the needed information to hold exploitive or abusive employers accountable. This registry will allow us to allow which employers are hiring foreign workers. It will also provide the tools to allow us to gain new information that will help to prevent abuse and provide practical and meaningful solutions.

For example, if we learn of temporary foreign workers housed in unsafe living conditions, the registry can serve as a hub to alert other ministries and agencies like Health and WorkSafeBC. On top of that, this legislation allows us to proactively monitor, audit and investigate workplaces to ensure compliance with the law. Because, as I have said, we have all heard the stories about recruiters and employers who take advantage of vulnerable people trying to make a better life in our province.

When I go back into my constituency office…. I’m sure those in the Lower Mainland and other places, all MLAs from both sides, have heard these stories — how temporary foreign workers, first, have paid tens of thousands of dollars in their home country to a recruiter. Then when they come here, they pay additional tens of thousands of dollars to a recruiter here, and that money then is shared with the potential employer.

Many times you’ve heard stories that the jobs that they are promised, with tens of thousands of dollars, don’t even exist. If they do, they’re not paid according to what they were promised in that contract, if at all.

In 2018, in British Columbia, in Canada, that should never have been allowed to happen. But it happened under the watch of the previous government. This was brought to them time and again by their advocates, by the workers themselves, by the opposition, by the public, but those pleas for help were ignored.

[3:20 p.m.]

Why, you have to ask yourself, in British Columbia, in this day and age, did you allow some kind of slavery under your watch? We said no to this. We will not allow that anymore. That’s why we’re bringing in a temporary foreign worker act.

How will this work? Recruiters and employers expressly will be prohibited from charging foreign workers fees for recruitment services and for employment — as I said, what they have been doing now — misrepresenting employment opportunities, taking possession of a person’s passport or other official documents, threatening deportation and mistreating workers for filing a complaint or participating in an investigation under the act.

Through licensing and registration, recruiters and em­ployers will need to meet new requirements, including written contracts for recruitment services, including details on the services provided and fees charged. Foreign worker recruiters — to ensure that their partners, affiliates or agents, including those located outside of B.C., comply with the act, we will hold them accountable here in British Columbia so that they comply with the act.

Recruiters and employers are to retain records related to foreign workers for four years. When recruiters or employers are found to be in violation of the law, this legislation will put enforcement tools in place to deliver swift and severe consequences.

If you are a bad recruiter and are charging illegal fees to workers to obtain a job, you could be stripped of your licence to recruit in B.C. You could also pay a monetary penalty for your breach of the law, and you will be made to repay the worker for those illegal fees. If you are an employer who doesn’t maintain a safe workplace and doesn’t comply with B.C. labour laws, you could be banned from hiring foreign workers. On top of this, if you are convicted of an offence as a recruiter or employer, you could even face up to a year in jail.

For far too long, unscrupulous recruiters and employers have gotten away with abusing foreign workers. This legislation allows us to deliver penalties that match the seriousness of these offences. Responsibility for administering the act — including licensing and registration, maintaining the registries, investigation and enforcement — will rest with the director of employment standards.

We know that most employers are good, fair and law-abiding in their business practices. Most treat their workers with dignity and respect. The same can be said about most recruiters. But the few that don’t follow the rules garner an unfair competitive advantage over those who do.

This act, the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, also puts us on the side of good employers, because those bad apples — the bad actors, a few of those employers and a few of those recruiters — take unfair competitive advan­tage over good employers. We are creating a level playing field to be on the side of good employers by holding those bad apples accountable for their actions.

The temporary foreign worker act establishes greater authority to address the issue unique to this particular workforce. It goes beyond the requirement that currently exists within the Employment Standards Act and other provincial legislation.

Once the legislation receives royal assent, the Minister of Labour will take the next steps to establish the foreign worker recruiter and employer registry. We are allowing time for implementing these new registries to ensure this is a seamless transition. It is important to me — and we have heard from various employers and advocacy groups that it is important to them — that this registration be cost-free and simple.

Good, law-abiding businesses are critical to our economy. They drive our industries that contribute to our growth and competitiveness. Our government is committed to helping them to succeed.

[3:25 p.m.]

With this legislation, we can both support our vital business community and combat the illegal and abusive practices that have so negatively impacted some of the temporary foreign workers who have come to B.C. to help us grow our economy.

I look forward to the debate on this bill, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much for listening, but I must stress the point that in British Columbia, regardless of your immigration status, every worker deserves to have the same rights and protection. This legislation will help us do that.

Too many stories of vulnerable workers have surfaced. Too many complaints on how they’re mistreated at workplaces. You have heard stories — a number of them crammed into one bedroom, forced to live in there. You have stories that they weren’t paid according to what they were promised or they weren’t paid at all. You have heard stories that the Employment Standards Act wasn’t followed. You have heard stories that they borrowed against their land, against their houses for a better life, to pay illegally to those recruiters in their home country. They paid illegally here in Canada to the recruiter and to the employer.

I must say again…. I want to repeat that most employers and recruiters are law-abiding citizens. They obey the law. They treat their workers with respect and dignity. They pay fair wages. They take care of their health and safety. But for those few who don’t, our message is very clear: we’re watching. You can no longer get away with breaking our laws. You can no longer get away with treating workers in British Columbia with disrespect and jeopardizing their health and safety. You can no longer get away with taking unfair advantage over good employers by cheating your employees and breaking the law.

This legislation will move us in that direction. It’s about time we provided these very, very vulnerable workers in British Columbia with the protection that they’ve deserved for a long time, the protection that they need. It’s our responsibility to make sure that we make some responsible decisions here today so that moving forward, it will be known that we did not ignore injustice here in British Columbia towards our vulnerable workers.

J. Martin: Thank you to the minister for that. Happy to follow the minister to speak to Bill 48, the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act.

Clearly, every one of us in this House, on both sides, to the front and to the back of this chamber, all thoroughly agree that it’s every British Columbian’s right to come home safe and sound at the end of the workday, regardless of what the jobsite may entail. It’s why, when we were on the government side of the House, we worked very diligently to reform WCB to ensure the safety of workers’ lives. I’m very happy to see that the new government is following that initiative and looking to further enhance the protection of workers.

Each and every one of us here believes that the right to come home safe at the end of the day, though, extends to each and every single person working in British Columbia, whether they are a citizen, a permanent resident, belong to a union, don’t belong to a union, whether they’re here on a work permit, whether they’re here on a temporary foreign worker agreement or any other format whatsoever. That’s why, generally speaking, I’m supportive of the bill, but there are questions that do need to be explored during the committee stage, and there are some issues that will be raised by my colleagues during the debate.

First off, I’m very happy to see that the government sees the value of temporary foreign workers. There were many occasions in the previous term, the previous parliament, where we got the impression from the then opposition that temporary foreign workers were not welcome in British Columbia. It’s nice to see that there has been a change of heart on that from the government since they’ve taken office. I’m glad to see that they do now see the value of temporary foreign workers.

[3:30 p.m.]

We take this bill as a recognition of just how important the program is to British Columbia families and to the economy of this great province, and that we need to have a flexible immigration stream such as the temporary foreign worker program, one of many programs.

This program tackles labour and skills shortages and can help keep British Columbians employed because the employers can find the staff that they need. Last year 47,620 work permits were issued for foreign nationals aiming to come to British Columbia. A full 35 percent of those, the exact number being 16,865, were under the temporary foreign worker program.

Those individuals coming here tend to be heavily concentrated in the Lower Mainland. A full 83 percent of those temporary foreign workers went to the Lower Mainland. About 5 percent went to the Thompson-Okanagan, and another 4 percent to Vancouver Island and the coast.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

We can see that to one extent or another, every region in the province is served by the temporary foreign worker program. Clearly there are going to be ebbs and flows, depending on the time of year and what type of projects are underway in different jurisdictions.

Of those coming to Canada on temporary foreign worker permits, many of them were students — young people from other countries coming to explore this great province, seek out opportunities and get a little bit of internationalization in their resumé and their work history.

Among these students, some were already highly skilled workers, such as those at Microsoft. They came from literally all around the globe to train and to eventually move to company offices in different countries. Some of those here on temporary foreign worker permits decided they like what they do and they like what they see, and they would enter into the immigration stream to maybe one day have the luxury of being able to call British Columbia home.

It is critical that at all points in time, we take every effort to protect these people, whether they’re here temporarily or they’re here on a path to permanency. First and foremost, we all believe in the right to a safe workplace.

It’s also important to ensure that those temporary foreign workers have the best experience possible, because when they do return home, in effect, they’re actually ambassadors, pseudo-ambassadors, for our province and this country. The better the experience they have here, the more enhanced our reputation will continue to grow around the world.

The licensing, the penalties and the registries envisioned by this bill have the potential to strengthen that and to further ensure it. That is why — as I’ve already alluded to — generally, I do support the legislation, the bill before us., but there are some specific questions and specific answers that we do need to address to see that this’ll be effective. Those will be explored further on in committee, and some of them will be raised in this House this afternoon.

For one thing, for example, we need to make sure that the registry and the rules about the registry result in real protection for those with a temporary foreign worker permit and that these aren’t just regulations and rules for the sake of having more regulations and rules. We want to be able to ensure that they’re going to do what they’re set out to do. We have to make sure that the rules work for the temporary foreign workers and for the employers and that this doesn’t just simply become another layer of red tape in a regulatory regime that requires more regulators and expenses.

We also need to explore the impact of the legislation on hiring practices, especially for industries such as food services and construction, which rely on the temporary foreign worker program to access the skills and talent they need to keep their operations going. Even more critically, we need to know that this will be done to spread the word of these changes so that should this bill become law, the impact of it, the effect of it and the changes of the environment will be known to all. This is one of the issues that we’ll need to explore, because many of those coming here under the temporary foreign worker program speak languages other than English.

Susanna Quail of the Migrant Workers Centre has already expressed a concern that vulnerable migrants need to be educated as to their rights. It’s not enough just to have those rights on paper. There has to be a process of educating those that those rights are designed to protect. Otherwise, they will not have an opportunity to exercise them, and some of the stories that we’ve heard that do speak to abuse and exploitative conditions in the workplace could possibly be allowed to continue.

[3:35 p.m.]

It’s critical that there be a process to communicate these rights to the vulnerable migrants and that we’re able to clamp down on workplaces that do not have a favourable track record in this regard. Susanna also added that many migrants, who are not fluent in English, may find it difficult to be aware of the protections that do exist for them. This is extremely crucial.

When the government announced this bill with a news release, it was translated to Punjabi, and the Chinese translation came a day later. Should this bill become law, it would be nice to see more done in that particular regard. This may extend to the on-line version of these protections. Are they going to be accessible in Filipino? Are they going to be accessible to people in different parts of the world in their languages?

I’ve got a great deal of time for the regulatory regime that goes into being a temporary foreign worker. I was one myself in Japan for eight months. I benefited enormously from that experience, and I was treated wonderfully there. I would expect that we would want all temporary foreign workers coming into this country to have as favourable and memorable an experience as I was so fortunate to undertake a number of years ago.

Along with my colleagues, I look forward to reviewing this legislation in more detail. I look forward to sitting across the aisle from the minister in committee and going through it a little more thoroughly. Together, on both sides of this House, I’m sure we all agree that we want this bill to be the very best that it can be.

We want to help everyone to ensure that they get home safely at the end of the day and that these recruiters and employers that are unscrupulous, that do take advantage of vulnerable workers, that do not follow best practices — or, in some cases, even minimal practices — that we have a way to shut them down.

I thank the minister for bringing this forward. Thank you for the opportunity to have my contribution to the debate.

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in second reading debate on Bill 48, Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, an act that’s been introduced by the minister to ensure protection for temporary foreign workers.

I rise to speak in support of this bill. Like the member for Chilliwack, we, too, raised a number of questions and concerns that I hope to see or be explored further in committee stage. Overall, I think this is good legislation and takes us generally in the right direction.

Temporary foreign workers play a critical role in our economy and our society, whether they’re working in the agriculture sector or as home care aides, or whether they’re filling seasonal employment. For example, recently, many of us attended the Union of B.C. Municipalities meeting in Whistler. The hotel I was staying at largely employed temporary foreign workers from New Zealand and Australia, who clearly were coming to British Columbia to gain some experience and gain some expertise in skiing.

I had a great deal in common with them. When I was their age, I was a temporary foreign worker in Australia. I was there for a year, getting the better of the surf and the sand and the Aussie rules football. It was a very rewarding experience for me back in 1988, as I’m sure it was for those young people in Whistler today.

Temporary foreign workers play many critical roles in such trades with seasonal employment. For many, actually, we find that it’s a pathway for eventual citizenship. Canada, as a nation built on the hard work of immigrants, welcomes new Canadians on an ongoing basis. In fact, just this morning, a young boy in grade 5 at a school that was visiting this Legislature, from Glenlyon, in my riding, just literally became a Canadian citizen. This was a very big deal for him — that today he became Canadian.

[3:40 p.m.]

Temporary foreign workers come to B.C. through multiple programs, including the temporary foreign worker program, the seasonal agricultural worker program and the international mobility program. As the member for Chilliwack pointed out, in 2017 alone, the federal government issued over 47,000 work permits for foreign nationals destined for B.C., and 17,000 of these were for temporary foreign workers.

We’re second only to Ontario in terms of the total number of temporary foreign work permits that have been issued. Industries like agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunt­ing account for nearly half of the temporary foreign workers in British Columbia — like 9,000 workers. Eighty-three percent of those permits are located in the Lower Mainland, 5 percent in Thompson-Okanagan and 4 percent on Vancouver Island.

Again, as somebody…. When I was at the University of Victoria and my wife was also faculty there, and we had young children, we too took advantage of the temporary foreign worker program and were able to bring to Canada a now Canadian, somebody who was working in Hong Kong as a nanny. She was able to come to British Columbia on such a caregiver program and spend three years with us before becoming a Canadian citizen. Now she’s married here. She’s contributing to the Canadian economy. Her husband is here as well.

We benefited greatly, as a family, from being able to bring a temporary foreign worker here. I’m sure other members in this chamber have similar stories about the importance of temporary foreign workers.

One of my son’s friends had very serious health issues and required 24-hour care — his father did, rather — in the home. Again, that care was provided by live-in, temporary foreign workers, 24 hours a day. Again, it was simply not possible to find Canadians who would be able or willing to serve in such a capacity. Again, in this case, we had a loving home. Temporary foreign workers come, spend a few years and are now Canadian, contributing to our economy and bringing their rich, diverse cultures to Victoria, in this case, but British Columbia and Canada in general.

However, not everyone has the kind of employer that provides a nurturing, safe environment. Temporary foreign workers can be amongst some of the most vulnerable in our society. In a new country, many will face a language barrier. They may be unfamiliar with their rights and our laws, and they are at risk for exploitation and abuse.

For this reason, the legislation before us is important to support, because it addresses this particular aspect. It begins to put in place a means and a mechanism to actually ensure that temporary foreign workers are not exploited. The legislation will improve protection for workers and the accountability of recruiters and employers.

For example, it will do a couple of things. It’ll create two registries, one for foreign worker recruiters and one for foreign worker employers, via a cost-free — that’s important — on-line process. It’ll also allow government to recover and return to workers illegal fees charged by recruiters. In particular, government could impose tougher penalties for noncompliance, including a loss of licence or registration, financial penalties — $50,000 for an individual, $100,000 for a corporation; that’s an awful lot of money — and up to one year imprisonment.

The legislation will improve government information about temporary foreign workers, and recruiters and em­ployers will also be required to disclose their relationships with recruiter organizations in various companies.

These are important, some of these changes. We know of, or we’ve heard stories of, examples where recruiters collect a fee from temporary foreign workers. They end up working here. There are examples. We’ve heard stories of where passports are held from temporary foreign workers, and exploitation sets in.

Much of this bill, obviously, is modelled after the employer standards act, and it follows the lead of other jurisdictions, like Manitoba and Saskatchewan, which already have temporary foreign worker registries in place. Last week one of our press gallery, Les Leyne, reported out that B.C. is considered to be well behind the pack in upholding standards and pursuing complaints. This was reported out in one of his articles he wrote. It is important to note that this legislation does actually deal with bringing us in line with some of the other jurisdictions.

[3:45 p.m.]

In 2018, the B.C. budget for the Minister of Labour received a $3 million increase in funding over three years to support initiatives for compliance and enforcement, improve protections for vulnerable workers and support fair and balanced treatment of workers and employers in B.C. Within that context, we know that the legislation coming before us is legislation that has got moneys associated with it to ensure that it’s delivered in a manner that will actually meet the objectives it’s being put together to address.

Most recruiters and employers will seek to do their best for employees. We know that. But this legislation is targeting those who try to skirt the rules a little bit to ensure that unsafe working and living conditions, for example, are dealt with and that temporary foreign workers cannot be treated inappropriately for fear that by complaining about their jobs, they might lose their jobs, might be sent home in debt. There’s a whole bunch of issues that are being dealt with here for which this bill is trying to ensure safe conditions exist.

This bill will require registration of recruiters and employers who seek out and hire temporary foreign workers. It will require them to register. By doing so, the government will be able to identify and respond to bad operators for the benefit of all stakeholders involved. In essence, this levels the playing field for both employers and recruiters by addressing the few bad operators out there who take advantage of temporary foreign workers and, hence, reap the benefit.

When this first came in, I feared that this bill to establish the temporary foreign worker registry would have created an unfair burden for employers — not so much the bigger employers but the small employers, perhaps a spouse who’s looking for help, a caregiver, for their ailing partner or a family who’s looking for a caregiver for their child.

Small business. I was initially concerned that this might be regulatory red tape and oversight and cost. I was reassured after receiving a briefing from the ministry that this is indeed not the case. The fact that it’s free is not a financial burden. And the fact is that it’s looking like it’ll be an on-line process that’ll take 15 minutes or so to fill out, in terms of the registry. It seems to me that that’s not onerous in light of the fact that, as an employer of a temporary foreign worker in a caregiver capacity, you already have to register for a GIC number. You have to register with CPP and EI deductions, etc. So this is relatively pale in comparison to what already exists.

Overall, I am pleased with this legislation. Again, creating a safer environment and a safer experience for temporary foreign workers will have a net positive impact on B.C. I will also agree with the member for Chilliwack who spoke about some of the work that was done by the previous government in this area.

I remember very fondly working with the then Minister of Jobs, I guess it was, now the member for Prince George–​Valemount. Together and collectively, we were able to introduce legislative change to no longer make it allowable for an employer in British Columbia to require an employee to wear high heels or footwear otherwise deemed to be unsafe.

In fact, I can tell you that if you go to bars around this area, you’ll find that most people are no longer wearing high heels. Very often people come up and are very pleased by that legislation. Government listened, government responded, and now you’ve got soft flats happening in bars across British Columbia. That’s actually an important health and safety achievement that we’ve got here.

Finally, I’ll say that I do commend the minister for looking out for workers. But I hope the minister can also recognize that we have to look out for not only temporary foreign workers but our own workers here in British Columbia. The fact is that British Columbia is dragging its heels in terms of introducing legislation or introducing, now, orders-in-council to actually address the presumptive clause for mental illness in a number of professions. Frankly, we could follow the lead of some provinces and actually assume a presumptive clause for all mental illness for all workers covered under the workmen’s compensation board.

[3:50 p.m.]

The reason is, of course, that if you have exposure to a mental illness, having to recant and retell your stories time and time again in order to prove that it is your workforce that actually caused that mental illness can be very onerous and, frankly, can be detrimental to the overall well-being and subsequent recovery of workers in B.C.

I look forward to further efforts that the Minister of Labour will have in this regard in the weeks and months ahead and thank him for this initial legislation to protect temporary foreign workers.

With that, I’ll take my place.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and speak in favour of Bill 48, the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act. It’s been a long time coming.

This act, basically, will deal with enforcing employment standards that we have in place and that do cover all workers. But because of the marginalized and the vulnerable status of many temporary foreign workers, it’s often very difficult for them to assert their rights and for them to be protected here in British Columbia.

We’ve heard from a number of speakers. I just want to talk about the context. British Columbia, our province…. The temporary foreign worker program is a federal program under the federal government. The federal government sets the parameters, and they enforce the immigration side. But in British Columbia, we are tasked with ensuring that our employment standards are upheld. That is putting in place means to ensure that those laws and regulations are enforced.

For many years, temporary foreign workers and other workers have been falling through the cracks and not able to leave exploitive situations. We really have a situation now where there’s just a culture of immunity for those few employers. The majority of employers respect workers and treat them respectfully, but it is those few that don’t want to abide by the rules, and for many years, they haven’t had to.

I’ve heard cases of just across-the-board, terrible, terrible stories of exploitation of temporary foreign workers that many members of the House have talked about. Globally, we have a global situation where we see the increasing commodification of labour and an increasing shift towards a temporary force of workers. Certainly in Canada, we’ve seen that increase over the last 15 years.

In British Columbia, the pattern has been predominantly workers and folks coming to Canada and to our province as permanent residents. Certainly, that’s our history of immigration here in Canada. But we’ve seen a shift in the last 15 years in British Columbia. We see the rise in the use of temporary foreign workers, characterized by marginalization, characterized by restricted access to permanent residency. This characterized the key vulnerabilities, which I’m pleased Bill 48 addresses — the key factors that contribute to the vulnerability.

The special vulnerability of these workers is that their immigration status is tied to their employer. Their work permits are tied to their employer. If they have a problem with a bad employer, it’s difficult for them to leave, because often the employers can say: “Well, if you’re going to complain, we’re going to have you deported.” So it’s a real deterrent in terms of stepping forward.

That’s one problem, and also the restriction in terms of gaining permanent residency. Those are two key structural problems that contribute to the precarious nature of temporary foreign workers. Bill 48, I think, can be characterized as the strongest step forward to ensure that all workers in British Columbia have their full rights under employment standards and that we bring an end and we enforce our labour standards and ensure that there are penalties in place as a deterrent against these employers and recruiters who would exploit these workers. So I’m pleased about that.

I’ve been familiar with caregivers and these issues around temporary foreign workers. When I was first elected — I’ve told this story before — I was really introduced to kind of the experience of temporary foreign workers in B.C. that I was unfamiliar with. I was having breakfast at Denny’s one morning, having my pancakes, on the west side of Vancouver. I struck up a conversation with my server. He tells me that he’s a temporary foreign worker. I was quite surprised by that. That was unexpected. He tells me that everybody else in Denny’s was also a temporary foreign worker.

[3:55 p.m.]

I gave him my card, and I said: “If you have any questions, come to my office, and we can help you out.” So he did. He made an appointment and came to my office and said that the employer was not honouring the contract. They weren’t getting their 40 hours. They weren’t being paid overtime — this type of thing. We said: “You have rights here in British Columbia. You’re covered under employment standards.”

We helped him fill out a complaint for employment standards. It was a little bit onerous because it was a self-help kit, but we helped him through that. He submitted it, and the next day he came in and said: “Guess what.” He was called into the supervisor’s office. Guess what the supervisor told him. “Oh, by the way, you’re fired.”

He came in, and we said: “Actually, that’s illegal.” We put him in touch with counsel. And it wasn’t just him. It was everyone else working there and in two other locations because it was the same owner who owned three franchises. That led towards the first successful class action lawsuit launched in Canada on behalf of temporary foreign workers. They got a positive settlement out of that.

It just shows that…. It kind of opened my eyes to just how many temporary foreign workers we had in British Columbia — in traveling across, certainly there are many numbers — and the difficulties and challenges for them to come forward. As members have mentioned, they’re often isolated. English is a second language. They don’t know what their rights are. And there are so few services. It’s a complicated situation.

The temporary foreign worker program is quite complex. Employers have to submit documentation. It’s the federal government dealing with immigration status and the provincial government around their employment rates. So if there’s a problem, (1) they don’t know their rights, (2) there aren’t services, and (3) it wasn’t enforced.

I’m very pleased that Bill 48 is going to address some of these challenges and really bring accountability and hold those few employers to account and provide deterrent to this type of behaviour, which, I know, no member in the House stands behind. It’s just a real…. I would characterize it as an insult, in terms of this type of behaviour happening in our province.

I’m very pleased with the bill. It’s also come through the work of community organizations and advocates in the community supporting migrant workers, particularly the good coalition and the Rising Up Against Unjust Recruitment initiative from the Migrant Workers Centre raising awareness around the illegal recruitment fees, which Bill 48 will address.

It’s so prevalent across many fields that migrant workers have to pay a fee for a job in Canada. It’s illegal. It’s against the law. But it happens because it’s not enforced.

Bill 48 puts that in place, ensuring that employers have to be registered and also labour recruiters have to be registered. If they’re found guilty of that, there are penalties. They have to repay that, and their licence will be revoked. They won’t be able to continue functioning, either employing temporary foreign workers or being a recruiter to bring in temporary foreign workers. That’s a positive step.

We have the situation in British Columbia that, because there’s been a culture of impunity around these issues, we’re hearing about and I’m seeing increasing cases coming into my office around labour trafficking. Shocking situations — right? — to this day, around how workers are being treated in our province.

Labour trafficking. The definition is that folks who’ve been brought into British Columbia…. But they arrive, and it’s called they’re “released upon arrival.” So they come, and they find they don’t have a job. That’s the situation now.

We have another class action lawsuit in the courts on behalf of Mac’s Convenience Stores. There was a labour recruiter from Surrey who recruited hundreds of workers from the Middle East and other countries.

Those workers paid $8,000 for a job in Mac’s Convenience Stores. They came, they paid their money, they arrived, and they were released upon arrival. There was no job for them. They were here without status and with no job, but they had paid their money, often by selling their family farm or their assets to be able to come to Canada.

This is a case that is in the courts right now. It really speaks to that shocking culture of impunity that we have in our province.

[4:00 p.m.]

I’m pleased that Bill 48 will look to address that and send a message that in British Columbia, we respect workers’ rights, we stand with workers, and we stand with the employers, the vast majority of employers, who do treat workers well and who do respect workers’ rights. Exploitation will not be tolerated.

This is a positive step. I’m pleased that the Minister of Labour is bringing forward this bill. I look forward to the continued debate and discussion, and I’m very pleased that our government is standing up for all workers.

S. Thomson: I’m very pleased to rise today to make some comments on Bill 48, the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act. As my colleagues have commented, every one of us in the House shares the belief that every British Columbian has the right to come home safe and sound at the end of the workday, whether you’re British Columbian, whether you’re Canadian or whether you’re working under one of the streams of the temporary foreign worker program.

We’ve made a lot of progress. I recall, in terms of providing those protections and that safety, growing up on the farm — and stories with my dad and my grandmother about the workers on our farm. We were about a 150-acre vegetable farm at that time and had immigrant workers on the farm, primarily Chinese workers.

I know now that the standards which they worked under were not the standards that would be acceptable today. I know my dad paid them properly. I know he made sure they had food and things, but the living conditions, the housing conditions and, probably, the working hours were not something that would be of today’s standards.

I can remember, as a young kid, exploring around some of the housing accommodation as we were out playing in the fields. We were pretty young then. They were essentially shacks. Had the dirt floor. Didn’t have running water. The water came from the irrigation ditch that ran by the cabins. Those are standards and conditions that would not be acceptable in these days.

We’ve made continual progress in this area. I also recall, when I was working with the agriculture industry, working with the Deputy Speaker and member for Burnaby-Edmonds on agricultural regulations under the Worker’s Compensation Act — to bring agriculture in under the regulatory provisions of the Worker’s Compensation Act.

I can really recall those being long, difficult meetings as we went through the process of trying to develop regulations that weren’t overly prescriptive. It went the whole range from wanting to put in very, very prescriptive — exactly how you do something — to a less prescriptive approach that recognized the flexibility that you need in the agriculture sector to operate your farms efficiently and along those lines.

Through all of that process and all of that work, we did come out with regulations that were ultimately acceptable to both parties. We further worked on putting in place the Farm and Ranch Safety and Health Association that promoted the safety and compliance with the regulations and worked with farmers and workers in understanding what those regulations were and how they were to operate on farms.

As was pointed out by the minister, the greatest, greatest majority of farmers — not just farmers but employers — are, overall, good employers and operate properly and have that respect. But there are situations where that may not be the case.

[4:05 p.m.]

I wish, maybe, we’d had some of these regulations and these provisions in place when I was growing up as a youngster on the farm. I can remember long, long nights in the root cellar tying up nursery stock into bundles of 25 — clipping and cutting them into bundles of 25 — and wrapping them for sale. They were going out into the tree fruit industry and down into the orchards in Wenatchee. I know what we got paid, and I know it probably wasn’t anywhere near what minimum wage was.

Interjection.

S. Thomson: I know, we were family. That was all part of it, but it shows that things have changed. This step, through bringing in the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, is a process to deal with those situations where standards are not met and not complied with by employers.

There have been comments about the importance of the temporary foreign workers in our employment pool and the critical need that they fill. If you look at the agriculture industry, at how important the program is, particularly the seasonal agriculture worker program, in ensuring that crops are harvested, particularly during the seasonal pressures, and brought to market, they have been big contributors to the growth of the agriculture sector in our province and play a critical role. We need to make sure that they are recognized for that and that the standards are complied with.

The concern that we have — my colleague from Chilliwack mentioned this in his comments — will be through the committee stage, in looking at the specific provisions and how this is going to be implemented. There will be a number of questions through the committee stage. The one thing that I think, I hope, that we all agree with is what we don’t want to do is to implement a system and a registry that adds increased red tape, increased bureaucracy and increased costs to farmers or employers in order to participate in the program.

We have some concerns. I have some concerns that in some cases, this is a duplication of systems that are already in place. When you look at, for example, agriculture producers who participate in the seasonal agricultural worker program and the requirements of that program to participate, they have to register. It’s part of a provincial-federal-international agreement with Mexico and Caribbean countries.

Over 6,000 of the temporary foreign workers that are in British Columbia, out of the numbers that have been talked about previously, are in that program. Over 500 employers participate in that program, and it is one that is extremely valued by the industry. But when you look at the requirements to participate in that program…. We hear concerns from industry already, around the timelines that are in place in order to be able to get approval and permission to work within the program and to bring the temporary foreign workers in.

They’re required to register. They have to make sure that they provide the housing, the inspection processes and pay for the workers to come here. There are provisions or requirements around providing the transportation costs, providing medical insurance coverage for them, as well, when they come into the program. The concern here is that by having the registry in place, I can certainly see the re­quirement to deal with the concerns around the recruiter side of the issue here.

In the case of existing programs, I think the questions we’ll want to pursue in committee stage are: why the need for a separate registry in those specific programs where producers are already registered and approved? They have to sign a contract. You know the number of workers that are being brought in under that program. For each of the temporary foreign workers, you know how long they’re here. You know when they go back. You know if they’re transferred to another farm in the program.

[4:10 p.m.]

It seems to us like this is, potentially, duplication. I know the minister said that this would be an on-line registry, no cost, but if I look through the legislation, the provisions are in the legislation for fees to be charged for the program. I don’t think I’ve ever seen the situation where you have the provisions for fees and, at some point, fees aren’t charged. It may be initially put in place without fees in order to ensure people register into the program, if that becomes the requirement, but at some point, the provision is there for fees to be applied, which would then add costs to producers.

We’ll want to question as to why, under those circumstances where there are existing programs, there couldn’t have been the sharing of information — the ability to have, in a sense, a registry, because it already exists — and why we need to set up a separate system and a separate bureaucracy, in a sense, to manage a registry when things are already in place.

There are some other concerns around some other specific sections in the bill. Section 30 talks about information-sharing and a provision to be able to share that information with a range of people that are listed in the legislation. But it also has a section that says the director may share the information with “any other person or body that governs or regulates the conduct of individuals.” The question will be: who are all those additional “any other person or body”? And concerns about how far this information gets transferred and shared.

Section 32 talks about the powers of the director to “conduct an investigation to ensure compliance with this Act and the regulations, whether or not the director has received a complaint.” So the director, through this, it appears to me, can simply enter places of work to conduct investigations without having any complaint process or any concern in process. We’re going to want to explore what the provisions or the protections are that are in place to prevent that side of it from being overly used and creating additional challenges, time, commitment and problems for the employer in responding to that, when it can happen at any time without any complaint being provided.

I can’t resist this. I do need to just make a comment on this. I recall, from when I was on the government side of the House and the minister was on this side of the House, bringing legislation forward. I always got challenged, on every piece of legislation, about the provision to implement much of this by regulation. If you look at section 82 and the next section, around how this is brought in by regulation, there’s lots of power to make regulations, transitional regulations. Much of the detail in how this registry will be brought into place and how it will work and what the fees are and all of those processes will be by regulation.

I just wanted to make that comment at this time. I remember being roundly criticized by the minister many times for leaving too much power and too much authority in the legislation on the regulatory side of it, and that we should have been more transparent and more up front about the process through the legislation, as opposed to leaving much of it to the regulatory side of it. So in committee stage, we’ll be looking at that part of the process as well.

I do just want to comment, as well, that one of the reasons we’re concerned about ensuring that this isn’t duplication and isn’t an additional cost to producers is we know that producers are being challenged in many areas with increasing costs brought about by new taxes, by additional taxes.

[4:15 p.m.]

If you look, for example, at the seasonal agricultural workers program, one of the requirements in the program is that the employer is required to provide and pay for the medical coverage for the temporary foreign workers that are brought in under that program. It’s one of the requirements, one of the many additional things that they need to pay for in the program.

Now we have the situation where those same employers are going to be charged the employer health tax on top of their wages and benefits under this program — for example, the seasonal agricultural worker program — all part of the employment costs for producers. They will now be charged an additional fee on top of a medical insurance coverage benefit that they already are required to pay for under the program. We want to make sure that this whole process with the registry isn’t adding that extra layer of red tape and cost onto producers, because we all recognize how important the program is — how important for all employers and for the employees.

All of that is being said with the basic provision that we want to ensure that employers comply with the standards, meet the standards and that all workers — whether they be British Columbian, Canadian, domestic workers, anybody participating through the temporary foreign worker program and the various programs that are available…. That employers meet those standards….

That’s the area that we’ll be focusing on in committee stage, just to make sure that this doesn’t add that additional layer and additional cost. And where there are already systems in place, why weren’t those systems recognized and utilized as the registry instead of adding additional process to it?

I know I’ve heard, from some of the sectors, that they are concerned that they don’t feel they were consulted fully in terms of bringing this legislation forward. That’s another area we’ll want to explore with the minister in terms of what consultation processes were in place with all the sectors, as they developed this and brought this forward. I think some of the concerns that we are hearing could have been allayed if there had been a full consultation process before tabling and bringing in the legislation.

I recognize the commitment to do this was in the mandate letter of the minister. In fact, if you read the mandate, it looks like it maybe even goes a little bit further in terms of a registration of the workers themselves. I expect that that may have run into some challenges under the protection of privacy and that side of it and that’s why it’s being limited to the employers and the recruiters and doesn’t go as far as the mandate letter maybe indicates, if I read between the lines of the mandate letter. But again, that’s another area we’ll be wanting to explore in committee stage as well.

I think that covers off the comments I wanted to make on this — just to say, again, that we value the important role that temporary foreign workers play in our economy and that we need to ensure that those temporary foreign workers are properly looked after and that employers comply with the current standards. We’ll be wanting to ensure that that is done in a way that is efficient, doesn’t cause duplication and doesn’t result in onerous, additional regulatory and bureaucratic process for those producers.

Much of the participation in the programs that are available for this have pretty onerous application processes in place already. So we’ll want to make sure that we’re not adding to that burden on employers.

[4:20 p.m.]

With that, as indicated, subject to those concerns being allayed through the committee stage process, I will see this as a positive step, and we need to make sure that it gets implemented properly.

L. Throness: It’s a pleasure today to speak to Bill 48, which is the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act. I want to begin by saying that we have many employers in my riding who employ temporary foreign workers, and that’s why I’m speaking to this today. I want to represent them here.

I want to talk, first of all, about a perfect storm in labour supply in B.C. One of my most common complaints from employers is about the shortage of workers.

Just a couple of weeks ago we had the Canadian manufacturing association here, visiting all members of this House, I’m sure, to talk about their issues, and one of their greatest complaints is about the shortage of skilled labour. They can’t find Canadians to do many of the jobs that are available. When they do find someone, sometimes there are reliability issues. When they’re hired, they don’t show up, or maybe they quit after a few days. Things like that. A report from the Business Development Bank of Canada in September found that 45 percent of British Columbia small and medium-sized businesses have had trouble in the past 12 months finding workers. So it’s a huge problem.

We know that 700,000 B.C. workers are going to retire over the next five years. We have, at the same time, a growing economy, built on the strong foundation that the B.C. Liberals left the NDP when they came into government. LNG is coming on stream, due to the hard work of our government and the final approval, which we appreciate, of the NDP. So the economy is still moving along. We have the perfect storm of a growing economy and a shrinking workforce, and that brings pressure on our workforce. And it brings up a solution, and that is the temporary foreign worker program.

Allow me to speak, first of all, about the importance, the place and the appreciation of temporary foreign workers in B.C. We have many such workers in Chilliwack, mainly in the agricultural industry. Employers speak very highly of them. They are diligent in their work. They work hard. They’re not afraid to tackle all kinds of tasks. They’re good residents of Canada. They’re law-abiding people. They’re there to work and provide a good living for their families, usually back in Mexico.

I attended a parade in Rosedale at the Rosedale Harvest celebration, and what went by were a whole bunch of small green tractors from a greenhouse, driven by temporary foreign workers waving, smiling and having a good time and being part of the parade and part of economic and social life here in Canada. That’s a great thing.

We’re grateful for their work, and their employers treat them well. They provide them with a good living. They pro­vide them with good working conditions. I often encoun­ter temporary foreign workers when I tour greenhouses and other places, and I think they’re very happy workers. It’s an entirely positive arrangement.

Of course, in relation to this, I agree with the protection of foreign workers. Who wouldn’t? I used to work for the MLA for Chilliwack between 1984 and 1986. At the time, he was Minister of Agriculture. His name was Harvey Schroeder. I was his assistant. I knew that there were problems at that time because they came up with contractors who brought foreign workers to Canada and exploited them. There were contractors who were notorious for that, and employment standards branch workers were always chasing them around, trying to dampen down that kind of activity.

As late as 2008, there was an incident in which a van was filled with 16 temporary workers. It was a 15-passenger van. It crashed between Abbotsford and Chilliwack on the freeway. There were three people killed. A number were seriously hurt. It was a tremendous tragedy. And it came out that there were only two seatbelts in the van.

These are anecdotes that we can relate. I remember another awful anecdote from Ontario, where there was another crash with foreign workers. However, I would point out that, as WorkSafe reminds us, there are accidents all over B.C. on the job with domestic workers, not just foreign workers. And there are car crashes that happen with people driving them who are on the job, and they’re Canadians. They’re not foreign workers.

We need more than anecdotal evidence. There are abusive employers. There always have been, unfortunately, in B.C., that do bad things, that exploit their workers, who are not foreign workers, who are Canadian workers. That’s why we have employment standards. That’s why we have an employment standards branch and a tribunal associated with that.

[4:25 p.m.]

Everyone agrees with foreign worker protection as well as domestic worker protection, Canadian worker protection. But we need more information, which I hope the minister will lay before the House before we create a couple of new bureaucracies and a long piece of legislation.

I’m always a bit of a skeptic of government — I hope the minister will forgive me for that — so I want to cast a bit of a skeptical eye on this and ask some important questions.

First, we need evidence that there is a systemic problem with temporary foreign workers that needs to be fixed. I’ve heard no outcry in the media about this. When we were in government, I don’t remember the NDP taking up the hue and cry in a major way, although it was contained in the NDP platform of last year. But now it’s such a problem that we need to introduce a long and complex piece of legislation.

Second, we need evidence that the present laws and regulations are unable to cope with the systemic program that exists. We already have employment standards and regulations in B.C. We have an act. We have a tribunal. We have workers that deal with employment standards, and they apply to all foreign workers and to their employers.

Third, we need to find out what kind of cost and administrative burden this will place on the backs of employers and taxpayers. I want to state here that the vast majority of employers are good people. They’re not oppressive people. They don’t hurt their workers, whether foreign or domestic, and they do not need to be further regulated.

We know that employers are good because workers come year after year to be involved in Canada’s economy. They’re well known to employers. They depend on them, absolutely, to get things done in their places. They provide a very good living for them and for their families back in the countries where they come from.

The question is: what kind of problem are we trying to solve here, and what is the evidence, the systemic evidence, for the problem that we’re trying to solve? I would point out that it’s not in an employer’s best interests to abuse temporary foreign workers. That’s because of the perfect storm that I was talking about. In our tightening labour market, there is a greater and greater demand for workers of all kinds. I hear about it all the time in every field, from trucking to agriculture to high tech to manufacturing. There are worker shortages.

If one employer were to abuse a worker and that worker would quit, then that employer would have a real problem finding a new worker. There’s a tremendous economic incentive today to treat employees well that hasn’t existed in perhaps a number of generations. It is employees today, rather than employers, who enjoy the upper hand in the labour market. And just at this time, we’re going to make it more difficult. We’re going to add more red tape. We’re going to make life tougher to fix a problem that we’re not even sure really exists.

I would invite the minister to lay before the House evidence to show that there is a problem that really needs fixing. There are many protections already. I want to point out a factsheet that has been put out by the government of B.C.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

L. Throness: It has put out a fact sheet. Under current law, it notes a number of things.

First, foreign workers are already covered by the Employment Standards Act and regulation. This includes things like overtime pay, statutory holidays, holiday pay, annual vacations, vacation pay and minimum wage. I would point out that “wages must be paid in Canadian currency by cheque or draft, money order or direct deposit to an employee’s bank account. An employer cannot provide goods or services in lieu of wages.” That’s already in the law.

“No one can charge a fee to a person to help that person find a job or provide information about prospective jobs.” That’s already in the law. “A foreign worker cannot be re­quired to pay for immigration assistance as a condition of being placed in a job.” That’s already in the law.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

L. Throness: “A foreign worker cannot be required to post a bond or pay a deposit to ensure they will finish a work term or employment contract, or to pay a penalty if they do not. A foreign worker cannot be required to pay back any costs the employer paid to an employment agency or anyone else to recruit the worker.” That’s already in the law.

“An employer may only deduct wages as required by law…. An employer cannot require an employee to pay any portion of a business cost, including costs of bringing a foreign worker to Canada or costs due to theft, damage, breakage, poor quality of work, failure to pay by a customer,” and so on.

An employer can only terminate an employee after giving the required notice or pay in lieu of notice, and those are exactly the same laws that apply to domestic workers, to Canadian workers. “An employer or an employment agency cannot force a foreign worker to return to his or her country of origin…. Only the government of Canada has the legal authority to remove a person from Canada.”

[4:30 p.m.]

“An employer may not refuse to continue to employ a per­son who files a…complaint or otherwise discriminate against a person with respect to their employment.” That is in the new law we’ve got, but that’s already in the old law.

Foreign workers with language difficulties are not re­quired to use the self-help kit that a former member was talking about in a speech before filing a complaint.

Temporary foreign workers already receive a lot of protection from the government.

The minister was saying in his opening speech that when he came, language was a problem. There wasn’t a lot of information — where you go to file a complaint, and so on. I would point out that the minister came to Canada many years ago, when there was not as much information available. For example, on the Net, a foreign worker can read in his or her home country and can find out all about the law. There’s much more information available.

Yes, I think foreign workers are vulnerable today, perhaps more vulnerable than a Canadian worker. But they are not nearly as vulnerable as they used to be. Temporary foreign workers already receive a lot of protection from the government. They’re also protected by federal Canadian labour laws. But now we want to set in place not one but two separate bureaucracies to register recruiters and employers.

There’s a separate set of regulations for temporary foreign workers involved in agriculture called the seasonal agricultural workers program. These folks are from specific countries with which Canada has bilateral agreements. They’re involved in primary agriculture in specific commodity sectors. So it seems to me that the protections are already quite strong.

The services of the employment standards branch are available to every foreign worker. Perhaps if we need more inspections, we should hire more people to work for employment standards to enforce existing laws. Why do we need new laws? Why do we need new certifications? Why do we need new registries? We could be going over the top here.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Turning to the bill, I have a few comments to make, a few questions to raise. We already have an employment standards branch governed by a quasi-judicial tribunal that already takes care of matters like this. But the government is layering on a licensing process for foreign worker recruiters, a certification process for employers of temporary foreign workers. Obviously, this will be accompanied by a large contingent of new staff to carry out the functions. It would be interesting to know the expected cost of these measures. There may not be a cost to the employer, but certainly, there will be a cost to the taxpayer. I think the minister should lay that before the House, and I’m sure he’s going to do that.

I have some concerns about due process. There’s nothing in the bill that requires that an employer be notified that a complaint has been made against him or her. A complaint can be made anonymously without the employer ever knowing that it has been made or who it was. It can be made as late as two years after the date of the allegation. The employer may never be able to face his or her accuser. There’s no requirement for an oral hearing. The director must investigate, subject to a few conditions, such as a frivolous or vexatious complaint.

In the law, there does seem to be a contradiction here. The director can refuse to investigate a complaint if there’s not enough evidence to warrant it. But how could the director know that without actually doing an investigation?

But I move on. An investigation does not have to involve an oral hearing. It can all be done on paper. Though the director must make reasonable efforts to give a person under investigation the opportunity to respond, there’s no definition of the word “reasonable.” Maybe the director would try hard, but maybe they wouldn’t try that hard. In other words, it’s conceivable that an employer could simply get a judgment in the mail telling him or her to pay a certain amount of money with interest to the employee — no hearing necessary.

Nor is there a penalty for a worker making a frivolous or vexatious complaint or one that is intentionally false for harassment purposes, perhaps. I would say that this bill gives every incentive for a dissatisfied employee to bring complaints against an employer. The weight of the law lies all on the side of the worker and against the employer.

Already that happens under the present system. I have a constituent today whose daughter owns a business. A worker made what they say is an unfounded complaint against her. The business owner is now being dragged through a knothole by the process. I can see that happening more now with temporary foreign workers.

The only saving grace to the bill, and one that I approve of, is the appeal allowed to the existing Employment Standards Tribunal that is also a part of the act. I don’t see why, though, it is absolutely necessary for the certification and the licensing processes that we see taking place here under this law.

To my mind, the minister has some explaining to do. I look forward to the minister providing assurance that there is hard evidence — evidence of mistreatment of employees — and that the evidence is systemic, not anecdotal. The minister can assert this, but assertion is not argument. He needs to make an argument for the bill that includes evidence.

[4:35 p.m.]

In other words, we need assurance that we are not using here a hammer to swat a fly. We also need assurances that there is fairness in the law between employers and employees, that the employee is not given an incentive to wrongfully attack an employer using this law. As we know, unfairness can happen on both sides, and we need to make sure that fairness happens for both employers and employees.

I look forward to further discussions around this bill during committee stage. Perhaps we’ll ask some questions, and I’m sure the minister will be happy to provide the detailed information that the House requires to make sure that this bill is necessary.

B. Stewart: I rise today to speak on Bill 48, the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act.

This is a bill, as I’m sure the minister and the government know, that requires that foreign recruiters are to be licensed, requires prospective employers of foreign nationals to hold certificates of registration, sets out the rules and the processes respecting licensing and certificates of registration, imposes obligation on foreign worker recruiters and em­ploy­ers with respect to foreign nationals and foreign workers and provides for enforcement of those obligations.

You know, I think that each and every one of us in this House shares in the belief that it’s every British Columbian’s right to make certain that they come home safe and sound at the end of each work day. That includes people that are working here on an interim or even a semi-permanent basis.

That’s why, when we were on this side of the House, we worked so hard to fix WCB and ensure that the safety of workers’ lives was protected. But that doesn’t go without saying that accidents do happen and things don’t always go according to plan.

We need to try to make certain that we enact legislation that leads to the abilities for the statutory or regulatory regimes to make certain that they do their jobs and make certain that we’re trying to provide that protection.

One of the things that makes me generally supportive of this bill is that we do need to address the fact that we have an influx of temporary workers here in the province, in Canada. That’s, no doubt, caused by the fact that we have a growing and an aged population and declining birth rates. The fact is that without permanent immigration, temporary is going to be the only way that we can do that.

Really, I think that one of the things that I am most concerned about this — and I think that this will come more in the committee stage — is when we can talk about where duplication in this particular bill and the other Employment Standards Act could be streamlined so that we’re not tripping over each other.

I think that probably I can relate to that firsthand. But I think about a story about…. You know, earlier, the member for Kelowna-Mission talked about what was it was like growing up on a farm in the Okanagan which is made up of all immigrants. I mean, with the exception of First Nations, these are people that immigrated to Canada in the hopes of having a better life and a better opportunity.

I think that we forget that, when we look at new people that are coming to this. Where did they come from, and what is their understanding of the way that employees should be treated? I think that that’s a big discrepancy.

I honestly know that many of the people that…. I’ve been around farms all my life and really have had to value and make certain that I understood people of different ethnicities and backgrounds so that I could better understand how we could retain those people. The available supply of workers has not always been….

First, it didn’t actually live in the Okanagan Valley. But more importantly, it was the type of thing that people were…. We relied on it, and we would try to attract. That’s changed over time. You know, we found that the Okanagan, especially, has become more of a retirement area.

[4:40 p.m.]

We found that there’s a migration towards the larger centres where British Columbians…. We’re training them in school. We’re trying to get them to think about the opportunities that are in the trades or other things besides just jobs that are related to other degrees within the university system. When it comes to foreign workers that are working in jobs that they maybe see as less attractive, there are ways of making that attractive.

However, in this market of tight employment, we really need to make certain that we do our very best, not just as employers but as government and local government, to make certain these people are valued and welcomed into the country — that we don’t put up all of the barriers.

As the previous speaker from Chilliwack-Kent said, we have to have balance. We can’t have it so that it’s all slanted, that all the employers are seen to be not necessarily following the rules. They do really care. We need to make certain that they understand why they need to care. Frankly, for the ones that are not doing their job or are mistreating foreign workers, as has been suggested by the minister…. We need to make certain that they’re properly penalized and don’t have that access. Maybe they’d develop the reputation of not being an employer of choice.

I think that we take this bill as recognition of just how important the program is to B.C. families and the B.C. economy, to have a flexible immigration stream like the temporary foreign worker program. It’s not the only foreign worker program. There are a number of other ones. Ag stream is one. We have the seasonal agricultural worker program that my colleague from Kelowna-Mission mentioned. They’re important. They’re all different, but they do come with a fair amount of obligations on the part of the employer, and we can’t forget that.

The program tackles labour and skills shortages to help keep British Columbians employed, because their employer can find the staff that they need. That’s an important part that we can’t forget. Without people being here, immigration or temporary workers, we can’t hope to have an economy as robust as we’ve been blessed with.

The fact is that the tax dollars that come from companies that are successful here means that they stay here because we have access to things like the PNP program and these other programs. We need to do a great job in making certain that employers don’t drift back to where, maybe, the standards are less — maybe before they came to Canada, if they happened to be an immigrant — and that they have the opportunity to have employees. We need to make certain that the standards here in this country are different. They’re very high, and we respect both sides of the equation.

Last year we had over 47,000 work permits issued for foreign nationals coming to British Columbia. A full 35 percent of these, 16,865, came in under the temporary foreign worker program. That’s a lot. That’s the size of whole communities, and there’s still an acute shortage of foreign worker help here. We do need to make certain that we are the choice of foreign nationals wanting to come to British Columbia, not just Canada. We want them to come here.

The rules. As much as what we talk about in a piece of leg­is­lation, how do you communicate that to somebody in Indo­nesia, the Philippines — it could be in India or in Europe — that’s coming here for a very precise job and sector? We want them to know, when they make a deal with somebody in Canada, that there is certainty around that. I think that that’s one of the things that this bill speaks to.

Many of these temporary foreign workers are located in the Lower Mainland, not coming out to the outlying areas, with only 5 percent in the Thompson-Okanagan and another 4 percent on Vancouver Island and up the coast.

Many of these people are also students, so this is their first impression of actually coming to Canada. I know that in my role in working as the representative in Asia, I met with literally thousands of students — whether it was university, K to 12 — or people that were looking to send their young graduating family members to British Columbia. We wanted to be the first choice.

[4:45 p.m.]

They’re still here on that temporary foreign worker permit or as a foreign national in this country. We want them to bring their ideas around opportunities that they can bring here to British Columbia. We want to make certain that it’s a place that’s desirable, and that’s something we can do. Sometimes legislation doesn’t necessarily speak to that, but we want to make certain that the employers respect and understand that and do their job.

We also need local government to do that as well. I have found, personally, that local government is just as guilty of some of the misunderstandings and lack of understanding. I mean, they’re responding to their constituents without regard to the proper amount of education about foreign nationals coming in — what the expectation is and how they should be a part of the solution.

We talk about communication with foreigners and making certain it’s available in their language. The fellows that rented me a car when I arrived here last night were both speaking in Spanish. I knew that that probably wasn’t the first language that they learned here in Victoria, if they came from Victoria. Anyway, I wonder at how, when this press release came out, it came out first in Punjabi and a day or so later in Chinese. What about all the other ethnicities that we have here? It is a big challenge, and we need to make certain we’re doing that.

Many of these skilled workers came in during the last 16 years of building up the economy and growing it. We were challenged by companies not necessarily wanting to come into Canada because of just their corporate beliefs. However, many of them have located here, as we’ve seen from recent announcements. We have a Microsoft centre; we have Amazon. We have many others that are setting up here in the Lower Mainland. Those people are wanting a transferable workforce that’s moving around. These are sophisticated employees that are coming here to make certain that their rights are protected, and the contract, but they need mobility as well.

When they come into the immigration stream, we want to make certain that it’s not too onerous, too biased and too much paperwork on both sides. It’s critical that we do that for people that are coming here. There’s a federal system around immigration. That’s not the province’s job. We don’t manage immigration. We work with the federal government. We work on PNP and temporary foreign workers.

What we really need to be doing is making certain that the job that we do, between Canada and British Columbia, is as seamless as possible for those people. All of those people that come here to work are important. Whether it happens to be in a hotel, the food service industry, or it happens to be in agriculture or high technology, we’re needing those people, and we need to make certain that we don’t create additional barriers.

When I think about what the agricultural community is doing already in terms of…. I don’t know, in depth, the temporary foreign worker rules. However, I know that for agricultural workers that come in here, it’s mandated by the government that we provide them health care insurance. They arrive here, and they’re fully covered. I know that this is something that we want to make certain of.

We fly them in, and we make certain that they have approved accommodation. I know that we do need to make certain that the accommodation meets the standards of what we would expect — not what our fathers or grandfathers might have accepted, considering where they came from. My grandfather came from Ireland and looked for a new opportunity here. I’m sure dirt floors, as the member for Kelowna-Mission suggested, were not that uncommon.

I do think that one of the things we do need to do is to make certain that we work with the federal government in terms of better communication. The things that we’ve added recently to employers here…. What have we added? We’ve added an increase in minimum wage, not just once in one year. We increased it twice; we’re going to $15 an hour. We have the new employer health tax on top of the medical insurance, as I mentioned a second ago, for workers that are seasonally here. We actually have to pay twice.

[4:50 p.m.]

Unless that rule changes, employers in the agricultural industry will be required to pay both the insurance for their employees before they leave the country of origin, as well as the employer health tax. There are no exemptions that I’m aware of underneath that, unless there’s some amendment that perhaps is forthcoming. I think one of the things that we do need to do, though — I know it was mentioned earlier by one of the speakers — is to make certain that there is enforcement. There’s no use creating rules unless there are the enforcement mechanism and the resources to enforce that. We saw that for many years — things that were infractions.

Take the agricultural land reserve. My colleague from Kelowna–Lake Country was successful in garnering enough support so that there were people out there checking to make certain that these violations weren’t going on. There were lots of reports. It’s the same thing when it comes to labour. You need to make certain that there are adequate resources, that it’s not a hearsay system either and that there’s proper ability for people to defend themselves — right?

I do read in the legislation that the director has a lot of breadth, I guess ability, to basically make decisions, decide whether they’re going to hear…. There is an appeal process, etc., but it is limited to dealing with the employment standards branch. I look forward to discussing that in committee. As we get closer to debating this bill, I hope that we can have constructive dialogue about increased red tape. I hope that we’re able to focus in on employers and making certain that they know what their obligations are, as well as employees — what their rights are — and making certain that they don’t come with misguided information or perceptions.

I look forward, with my colleagues, to reviewing this bill at the time of committee stage. Together, let’s make sure that this bill is the best that it can be and make certain that it works for everyone, both employees and employers, here in British Columbia.

N. Letnick: I believe I’m the last speaker on the opposition side to speak to this. I’ll try to sum up some of the sentiments that we’ve heard from members on this side — and, actually, from members on the other side as well, including the minister and, in particular, the member for Vancouver-Kensington, who described her personal experiences with advocacy for temporary foreign workers.

Before I do that, I want to get into just a clarification of my colleague the member for Kelowna-Mission, who talked about his experiences working on the farm when he was a child and how he did not get what he thought was adequate payment for bundling some seedlings, amongst other things, maybe casting aspersions on his father’s ability to get him to work hard — which, we see, has turned out really well, because the member is one of the hardest-working people in this province and a good friend.

I have to say that, from what I understand, as a young man, his parents ended up having five daughters. At the time that the fifth daughter was born, there wasn’t enough room in the farmhouse for all of the kids — in particular, him. So the member for Kelowna-Mission actually ended up running away to the garden shack, where he put up his permanent residence on the property, with no running water. I’m sure that he’s had fond memories of growing up on the farm, if not in the farmhouse all the time.

All kidding aside — even though that’s a true story — we have a lot of temporary foreign workers in British Columbia. I believe we’re second in numbers to Ontario. There’s a lot of history here. As members from all sides of the House have talked about, it’s not only in agriculture. It’s in services, in retail, in restaurants, as nannies — all kinds of opportunities — where we see temporary foreign workers coming and filling an important gap that Canadians have decided to vacate in the employment structure because they have found other jobs that they would prefer.

I think one of the key things that we’ve heard today is: are we really replicating what we already have in other regulations and other pieces of legislation? We are going to canvass that, of course, when we come to committee stage.

[4:55 p.m.]

For those people who are watching and don’t know what committee stage is, this is where we go through each section of the bill, line by line, and we get to ask the minister some questions on implementation, and others. We have to talk about that.

We also have to talk about how we can encourage those people that are coming under the temporary foreign worker program, or others, to actually take up residency on a permanent basis in our country. How do we work with the federal government to increase the amount of people that can immigrate into British Columbia, whether it be on the PNP program or whether it be in general in the immigration stream itself? While the temporary foreign workers are filling that gap, I believe — and, I imagine, most Canadians would believe — it would be far better if we had people who are going to plant roots on a permanent basis working in these areas and be long-term, fully naturalized workers.

I know a lot of employers have told me they really rely on the temporary foreign workers to come back year after year. Some of them have come back for over 20 years, but they’ve chosen not to become Canadian citizens. They go back home, typically over Christmas, to be with their families over the Christmas holidays, because a lot of them are Christian, and very, very proudly so. That’s great, but I think we have to continue to work towards getting more and more immigration in our province and our country.

Now, on the minister’s proposal for Bill 48, the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, some of the highlights will require foreign worker recruiters to be licensed and employers who recruit and hire temporary foreign workers to be registered. We’ve heard the stories, from the member for Vancouver-Kensington, of people paying money to come here, and then, once they get here, there’s no job for them. Obviously, there’s a gap there that we have to close and do more enforcement. We’ll talk about that during estimates….

Another goal is to establish criteria for issuing, refusing, suspending or cancelling a licence or registration and also imposing tougher penalties on recruiters and employers who violate the legislation, including not just a loss of licence or registration but financial penalties, up to $50,000 per individual or $100,000 for a corporation, including jail time for up to one year. These are strong penalties.

In my experience as former Minister of Agriculture for four years — and, in particular, in my riding, where we have a lot of temporary foreign workers and a lot of fruit growers — I’ve found the vast majority of employers are good corporate citizens who respect the rights of their workers, provide them adequate housing and provide them the proper benefits, as per the employment acts that do guard their safety. But clearly, there always will be and there always are some people who try to take advantage of those workers.

What we have to discern during the committee stage is whether or not what’s being proposed here is actually a duplication of what we already have, and redundant, or if it’s actually something new. We’re going to get into that because, obviously, everyone involved in industry has enough things on their plate, enough fees to pay, enough paperwork to file and enough red tape to cut through. What we don’t want to see is a lot of effort being placed by them on repeating or replicating something that they already are doing, instead of focusing on cutting expenses or selling more product.

Particularly this year, as the Minister of Agriculture knows, it’s been a bad year for receipts for our farmers. So anything we can do to help them, including things like tree fruit replant programs or the coupon program at the farmers markets, both of which the current government has continued to do, are things that we want to see move forward. But also, we have to watch the cost side, to make sure that we don’t include a whole bunch of new costs to achieve the same goals that we all agree to.

We’re also hearing from the minister that the bill will allow government to recover, and return to workers, any fees charged illegally by recruiters. I can see that that won’t be a hard sell for anybody.

One that we are having trouble with is creating two registries, one for foreign-worker recruiters and one for employers who hire temporary foreign workers, which will be free to register for and can be done on line.

[5:00 p.m.]

What we’re concerned about is that while it’s free to start, it won’t be free for long. These costs will not only be passed on to the farmers but will stay with the farmers, because most of our farmers are price-takers. They don’t have the opportunity to pass on extra costs to the customer, because they, for the most part, are price-takers. They basically have to take whatever they get from the big buyers.

If they find out that they have extra costs, they will have to swallow those costs, unfortunately. That’s why you’ve heard from my colleagues a concern that not only do they have to pay for health care costs as they’re coming in, but they then, with the employer health tax, will have to pay again. So we are going to have to clarify whether or not we are double-dipping in the pockets of our hard-working tree fruit industry.

Now, the tree fruit industry represents about 800 growers, generating $130 million in wholesale revenue, contributing $900 million in economic impact and direct employment of 1,500 person-years. We have to ensure that this important part of our economy continues to grow. So a big part of our focus during the committee stage will be to ensure that we’re not increasing red tape. We are making sure that employers will have time to adjust their hiring practices to ensure that these workers are continuing to get the supports they need but not at a significant extra cost to the bottom line.

One thing that has been brought up, as well, is the difference in consultation for this bill compared to some others that have impacted the same constituency. You take the Minister of Health, for example. The Minister of Health has been consulting, since he’s received his position, quite in depth, on the health of work camps situation, trying to find that right balance — continuing from the previous Minister of Health Terry Lake and the previous Ag Minister, me — between work camps, what is involved with work camps, and whether or not that definition and those services should apply to foreign workers working at farms.

Obviously, someone working up north in the hinterland requires a different level of service or a work camp than someone in downtown Kelowna who is also working at a farm. The consultations have been going on for probably two or three years now. At some point, we’ll see the proposed changes coming to light in the public domain.

On the other hand, Bill 48. When you juxtapose the consultation on Bill 48 against the work camp legislation, it lacks quite a bit in its depth. That’s what we’ve heard from people in the industry, saying that we should take the government to task on this — having one set of standards for health care and another set of standards for the Minister of Labour. Nothing personal. It’s just it’s quite obvious that there’s a difference in consultation there.

We would ask any constituents who are listening to this, whether they are from the communities that have temporary foreign workers — the Filipino communities, the Chinese communities, the Jamaican communities and, of course, the Mexican communities and other communities — that if they have issues with the legislation, to contact us in opposition so that we can bring them to light during the committee stage.

Of course, if any employers or any associations have issues, contact us as their voice during the committee stage, because we have some serious issues, as I’ve outlined before.

In total, I would say that Bill 48, the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, probably at a very high level is supported, supportable. But in the end, we’ll have to wait and see the details, because as we know the cliché, the devil is in the details.

We will do our best to garner information from the minister during the committee stage so that people impacted on both sides of the issue will know exactly what they are going to be facing should the government pass this legislation at the end.

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

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: It is a pleasure to sit through and listen to many of the members. A very thoughtful reaction, I would say, to Bill 48. I think there were some really good points made here. The member for Kelowna-Mission brought a number of issues that we will be looking into. He had some legitimate concerns, and we will be answering those questions at the committee stage.

The leader of the Green Party actually asked us and suggested that we should be looking after our own workers here. He talked about the presumptive clause and the extension of it to bring other workers into that protection.

We’ve been working on that file because my goal, and this government’s goal, is to make workplaces in British Columbia the safest in the country. We do that by having strong preventative measures and strong enforcement programs in place so that those who are injured or those who have become ill at workplaces are treated, through worker compensation systems, with respect and dignity.

That’s why WCB has created 40-plus new positions as prevention officers — so that we can prevent the injuries from happening in the first place. Dozens of case managers are hired so that those who are going through the system — it’s very complicated — have their cases dealt with in a timely fashion and receive the care that they need in a timely fashion and help them to return back to work to their pre-injury job.

The WCB brought in a consultant named Paul Petrie. He looked at how the WCB system is actually working for injured workers and came down with over 40 recommendations on how we can restore the balance and make it more worker-centric. A lot of good work is being done. That’s just the beginning. There is more coming. We will continue to work until we achieve our goal of making our workplaces the safest in the country.

I must say here that I am deeply, deeply disappointed with the member for Chilliwack-Kent. He questioned what it is here that we are trying to fix, as if he slept through the last few years, his eyes and ears closed. This clearly indicated why nothing got done in the last few years to protect and provide the protection to those temporary foreign workers. That’s the reason, if that’s what reflects the wishes of that side. I don’t think it is.

I knew that there would be resistance and that there would be some of those who want to fight back. They don’t like change. They don’t like to come to the modern world of changing workplaces. But you know, those are the people who like to continue to benefit from abusing their employees and exploiting their workers. It seems to me that they have a spokesperson in this House in the member for Chilliwack-Kent.

If the opposition continues to allow members like that to speak and take those types of positions, I can guarantee you it clearly shows that you have learned nothing in those 14 months — nothing, sitting on that side. You continue on with that approach, continue on blaming the workers and blaming the victims instead of dealing with the real issues that we’re trying to solve here. That is to provide protection to the temporary foreign workers by reining in those very few employers who exploit and abuse.

Instead, the member stood up and asked why there aren’t enough penalties for the workers in this bill. I’m completely, totally lost. I know all good members in this House will feel the same way when you hear from a member like that with his positions.

Having said that, as they say, it’s all good people who continue to speak against the injustices in this world, in this society, and that continue to move the society forward. I’m happy the majority of the people here are of that view.

[5:10 p.m.]

I want to thank the many people who brought these issues forward, starting with the member for Vancouver-Kensington, a tireless worker on behalf of the temporary foreign workers. Day in and day out, she was working, she was standing with them, and she was bringing those issues forward. I want to thank her.

I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker. You sat with those members. You and I sat with those members and listened to their stories. I wish that the member for Chilliwack-Kent had heard some of those stories. He’s talking about: “Where is the case?” You and I sat with those members, and I’m sure others have sat with those members and discussed their real-life stories, Mr. Speaker.

I also want to thank the Migrant Worker Centre, formerly the West Coast Domestic Workers Association; Victoria Filipino-Canadian Caregivers Association; Mi­grante B.C.; Dignidad Migrante Society; Radical Action with Migrants in Agriculture; Laborers International Union; International Union of Operating Engineers; B.C. Fed; UFCW; BCGEU; United Steelworkers; Unifor; and many other members of society.

I’m so proud to be part of the government that is actually looking forward to making sure that in 2018 in British Columbia, all workers enjoy the same rights and protections, regardless of their immigration status. It is a step in the right direction. I want to thank all those who spoke in favour of all of the elements of this bill, on both sides of the House.

I just want to say that I’m proud that we are moving in this direction. I’m proud that there are so many people in this House, members on both sides, who believe that this step was long overdue — and that we are doing it. With that, I want to thank all those members who spoke here. I want to thank all those members who supported me by providing suggestions on how to deal with this issue and what kind of elements we need to address in this bill.

With that, I now move second reading of Bill 48.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 48, Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Eby: I call second reading of Bill 44, Budget Measures Implementation (Employer Health Tax) Act, 2018.

BILL 44 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION (EMPLOYER
HEALTH TAX) ACT, 2018

(continued)

M. Morris: I believe I still have a few minutes left from my presentation before we adjourned last week.

I go back to the discussion that I had last week before we adjourned and my role in the RCMP as a senior manager overseeing a fairly significant budget for policing for the northern 75 percent of the province. We used to…. As a member of the division executive committee, I was also part of the budget deliberations that we had on how we would allocate the scarce dollars that we got during my role as that manager from 1998 until 2001.

The NDP government of the day would allot us a budget, and usually it was fairly late in the overall scheme of things. It only gave us a mere few weeks to allocate it before the beginning of the fiscal year. But shortly after the fiscal year started, they would claw back 2 or 3 or 4 percent of the budget they had given us a few weeks prior to that. It made it very difficult for us to provide the services that British Columbians expected from a provincial police force. As I said, we had to park police cars. We had to ground our airplanes. We had to keep our boats tied up at the docks.

I see the same thing happening again with this bill, the employer health tax. This government is taxing the payroll for the police and corrections and emergency services and all of the other people that provide a very critical service to the population, the people in British Columbia.

[5:15 p.m.]

This is taking tens of millions of dollars out of police operations. Salary dollars have to be paid. Operations have to be weighed upon the budget and the remaining allocation that’s left. When you take $25 million or $30 million out of the overall provincial policing budget and municipal policing budget for the province, that has a big impact on providing that service that everybody expects from policing.

They’re under-resourced as it is. To be hit with this kind of a tax measure really cripples their ability to adequately investigate the plethora of crime that’s out there and the serious crime that’s out there. The complexities associated to that crime really taxes the managers and the investigators themselves to try and do a job, investigate it so that they can arrest the perpetrators of a crime and put them through our court system and, ultimately, have them receive jail time for their crimes.

Not only is it affecting the RCMP and the municipal forces that we have in the province — there are 64 municipal contracts that the RCMP have; there are 12 independent police forces in the province, in addition to the federal and provincial policing — but we have corrections. Corrections has hundreds of employees, payrolls around $150 million a year for the corrections system itself. The payroll tax that is going to be added on to corrections is going to impact their bottom line as well.

Corrections is facing resource shortages in community corrections with probation officers and the changeover of corrections officers in the facilities that we have in the province here, so it will significantly impact them. They already operate on razor-thin budgets to try and get the job done. They do a great job for us. I have great admiration for the corrections officers that we have working in the system right now. They bend over backwards. They’re passionate about what they do in trying to rehabilitate the prisoners that go through the system and get them off on the straight and narrow.

We did a lot of work, when we were in government, to change over from private health care to the provincial health care system for the prisoners that were incarcerated so that there was no lapse between them going to jail and getting out of jail, as far as some of the services they received for drug addiction, mental health issues and some of the other ailments that a lot of the prisoners have.

The work that our community corrections folks do in travelling to the small remote communities in the province here to deliver the service for probation and the other services that they have will be impacted. Corrections alone — I think we’re going to see probably about a $3 million hit on their budget for the employer health tax. That’s $3 million that could better be served in servicing the small communities with community corrections. It could be better served with some of the rehabilitation projects that we have in our community corrections centres.

I think we need to examine that. We have firefighters. The fire department in Prince George…. You know, we’ve got hundreds of firefighters across this province on a payroll. When you take that payroll tax out of those budgets, it affects what those folks that are delivering front-line emergency services have to operate. Our ambulance service. We have nurses. We have health care workers across the province. It’s going to be a significant impact on that.

The other areas I want to get at are some of our community service organizations that provide services to the people that really need some help out there. I’m going to quote a little bit from a letter that was written a few months ago to the Finance Minister on some of the impacts that it’s going to have.

This is a letter that was written collectively by the Prince George Native Friendship Centre; AiMHi, which delivers services for Community Living B.C.; Carrier-Sekani Family Services; Prince George and District Elizabeth Fry Society; Big Brothers Big Sisters; Intersect Youth and Family Services; YMCA of Northern B.C.; Canadian Mental Health Association; Active Support Against Poverty; and Phoenix Transition House Society.

[5:20 p.m.]

In that letter, they were highlighting some of the problems that they foresaw with this particular measure here. They say:

“This tax being rolled out, along with increases to the minimum wage and carbon taxes, has an enormous impact on our financial stability in the coming years.

“We acknowledge that the goal of this tax is to take the burden of MSP costs off British Columbians, a goal we can all support. However, the actual result of this tax will mean employees, whom this tax is intended to support, will actually be negatively affected. In order to manage these increased financial outputs, we’ll need to find these dollars through measures such as eliminating jobs and salary increases as well as reducing employee training. This, in turn, will result in longer wait-lists for clients trying to access our services.”

They go on to say, in another paragraph:

“Moreover, we’re deeply concerned about the financial impacts in the year 2019, whereby we’ll be required to pay both MSP and the employer health tax. We estimate that we will be paying $600,000 more than the full MSP rates that we paid in 2016. Collectively in this year, all these organizations will be paying over $1.3 million in MSP and employer health tax.”

That’s money that is taken right out of the operations of those entities that provide such a critical service for the people of Prince George and the surrounding area, services that can’t afford a reduction. There are men and women every day that look forward to the visit from their mental health worker or from somebody within one of those organizations that is going to give them that moral support they need in order to carry on within the community. Government is taking that money away from the ability of those organizations to help out.

Finally, one of the other organizations that I have a lot of time for — they have a big footprint in Prince George and throughout British Columbia and the Interior — is the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army in Prince George run a recycling depot. They’ve got a large warehouse where they recycle clothing. They recycle electronics. They recycle a number of things in there.

They have a store where they sell used goods, repurposing the use of those goods. They have a food bank. They provide meals. They provided an extraordinary amount of service for evacuees during the evacuations from Williams Lake last year and this year from the Fraser Lake, Vanderhoof and Fort St. James area, with the big fire that we had there this year. They provide an immeasurable service in that area.

The employer health tax alone, I think, is going to account for a couple hundred thousand dollars from their bottom line. That is services that they won’t be able to provide.

They have dozens of employees. They’re impacted by the increase in the minimum wage as well. It’s going to have an incremental effect through their entire staff. They’re struggling in order to make ends meet, as it is, to provide the services that they want to provide the people. There are people who show up at their facility every day, to go to the food bank, to get meals, to get some of the services they operate there.

We have cold weather coming. We have the annual kettle program that’ll be ramping up very quickly. Members of this House volunteer for that. They’re going to be standing out there in the cold, inclement and freezing weather that we have coming up. They’re going to be ringing their bells, with the kettle in front of them, trying to collect money for the Salvation Army programs that we have here. And out of that money, the government is going to take 1.95 percent in order to fund their employee health care programs here.

I think that’s a terrible situation, to have these volunteers out there in the cold, trying to help the Salvation Army raise money for their programs to feed the people, to provide the services they want, and government is going to take 1.95 percent of that money, or a percentage of that money, to pay this employer health tax.

Again, it takes the service away from the people that really need it. There should’ve been some other way to collect the funds that they needed for the health care program, much like we had envisioned over here. We were going to eliminate the MSP premiums. Once the economy was booming, and more money was coming in, then we were able to eliminate it all together.

[5:25 p.m.]

This government chose a different tack, and it’s going to affect every single British Columbian across the province here with the services they get from emergency services, the police, the ambulance, the firefighters and all these non-profit organizations that provide such a valuable service.

D. Barnett: Ever since the Finance Minister introduced the new employer health tax in her first provincial budget, she’s been feeling the heat from organizations, large and small, that were blindsided by the announcement. In the NDP platform, no mention of the new tax to replace MSP premiums. So what does the government do? Tax businesses, local governments and organizations.

In the Cariboo-Chilcotin, our main industry is forestry. We have mining, agriculture and tourism. Let’s take our forest industry new costs. Many logging contractors never have paid MSP premiums. These are good-paying jobs. Families of all age groups and all walks of life.

An example or two. A young man, a constituent of mine, is 38 years old. He’s married. He has two beautiful young daughters. He and his wife own a logging company. They have worked hard as young logging company employees, with 30 men and women. There are equipment operators, truck drivers, mechanics and accountants — all it takes to run a logging business.

Increased costs the last 15 months: carbon tax, up $5 a tonne; in 2019, another $5 a tonne; employer health care tax. These company costs, with this new health care tax and the carbon tax — not the others — will cost this young company over $100,000 in 2019. The employer has no choice. He doesn’t net $100,000 at the end of the year from his logging company. He has choices: cut employees, go to the auction or just go to the auction.

There are more logging companies in the same situation — just a small example of damage to families working at good resource industry, high-paying jobs in rural B.C. Your cost of living keeps going up. The government just doesn’t get it.

Every time a new tax is imposed on business, on local governments, the cost gets added to the consumer, to everything a consumer needs — homes, rental, fuel, groceries, clothing, heat, light, phone, etc. I think they better wake up. This government claims it’s the government looking after the people. Well, who? More costs. A PR referendum that, if it passed, cost government…. I understand it could be as high as 30 percent of GDP to fund this institution.

It soon became apparent, however, that the employer health care tax would be applied on a much wider scale to include municipal government, health authorities, school boards and charities. Faced with a terrific backlash, the Finance Minister was forced to back down and refine the tax to reduce the impact on many public sector employees, including health authorities and school boards.

This creates an unlevel playing field with the private sector and has municipal governments feeling singled out too. The Finance Minister argues that local governments can just simply raise property taxes, but this has many municipal officials crying foul.

Kamloops mayor Ken Christian calls the employer health tax a sham and said: “It’s nothing other than downloading in its purest form.”

Employees in the restaurant and service industry will also feel the pinch, as employee health care tax will now cover gratuities and tips paid through an employer. The tax will also be extended to bonuses, commissions and vacation payments. The employer health care tax will also include em­ployer contributions to an employee’s registered retirement savings plan. The fact that a cash-starved government now has to go after RRSPs flies in the face of the whole purpose of encouraging retirement savings.

[5:30 p.m.]

Even more disturbing is the current trend of the government to tax personal assets like RRSPs and now residential properties through an increased school tax. Although the school tax will initially target homes valued at $3 million or more, the Finance Minister knows that once a tax is in place, it will just be a matter of time before she lowers the threshold on everyone to pay for some very expensive campaign promises, and the only way these campaign promises can be paid for is through taxation.

Our business community needs the government to listen, to listen to the fact that business is what makes this province what it is today. The private sector, the resource sector, is where the revenue comes from for all our social programs, our health care, our schools, our highways and byways. I encourage the minister to rethink this unfair employer health care tax and look at the ramifications in the next year coming from this tax.

Hon. J. Sims: I’m pleased today to speak in favour of the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2018. This bill is the next step towards the complete elimination of the MSP fees that every British Columbian has had to pay monthly for decades. B.C. is the only province in Canada with medical service premiums that have been rising, costing families hundreds and hundreds of dollars a year.

Every other province in Canada provides health care without requiring monthly fees from their citizens. In fact, up until the change of government, these fees were increasing under the previous administration. Under the direction of the former B.C. Liberals, MSP fees increased by a total of 112 percent. In 2002, they increased fees a first time by a whopping 50 percent.

In 2010, they increased the MSP premiums by 6 percent. In 2011, once again increased by 7 percent. In 2012, the fees were increased by 6 percent. In 2013, by 4 percent. In 2014, by 4 percent. In 2015, another 4 percent. In 2016, they increased fees yet again by a huge 6 percent. In total, that adds up to 112 percent, and that is how much more people were paying for their MSP fees during the last 16 years.

It’s time for a different approach for British Columbia, an approach that puts people first and makes life more affordable. We are delivering on our commitment to the people of B.C. and giving them the break they need. We have already moved forward with eliminating these unfair MSP premiums. In January of this year, fees were reduced immediately by 50 percent.

That reduction put $900 back into the pockets of families this year alone. That amount is equal to a senior’s grocery bill for two months, three weeks of child care, winter boots and coats for a family of four, ten months of electricity for the average home, 13 tanks of gas in a compact car. By 2020, with the complete elimination of MSP fees, families will save as much as $1,800 each year.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

This government is committed to making life more affordable for people by replacing the unfair MSP premiums with the more progressive employer health tax. We will reduce taxes overall by approximately $800 million each year. Just think of that for a moment.

[5:35 p.m.]

This is one of the largest tax cuts in B.C.’s history, $800 million each year. The employer health tax will generate revenue to support the critical health care services the people of our province depend on. This bill enacts an annual tax, following the practice of many other provinces. The employers health tax will be based on an employer’s remuneration. This bill contains protection for small businesses, charities and non-profits.

Employers with B.C. payroll under $500,000 will not be required to pay the tax. Yes, that is correct. Employers with a payroll of less than $500,000 will not be required to pay this tax. Employers with payroll between $500,000 and $1.5 million will have their rate phased in. Employers with B.C. payroll greater than $1.5 million will pay 1.95 percent of their total B.C. remuneration.

With this tax, B.C. will be tied with Ontario for the lowest tax rate in the country. Let me repeat that: tied with Ontario for the lowest tax rate in the country.

The administration of MSP was costly and inefficient, and transitioning to the EHT will save more than $50 million a year. We know that dealing with MSP bills has been burdensome for businesses and families too.

I’m proud of the measures this government is taking: saving families up to $1,800 a year, providing one of the largest tax cuts in B.C.’s history and providing one of the lowest health taxes in the country. I’m reminded of Tommy Douglas, who gave us our universal health care system, and how, for decades now, it’s been British Columbians who have been paying an extra tax in order to access their health care services.

With the actions of this government, not only will British Columbians end up having money in their pockets, but we will be on an even playing field with the rest of Canadians and, as a matter of fact, tied with Ontario, for the lowest taxes in the country. I know that my colleagues across the way will speak in support of that, because I know how much they like being in the range of lowest taxes when we compare ourselves to other provinces.

I’m finding it difficult to imagine how anyone could speak against this bill, this bill that saves families money and puts us in the lowest tax rate for health services across the country, the employers health tax.

N. Letnick: Thank you to all the members who have preceded me in discussing Bill 44.

In particular, I’m going to be talking about Bill 44 as it relates to the employer health tax provisions and implementation. Before I talk a little bit about the act in general and our opposition to the employer health tax, I’d just like to put onto the record what exactly is involved with this bill.

Employers that are currently paying MSP, medical service premiums, will be paying both MSP and the employer health tax starting January 2019. The full payroll tax rate is 1.95 percent, but for businesses, charities and not-for-profits, there is a phase-in rate of earnings, which is charged at 2.925 percent.

For businesses that make more than $500,000 a year but less than $1.5 million, they are charged at 2.925 percent of the payroll above $500,000. This is the income above $500,000, so if it’s $550,000, the tax is 2.925 on the $50,000 only. For those above $1.5 million, a 1.95 percent rate is charged on the whole amount. There is no exemption once payroll exceeds the threshold.

[5:40 p.m.]

For non-profits and charities, a rate of 2.925 is charged on the amount more than $1.5 million but less than $4.5 million. For these non-profits and charities above $4.5 million, it’s the full 1.95 percent. If they have a payroll under $1.5 million, they’ll pay no payroll tax, employer health tax. Non-profits and charities will also be able to divide their payrolls up by location as long as they have exclusive rights to the location. Hint, hint: make sure you have exclusive rights. If it is shared, then it does not count as an individual location.

For businesses that don’t have year-round establishment in British Columbia, the payroll tax is prorated depending on the amount of days they are established, effectively lowering the threshold for paying the payroll tax. For example, if a business operates 122 days or a third of the year, then the amount of days they operate, divided by 365 and multiplied by $500,000, is the low threshold for qualifying to pay for the employer health tax.

The same is done for the high end of $1.5 million. If the payroll falls between those parameters, a 2.925 rate is calculated on the payroll. If it exceeds the high end, 1.95 percent is levied.

Associated employers are defined as employers that are associated with an employer at the end of the calendar year. This could have an effect of grouping more businesses together and forcing an increase in the payroll tax. The definition of an employer associated with another employer is left extremely broad and could enable franchises to be grouped together. Business are not allowed to divide their payroll by location, unlike charities, further increasing the likelihood they will have to pay the full payroll tax.

Now, I’ve already seen in my riding a business that has decided to move their headquarters to Edmonton from Kelowna. When I asked them if it was purely because of the payroll tax, the answer was that they still want to do business in British Columbia, so they were unwilling to go on the record. But I can tell you between the lines, it’s exactly why they moved their business from Kelowna to Edmonton — to pay a lesser tax in Edmonton but still be able to operate around the provinces in this country.

What we’ll see is…. We won’t see people announce in the newspapers: “Hey, we’re leaving British Columbia. We’re taking our investment with us and going somewhere else.” Why would anybody want to do that? It wouldn’t make business sense.

On top of that, what we will see is investments that were destined to come to British Columbia that just don’t come. They don’t take out a full-page ad in the Calgary Herald or the “Saskatchewan Times” that says: “We decided to move to your location because B.C. had an employer health tax, along with all the other higher taxes.” They just do it, because it’s not good business sense to bash a jurisdiction that you are trying to maybe get a foothold in for customers.

What will happen is, in the short term, the government will find they have more revenue because they are taxing those employers that are forced to stay in this province. But over time, as investment dwindles off because more and more people decide not to come here and more and more investors decide not to invest here and start businesses and create jobs, we’ll see the economy slow down. The result of that, of course, will be overall less taxation for the government, which means less money for services.

I think we’ve already seen this movie. It’s called the 1990s. Unfortunately, as the member from Prince George said before, the sequel is always worse than the original movie. Hopefully, that doesn’t happen here. I do not want to bet against my province. I’m just concerned that basic economics says that if you’re going to be a high-tax jurisdiction, people will take their money elsewhere and invest elsewhere. And that will have a negative impact on the very jobs that everyone around this House would like to see created.

The Finance Minister and the government are pretending this new tax is about making life affordable for people. But the reality is the tax is taking a bite out of every British Columbian’s pocket, and it’s going to drive up costs across the province for customers, taxpayers and businesses.

You know, I think everybody wanted to get rid of the MSP. I remember ten years ago, when I first stepped forward in this House, one of the first questions I asked was: “Why do we have MSP?” It’s a poll tax. You get to $30,000, and everybody pays the same amount. Of course, the difficulty is, what do you replace it with? That’s always the challenge.

[5:45 p.m.]

Whenever you want to get rid of a tax, you have to find another tax to balance it off or make your government more efficient, reduce costs of delivering services or perhaps find some new investment opportunities like, I don’t know, liquefied natural gas, for example, which we’re moving on.

These are all the decisions that we have ahead of us as far as governments are concerned. It took time, but finally, after eight years or so, when we were on the government side, we promised to get rid of MSP. We committed to get rid of MSP by 50 percent in the first year and then work, over a few years, to get rid of MSP completely, without finding a substitute tax to replace it.

That’s exactly what the government has done. They found a substitute tax. They haven’t gotten rid of MSP. They’ve just shifted it from every individual to businesses, non-profits and governments to pay. But of course, we all know that for the most part, those extra charges are going to be passed down to customers and taxpayers, municipally, and, in a lot of cases, I would suspect, will actually put some people underwater, as far as their business is concerned. It’ll get to that threshold where they just don’t see the ability to continue to pay the higher prices in British Columbia, and they’ll decide to either close the doors or move elsewhere.

I think that’s a big issue — and how we differ on both sides of the House. They, with their tax, have decided to pass it on to the businesses, governments and non-profits. We would’ve taken a little longer to implement and not pass it on to anybody.

Municipalities across the province have expressed concerns about the extra cost. I’m sure we’ve heard them loud and clear. But just as a reminder…. The city of Vancouver is going to see a $13 million increase a year. Surrey will have to find $3.35 million; Richmond, $2.5 million; Abbots­ford, $1.7 million. Kamloops, the bastion of a great hockey team, will have to find $700,000. Kelowna, the bastion of the better hockey team, will have to find $1.38 million in the first year, when there’s a double hit, and an ongoing cost of $832,000. Of course, the list goes on and on, and the costs keep going up.

That’s the very challenge. We know what the municipalities will do, because, typically, what they try to do is stay somewhere close to inflation, whatever inflation is — 2 or 3 percent. But with this hit, they’re going to have to bump up their tax rate just to cover the employer health tax way before they even look at their own services.

Yes, I know we just came through a municipal election. There have been some changes out there. I would imagine some of that change is due to the cost of delivering services. Every municipal government — and I’ve been on three in my lifetime, three different councils — looks at the bottom line as to that balance between delivering services to their constituents, their citizens, and how much their citizens can afford to pay in increased taxation.

Basically what the government is doing here is they’re eating away at the local government’s ability to raise revenue to deliver on local priorities. Already the local governments have the short end of the tax stick, because they only, I think, get about 8 percent of total taxes from the country, from provinces — only about 8 percent.

Therefore, by raising the employer health tax to apply to municipal governments, they are again whittling at the local governments’ ability to provide those services, paying for that infrastructure on policing and fire protection, local roads, water, sewer, garbage pickup and pet control. All these things that local governments are so good at and do on such a very tight budget…. We are asking, through this government, to increase their costs, unfortunately.

Even their own budget documents tell the story that when it comes to the removal of MSP, the per-capita tax burden is rising in B.C. It’s up $425 per person this fiscal year. It’s rising another $518 next year. The tax burden for a family of four is rising almost $4,000. Compare that with Budget 2017, where the per-capita taxes were projected to rise only $101 and $97 in the same years.

[5:50 p.m.]

The members opposite spend a lot of time talking about making life more affordable. I know we all want to do that, but only they could pretend that rapidly escalating increases in per-capita burden is somehow making life more affordable.

I akin it to a class warfare approach of members opposite. They are making a commitment: people won’t have to pay MSP; companies will. As we’ve talked about already, members opposite seem to think that anyone who invests in the province, trying to grow a company, providing paycheques that supports families, is just wrong.

I remember — probably my first speech in this Legislature — I was sitting in the back row over there on the other side behind government, and I asked: “Where’s the money tree?” I didn’t find one, having toured around the precinct for a few days. I was looking for that money tree, the tree that you just basically pluck. Money comes out, and you can pay for all your goods and services.

I haven’t found one, but I guess the government has, and that is through the employer health tax. Let’s just tax everybody. Let’s raise government revenues by billions of dollars, and no one will notice. Well, I have to defer to others and say: “A lot of people have noticed.” There is no money tree, and there’s only one taxpayer. If you increase the costs on municipal governments, non-profits and businesses, those costs will get passed to the taxpayer. They’ll have less money to spend on their priorities. All we’re going to get is a larger bureaucracy, but I guess that’s part of the reason why we have this tax.

It’s hard to run a business and keep people employed and help them run this province and finance everything we do when they have a hand from government in their wallet. The government keeps claiming only a small percentage of businesses will pay, but that’s not what I hear. They want us to believe that big business will foot the bill. I can tell you, even if that was true, the lack of investment by big business in our province will hurt everyone. But it’s not true.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business looked into this, and they’ve told us that the new tax will actually be paid by 44 percent of businesses with a payroll. That means about 60,000 businesses in British Columbia, most of them relatively small, will be footing the cost of this tax. In the world of tight margins and hard work to make a profit and meet payrolls, the average small business owner subject to the tax will be paying more than $15,000.

Now, we just heard in the debate on another bill just a few minutes ago, that when farmers hire temporary foreign workers to come to our province, they have to pay the health care costs of those temporary foreign workers up front. Not only will they have to pay the health care costs of those temporary foreign workers up front, if they’re large enough — and most of them probably will be — they’re going to have to pay the employer health tax on top of that.

Next year they’re going to have to pay double employer health tax, including the premiums. What we’re talking about here is a triple force of taxation. The premiums, em­ployer health tax and also the input tax when they come into the province.

There is no rich uncle sitting on top of a pile of money. There is no money tree. There is just hard-working business owners and investors working hard to pay their staff and provide them with benefits and better futures for themselves and our communities.

Companies who didn’t pay the employer MSP premiums will be hit hard. For them, this will represent a whole new tax to be paid. It’s one they wouldn’t have faced under a B.C. Liberal government. We were getting rid of MSP, not replacing it with a new tax.

I know a lot of people talk about: “Well, you know what? There’s no tax in the rest of the country.” Well, I beg to differ. In Ontario, they moved their premiums to the income tax form. It’s still there. They just shifted it. Just like what the government here is proposing to do — shift it. Instead of shifting it to a broad base, to everyone, they’re shifting it, specifically, to businesses, governments, municipal governments and non-profits.

It’s going to be doubly hard for all those who have been helping their employees all along, those who have been paying the employer portion of the MSP. It’s been a great benefit offered by many employers in this province.

What the Finance Minister has cooked up is a scheme where thousands of British Columbians, who didn’t pay MSP premiums before because they were already covered by the employer, will now benefit because — take a deep breath — they will no longer pay premiums they never paid in the first place. In exchange, in 2019, their employers will get to keep paying for MSP they didn’t get to pay a second time through this new NDP tax. They will get to pay it twice in 2019, the year the Finance Minister stuck both her hands in your wallet.

[5:55 p.m.]

I’m worried that a little more affordability is slipping away for those families. They’d be paying higher prices and municipal fees and taxes thanks to the government. They will be sending more money to municipalities to help fund the government’s double dip. To top it all off, the possibility of wage increases that could make life more affordable seems unlikely.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business asked small businesses how they would find the funds to pay the new tax. They said 63 percent would reduce planned bonuses for employees, the same number said they would reduce planned raises, and 46 percent said they would eliminate plans to hire additional staff. In other words, this new tax equals less money for workers and fewer new jobs.

The money for those raises is likely going straight to the Finance Minister’s coffers to fund the tax, and it is going to the black hole. It’s not going to the Minister of Health to fund increased health services. It basically goes to general revenue. Unfortunately, going to general revenue means that the employer health tax really isn’t a health tax. It is just an NDP tax — period. End of story.

We have much more to say about this at committee stage. I look forward to exposing it for what it is: just another piece of legislation. Nothing new here. Something to see, though, however, in an increase in taxation. British Columbians will not be very happy when they start seeing the impact of this tax in the very near term, when those raises are cancelled, when those jobs are cancelled and when the economy starts to get hurt by the cumulative impact of all the taxation — new taxation and increases in taxation — that this NDP government is imposing upon British Columbians.

M. Bernier: Thanks to my colleagues. It’s an honour to rise to speak on Bill 44 and the employers health tax. I know the hon. minister was cringing when he saw me get up. But I do want to acknowledge the Health critic, who spoke before me, and thank him for his comments.

Of course, when we’re talking about the employers health tax, it’s a new tax that’s being added on to businesses, technically, and lots of different groups around British Columbia; a tax that they were not expected to have to pay; a tax that I know that the NDP didn’t campaign on and say that: “If we do this, we’re going to be actually increasing your taxes around the province of British Columbia.”

Now, as was mentioned before, I think all parties in this House have talked about the elimination of MSP, looking at opportunities to reduce medical services premiums that people around British Columbia were having to pay. Interesting that it looks like now the NDP are going to a first-past-the-post method of charging people a tax in the province.

What I’m really worried about is the fact that…. When we were in government and we talked about the elimination of MSP and how we could look at reducing the medical premiums for people in the province of British Columbia, we looked at the strong economy. We looked at how much money was coming into the coffers of the province of British Columbia, into government, for what was needed for the services that we were providing.

Over the last quite a few years, we got to see an increase coming in to the province. We started to see more revenue coming in as the economy was growing. The decision was made that there’s an opportunity now to reduce the MSP premiums by 50 percent and not have to raise taxes. That was the plan that we were going forward with.

We knew that this was not a shell game. It was not going to be saying that we’re removing it here and increasing it over there. This was: how can we actually, legitimately reduce the costs to the people in the province of British Columbia?

Well, that’s not the case. That’s not what we’re in now with the new government and their plan. Now, they’ll stand up, and they’ll say: “MSP premiums are gone. You don’t have to pay it anymore.” And we’ve heard them saying that families are not going to be penalized with this extra cost.

[6:00 p.m.]

What they’re forgetting and neglecting to tell the people is this is actually just moving the fees, moving the charges and moving the costs to other areas, which is actually going to then be downloaded back to the same people that they are saying they’re trying to help.

When you look at next year in B.C., in 2019, people are going to be having to pay MSP and the new employer health tax. When we look at municipalities, as my colleague before and others have said, who have paid MSP for most of their employees, that’s not going to change next year. Now they’re going to have to pay the employer health tax.

They have no choice at all, as a municipality, than to now push those costs onto the people within those municipalities. You’ve heard the members talk about the millions of dollars that are now going to have to be put out in increased property taxes around the province. People are still paying for this.

I just want to maybe mention a few things that are really going to be an impact on my riding when I look at the fact that I am a border community. My region, of course, is right on the Alberta border, which doesn’t have any provincial sales tax at all. That is already in a competition with businesses within British Columbia, specifically in my riding.

Companies, small businesses and corporations within my region who are legitimately bidding and fighting for contracts are looking at how they have to pay these increased taxes and increased costs and carry that on in order to stay in business. It is genuinely difficult for them to compete against companies from across the border that don’t have those taxes when they’re bidding on jobs.

These companies have written to me. A lot of these organizations, I know, have written to the NDP government as well, and to the Ministry of Finance, pleading for reconsideration. This is going to set the path for businesses in my region and other parts of British Columbia that may actually have to look at closing their doors, because they will not be able to just carry on this additional cost that’s being imposed on them to the next level.

They’re not going to necessarily be able to stay in business by saying: “Yes, we have this new employer health tax that I’m having to pay to the government, but I can’t carry it on with additional fees in my contracts.”

I look at some of the fast-food industries, for instance, who have contacted me. I’ve got one, for instance, up north — a gentleman who owns a chain of fast-food restaurants across northern B.C. who’s going to have to pay $250,000 a year in employer health tax. This is in an industry that already has very low margins.

This is an industry that never had to pay MSP before. Why? It’s because almost 99 percent of his employees were exempt. They actually weren’t paying MSP as individuals. They were maybe students or kids that were covered under mom and dad’s plan. They were maybe in a bracket where they weren’t having to pay because of the income level, so they were already exempt. The employers themselves did not have to cover any of those fees.

To go to a restaurant or a fast-food chain or some of these small groups that have low margins and say, “By the way, the new government must think you have deep pockets. They must think you make all this money, so they’re going to take it from you” is going to backfire on the very people that this government says that they’re trying to help. These companies are going to be forced to either raise their product price, which is going to affect families around British Columbia, or they’re going to have to lay off the exact people that we say we’re trying to help. How is this benefiting anyone?

You know, the government opposite inherited a strong economy. They inherited a full piggy bank. They had opportunities to look at doing this differently. The government had opportunities to follow the path that we were looking at by saying, “Look, we need to look at removing MSP, and we want to look at other opportunities,” not just saying: “We want to continue taxing the people of British Columbia and putting our hands in their pockets.”

[6:05 p.m.]

I guess I would say to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health across from me: “It’s wintertime. It’s getting cold.” Maybe they can start putting their hands in their own pockets instead of the other people of British Columbia’s, trying to take their money. They can stay warm that way instead. The people of British Columbia are being taxed and taxed and taxed.

The Minister of Health is referencing things from the ’70s. I actually wasn’t alive in the ’70s, so he can keep those references to himself. Now, in all fairness, I was born at the very beginning.

I think the whole point that we have to address here is the impact that this is going to have on our communities and on our businesses. I hope the government is listening to those same people that are contacting us and the concerns that they have.

We are going to be in the same situation that we were in a couple of decades ago — I cringe to even say what decade it was, so I won’t, but it was over 16 years ago, to the members opposite — where companies were sick and tired of being taxed. They were sick and tired of government trying to bleed them dry. The people of British Columbia were losing their jobs. Companies were having to close their doors because one tax after one tax after one increase — people can’t live off that. If people can’t run their business, people can’t find jobs, and people can’t put food on the table, they’re going to go where they can.

We are already hearing from companies who are writing to this government, and they are saying: “If you continue down this path of increased taxes, specifically around the employers health tax, that’s going to penalize my company, to put it into the coffers” — general revenue, I should add, not into Ministry of Health. They are going to be in a tough situation. I know the minister would love to have that money, but he’s not going to get it.

The companies are looking at ways that they can continue to make a profit and continue to employ people, which means they’re going to have to look at other jurisdictions. Those are just the facts. They either close down, or they move.

We are already hearing from companies, again — and the government opposite is hearing from them — that are saying: “You know what? We might be set up in Kelowna, but we’ve got a satellite office in Calgary. We’re going to have to relocate all of our employees out of that Calgary office to avoid paying the employers health tax.” How is that a benefit to British Columbia? Not only are they going to lose the income that they’re trying to get off the tax, but they’re now going to lose the revenue that comes from people spending it locally and the jobs that come with that.

This tax hike is actually going to hit every British Columbian. It is not saving money for people in B.C. Yes, they’ll say that those that had to pay MSP are having that reduction. But that money is just going to be followed through in other areas, and they’re still going to have to pay for it.

You compound this now with the minimum wage increase to a lot of those same companies that are already struggling. Small businesses, small groups, that are employing the people in our communities are now being told that minimum wage is going up, and let’s compound that now with the employers health tax. Let’s compound that now — that same group — with the increased property taxes, which have been downloaded to the municipal government and carried through now to the companies. It’s one thing after another after another.

You know, it makes me think. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business did a study on this and talked to its members to say: “With this employers health tax, what impacts is it going to have on your business, and what are you going to do because of this?” Sixty-three percent of the businesses said that they’re going to have to reduce bonuses planned or increases for their employees, 62 percent of the businesses said that they will reduce all planned raises because they won’t be able to afford them, and a whopping almost 50 percent of the businesses in British Columbia said that they’re going to have to eliminate plans to hire any additional staff.

[6:10 p.m.]

How does this grow the economy? How does that continue to bring more revenue into the province? We need to increase our budgets. The Minister of Health has talked about this. The Minister of Finance has talked about this — that we need to have further revenues coming in.

Well, they can do that by not scaring business away. They can do that making sure businesses have opportunities to employ more people. They can do that by making sure companies that operate in my region can actually be competitive and win out on the bids over other provinces’ companies that are coming in and taking that work.

There are a multitude of areas that this government could have looked at rather than going down this path. I would argue for them, it’s the easy path. It doesn’t require much work just to pass a bill to raise taxes. It does require work to look at alternatives, to try to have a plan, to try to promote a strong economy, to try to promote job growth, to try to promote reduced taxes and incentivize people to come to B.C. That’s bold. That takes work. That takes effort. It’s real easy just to raise taxes. We encourage the government to make sure they’re looking at all alternatives, which I don’t think they’re doing.

Again, the whole point, as we’re trying to solve the challenges within the health care system that everybody acknowledges that we need to be working on…. The expectations, the wait times, the work that needs to happen for recruitment — all of this is very important. Nobody in this House is doubting that. But to just throw a tax at something and then to try to say that’s going to help the outcomes… It will not.

We need to be looking at better alternatives. We need to be looking at how we can actually save money for the people and the groups in the province of British Columbia. This bill doesn’t do it. The employer health tax is actually penalty to companies and people who have done well by building up their groups. It’s sending the wrong message, again, of uncertainty. Why would these people want to come to British Columbia and invest, to begin with?

We need, as we grow our population, to have these opportunities here in B.C. We need to make sure that we’re raising the funds that we require. Again, the government should not just be doing the easy work, which is raising taxes, like we’re seeing them do on everything else since they’ve been in government.

I encourage the government to not follow through with the easy stuff. Don’t just raise taxes. Don’t stand up and just say: “We’re going to help this small group by penalizing other people around the province.” They should be looking at the equality of this and saying: “How do we help all the people of British Columbia?” That includes our small business; our large business; our schools — they’re going to have to pay it; our not-for-profits — they’re going to have to pay it; our municipalities. The list goes on and on.

I expect government to do better than what they’re doing on this issue, which is why we’re speaking against this bill, speaking against the employer health tax and speaking in favour of government doing better for the people of British Columbia.

R. Sultan: I am absolutely delighted to have an opportunity to comment on a bill, offered by the NDP, which increases our taxes. These are rare opportunities — I’m being sarcastic — which come along with a certain regularity. By my admittedly crude tabulation, this is either the 17th or perhaps 18th tax increase which our friends on the left, ably assisted by their allies of Green conviction, have submitted to this Legislature after not much more than 12 months in office. This session has proven to be a regular production line of taxes followed by taxes followed by more taxes.

[6:15 p.m.]

Who knows what tomorrow might bring? We’re probably another 30-odd more months still to come.

Bill 44 is the employer health tax, or EHT, celebrating what the Minister of Finance so enthusiastically described as lifting unfair, regressive and burdensome MSP premiums off the backs of our citizens. When announced, it was an occasion for much desk-thumping and hurtful comparisons shouted at us from the other side. In truth, who cannot celebrate the elimination of a heavy tax burden? The total tax reduction from MSP premium elimination was budgeted in the range of three-quarters of a billion dollars over the last two fiscal years. It seems it will soon drop to zero. Hurrah for the burden lifters, I say.

Wisely, our Finance Minister, on that occasion, did not dampen the party spirits by pointing out that this money would have to be made up from other sources of taxation. “Let’s see now,” I suppose the thought process went. “Who are our friends, and who are our enemies? Corporation and business people — they fill the bill.” When we get around to it, the NDP, one might surmise, said to themselves: “We will announce a new payroll tax which businesses will have to pay, and their employees can continue to celebrate. Shifting taxes from workers to capitalists is always a good political plan.”

Thus, employers that currently pay MSP will be paying both MSP and EHT, starting in January, for a period of time. The full payroll tax rate is 1.95 percent, but for businesses, charities and not-for-profits, there’s a phase-in rate charged at 2.9 percent. Businesses that make more than $500,000 but less than $1½ million are charged the 2.9 percent rate above $500,000. For those above $1½ million, the 1.95 rate is charged on the full amount. For non-profits and charities, the rate of 2.925 is charged on the amount more than $1½ million but less than $4½ million. For those above $4½ million in size, it’s the full 1.95 percent. Have you got all of that?

If a non-profit or charity has a payroll under $1½ million, they pay no payroll tax at all. Well, thank heaven for that. For a smaller business with a payroll of about $5 million, please cough up an extra $100,000. That’s the bottom line.

For a charity of the same size, pay an extra $100,000 as well. Ooh, that sounds a little hard-nosed, but that’s what they’re doing.

Kris Sims of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation offered some choice words:

“The new health tax will make job creators sick. The employer health tax is coming into force in the new year. It’s being lumped on top of the still-lingering medical services premium. That is holding at 50 percent of its former tax bite. This is creating a double scoop of taxes heaped on people who never asked for it.”

Well, whoever does?

“The EHT is being applied…to places like restaurants, mechanics garages, construction firms. The new tax hits incorporated towns and cities, because most municipalities have a payroll of more than $500,000…. Keep in mind, this is a tax on a payroll that is provided by people who run a business or who staff a town. It’s a tax on job creators.

“This new tax will have a chilling effect on new hires, and fewer people will get jobs. For example, say a plumbing service employs 40 plumbers across B.C…The new EHT will cost about $58,000, which is about a starting wage for many apprentices…Instead of giving a new apprentice a good-paying job and the experience they need, that money will go to government.

“The same punishment will now be exacted upon construction firms, chain stores, utility companies delivering things like natural gas….

[6:20 p.m.]

“Imagine a business with a payroll hovering at around $490,000” — just below the cut-off point, the $500,000 tax threshold. “Do you think anyone there is going to get a bonus or a pay raise? This tax will have a tendency to throttle growth.”

I might interject, not quoting Kris, that it may induce bigger firms to splinter into smaller firms. It’s a possibility.

“The downloading of this new provincial tax onto the backs of cities is a major burden for city councils and the property tax payers who are always stuck with the bill. Surrey estimates that this new tax will cost $4.7 million in 2019 alone. Kamloops calls it a sham that will add at least three-quarters of a percentage point to everybody’s tax bill.”

Well, let’s consider the tax impact on my own hometown. We have a payroll, including fire and police, of about $65 million, believe it or not. We’ve been paying MSP premiums to our municipal staff of $570,000 a year. Now we will be paying almost three times as much, over $1.5 million. That’s a third of what giant Surrey will be paying. Our little peanut-sized town, compared to Surrey, paying one-third of what Surrey is paying gives you some idea of how the scales are balanced here.

The gift of eliminating MSP in my town is a gift that keeps on giving year after year by the homeowners, in the manner of a permanent 2 percent increase in our real estate taxes. Thank you, Victoria. And if you think my town is flush with rich seniors for whom a 2 percent increase in real estate taxes is nothing at all, well, think again. Our seniors, pummeled by taxes and fee increases in all directions, are running scared. If they have to downsize, finding obvious alternatives is not that easy. Thank you, Finance Minister, for your many acts of kindness toward our seniors.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Finally, I would like to address the underlying ideology and the underlying economics of the proposition: the idea that this is a tax on business. They can certainly pay much more easily than the workers. So if anybody should pay, it should be them.

What’s the problem with this doctrine? Well, the OECD sheds light on the ideology. Who are they to dare offer countering ideas? The OECD is the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an intergovernmental economic organization with 36 member countries, founded in 1961 to stimulate economic progress and world trade. It’s a forum of countries describing themselves as committed to democracy and the market economy. They provide a platform — I would say a respected platform — to compare policy ideas, seek answers to common problems, identify good practices, coordinate domestic and international policies, and so on.

A striking prediction, the OECD points out, of economic theory is that the final incidence of a tax on any good or service will be the same, regardless of whether the tax is paid by the buyer or by the seller, which is an idea that laymen often find difficult to accept. If the folks in this chamber find it a little hard to believe as well, that would be perfectly understandable.

Applied to labour markets, where the theory is fre­quently tested, this theory implies that the replacement of an employer tax by an employee tax of equal magnitude — or, alternatively, the replacement of an employee tax by an employer tax of equal magnitude — has no effect on the real economy in that the total after-tax wage received by the employee, which they call the consumption wage, the total after-tax cost of labour to the employer, which is called the product wage, and the level of employment itself are all unaffected.

They give a fancy name to this phenomenon: the invariance of incidence proposition, IIP. You can rattle that one off down at the club the next time you’re there and you want to impress somebody.

[6:25 p.m.]

Finding that a taxation switch is likely to have short-run effects is in line with earlier research. Other researchers have looked at employer taxes as a component of indirect taxation and analyzed the impact of a switch from direct to indirect taxation upon prices, wages, real GDP for the United Kingdom and for the United States. They found in both of these countries that this tax switch did increase prices and reduce output for several years.

In a similar vein, other OECD-cited economists constructed a simulation model, which used the best available estimates across many, many countries, tried to estimate the lag in the adjustment process and concluded that it probably takes several years before a majority of any increase in the employer tax is shifted to the employee. So it doesn’t happen immediately, but shifted it inevitably will be, to give a null result.

What about employment impacts? Again, the OECD offer some ideas. They suggest that even using a model where the IIP phenomenon holds, in the long run, a 1 percent cut in employer tax could reduce unemployment by about half a percent over a five-to-ten-year period. Much of these gains would remain in the presence of offsetting increases in income taxes.

To sum up, both theory and empirical evidence by some pretty competent analysts suggest that a 1 percent increase in employer taxes could increase unemployment by about half a percent for five or ten years. Surely, this will be the long-term impact of the NDP’s unfortunate employment tax measures. You can flip the findings on their head and say that the opposite is also true.

I would reserve my right. I only have about half a page left, if I may.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member. Member, continue your talk for a couple of minutes.

R. Sultan: You wish me to continue, Speaker? Okay. Almost there.

Let me sum up. Both theory and statistics suggest a 1 percent increase in employer taxes could increase unemployment by about half a percent. A 2 percent increase in an employer wage bill due to this latest NDP tax will probably result in a 1 percent increase in taxes and probably increase unemployment about half a percent five to ten years in the future.

The facile thought that business should and will pay, and workers should not and will, is simply not the way the economy works. I hate to break the bad news. Though the employment is not impacted, that’s probably not true either. So I would suggest that the Finance Minister, having introduced this unfortunate bill despite the advice of a panel of experts who gave opposite counsel, was in error to plow ahead and put the tax on anyway, notwithstanding the fact that the market will nullify the tax.

The idea that, somehow, those dastardly businesses are going to end up paying it, and not the workers, isn’t really the way the economy moves. Because Bill 44 is, in my opinion, flawed in this regard; is not in the long-term interests of the workers; is based on a fallacy as to who will and who will not, in the end, pay; and because it disregards the expert advice of the minister’s own panel, I intend to vote against it.

Noting the hour, I would like to move adjournment of debate.

Mr. Speaker: No. Members, we will take a recess for a half-hour. The House will resume at 7 p.m. this evening.

The House recessed from 6:29 p.m. to 7:04 p.m.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, I will call the House back to order on Bill 44, Budget Measures Implementation (Employer Health Tax) Act, 2018.

Nechako Lakes.

J. Rustad: I’m wondering, Madame Speaker, if we have quorum to continue.

Deputy Speaker: Please continue.

[7:05 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Thank you, Madame Speaker.

To the packed gallery that we have, it is an honour to be able to stand up and respond to Bill 44 on behalf of my constituents of Nechako Lakes.

Bill 44 has been talked about a lot over the past seven months or thereabouts, eight months. It’s a bill that implements the employer health tax. The employer health tax is designed, of course, to replace the MSP.

The question that I think is being asked and that I often wonder about is: was there any economic analysis done on just what moving the MSP over from an employee-pay to an employer-pay would do? I mean, what would it do in terms of competitiveness of companies, in terms of our economy and job creation?

Sadly, I don’t believe that any of that kind of analysis was done. It is unfortunate, because when you think about running a company, when you think about what you need to do…. I think about people that have approached me in my riding of Nechako Lakes. They ask me questions about how this will be applied to them. What is it going to mean? The reality is that it creates some interesting problems.

In my riding, there are lots of people that work in forestry, forest consultants. We’ve got firms that deal with reforestation, etc., and those companies operate in multiple jurisdictions, not just in British Columbia. A company that, you know, might have $2 million in payroll that’s involved in tree planting, involved in other activities, may have people working in Alberta. They’re paid out of British Columbia, but they work full-time in Alberta.

They don’t use the health services in this province. They don’t pay taxes in this province. They utilize and pay their taxes in another jurisdiction, yet the company will now be in a situation where they have to pay the employer health tax in British Columbia, despite the fact that there is zero utilization or activity in British Columbia. Yet they have to pay that tax.

What is that company going to do? Is it going to continue with the model that it currently has, or is it going to look at starting up an office in Alberta and move those payrolls, move that portion of their business, over into Alberta in order to bring their payroll down below the threshold? It’s a disincen­tive for companies to be able to operate in this province. It’s a disincentive because it creates an uncompetitiveness.

I’ll give you another example: same type of situation, a company that’s involved in tree planting. They bring in crews from Alberta to work in British Columbia. These are people that, once again, live in Alberta and come over to British Columbia during the planting season to work in British Columbia. It puts them now over the threshold of $1.5 million in terms of where this company is at, having to pay the employer health tax.

Now the company is looking at this, saying: “Hey, wait a second here. What if we set up a branch of our office in Alberta, have the same contract, but then have the branch in Alberta bring the people in because the payrolls and everything get done in Alberta?” Now not only do you have the situation where employees are working in another province but are being paid out of here — and having to pay the health tax for people that draw in another province for health services — but now you have a situation where a company wants to take a branch of their organization off to another province so that they can avoid having to pay the employer health tax as they have employees come into British Columbia to work.

This is what I mean by economic analysis. People that understand business and understand how business works would know that this kind of a tax and what has been done is creating this problem. It will actually drive companies into dividing into smaller companies, to moving over into Alberta.

You know, from the 1990s, that was the mantra of the NDP. They were all for taking big business and making them small business. This tax is going to be doing the exact same thing. It’s really a shame, because you want to be able to see companies grow. You want to see them be able to look at bringing on more employees and being successful in a province like British Columbia. The disincentive for this will be huge.

[7:10 p.m.]

I find it also interesting when you look at it…. This is another place where I wonder about the analysis on the employer health tax. Prior to the employer health tax being introduced, people in British Columbia paid $450 annually. We, the B.C. Liberals, brought in the budget. We brought in the component to bring the MSP down by half, down to $450. That’s what employees had to pay.

Think about this for a second: 40 percent of the people in this province never paid any MSP. We had enough exemptions and stuff in place that 40 percent of the people didn’t pay. Out of the remaining people that paid it, in terms of our workforce — and that’s 65 percent, roughly thereabouts, of the working-age people employed in the province of British Columbia…. With the average wage and where things were at, for the vast majority of those people, MSP was paid for by companies. It was only a small group of individuals that actually paid the MSP themselves.

We’re now in a situation where a company that paid that MSP for somebody at $450, if they paid minimum wage for somebody, and the average…. So they paid them $22,500 a year. They paid $450 for the health care for that employee, if the company so chose to do that in terms of benefits. Like I said, most companies did.

Today that same company, under the employer health tax, assuming they’re over the threshold, would pay about the same amount, $450 in taxes. But when you think about the average salary in the province, which is just over $50,000 a year for an individual, that company will now pay about $1,000 — more than twice what the MSP was that they would have been covering had it been the way that it was done, as a benefit, and companies paying those taxes.

If a company pays somebody $100,000 a year, they’re paying close to nine times as much as what it would have been under the old MSP system. This is what I mean by competitiveness. You start looking at what those costs are, mounting up on companies, and it becomes challenging.

I know. I ran my own business. It’s not easy to sign the front side of a paycheque, to go out and find the work and hire people. I had a dozen employees, and I wouldn’t have fallen over the top bracket on a regular basis, but I certainly would have been paying the employer health tax in terms of my company.

When you think about what that impact is on companies that are trying to operate in this province, it’s not insignificant. The worst part of it is that as a company…. Anybody that’s run a company would understand that you don’t always make a profit. Sometimes you don’t make money. Sometimes you actually lose money in a year. More often than not you make money, otherwise you end up going out of business, obviously, but if you’re in the business of whatever activity it is, and you make a profit, you pay your taxes on the profit.

The employer health tax is not on profits. It’s on payroll, which means it doesn’t matter if a company is losing money or not or whether they’re making money. This still has to be paid. So when you look at the amount of tax that is being paid by employers, and you compare that to their income tax or their corporate taxes that they’re paying, it is significant. It’s almost a doubling of what would be paid, certainly a significant portion of what’s paid, in terms of corporate income taxes, that now has to be paid as an additional tax directly to the government, whether they’re making money or not.

It’s very challenging when you’ve got a neighbour next door in Alberta — or down in the States, but particularly in Alberta, because let’s use the same jurisdiction — that could very easily have offices set up in their province, have people under payroll there that don’t end up having to pay the employer health tax.

How does a company on this side compete with a company on that side? Or how do you grow a company on this side when they know you have these ceilings for these additional taxes? And it’s better, from a taxation perspective, if you’re on the other side of the border if you can make logistics work.

This is just one of those things that I look at when I think about: where was the analysis? What was done to bring in this way of doing it? What the B.C. Liberals had proposed to do, and what we had done, is cut the MSP premiums in half. We paid for that. We budgeted in the budget to be able to do that.

[7:15 p.m.]

Then, as we could afford it, we would eliminate the remaining half of MSP — not transfer it, not create a burden, not create uncompetitiveness for companies but eliminate it altogether. That’s not what the NDP are doing. This government says it’s eliminating. It’s not. It’s only transferring, and it’s creating that burden on companies that will create long-term competitive issues, particularly when it’s compiled with the other things that this government is doing.

The other thing that I often think about is: 40 percent of the people in the province of British Columbia didn’t pay MSP before. But MSP now goes onto municipal payrolls, which means they have to raise property taxes. Well, who pays those property taxes? Anybody who’s renting, anybody who owns a home, anybody that has business activity.

They’re paying a property tax as well. So if you’re a company set up in a community like Vanderhoof, not only are you now going to have to pay the employer health tax, but you’re also going to have to pay increased property taxes to be able to cover off the employer health tax component for a municipality. It’s a double hit.

Certainly, for people renting, people with low income, it doesn’t matter where their income level is, because they have to pay the rent. That hit comes from the municipality. There is no exemption, unlike what it was before where the 40 percent of the people in the province were exempt from paying it.

When I think about growing a company, it’s quite some­thing, signing the front side of a paycheque. I remember the first time I hired somebody from Ontario. I thought: “Here’s this young lady. She’s just out of school. She’s coming in. She’s excited about her first job.” That was probably, for me, the most stressful thing I’d ever gone through. I’ve given speeches to thousands of people and stood up and done many, many things in my life and had the good fortune of doing that and representing the people of Nechako Lakes. But that was certainly the most stressful thing I’ve ever done.

It’s not because I hired somebody and brought them out here. That person’s livelihood was now my responsibility. I had to make sure I had ongoing work, caring for that person, being able to make sure to keep them gainfully employed so that they could determine their path in life, whatever that may be. It’s a tough thing to do, and it’s a very special thing to do as an employer when you go through that and realize that burden.

Having that uncompetitive edge just makes it that much harder for people to want to go into business and create those opportunities to hire those young people, give them those jobs, bring them into the province, help our economy grow and support families. Because it’s not easy to be successful.

I mean, I was fortunate in the work I did. I actually didn’t have a losing year as a company. I had some very good years and some years that were not quite as good. But at the end of the day, the rules that are put in place are what you need to think about in terms of doing your business.

When I started my business in the early ’90s, there were fairly reasonable rules in place. I was able to grow my company. I was able to be successful. I had an office in Houston — an office in Houston, B.C., that is — and an office in Prince George at the time.

As we progressively went through the 1990s, it got harder and harder because the cumulative impacts of all the bad policy decisions of the NDP in the 1990s made it hard to do business. In 2000, I sat down with my wife, and I said: “What do you think about moving to Calgary? It’s just too tough to be able to be successful in this province. It’s too hard to carry forward with the business. I’ve got connections in the oil and gas sector.” I could very easily have done the consulting business work and the work that I was doing in Calgary and in Alberta, instead of doing it in British Columbia.

My whole family is in British Col­um­bia. I was involved with many things. My wife’s parents were in British Columbia. I didn’t want to be driven out of the province because of uncompetitiveness and the cumulative problems of bad decisions. That’s when I decided I would actually get involved in politics and, lo and behold, discovered I actually enjoyed politics, because before then, I would have been laughing if somebody had said I was going to be a politician. But it is that that drove me into politics, because it was so hard to be able to be successful under the cumulative impacts.

This employer health tax is just one step in that direction again, combined with the other things that this government is talking about doing and the examples of what they had done in the past. It’s really unfortunate, because you need entrepreneurs to be able to create a successful economy.

[7:20 p.m.]

The vast majority of employees work for small business. They need to be able to find ways to be able to grow, to be successful, to be able to reinvest in their people and reinvest in their companies to be able to support our economy and to be able to support our families. That is what it’s all about. Without that growth, without that kind of investment, we stagnate. We see job losses. We see unemployment rising. We see challenges and social issues build up in families. You need to be able to have that healthy economy.

That’s why I come back to that line: where is the analysis? What will the impact be? The government loves to tout that 85 percent of businesses will be unaffected by this tax. Well, I challenge them to actually show the analysis on those numbers. When you look at all the numbered companies and everything else that’s out there that hasn’t got any business activity, are they being counted? Certainly, when you look at CFIB and their analysis or the Vancouver Board of Trade or others that have done analysis, the number of companies hit is far, far higher than the number that is being spun by our current government. That’s a shame, like I say, because you’ve got to be able to create that environment to be successful in the economy.

When I think about this again, I think: is this going to be good for the people of my riding of Nechako Lakes? I gave two examples of companies that are now looking at creating opportunities in another jurisdiction because of this taxation. How is that good for a community like Vanderhoof or a community like Houston? These people that are in those communities that work in those jobs, they’re volunteering as coaches. They’re engaged in activities that happen in the community. They’re giving back in their community. They’re involved. They’re raising their families. Their children are going to our schools.

You’re taking these people and moving them somewhere else. You’re taking those opportunities and moving them somewhere else. It’s not a healthy environment to be able to be successful for business in the province of British Columbia.

When I think about this, there’s no question that eliminating MSP would be great. Transferring MSP and creating an uncompetitive environment is not good. It’s not the right thing to do in British Columbia.

For all those reasons and for when I think about the people in my riding and what they try to do to be able to be successful, I can’t support Bill 44.

J. Thornthwaite: I’m pleased to rise today to speak on Bill 44, the employer health tax.

The Finance Minister and her government are pretending this new tax is actually about making life affordable for people. I understand that, at one point, the leader of the Green Party had said that there were going to be amendments, tweaks and changes. But I don’t see that happening, much like I didn’t see any changes happening, really, in the speculation tax.

The reality is that this employer health tax is taking a bite out of every British Columbian’s pocket and is going to drive up costs across the province for customers, for taxpayers and for businesses. This legislation puts a tough choice in front of business owners, who would rather give their employees a reward than having to cut their wages and benefits or even lay them off.

I think that First Nations and municipalities would have liked to have had their own say in the matter. There are, as of October 20, a number of new mayors and councils who will now have to face this new cost, in the face of having to implement their campaign platforms. As my friend and colleague the member for Shuswap said this morning: “This may be the single-largest downloading of costs to municipalities that we’ve ever seen in recent history.”

I will concede one point, though. The bill will accomplish one thing, a goal that is shared by both sides of the House: that British Columbians who are paying the MSP themselves will no longer pay for it. That’s great.

But this is how we differ. On this side of the House, we believe in the honest elimination of the MSP, offering real relief for people. We were on the path to eliminating the MSP. We cut them in half in our budget and then we were going to eliminate them when we could pay for that to happen. Our proposal was to eliminate the MSP entirely, not raise taxes in other ways and eliminate it solely on paper.

[7:25 p.m.]

Rather than actually eliminating the MSP for British Columbians, this government said: “We’re going to get rid of the MSP, but job creators and businesses are going to have to foot the bill. Oh, and by the way, for those of you who pay MSP for your staff now, you’re still paying for that for a year or two.”

What the Finance Minister has done is actually taken a substantial portion of the health care system costs and transferred it from individuals and employers, who participated voluntarily, to all small, medium and large businesses in the province.

Raising taxes does not improve affordability. I quote, as some other members have, from the MSP Task Force. The MSP Task Force was charged with advising the Minister of Finance on how better to eliminate MSP premiums and replace the forgone revenue. That task force explicitly stated that the path the minister had taken would lead to an excessive burden on job creators, yet they went ahead anyways with it.

The letter also explicitly stated that there should not be any phase-in of the new measures and phase-out of the MSP but that the MSP should end at a clear date and then the new measures begin the next day — not have both systems running concurrently. That is double-dipping, and that’s exactly what this government did.

On the final page of that letter that the task force advised, a payroll tax would reduce the competitiveness of B.C. businesses at a time when they are facing several competitiveness challenges, including expected increases to the minimum wage, CPP increases, recent tax reform in the U.S. which will improve the competitiveness of many U.S. businesses. The task force specifically advised against a solely payroll-based model. But they did it anyways.

The first place this new tax is going to hit families is at the local government level. Municipalities across the province have expressed concerns about the extra cost that this is adding to their bottom lines. It’s going to cost the city of Vancouver an extra $13 million a year. Surrey will have to find another $3.35 million for this tax; Richmond, $2.5 million; Abbotsford, $1.7 million. In my own city, the city of North Van, it will be $650,000, and the district of North Van will pay $700,000. The list goes on. The costs go up, and affordability goes away.

Each and every member in here today knows exactly where the municipalities will reluctantly look to make up those shortfalls — in the pockets of taxpayers, starting with homeowners, who will have to pay higher property taxes, and then that will also be passed on to renters and then higher rents. It can play out in so many ways in a city, a regional district or a town. It could be higher recreation fees, could be higher property taxes or could be a higher cost added to new developments. It could even mean not hiring more staff after someone retires, and that will put more stress on the ones that remain. I know that’s significant in North Vancouver because there are many retirements coming up soon.

At the end of each and every option stands the taxpayer. There’s only one taxpayer, and that taxpayer is facing higher costs and life that is less affordable than the one they were promised by the NDP. The Lower Mainland Local Government Association recognizes this and asked the government to “design a better transition.” They were asking the minister not to double-dip.

The Burnaby Board of Trade said: “This tax has been framed as a way to fund the removal of MSP on individuals. However, while the tax comes into effect in 2019, MSP will not be eliminated until 2020. Therefore, an organization which currently pays MSP on behalf of its employees may be faced with paying both expenses for 2019.” Not our words — Burnaby Board of Trade. In short, it’s double-dipping. The Burnaby MLAs all heard the board of trade asking them at a meeting whether the government would postpone until 2020 so it coincides with the removal of the MSP premiums. The government refused.

Even their own budget documents tell the story. Even with the removal of MSP, the per-capita tax burden is rising in British Columbia. This fiscal year it’s up $425 per person. It’s rising another $518 next year. The tax burden for a family of four is rising to almost $4,000, and this government is not helping. Help is not on the way.

[7:30 p.m.]

Compare that with Budget 2017, where the per-capita taxes were projected to rise $101 and $97 in the same year. The members opposite spent a great deal of time talking about making life more affordable. Homeowners, including taxpayers, however, are on the hook for higher property taxes, and renters will face increases as landlords have to pay higher property taxes.

Driving that cost for businesses is going to have one of two impacts. It will either drive up the price of the goods and services they offer, or it will lead them to reduce non-mandatory costs like staff. This will cause a reduction in staff benefits. It will lead to layoffs, and it will cause wage growth to stagnate — more people not working.

It’s hard to run a business, keep people employed and help the hard-working men and women of this province support their families when the Finance Minister has one hand in your wallet. The Finance Minister has downloaded new and massive costs on hard-working business owners who have very tight margins as they strive to pay their staff and give them benefits, all while contributing to their futures, as to those of their communities.

The government keeps claiming that only a small percentage of businesses will pay. They say that it will be big businesses that foot the bill — those nasty corporations. Well, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has looked into this. The new tax will actually be paid by 44 percent of businesses with a payroll. That means that about 60,000 B.C. businesses, most of them relatively small, will be footing the cost of this tax. In the world of tight margins and hard work to make a profit and meet payrolls, the average small business owner subject to the tax will be paying more than $15,000.

Companies that didn’t pay their employees’ MSP premiums will be hit hard. For them, this will represent a whole new tax to be paid. It’s one that wouldn’t have been faced under a B.C. Liberal government. We were getting rid of the MSP, not replacing it with a new tax. It’s going to be doubly hard for those companies that have been helping their employees all along, those who have been paying the employee portion of MSP premiums. It has been a great benefit offered by many employers in this province.

What the Finance Minister has cooked up is a scheme where thousands of British Columbians who didn’t pay MSP premiums because they were already covered by their employer will now benefit because, to begin with, they will no longer pay the premiums they didn’t pay. In exchange, in 2019, their employers will get to keep paying for MSP, and they will get to pay a second time through the new NDP tax. I’m worried that a little more affordability is slipping away for those families. They will be paying higher prices, municipal fees and taxes. They will be sending more money to municipalities to help fund the NDP’s double-dip.

To top it off, the possibility of wage increases, which could make life more affordable, seems unlikely. The Greater Vancouver Board of Trade and the CFIB asked business owners whether they will pay the tax. According to that survey, the brunt of the tax will be paid by small and medium-sized businesses, not large corporations. The CFIB asked small businesses how they would find the funds to pay this tax. Sixty-three percent said they would reduce planned bonuses for employees, 62 percent said they would reduce planned raises, and 46 percent said they would eliminate plans to hire additional staff. In other words, this new tax equals less money for workers and fewer new jobs.

This tax has the very likely outcome that businesses in B.C. will choose not to hire new staff and very likely will have to let go of existing staff. It doesn’t take very many people working for an organization to reach the $500,000 threshold. If we go with organizations with 20 or more employees, those businesses encompass more than 75 percent of B.C. workers that will be affected, but the Burnaby Board of Trade says that businesses with roughly ten or 11 employees will be paying this tax. To quote them: “This low threshold means thousands of true small businesses will still have to pay this tax.”

According to Kris Sims, who is the director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation in British Columbia:

“This new tax will have a chilling effect on new hires, and fewer people will get jobs. For example, say a plumbing service employs 40 plumbers across B.C., with a starting salary of $75,000 a year. That’s a payroll of $3 million annually within the province.

[7:35 p.m.]

“The new employer health tax for that business will cost $58,500, which is a starting wage for many apprentices in that essential trade. Instead of giving a new apprentice a good-paying job and the experience they need, that money will instead go to the government.” That’s a job killer.

“Imagine a business with a payroll hovering around $490,000, just below the $500,000 tax threshold. Do you think anyone there is getting a bonus or a pay raise? This tax is regressive, and it will throttle growth.”

The Retail Council of Canada sent this to the minister. “The Retail Council of Canada opposes the employer health tax. Our position is that health care services are more appropriately funded through a broad-based tax such as income tax. The payroll tax penalizes those who employ British Columbians over those who sell goods in B.C. from other jurisdictions.” They go on to say that the tax “jeopardizes economic growth, employment and the health of independent retail stores.”

The B.C. Chamber of Commerce says that the EHT is “simply too much for business, especially in conjunction with the loss of revenue neutrality on the carbon tax…​increases to the minimum wage, CPP and the corporate tax hike.”

What kind of modelling occurred by this government to inform them of the fallout of this tax on businesses, on taxpayers, on families, on the economy? Particularly, it affects small, medium and large business against the advice of their own task force, which explicitly said it would hurt businesses.

We will have much more to say about this bill at committee stage. This bill pretends it’s reducing costs for people when in reality it is making life less affordable by increasing taxes for everyone. And it’s more costly for British Columbians, one tax at a time. On this side of the House, we will not be supporting it.

S. Thomson: I’m pleased to rise today to talk to Bill 44, the Budget Measures Implementation (Employer Health Tax) legislation, and, as no surprise to the members opposite, will not be supporting this bill.

This legislation really is…. We’re starting to see quite a bit of a pattern here. We see processes around where tax measures are launched or announced with great fanfare in putting them forward. Then we find the situation where they get some negative feedback to what’s being proposed. They then go through a process of looking like they’re listening, hearing some of those concerns. Then they walk back some of the measures within those tax measures, make some changes and say: “Don’t worry about the fiscal plan. When we make these changes, we’ll probably find another tax to fill that hole that’s been created by the changes.”

We’ve seen that in the speculation tax, with all of the changes from the original announcement — walking back in terms of changing the areas, changing defined areas and removing certain areas; changing the rates; providing a significant number of exemptions from the speculation tax based on impacts. We’re seeing the same thing here in this case: a number of changes from what was originally announced to what is before us in the legislation. It’s just another example of sort of tax policy on the fly.

[7:40 p.m.]

I think it really is not demonstrating…. In fact, I think it probably really answers the question that was raised by the member for Nechako Lakes in his comments: where’s the economic impact study? Were those kinds of studies done before making the announcements? I don’t think that’s the case. In just the way these have rolled out, it’s quite clear that that’s not the case. The reality with the employers health tax is that this tax is going to take a bite out of every British Columbian’s pocket. It’s going to drive up costs across the province for customers, for taxpayers and for businesses.

We’ll concede one point in the discussion here. This bill will accomplish one thing — it was a goal that was shared on this side of the House too — which is to remove MSP premiums. We had a plan to do that in the budget, reducing the premiums by 50 percent and a complete removal of the premiums as the economic and fiscal plan allowed for that. That’s where we differ, in terms of how to get there.

The approach by the members opposite is to announce fully the removal of MSP premiums but leaving a position where people, citizens, will continue to pay for it. It’s a re­placement tax that has been put in place, with the employers health tax. They’re going to continue to pay, maybe not directly through a premium but indirectly through all of the additional costs that are going to be incurred as businesses have to adjust in order to cover the employers health tax that they’re now being charged with.

We see the situation where they didn’t wait for the advice of their expert panel in terms of how to do this. They moved ahead, and then the report came out later saying the way that it’s being done here would not have been the suggested or recommended way to achieve this.

We have the members of the Third Party, the members of the Green Party — the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and the member for Saanich North and the Islands — who also, in their comments, very clearly said that this is not the way it should be done either. The member for Saanich North and the Islands gave some very real examples, examples that we have heard in spades in our constituencies, from businesses across the spectrum and across our constituencies about the impact that that’s going to have.

The difference here is that we will vote against this legislation because of those impacts and because of the sleight of hand that has been played here. The members for the Third Party have indicated they don’t like this, but they’re going to vote in favour of the legislation, even though they laid out very clearly in their comments that they didn’t think that this was the appropriate way to do it and used a number of examples where there are very, very real impacts.

On this side of the House, we would have chosen a much different path in doing this. The path chosen by the members opposite is one that’s going to hurt families. It’s going to hit them at many levels. One of them is at the local government level. Municipalities across the province have expressed concerns about the extra cost that this employers health tax is adding to their bottom lines.

Members on this side of the House have talked about those impacts — the city of Vancouver, $13 million a year; Surrey, $3.3 million a year; Richmond, $2.5 million; Abbotsford, $1.7 million. In Kelowna, in my community, the net increase cost in 2019, $1.38 million and in 2020, $832,000 in additional costs. That additional cost in 2019 is as a result of the double-dipping or the paying of both MSP premiums and the employers health tax, where the members opposite are dipping into the pockets both ways.

[7:45 p.m.]

People know that in the communities and with local governments, exactly what…. We don’t know exactly what those municipalities are going to have to do to make up those shortfalls, but they’re going to have to do something in order to do that. That could play out in many ways. It’s either through higher fees for services, or it could be higher property taxes. It could be higher costs added to new developments. It could be a reduction in services for municipalities.

In the end, each and every option means that the taxpayer is going to be facing higher costs, and life is less affordable than the one that they were promised by the members opposite. This just seems to be a fitting approach for this government.

So many examples have been brought through to our offices around the very, very real impacts that this tax is going to have on businesses as they absorb both MSP premiums in 2019, with an added-on employers health tax and the ongoing every-year costs of the employers health tax.

I want to just use an example that’s in our community. This business, actually, has businesses or stores that operate in many other communities across the province, and this is Nature’s Fare Markets. They operate stores in Vernon, Kelowna, West Kelowna, Penticton, Kamloops, Langley and White Rock. They were the first retail B corp. in Canada.

In 2016, they made very, very significant investments in communities. They invested over $3 million in opening their new location in White Rock. They invested over $1 million in improvements in their Penticton location.

This year they’d earmarked an additional investment to expand their warehouse production kitchen and upgrade their point-of-sales system — all of those investments with considerable risk, as they are operating in a very, very competitive market. They compete against major retail stores, like Walmart,Extra Foods and all of those ones. They don’t have that ability to pass on those additional costs in this very, very competitive market.

This is what they told us in their correspondence to us and in the meetings we had with them: “The announcement of the new employer health tax came out of left field, with no consultation or advance preparation.” They’ve said that the proposed tax assumes that the higher a company’s wages are, the more tax it can afford to pay. It doesn’t consider the profitability of the company. It does not consider whether the company can afford the tax. It’s a completely unfair tax.

In their operation, they were in the process of implementing additional benefits for their employees. They note, in their submission to us in January, “We launched an expanded benefits program for our employees, including extended health and dental, life insurance, a critical illness benefit and a health and wellness spending account,” at a significant cost to their business. All of those additional benefits, when you look at the definition of “remuneration” in the legislation, get built into that calculation, so they’re now having to pay this employers health tax on top of additional benefits that they are providing to their employees.

What they’ve said is that there’s only a number of ways they can respond to this. They’re either going have to scale back and reduce those benefits that are in that package, or they’re going to have to lay off employees in order to cover this, because they don’t have the margins in order to be able to absorb this additional cost. When you look at the scope of it across all of their operations, it’s a very, very significant additional cost to them.

[7:50 p.m.]

It was interesting to note…. I noted in some of provisions of the legislation where the members opposite did hear the message from not-for-profits and charities. They brought in the provision that said that if those charities and not-for-profits operate in different locations, so long as they have sole rights to that location, they’re able to split the payroll for those operations and treat those separately.

Well, they haven’t provided that benefit to businesses. So this company, given that they operate in a number of different locations in a number of different communities, is going to be very, very significantly impacted by this tax. It’s just another example, and one very similar in impact to the kinds of examples that were being raised by the member for Saanich North and the Islands and others in their comments here about the very real impacts of this on businesses and how that’s all going to be passed on to consumers.

Indirectly, through this process, people are going to be paying this tax, and the benefits that they feel they are receiving through the removal of the MSP premiums are going to be eaten away at by all of these additional costs.

It was also interesting to note in the legislation that came forward…. Again, in my view, a bit more sleight of hand in the way that they brought this forward, because they were initially talking about, on the communication side, how anybody under $500,000 in remuneration in payroll was not going to be impacted by this.

What they didn’t account for when it was first announced and rolled out was the fact that if you went over the threshold, then the rate was applied against the total amount all the way back to the beginning. So if you went to $550,000 in payroll, you paid on the total amount.

Now, what we see in this legislation is a change to that so that the tax only now applies above $500,000. But lo and behold, what did we see? An increased rate, 2.925 per­cent. If you do the calculations, that’s exactly the amount they were collecting previously. So to stand and say that everybody under $500,000 is, as they were saying before, exempt…. They had to recognize that that’s not really what they had in place in the way that they initially announced it, and they’ve had to make this change. But they’ve had to increase the rate on that amount between $500,000 and $1.5 million, in order not to collect any less money in the process.

Then we see that any business that is over $1.5 million is paying the rate on the total amount, not just the amount from $1.5 million and above and a differential rate for the amount in between. So they’re collecting that on the total amount again.

This is just another example of how this really hasn’t been thought through from the beginning, and they’ve had to continue to make changes as they’ve moved along in the process to be able to, in a sense, I guess, stand by the way they originally announced it. But, really, it goes back to the points that have been made earlier about the fact that this was really not thought through, and now we’re seeing tax policy continue to be made up on the fly.

This is going to have a very, very significant impact. Members on this side of the House have commented about the impact on businesses. CFIB asked small businesses how they would fund this new tax, and 63 percent said they’d have to reduce planned bonuses for employees, 62 percent said they would reduce planned raises, and 46 percent said they would eliminate plans to hire additional staff. In other words, this new tax equals less money for workers and fewer new jobs.

[7:55 p.m.]

It’s one thing to now not have to pay MSP premiums directly, but if the way to achieve that and to get that is to not get those planned bonuses, not to get raises or not to have a job if you’re one of those people that are impacted by the fact that companies are going to have to potentially lay off staff or reduce staff in their operations in order to do this, it doesn’t give you much.

It’s pretty cold comfort to not have to pay MSP premiums when you don’t have a job or you don’t have those benefits that you were receiving from your company and from your employment. It’s not very hard to imagine and to know that if a company is in that area close to the threshold, then those companies will look very long and hard at providing any kinds of bonuses, any kinds of taxable allowance benefits that they may have been considering or that are in place that they will have to scale back in order to keep under that threshold.

We really are having those impacts throughout the system. We know that the member for Prince George–Mackenzie talked about the impact on the policing system. We know the impact that this is going to have on school boards. All the way through this system, this replacement tax being applied to business is really just simply transferring this cost from individuals to businesses, with all of those impacts.

It’s not going to address and help affordability, which has been a major objective that the members opposite have said they want to achieve with this, just as they said the speculation tax was to address speculation, where it’s very clear that it hasn’t, and it’s having an impact on business. It’s having an impact on trades. It’s having an impact on sectors all the way through the system.

The cumulative impact of all of this lurching forward with tax policy by the members opposite is really starting to build that cumulative impact and taking away all of their efforts, as far as their objective of addressing affordability. It really is misnamed, in terms of calling it an employer health tax. It really should be called a MSP replacement tax, just as we’ve talked about other pieces of legislation that should’ve been differently named as they brought these forward.

Members on this side of the House have made it very clear that we don’t support the introduction of this employers health tax. We would have done things and were on a plan to deal with this much differently. We agree that the MSP was a fee or a cost that needed to be removed over time in a planned way. We would’ve done it in a way that wouldn’t have simply transferred that cost into another tax. People would’ve felt the real benefits of having the MSP removed as part of the medical services plan program.

We would have done this much differently. The members in the Green Party have said that they would have done it much differently and that they don’t support or don’t feel that this was the way that it should’ve been done. The difference between their comments and our comments, because we’ve raised the same concerns, is that we will vote against this legislation and they’ve indicated that they’re going to continue to prop up this government, again, with an approach that says: “We don’t like what you’re doing. We wouldn’t have done it this way. We know there are impacts. We’ve listed all sorts of businesses that are impacted. But we’re going to support it anyway.”

[8:00 p.m.]

Two patterns continue here. One is from the current government, in terms of rolling out a tax process with great fanfare, getting some negative reaction, walking it back, making some changes, pretending that they’ve listened to the concerns, the members of the Green Party saying that they don’t like it but are going to support it anyway. It’s just a pattern that continues.

You wonder sometimes if this is a planned strategy to put it out, knowing they’re going to have to make some changes. I’m not sure. I can give them the benefit of the doubt that this was really planned. I think it’s more just a process of not doing the economic analysis — the impact and the consequences of these kinds of decisions, thinking them through clearly, doing the analysis clearly to begin with before they announce it. Now they’re having to make some changes.

Even with the changes that they’ve made, some of the changes they’ve made for not-for-profits and charities, which I think are important…. Again, it is one that’s going to be felt throughout the economy, throughout the businesses.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

It really is a downloading, a transferring of a cost to small and medium-sized businesses in this province, who are the ones who create the jobs, create the economic activity in the province and not the ones that should be bearing the burden of this type of tax.

Members on this side of the House will be voting strongly against this bill. I would urge the members opposite to reconsider their approach here, take it back and look at how they might provide the objective without having to transfer all of this cost to businesses in British Columbia.

G. Kyllo: I am happy to take my place to speak to Bill 44, the Employer Health Tax. I will not be able to support this particular bill that’s before the House for a wide range of reasons.

I’d like to start by just going back to what predicated this whole initiative on the reduction of MSP premiums initially. You’ll remember back in 2017, the economic growth of our province was striving upward extremely well. When the NDP and the Greens cobbled together their government and moved forward, they inherited the single-largest surplus, I think, of any incoming government in the history of Canada, a $2.7 billion surplus. That was record-setting.

The result of that or the reason we were able to achieve that $2.7 billion surplus was largely because of the focus of the previous government on growing jobs and the economy of our province.

If we go back to the 1990s — and I know members opposite always hear “back to the 1990s” — what happened under the regime of the NDP? They raised taxes over and over again, to the point that B.C. had the highest tax rate of any province in Canada. It drove investment out of British Columbia. We went from having the No. 1 economy in Canada to No. 10 — B.C., with all the great resources we have in this province. They drove our province into absolute economic despair.

For the first time in the history of B.C., we were a have-not province, so we know what increased taxation and punishing B.C. businesses has on the economic growth and stability of our province. I’m very proud to have been part of the former government, which worked hard on trying to provide those necessary supports so that business could actually prosper and generate that economic benefit and create those great job opportunities that so many British Columbians rely upon.

In 2017, with the significant surplus that was in place, there was a discussion around how we could provide some tax savings back to the largest swath of British Columbians. At the time, you’ve got to remember, 4.7 million people in the province and two million British Columbians were not paying MSP premiums whatsoever. There was also a significant number that had lower incomes and were actually paying a reduced MSP premium.

[8:05 p.m.]

In any event, the MSP premiums brought in about $2.6 billion annually. The decision to reduce MSP premiums by 50 percent was going to cost about $1.3 billion. But rather than put that reduced taxation on the backs of businesses or other British Columbians, the decision was made: “Look, the economy of our province is doing well. Out of that $2.7 billion surplus, we’ll take $1.3 billion of that economic surplus and apply that towards the MSP premiums.”

The 50 percent reduction, which was actually announced as part of the B.C. Liberal platform, was going to come from economic growth in the province. There was not a desire or a need or a demand to put that $1.3 billion in reduced MSP premium and shift that to any other form of taxation.

What did we see happen when the NDP came in? They immediately decided that we needed to replace those revenues with another form of revenue and put it squarely on the backs of B.C. businesses. So what do we have in this current fiscal? The 50 percent reduced MSP premium will continue to bring in about $1.3 billion. There was a fiscal capacity, with the economic growth of our province, in order to absorb that. But what have the NDP done? In fiscal 2019, they’ll continue to collect the $1.3 billion in MSP premiums. On top of that, they’re going to add an additional $1.8 billion in new taxation that’s going to be right squarely on the backs of businesses and employers across our province.

Again, in 2017, $2.6 billion a year in revenues were coming in under MSP. That was reduced by 50 percent in this fiscal — $1.3 billion — but the NDP have chosen to actually move that into a $3.1 billion windfall for British Columbians, for government, in fiscal 2019. That’s actually $500 million more, a half-billion dollars more, in revenue going to be collected in 2019 than was actually collected in 2017 — and clear an additional $1.8 billion in additional new taxation on the backs of employers and businesses over and above what’s collected in this fiscal.

I’m not sure what it is that actually has the NDP so violently opposing and trying to punish the businesses in our province. You look at the private sector. That is truly where the economic growth is. It’s not government that creates all of these revenues. It’s the private sector, those individuals that are willing to invest time, energy and dollars, investing in their businesses, investing in their employees. They’re creating the economic growth.

We have a great public sector in this province. They provide very important, necessary services on which we all rely — our teachers, nurses, government employee workers — but they consume tax dollars. They do not create the economic growth in this province. The public sector actually consumes tax dollars. I certainly appreciate the amazing services they provide, that British Columbians so widely rely upon, but the challenge is that the private sector truly is the area of our provincial economy that actually creates the economic growth and prosperity.

What did we see? In spite of inheriting a $2.7 billion surplus in 2017, what did the NDP do? In their first mid-term budget update, in the fall of 2017, they chose to raise taxes. Well, you would think that the need for raising taxes is when there is a fiscal shortfall, but in spite of a $2.7 billion surplus, they raised corporate taxes by 1 percent, they raised the top tax rate for B.C.’s highest income earners by 2 percent, and they repealed the requirement for revenue neutrality of the carbon tax. Then we move forward into 2018. In Budget 2018, they announced another slew of increased taxes, which is again negatively impacting the ability of B.C. business to actually be competitive.

Now, to the credit of the NDP, they did select a handpicked team of three academics to go out and actually give recommendations back to government on how they would replace the MSP. Again, as I mentioned, there was no intention…. The plan for the previous government was to reduce MSP premiums and take that out of the fiscal economic growth in our province, but the NDP chose to figure out a way of how they could actually replace that $1.3 billion in lost revenue with additional new taxes.

[8:10 p.m.]

What I understand is that those handpicked academics caught wind that the NDP were looking to actually move forward with an announcement to put that full burden right on the backs of B.C. businesses. As I mentioned, it was a $1.3 billion shortfall they were looking at finding, but what did they do? It wasn’t $1.3 billion. They came up with a new tax that was going to actually put $1.8 billion in new taxation on employers and B.C. businesses.

This handpicked, select group of academics, when they heard that the NDP were going to clearly put this right on the backs of B.C. businesses, were concerned about their own professional reputations. They came out with a paper. From what I understand, the NDP were very upset, because they hadn’t asked for this interim paper. That interim paper said: whatever you do, do not put this squarely on the backs of B.C. businesses, because it’s going to destroy and reduce their competitiveness. But, despite it being their handpicked academics, they ignored their recommendations and moved forward with this new, punishing tax that’s negatively impacting the ability of B.C. businesses to remain competitive.

It’s not just businesses that are going to be facing these significant cost increases. As my colleague from Prince George–​Mackenzie so eloquently stated last week, police forces are going to be incurring about $25 million of additional new taxes. Yet there are no additional revenues for them in order to pick up that additional cost. In the case of the RCMP and police forces across British Columbia, how are they to actually achieve and make up for this increased cost that’s being passed on to them? Well, they can either raise taxes or reduce services. In the case of the RCMP, I think what we will see is reduced service. We have a police service in our province that’s already under great stress.

We have a look at our teachers. The NDP were quick to criticize a previous government for downloading costs or putting additional cost burdens on different service providers, whether it’s the BCTF or the nurses. Well, the MSP replacement tax, the new employer health tax, is again increasing the cost of providing all of these different services on which British Columbians so greatly rely.

There has been no consultation. There was no consultation with businesses across the province. To my understanding, there was no consultation with the B.C. Teachers Federation, with nurses or health care providers or with First Nations, for that matter. I’ve got a number of First Nations in my riding. When I mentioned to them about this new, upcoming employer health tax, they were unaware. They said: “Well, nobody consulted with us.” They asked the question: “Will this new employer health tax apply to all of a First Nation’s members?” At the time, we were not able to provide clarity to them, because there had been no discussion with our First Nations communities across the province.

As we see these increased costs, businesses across our province are really having a significant, tough time dealing with increases in carbon taxes, increases in minimum-wage rates and now this new employer health tax. To put it in perspective, in this current fiscal, for an employee that’s making $50,000 a year, a business that’s making MSP premiums on behalf of that employee would be paying $450 annually.

Then next year, in fiscal 2019, they’ll continue to pay that $450 on behalf of the employee but also, for businesses making or providing payrolls of over $1½ million, an additional 1.95 percent. Let’s just use 2 percent for easy figuring. That will mean that an employee making $50,000 a year will have an additional cost to that employer — 2 percent of $50,000, an extra $1,000 a year — plus the $450 in MSP premiums. So that $50,000 employee will now cost that employer $1,450 in MSP premiums in fiscal 2019, whereas in this fiscal, it’s only $450. Now, how’s that for affordability?

[8:15 p.m.]

The members opposite talk about improved affordability for British Columbians. Well, there will be British Columbians that will have a savings, and they will not have to pay MSP, but a big portion of that cost burden is being put on the backs of a very few larger employers in our province that don’t necessarily have that ability to pay that increased cost.

How about an employee that’s making $100,000 a year in salary? Even some of our qualified tradespeople that might be working on big construction projects could be making $100,000 a year. Well, for that employee in fiscal ’19, it will continue to be $450, plus an additional $2,000 under the new employer health tax. That employee, who this year, in this fiscal, would have only cost $450, in fiscal 2019 is going to cost $2,450. That is a significant increase.

What is going to happen for the private sector? Those employees are going to have to forgo wage increases because there is not the ability for a lot of these businesses to absorb that additional cost. Businesses that may be just barely breaking even but trying to keep their main, core group of employees on the payroll so that they can survive to live to fight another day are going to actually be losing money.

This is even more sinister than an increase in corporate tax because it’s not a tax on corporate profits. It’s a tax on payroll, and the manner in which this has come about, with no consultation, is absolutely offensive. Businesses are feeling like this current government does not care. They’re undertaking these significant cost increases without consultation. There’s no opportunity for input. When I talk to my constituents — and they are now fully understanding the true impact of this increased cost — it’s hard for me to try and explain the rationale that the current government might have undertaken in making this determination.

I fully appreciate that there are British Columbians that are struggling. There are British Columbians that may be having difficulty in paying an MSP premium, but let’s think about this for a minute. MSP premiums in the last fiscal, at $2.6 billion, were only about 14 percent of the health care cost; 86 percent of our health care cost is actually borne through other forms of taxation, which is progressive.

The members opposite will continually try and explain that the MSP premium was unfair because whether you made $50,000 a year or $500,000 a year, your MSP premium was the same. That is correct, but at $450 a year, that’s a very, very minimal expense when you have a look at the health care that’s actually provided in our province — keeping in mind, of course, that 86 percent of the health care cost was covered by other forms of taxation. For that individual that might be making $150,000 or $200,000 a year, don’t think for a second that they are not paying a significantly higher portion of their overall income in taxation than somebody that may be making $30,000 or $40,000 a year.

Now, if I could just share. Kris Sims, with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, a director, had some interesting words to share just recently: “The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has spoken with longtime family-run businesses that are being hit hard by this double taxation of MSP and EHT next year, so much so that they now will have no money to contribute to local service groups in their towns that they have been supporting for years.”

This increased taxation is not just going to come off the bottom lines of these businesses. Some of these businesses don’t even have the fiscal capacity to absorb that. What we likely will see is that employees will not see, and will have to forgo, future wage increases because the current government has chosen to take 1.95 percent of their potential wage growth and charge it in a new form of taxation. I find that absolutely offensive.

As we look at this new employer health tax, we know it is going to have a significant impact on employers. When we look at the union workforces across B.C., they largely will be the winners in all of this.

[8:20 p.m.]

You have to kind of think: what is the motivation of the current government? A public servant that may have their MSP premiums currently covered as part of their collective agreement will make the argument, in their collective bargaining process, that that premium — which, in 2017, was $900 per individual — was something that was theirs. They negotiated for that $900 premium in MSP.

Just because the government is now working towards replacing it with a new form of taxation, those employees will make the argument that those funds are theirs. They will be making — and I’ve heard that they are already making — an argument that the reduction in MSP premium this year, that $450 in savings per individual, is not for the public service to keep as their reduction but that that is something that is vested with the actual employee. They are expressly looking for increased benefits in order to see that those funds actually stay with them.

Of course, because they’re tied into longer-term, collective agreements, they will not forgo a future wage increase next year in 2019 or in 2020. So again, the public servants — and they do some amazingly important work for all British Columbians, services that we all rely on — will not see the hit. They will see the benefit. It’ll be the private sector businesses and the private sector employees who will be left struggling in trying to pick up this disproportionate amount of taxation that’s being put squarely on their backs.

With that, I will take my seat. I want to confirm that I certainly will not be voting in support of Bill 44, the employer health tax.

T. Redies: I rise today as the last speaker from our side to share my concerns on Bill 44, which, we all know, will impose an employer health tax in British Columbia. Under this legislation, businesses, charities and non-profits will be charged a tax based on the size of their payroll, and employers with a B.C. payroll over $500,000 will have to pay this tax. The full payroll tax will be 1.95 percent of the total payroll and will apply to businesses with payrolls over $1½ million. Even though the Minister of Finance said that smaller businesses would pay less, the tax rate for smaller businesses is actually higher.

According to KPMG, although the government “previously indicated ‘medium’-sized employers with payroll between $500,000 and $1½ million…the draft legislation does not pro­vide relief for these employers. Instead, these employers will be subject to a higher 2.925 percent tax rate on the $1 million over $500,000, such that once their payroll is $1½ million, they are effectively paying a 1.95 percent tax rate on the entire $1½ million.”

Far from providing smaller businesses with a lower tax rate, this government is sticking it to businesses with payrolls between $500,000 and $1½ million. At over $1½ million in payroll, there are no exemptions. Companies will be charged at 1.95 percent of their full payroll, even if they’re only a dollar over that $1½ million payroll.

Now, while called by a different name, this tax is a replacement of the MSP. That in itself is problematic. The government claims to be eliminating MSP, but all they’re really doing is moving it to another taxpayer: businesses, charitable organizations and municipalities. I very much worry that average workers and families in B.C. will ultimately pay the price anyways.

The members opposite go to great lengths to talk about how the new EHT will make life better for British Columbians. Making life better for British Columbians is something everyone here can agree on. In fact, our former government was in the process of completely eliminating MSP to give hard-working families a much-deserved tax break. Now the new government claims to be doing the same thing, but digging a little deeper, we find that that isn’t really what’s happening here.

[8:25 p.m.]

Instead, as I noted, the health burden, like a three-card monte card game, is being shifted to businesses and organizations, only to be passed on to British Columbians through them. Let me explain what I mean.

As taxes rise, business owners and organizations have to make tough choices. They can either lay off staff, they can raise prices, or they can limit the services they provide. That’s just simple economics. They have to cover their costs and, in the case of businesses, at least continue to make money somehow.

As the CEO of the Vancouver Board of Trade commented: “When you hit the small business community with an additional payroll tax, there are only two things they can do: hire fewer people or don’t give raises to the existing ones they have.”

When the Canadian Federation of Independent Business asked their B.C. members what actions they would take to help reduce the cost of the proposed employers health tax, they replied: “63 percent of business owners said they would reduce planned bonuses for employees, 62 percent said they would reduce planned raises, and 46 percent said they would eliminate plans to hire additional staff.”

Finally, as indicated by Dr. Hamish Telford with the University of the Fraser Valley: “This tax will encourage businesses to stay small and below the payroll threshold. This tax creates perverse incentives. Businesses are now going to have to contemplate how much they want to grow.”

As suggested, any one of the previously mentioned choices facing British Columbian businesses has implications for individual British Columbians. Maybe they are laid off from their job, when a business can no longer afford to maintain its current staffing levels. Maybe they don’t see any wage increase, even though the costs for them and their family continue to go up. Maybe they end up spending more on necessary goods and services, like groceries or home-building and repairs, as costs are passed from small businesses onto end-consumers. Or maybe they rely on a service that a not-for-profit can no longer afford to provide, and they are left scrambling, trying to find a replacement.

Now, in no way am I trying to fearmonger or blow this out of proportion, but there are very real risks. Despite our past economic performance, British Columbia is not immune to economic damage, especially if those damages are self-inflicted by government.

When we look to some of the other provinces that have implemented an employer health tax, there have been some very concerning outcomes that followed. Take Ontario, for example. Ontario introduced an employer health tax at the very start of 1990. In the months that followed, economic growth slowed, employment dropped and the unemployment rate rose. It did so disproportionately when compared to national averages for these same measures.

A similar thing happened in Newfoundland and Labrador. Newfoundland implemented their health and post-secondary education tax the same year as Ontario. Again, we saw employment decline and unemployment rise, and again, these changes were much more pronounced than the national average.

Now, the members opposite can say they weren’t warned of the risks that the employer health tax would impose on our economy. But I go back to the words of their very own MSP Task Force, which cautioned: “A payroll tax would reduce the competitiveness of B.C. businesses at a time when they are facing several competitiveness challenges, including expected increases to the minimum wage, CPP increases and recent tax reform in the U.S. which improves the competitive position of many U.S. businesses.”

With the plethora of taxes that B.C. businesses are now facing, the investment climate has grown quite weak. With B.C. having the worst marginal effective corporate tax rate of 14 major jurisdictions in North America, capital flight is a real danger. A slowing economy is a very real danger, not only because of the factors I’ve mentioned so far, but also because the employer health tax actually punishes businesses for growing and for employing more people. That’s because as businesses’ payrolls grow, so does their tax burden.

What incentive does this tax give to businesses to employ more British Columbians and to pay them a good wage? There is zero incentive for businesses to create new positions or increase salaries — meaning, over time, we could see job or promotional opportunities drying up for many British Columbians.

[8:30 p.m.]

In fact, the director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation warns that this new job-killing tax will “hit employers across the province and make it impossible for them to pay their people more or to hire new staff. Imagine a business with a payroll hovering at $490,000, or just below the $500,000 tax threshold. Do you think anyone is getting a bonus or a pay raise? This tax is regressive, and it will throttle growth.”

Indeed, even the advice we are seeing from business experts suggests this tax will actually reduce salaries and benefits for British Columbians. Borden Ladner Gervais, a well-known law firm in B.C., has published a number of options for employers to consider before the EHT comes into effect. These include decreasing their payroll so it falls below the $500,000 threshold, also reducing or cutting MSP premium coverage for their employees or changing their compensation model from salary to dividends, which are excluded from EHT. If this is the advice that business experts are providing, what does it say about the tax?

Well, let me tell you. Penalizing economic growth and job creation is never good public policy. Somewhat ironically, this payroll tax doesn’t apply to money paid to contractors. Rather than providing stable, long-term jobs, this tax could actually encourage employers to contract out more work or to automate jobs — again, to reduce the pressure this payroll tax will put on costs. While the government says they are trying to help everyday British Columbians, I’m afraid this tax will end up doing the exact opposite.

Now, the government also likes to claim that this tax will apply only to a small percentage of businesses, but the numbers tell a different story. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has found that 44 percent of businesses with a payroll will pay this tax — on average, over $15,000 a year. That’s about 60,000 businesses in total, many of them fairly small and many of them locally owned and operated.

I’ve heard from a number of concerned businesses in my community that are worried about how they will keep their businesses afloat. Take, for example, West Coast Gardens in Surrey, which I am a big customer of. The business’s general manager has this to say: “We spent the last 30 years growing a successful business. The huge tax burden that the NDP government has put on small businesses like ours has made our costs rise dramatically without notice.”

While his business hires are all local residents from South Surrey, Langley and White Rock communities, a number of these employees are likely going to have to be laid off as a direct result of this tax. The CEO of West Coast Gardens goes on to quote: “The NDP, with their new tax burdens, have made us uncompetitive. The tax was put on us so quickly without us being able to have any input or any consultation, and it’s unfair. We decided that we will have to cancel crops because we just can’t keep it going with the costs that were put on us this year.”

West Coast Gardens, of course, isn’t the only business in my community being faced with tough choices. Evergreen Herbs is a family farm in Surrey that employs more than 120 people. They, too, worry that this tax will make them less competitive. The farm’s president had this to say: “Our company is based on a global demand of certain products. If we are no longer competitive in terms of price points, we are not going to be able to sell our product within our own country, let alone try to export it outside of our province.” He goes on to caution that if government continues to introduce policies that decrease business competitiveness, employers and employees alike will be negatively affected.

According to the CEO of Evergreen Herbs, “the environment right now is anti-business, anti-farming. We need to be able to bring that back again.” He has this to say, directly, to the Premier: “I think that the programs and the things you’ve put in place are actually counter to progress for this province.”

These aren’t big corporations. They’re local, family-run businesses that make up a vital part of our community, employing Surrey and Fraser Valley workers and providing the high-quality goods and services we count on. Indeed, the Surrey Board of Trade cautions: “As it stands, the EHT could stall economic growth. It needs to be adjusted toward a more equitable solution that works for employers and individuals.” The Surrey Board of Trade goes on to say: “What we are hearing from our members is that the EHT is an additional cost that businesses must now bear. This creates uncertainty on consumer costs.”

[8:35 p.m.]

For businesses that don’t already pay their employees’ MSP premiums, this is a whole new tax. But businesses that have already helped out their staff by paying their portion of MSP premiums will also be hit very hard. Next year they will have to pay both the MSP and EHT, since government is implementing the EHT before the MSP is actually phased out.

Not only is the government replacing the MSP instead of actually eliminating it, but they’re overlapping the new and the old health tax. Meaning that starting in January 2019, many employers will actually be paying twice. This is a huge burden to ask employers to bear, especially as this government has piled on new tax after tax, increased minimum wages, eliminated carbon neutrality and increased regulatory burden. And let’s not forget the outrageous and blatant double-dipping this government is engaging in by charging the EHT while, at the same time, businesses continue to pay MSP.

Going back to the words of the government’s own MSP Task Force, we see a word of caution about double-dipping. The task force said: “Whatever mechanisms are chosen to replace MSP revenue, we feel strongly that there should not be any phase-in of the new measures and phase-out of MSP. Rather, we suggest MSP be eliminated at a specific date and that the new revenue measures take effect fully at the same time.” But in the bill we see before us today, government has, once again, directly countered the advice of their very own task force.

Now, I do find it a bit peculiar that the government commissioned a task force to advise them on eliminating MSP premiums and then ignored the same group when its members offered input on doing just that. But I digress.

As I said earlier, this tax isn’t limited to companies. It’s much broader than that. For instance, municipalities will have to pay the tax, including my own home of Surrey. Under the employer health tax, the city of Surrey will be faced with $3.35 million in new taxes. This money has to come from somewhere. The city of Surrey, like many other local governments, will have to make up this money somehow, whether through increased property taxes, higher fees for things like recreation services or new costs for developments. You can bet Surrey residents are going to feel this tax too.

We recently saw municipal elections throughout the prov­ince. In Surrey, like a number of other communities, we have a number of new faces on council. It’s now up to them to figure out how they’re going to account for this huge, new tax bill — all because the provincial government decided to place this burden on municipalities. Local governments throughout the Lower Mainland are going to be facing similar choices, meaning that across the region, residents can expect to pay more in one way or another.

This goes beyond my own region of the Lower Mainland. In fact, the Union of B.C. Municipalities member survey showed that of 77 respondents, 70 percent of these municipalities will see their costs increase.

Echoing my colleague from Prince George–Valemount in quoting from a report published by the Union of B.C. Municipalities, I think it’s important for the members of the House to hear this again: “…71 percent of respondents indicated increased costs in relation to EHT implementation in comparison to 2017, with 36 percent of respondents indicating increases of 25 to 100 percent and 15 percent indicating increases greater than 100 percent.” The report goes on to say: “As a group, the 77 communities that contributed to the survey will see its MSP-related costs double between 2017 and 2020 as a result of the EHT.”

While municipalities have expressed concerns about these higher taxes, these current concerns have fallen on deaf ears. So I ask: how exactly will this tax make life more affordable for British Columbians? Quite simply, from this side of the House’s perspective, it will not, particularly when you consider the entire package of new tax measures this government is planning to implement.

Indeed, we’ve seen the per-capita tax burden rising in British Columbia. Since this government took power, per-capita taxation will have risen by almost $600 by the end of this fiscal year, or a little over 10 percent. By 2021, it will rise by almost 25 percent, or $1,400 for every man, woman and child in this province. For a family of four, this means $5,600 in increased average annual taxation by 2021.

[8:40 p.m.]

In fact, over the course of this next four-year period, British Columbian families will pay an average of almost $13,000 in incremental taxes based on a family of four. Even if you subtract the MSP, which, for reasons I’ve explained, I don’t think will be fully recouped by British Columbians, we’re still talking about an additional $2,800 paid in tax by the average family in 2021. That doesn’t look like making life more affordable to me. This looks like making things shockingly unaffordable.

Now, while I could go on all day about the risks of this ill-advised tax, I’m going to end my remarks here.

For all of these reasons I’ve mentioned — the lack of clarity and transparency, the costs on British Columbians, the burdens on local employers, the overall threat to our economy — I think the employers health tax, like the speculation tax, is just another one of these ill-conceived, poorly thought-through taxes that are going to have a significant impact on businesses throughout our province, on individuals throughout our province and on families throughout our province. As a result, I cannot support this tax. I see it as a punitive legislation on businesses throughout our province.

With that, I close my comments.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no more speakers, the minister to close the debate.

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the members who took part in the debate and the discussion. I think that is the purpose of this Legislature. The purpose of all of us being here is the opportunity to hear opinions on motions that come forward, on legislation that comes forward. So I thank all the members who took part.

I do want to, though, in my closing remarks, take us back to what this bill will do. I’ve heard a lot of discussion around this chamber over the last week around what the bill will do and won’t do. I think it’s important to remember that this bill will eliminate medical service premiums, giving individuals $900 and families $1,800 in their pockets — in their pockets. That’s a huge saving.

People already see 50 percent of that savings from the cut that was already made. I’ve had families stop me and tell me about what a difference that’s made in their lives, about what it’s like when you’re on a fixed income, if you’re a senior citizen, or if you’re a family and you’ve got a couple of kids in school and you’re saving up for your school supplies and trying to manage your family bills and seeing the price of groceries go up, and you’re really struggling. To be able to have those kinds of savings in your pocket makes a huge difference — a huge difference — to families, and that’s what this will do.

You know, I heard people on the other side say: “Oh well. Our side would have gotten rid of MSP premiums as well. It was something that we had planned to do as well.” Well, I’m sorry. I would have a little more faith if they hadn’t had 16 years to do it. Instead, they doubled MSP premiums in the time that they were there — for 16 years.

All well and good now to be able to say that they would have made a difference. “Don’t worry. We would have found the opportunity to be able to address it.” Well, they had 16 years, and they didn’t do anything except make it less affordable for families and increase costs. I think that’s an easy one to brush aside.

It is, as I said already, a regressive tax. I heard one of the members utilize the opportunity to say that if you made $50,000 or you made $500,000, you paid the same amount in MSP premiums. Who put that in place? The other side put that in place and doubled it.

When we take a look at moving to the employers health tax — much more efficient to administer. The costs around administering medical service premiums: over $50 million a year. The cost for the employers health tax: $2 million per year. Those are direct savings, again, to government, when you look at administering the employers health tax.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Yes, we are, as other provinces have done, moving to an em­ployers health tax. We will have the second-lowest — the lowest, when we compare the tax rate — employers health tax in this country.

Other provinces moved to employers health taxes, and yes, they have managed to keep their competitiveness, to be able to keep their economies growing and to be able to provide savings to families. That’s exactly what we’re looking at.

[8:45 p.m.]

I heard a lot about competitiveness. Well, let’s take a look at how well B.C.’s economy is doing and how competitive B.C. remains: eliminate PST on electricity, cut the small business tax rate and invest in the areas that businesses have said have caused them huge problems when it comes to competitiveness — child care and housing, major investments.

What is bad for the economy is the fact that this government didn’t support families in this province, didn’t support employers investing in child care and housing, and we are. And we are in this legislation as well.

I am proud to introduce this legislation. I am proud to close off second reading. I’m proud to say that we are moving on affordability for families, putting money back in people’s pockets that they spend in our economy and spend in small businesses around this province.

With that, I move second reading.

[8:50 p.m.]

Second reading of Bill 44 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 43
Chouhan	Kahlon	Begg
Brar	Heyman	Donaldson
Mungall	Bains	Beare
Chen	Popham	Trevena
Sims	Chow	Kang
Simons	D’Eith	Routley
Ma	Elmore	Dean
Routledge	Singh	Leonard
Darcy	Simpson	Robinson
Farnworth	Horgan	James
Eby	Dix	Ralston
Mark	Fleming	Conroy
Fraser	Chandra Herbert	Rice
Furstenau	Weaver	Olsen
	Glumac
NAYS — 39
Cadieux	de Jong	Bond
Polak	Lee	Stone
Wat	Bernier	Thornthwaite
Paton	Ashton	Barnett
Yap	Martin	Davies
Kyllo	Sullivan	Isaacs
Morris	Stilwell	Ross
Oakes	Johal	Redies
Rustad	Milobar	Sturdy
Shypitka	Hunt	Throness
Tegart	Stewart	Sultan
Gibson	Reid	Letnick
Thomson	Larson	Foster

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

Bill 44, Budget Measures Implementation (Employer Health Tax) Act, 2018, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 8:53 p.m.