Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading, Bill 6, Supply Act (Supplementary Estimates).

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates debate on the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Upon their completion, we’ll call the estimates for the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training.

[2:40 p.m.]

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — SUPPLY ACT, 2018–2019
(SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES)

Hon. C. James: Pursuant to the usual practice of this House, we will proceed with the remaining readings that are left of Bill 6.

With that, I move that Bill 6 be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 6 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Bill 6, Supply Act, 2018–2019 (Supplementary Estimates), read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 6 — SUPPLY ACT, 2018–2019
(SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B); J. Isaacs in the chair.

The committee met at 2:44 p.m.

On section 1.

Hon. C. James: I think we can move through the sections. This is a pretty routine bill. I think the other side, as well….

[2:45 p.m.]

If the Chair wishes to move through the sections, I think we’re ready for that.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Schedule approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that the committee rise and report Bill 6 complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:46 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — SUPPLY ACT, 2018–2019
(SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES)

Bill 6, Supply Act, 2018–2019 (Supplementary Estimates), reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2019

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 12, Supply Act (No. 1), 2019, be read a second time now.

Existing voted appropriations will expire on March 31, 2019. Bill 12 provides interim supply for ministry operations and other appropriations for approximately the first three months of the 2019-20 fiscal year while the House completes debate of appropriations presented in the 2019-2020 estimates. Interim supply for ministry operations and other appropriations is required to ensure continuity and continuation of government services until the final supply bill comes into force.

Bill 12 also provides one-third of combined voted amounts in schedules C and D of the 2019-2020 estimates for disbursements related to capital expenditures, loans, investments and other financing requirements. The one-third authorization provided for in relation to these disbursements is higher than that authorized in relation to ministry operations as disbursements that are in schedules C and D are not evenly distributed throughout the year. Therefore, the higher level of interim supply is required to accommodate the payments that will be made under these schedules.

[2:50 p.m.]

Bill 12 also authorizes the full amount of the disbursements referred to in schedule E of the 2019-2020 estimates. Schedule E of the 2019-2020 estimates outlines the revenue collected on behalf of and transferred to specific programs or entities. There’s no impact on the operating results, borrowing or debt resulting from the collection and transfer of this revenue.

These interim supply appropriations are based on the accountabilities and allocations outlined in the 2019-2020 estimates. The final supply bill for the 2019-2020 fiscal year will incorporate these amounts to ensure that it reflects the sum of all voted appropriations to be given to the government in that fiscal year.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

T. Redies: I’m pleased to make a few comments on behalf of the opposition with respect to Bill 12. As this is second reading in a supply bill directed at keeping government functioning, I’ll be making only a few comments, and I will be the only speaker on our side.

As the minister just outlined, Bill 12 allows us to continue to fund government while we go through the estimates process. Estimates, we know, are a very important aspect of government, as they allow members to query ministers about their budgets and policy actions. So Bill 12 essentially allows us to make sure hard-working public servants continue to get paid as we go through the estimates process.

This estimates period is likely to be long and detailed. We on this side of the House remain very concerned with respect to the direction of this government, its voracious appetite for spending and its lack of significant measures to improve the competitiveness of the province and, importantly, the businesses within it.

Further, 2019 is the year when this government’s myriad new tax measures, mostly aimed at businesses, come into effect. The dreaded employers health tax, which will generate almost $2 billion a year annually from businesses, is coming into effect this year. Businesses are, as we know, getting doubly clobbered in 2019 because they’re still required to pay MSP premiums on top of the EHT. We’re very concerned about the impact of this tax and other taxes on investment, job creation and wages in the province and the subsequent ripple effect through the entire economy.

We’re also concerned that the government continues to put the pedal to the metal on spending at a time when economic storm clouds are on the horizon. In fact, this government has astoundingly blown through $2 billion in extra spending in this last year alone when compared to its original budget for fiscal 2018-19 that it tabled in February 2018. So $2 billion. Think about that. This government blew through two billion extra dollars of taxpayers’ money in one year alone.

It’s very concerning that the government is continuing to spend at such a pace when it’s clear that the global economy is slowing and the Canadian economy appears stalled, based on the fourth quarter of 2018 results, whether it’s housing starts, consumer spending or exports. The Bank of Canada noted this morning that it’s holding its key interest rates steady and that the downturn in the fourth quarter was “sharper and more broadly based.”

While the B.C. economy has been robust thanks to a lot of initiatives started under the previous B.C. Liberal government, we’re seeing slowing of business investment, worsening business confidence, plummeting house sales and housing starts and, in the last quarter of 2018, a net outflow of British Columbians to other provinces. It would seem that the economic party that this government has been dining on is approaching midnight.

We’re going to have a lot to query the government on in estimates in the coming weeks. As such, while we’ll have some questions in the committee stage on this bill, we’ll be supporting it to allow the government to continue to function in the meantime.

With that, I will end my comments. Again, thank you for the opportunity to make those remarks.

Hon. C. James: Seeing no further speakers, to close off debate on second reading.

As the member has said, estimates will provide the opportunity for individual ministers to be able to talk about their budgets and talk about the direction being taken by government. I think it’s important to recognize how critical that is for the accountability of democracy and the accountability to the public. I certainly look forward to the debate, and I look forward to agreeing to disagree with the member across the way and their portraying of the budget and the direction being taken by this government.

[2:55 p.m.]

The member talks about dollars being spent. I think that really shows the difference between the other side and ourselves. When we invest in people, those are resources that are being spent to, in fact, keep the economy growing. B.C. is expected once again to lead the country when it comes to economic growth, with prudency built into the budget to recognize that if there are shifts, that will be critical — over $2 billion of prudency built in.

The member mentioned housing starts. I think it’s important to note that in fact, housing starts were lower than we have predicted in our next two budgets in the previous government’s last two budgets. So they, in fact, had presumed less housing starts than we have in our budget. If the member likes to say that’s doom and gloom, it was the previous government that, in fact, was looking at lower housing starts than we were.

I look forward to that debate.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 12, Supply Act (No. 1), 2019.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 12 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 12, Supply Act (No. 1), 2019, 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. C. James: I will call second reading of Bill 5, Budget Measures Implementation Act.

BILL 5 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2019

Hon. C. James: It’s Finance early afternoon, I think.

I’m pleased to start second reading on the Budget Measures Implementation Act, Bill 5. This bill works to implement the critical aspects of Budget 2019. It will amend 12 statutes.

The most significant amendment creates the new B.C. child opportunity benefit so that all children have the opportunity to meet their full potential. This new benefit is going to provide hundreds of millions of dollars each and every year to families with children. When it’s in place October 1, 2020…. Just to take a moment to mention that the reason that this doesn’t take effect until 2020 is the work that has to happen with the CRA. With the Canadian revenue taxation and our taxation, it takes a year to be able look at implementation of the changes to the tax act.

The tax act is amended in this bill to replace the early childhood tax benefit with the new B.C. child opportunity benefit. The previous benefit, the early childhood tax benefit, was only available to children up to the age of six, whereas the difference is the new benefit will be available for children up to age 18. That’s going to mean that many more working families, middle-class families and families living in poverty are going to receive significantly more support.

Just as an example, families with one child are going to receive up to $1,600. With two children, they will receive up to $2,600. Again, this is per year. Those with three children will receive up to $3,400. Again, anyone who has raised a child knows the significant impact that that’s going to have in a positive way to be able to support children in having the opportunities that every child deserves to have.

Once the benefit is in place, a family with one child could receive as much as $28,800 from the time their child is born until they turn 18. With two children, they may receive up to $48,000, and with three children, for example, they could receive $64,400 from the child’s birth till the child is 18. This will put an additional $400 million into the pockets of B.C. families so that every child has the opportunity to reach their full potential. Transformational is the word I would use.

This bill also amends the Income Tax Act to make the mining flow-through share tax credit and the mining exploration tax credit permanent, recommendations that were put forward by the Mining Jobs Task Force. For years, governments have extended the mining flow-through share tax credit for one year at a time, which created uncertainty for the mining industry and for its investors. We certainly recognize, as a government, the critical importance of B.C.’s mining industry to the provincial economy, so making these tax credits permanent eliminates this kind of uncertainty.

The bill also amends the Income Tax Act to extend the farmers food donation tax credit for one more year, as, again, we look at the strength of each of those credits. That will take it to the end of 2020. This extension reaffirms our government’s commitment to support B.C. agriculture, while looking at this credit to see if it really does what it’s meant to do, which is provide food to food banks that comes from farmers, and if this is the strongest way to look at it or whether there are other opportunities as well.

[3:00 p.m.]

The training tax credits for apprenticeship and employers are also extended for one year. These credits help support on-the-job training for tradespeople, while allowing the government time, again, to review these credits.

We’re also extending the shipbuilding and the ship repair industry tax credit for three years. This tax credit supports employers in this important industry, who also provide apprentices with on-the-job training.

The bill also makes some minor changes to the Income Tax Act to better align B.C.’s personal income taxes with federal taxes. As I mentioned earlier, we do a coordination, and when taxes change at the federal level, you will often see pieces come forward in the budget implementation bill to coordinate the taxes. This time around, that includes expanding B.C.’s pension tax credit to allow certain veterans benefits to qualify towards the credit — a plus, again, for the coordination.

Bill 5 also enhances the small business venture capital tax credit through amendments to the Income Tax Act and to the Small Business Venture Capital Act. This tax credit will provide an incentive for investors to put their money and expertise to work in new businesses by providing investors with a tax credit worth up to 30 percent of their investment. However, the funding assigned for certain segments of this program was not being used fully, so the program hadn’t been updated in a decade.

We worked with the business community, as government, to review the program and look at where we could make improvements, in partnership with business. As a result, with these changes, individual investors will now be able to receive tax credits of up to $120,000 per year. Previously, the limit was $60,000. That hadn’t been adjusted for inflation. Obviously, there have been changes when it comes to investment dollars.

Similarly, small businesses will be permitted to raise up to $10 million through the tax credit program, up from $5 million — again, recognizing that there hadn’t been changes in these programs.

The small business venture capital tax credit is also expanded to allow for investments to be housed within a tax-free savings account. We, for a long period of time, had the investments being able to be housed in an RRSP, but it wasn’t amended because there wasn’t a tax-free savings account at the time. This makes the change to include tax-free savings accounts after they were introduced in 2009.

In addition, the tax credit is being expanded to include convertible equity investments, in addition to share purchases. Convertible equity is often used to invest in businesses at the very early stage where they aren’t clear yet on what the company’s valuation is. Businesses are generally expected to remain in the program for five years. That’s the general expectation of the tax program.

We also recognize that there are circumstances that require businesses to exit the tax credit program early. So this change that comes forward in this bill will provide that businesses that leave the tax credit program after two years will be eligible for a reduction in the amount they’re required to reimburse the government, instead of having to wait three years for this reduction — again, recognizing success, in fact, in businesses.

Finally, technical amendments are also included in this bill. There are updates in a reference to a regional district. There are updates to clarify requirements to file tax credit certificates with an income tax return.

Then Bill 5 also amends the Provincial Sales Tax Act to streamline tax collection, reporting and remittance requirements for businesses that make sales or conduct leasing through an agent. I know we’ll get into this when we get into committee stage, but when an agent is used to make a sale or a lease or when a billing agent is used to collect payments, the principal and the agent will be able to jointly designate a single party to be responsible for the tax collection, for the reporting and for the remittance obligation. This partnership isn’t recognized. These changes will recognize that.

It also confirms that an auctioneer who acts as an agent in making auction sales on behalf of the principal is responsible for these same obligations, unless the parties jointly elect to assign them to another principal. We’ve heard from businesses that they want these types of legal arrangements to have certainty around the PST obligations — who’s responsible for ensuring the PST obligations. So these measures are going to provide that certainty and give the parties involved in very complex business arrangements a way to simplify how the PST works for them.

The bill also amends the Motor Fuel Tax Act and the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act. The changes will enable TransLink, in partnership with the Mayors Council, to levy an additional motor fuel tax on clear gasoline and clear diesel of up to 1.5 cents per litre. This responds, as members will know, to the request for these powers from TransLink and the Mayors Council on their regional transportation plan.

[3:05 p.m.]

It allows the region to raise the revenue it needs to finance its share of funding for phase 2 of TransLink’s ten-year vision of the transportation network improvements. All of this additional revenue raised will go directly to TransLink. Funds raised by an increase in TransLink dedicated fuel tax will provide support to improve transit in Metro Vancouver, in the mayors plan, such as the Broadway SkyTrain extension, the Surrey-Newton-Guilford LRT and the new Sky­Train cars.

Many of these changes have been talked about in previous announcements and are now included in this bill.

We also have a number of technical changes to a number of different acts. They ensure that our tax statutes are up to date and operate as intended.

For example, the Carbon Tax Act in this legislation is amended to authorize a penalty if an unauthorized person sells natural gas.

The Income Tax Act, along with the Property Transfer Tax Act and the Taxation (Rural Area) Act, are amended to clarify and update information-sharing provisions — again, an important technical piece in the bill, for clarity.

The Financial Administration Act is amended to permit a remission of a forfeiture, a fine or a penalty that has already been paid. Again, this is consistent with how remissions may be provided for taxes, royalties, fees and other sums to create that consistency.

The Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act is amended to make three technical changes. First, there’s a minor typographical error in the act, which is corrected. Second, we’re ensuring that the exemption for properties that are uninhabitable because of a natural disaster or other hazardous condition operates as intended. Again, a clarification to ensure it operates as intended. And third, to clarify the due date for taxes for certain types of reassessments.

The Motor Fuel Tax Act is also amended to clarify refunds of security related to relabelled fuel, allowances for tax collectors and appeal rates.

Finally, the Provincial Sales Tax Act is amended to provide several clarifications, including the tax treatment of vehicles brought into B.C. that are going to be immediately licensed as multi-jurisdictional vehicles; refunds for motor vehicles that are returned to their manufacturers; suspensions and cancellations of collector registrations; conditions for small seller eligibility; the obligation to pay tax when an exemption is not documented; the timing of tax payments, for promotional distributors; and procedures regarding unspent municipal and regional district tax revenues held by dissolving societies.

S. Bond: Obviously, I’d like to recognize how important it is to be able to make a few comments about Bill 5 in the Legislature.

As the minister herself has pointed out, this is an incredibly technical bill. She has outlined a long list of acts and changes and amendments. I think it’s important for British Columbians to recognize that this is really the technical bill that breathes life into the budget that the government has tabled.

As the minister pointed out, and read through the long list of amendments, there are multiple acts, including the Income Tax Act, the Motor Fuel Tax Act, the Community Charter. There are bills that are being amended. But this is really the practical application that is necessary to make the adjustments that are required to implement the 2019 budget.

Now, as you can imagine, this is a very necessary piece of legislation, and we will make a few comments at this stage and second reading. But the minister knows and is well advised to the fact that we don’t support many of the initiatives that are included in the budget.

We are going to ask questions about the technical implementation pieces, but frankly, as the minister herself pointed out, we are going to agree to disagree. That is a very accurate statement. And not with every item in the budget. There are some that we’ve stood up — my colleagues have stood in this place — and actually given the government credit for. It’s important. Budgets do have items that have merit from everyone’s perspective. But we are very concerned about the sustainability, the nature of this budget — what’s in it and what isn’t in it.

[3:10 p.m.]

We’re going to talk about some of the technical pieces, but make no mistake about it, my co-critic and I have made a number of references to our concerns throughout the discussion about the budget more generally. We are, obviously, going to ask questions when we get to committee stage. But I think it’s fair to say that we have both indicated, as have my colleagues on this side of the House, that we’re extremely concerned about the sustainability of this minister’s budget, particularly in the context of growing economic uncertainty.

In fact, since we last had a chance and an opportunity to discuss the budget, we’ve actually had further indications of a troubled economy, exactly the issue that we have been raising relentlessly with this minister.

Today the governor of the Bank of Canada issued the following statement: “Recent data suggests that the slowdown in the global economy has been more pronounced and widespread than the bank had forecast in its January monetary policy report. While the sources of moderation appear to be multiple, trade tensions and uncertainty are weighing heavily on confidence and economic activity.”

The report goes on to say: “The bank had forecast weak exports and investment in the energy sector and a decline in household spending in oil-producing provinces. However, the slowdown in the fourth quarter was sharper and more broadly based.” The bank had forecast weak exports and investments in the energy sector. However, the fourth quarter was much sharper and more broadly based.

The latest fourth quarter results from Statistics Canada indicate that the country’s economy quite literally ground to a halt, with a growth rate of just 0.1 percent. This represents the worst quarterly performance in 2½ years. The slowdown is already affecting the retail sector.

Only five days ago, clothing retailer The Gap announced it will be closing 230 retail outlets in North America. At the present time, we’re not yet clear how many outlets will be closed in Canada. This retailer joins Payless Shoes. It was announced on February 19, just one week after the provincial budget was delivered, that it will be closing all of its 248 outlets in Canada. On February 22, Hudson’s Bay is shuttering all 37 Home Outfitters outlets in Canada.

It’s not just Canadian economic growth that has underperformed. B.C. retail sales were also revised down in 2018. This appears to be having an effect on PST earnings, bringing in $110 million less in revenue.

On a provincial level, residential housing sales have also plummeted 24 percent in 2018. In greater Vancouver, it’s even worse. The latest data for housing sales show they are down 42.5 percent in greater Vancouver, which is below the ten-year average and the lowest level since 2008. We are, therefore, compelled to question whether there will be another miss on these projections going forward.

This begs a fundamental question: what is the consequential risk, and how will weakening economic indicators pose challenges to this budget? Storm clouds, as I said in my budget remarks, are gathering on the economic horizon. Yet what do we see? This bill is about to implement a budget where this minister and government continue to spend.

The minister characterizes that as investing in people. There is a significant issue with that statement. Economic trends are deteriorating. What we do not see in this budget is any attempt to actually grow the economy in British Columbia. This is about increasing debt, making sure that we are spending everything we can spend and, in fact, expensive promises.

The Finance Minister referred to one of the expensive promises, which is contained, and the implementation is outlined, in this Budget Measures Act. But perhaps, thankfully, it isn’t being implemented until 2020. The minister suggests it’s because we had to do the work with the CRA. If this was such an important promise by this government, why on earth didn’t the work start earlier?

[3:15 p.m.]

Now British Columbians are being given the shiny bauble that says we’re going to have a brand-new billions-of-dollars program. We are not even sure British Columbia will be in a position to pay for it, yet we have it all outlined in the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

The economy is deteriorating. All of the experts around the world are suggesting it’s time to be prudent and to be cautious. And what do we see in British Columbia? Well, we continue to see pedal to the metal. Let’s just keep spending. Let’s grow the debt, and let’s make expensive promises.

According to Statistics Canada, the economy has been doing relatively well. In fact, the minister today — both in question period and here in her opening remarks — commented on the strong economy that British Columbia has.

Well, I would like to clarify the record. The strong economy that British Columbia has today was not created in the last 18 months by this government. It took years and years of a relentless focus on growing the economy, creating new jobs in British Columbia. And when this transition took place, when our government moved to the opposition benches, this government inherited the number one performing economy in the country — the number one performing economy.

So to stand in this House and suggest that somehow this government is responsible for that is simply not accurate. Anyone who takes even five minutes to think about that knows that you can’t take an economy that, the last time this government was in power, was the worst in the country and move it to the first in the country in 18 months. That simply is not possible.

We are very concerned about today’s announcement by the Bank of Canada. In fact, the Bank of Canada confirms the concerns we have been expressing. We noted that B.C. has performed well in the past, but we are not an island.

Let’s look at competitiveness. Let’s look at south of the border. Federal tax cuts are now coming into effect and making British Columbia less competitive. What is the number one thing that business leaders in British Columbia are talking about today? The loss of competitiveness. It’s essential that we remain competitive.

It’s not just from our neighbours to the south. We’ve already heard that if there is a change of government in Alberta when the provincial election is held next May, we can expect the corporate tax rate to be cut as much as 4 percent lower than British Columbia’s. So what does that mean? We’re an island all right. We’re an island surrounded by other jurisdictions who recognize the importance of being competitive. This budget does absolutely nothing. In fact, it actually undermines the competitiveness of British Columbia. Yet what do we see? Spending, more debt and expensive promises.

It should also be noted that our competitors — a pretty critical word when we’re talking about the economy — to the south, to the east and to the north are not subject to the minister’s newly implemented employer health tax. So not only are we not considering the economic circumstances that are happening both in Canada and around the world; we’re also layering on additional taxes to the very people that create jobs and grow the economy — small businesses in this province. This puts British Columbia at a compet­itive disadvantage.

The minister knows this, and I’m certain that people on that side of the House know this. In the event of an economic downturn, our province could experience an outflow of talent and capital. And where will they go? To more competitive jurisdictions. We’ve also pointed out that Budget 2019 lacks any new incentives to attract investment, and there’s no jobs plan either.

As the member for Surrey–White Rock and I have both observed, the increase of program spending by more than 26 percent…. So here we have a minister who wants to stand up and take credit for the number one economy in Canada, which, by the way, she inherited 18 months ago. What she should probably stand up and take credit for is an increase in program spending by 26 percent in just 18 months.

From our perspective, that puts British Columbia in jeopardy. The prospect of a structural deficit is quite real if economic growth indicators fail to match the rapid escalation of program spending. If you don’t have the growth, and you keep spending and spending and spending, ultimately, British Columbians will face exactly what they faced the last time this government was in power. And that was a structural deficit that took us literally years to claw our way back out of. We are headed in exactly the same direction.

[3:20 p.m.]

The minister will have also noted our comments with regard to the rollout of the EHT and the spec tax. In our view, and the best way that we can think of to describe it, it is tax policy on the fly. And what has it caused? Uncertainty.

One of the most troubling aspects of the speculation tax…. I note that the minister noted that there are several adjustments to the speculation tax regarding homes that are uninhabitable because of natural disasters. Well, this whole tax is a natural disaster.

We should be clear. This minister announced it, and from day one, we have been trying to fix it, to tweak it. Communities were in; they’re out. Belcarra is in; it wants to be out. My goodness. And when you look at who’s now out, you wonder how they were actually taken out of the tax. It is tax policy on the fly, and it’s been a disaster.

There’s another more troubling aspect. The members on the other side of the House may want to diminish this, but people are concerned about the privacy of their personal information. British Columbians want to make sure that there is integrity in their personal information and to make sure that they are protected against identity theft.

People have a right to know what information the government is gathering and, more importantly, how it’s going to be used and who is going to have access to it. Our offices, including this building’s office, have been flooded with calls and emails from people — seniors in particular — who are saying: “I don’t want to give my social insurance number.”

I would defy any member on the opposite benches to stand up and say they haven’t heard from some of their constituents. In fact, we know they have, because after they get no answers in those constituency offices, guess where they call. They call our offices. Do you know what they ask for? They ask for help. They ask for help because they get on the help line….

I just got a new case today where a couple came back to us and said: “We called the help line, and here’s what they told us, ‘We can’t help you.’” That doesn’t exactly define the purpose of having a help line.

This minister and this government know full well that the speculation tax is a mess and that there are people in this province deeply concerned about providing their social insurance number. The people on the help line continue to insist: “You have to give us your social insurance number.” Well, I can tell you, there’s going to be a whole lot of the 1.6 million British Columbians who are going to be in for a rude awakening when the tax bill arrives because they wanted to protect their personal information.

By the way, for the record, and on behalf of the official opposition, they are not speculators. They should never have been captured. The Premier promised that. The Minister of Finance even stood up and said: “No, I can’t imagine cottages or cabins being captured.” And what’s happened? Exactly that.

Madam Speaker, you can understand why the opposition has concerns about looking at a bill that implements policies that we don’t agree with. I heartily endorse the Minister of Finance’s comments that we’re going to agree to disagree. We are going to agree to disagree. We don’t believe that a 26 percent spending rate in 18 months is sustainable. We absolutely want to urge this minister to go back and take a look at her budget. It has completely ignored the world that is surrounding British Columbia.

When we think about our lack of competitiveness…. The global economy is deteriorating, and what are we doing in British Columbia? If this minister wants to talk about taking care of people, then it’s time for her to go back to the drawing board, get rid of the ill-planned speculation tax that actually taxes the wrong people and have a good look in the mirror.

The world around us is changing, and what are we doing? We are just moving straight ahead. Batten down the hatches, British Columbia.

British Columbians deserve better than to be required to prove they are not speculators. They should not have to provide personal information with a lack of clarity and not have any assurance on whether or not it will be safe.

Let’s look at some of the specific measures in Bill 5. The bill includes the formula and technical changes that would be needed to create the B.C. child opportunity benefit.

During committee, my colleague and I…. She is incredibly skilled, and I know she’s already analyzing the formulas and all of the details. I have every confidence that there will be some very tough questions about this benefit in particular. But during committee, we want a better understanding of the benefits thresholds. Who exactly is going to receive the benefit, and how will families access the program?

[3:25 p.m.]

Once again, as I said earlier, we see an expensive promise with a very long timeline for implementation. We’re still waiting to see $10-a-day daycare in British Columbia. We know the price tag attached to that. And where did the renters’ grant go? That’s completely missing.

There are huge, expensive promises, and they’re not captured in the 26 percent increase in spending over 18 months. There are lots of unanswered questions about what is undoubtedly the signature piece of the 2019 budget. Does that sound familiar — the signature piece? I seem to remember all of the government MLAs out on the campaign trail promising $10-a-day daycare. “It’s going to happen. We’re going to make it happen.”

Well, today in British Columbia there is no $10-a-day daycare program. In fact, you’re a winner of a lottery if you get to one of the pilot daycares. Expensive promise — no delivery.

As we have said numerous times, the devil is in the details. We see extensions of some tax credits, some for one year and some for three. We will want to know why the differentiation and on what basis are there different extension periods and how are they determined. Again, there are multiple sections.

This is important to British Columbians. And the irony of this? I remember it clearly that when those members were on this side of the House, every single time that we’d talk about regulation-making power or we’d talk about collecting information, we would hear about it. Oh, would we hear about it. There would be ongoing criticism about the collection of personal data. How is it going to be captured? Who’s going to use it?

What do we see in every single piece of legislation, including this one, that comes before the House? Guess what. They’re collecting more information. They’re sharing it from one agency to the next. That’s exactly what this implementation bill talks about. Guess what. We’re collecting more use and disclosure of personal information. It’s interesting. Apparently, that was then, and this is now. I’ll tell you: they would stand in this House and rail, especially about regulation-making power, because then everything was going to be decided behind closed doors.

I don’t think I’ve seen a bill yet that’s come through since this government has been in power that doesn’t have regulation-making power. In fact, half the time British Columbians have no idea what kinds of consultations are going on. In fact, look at mountain caribou. Nobody in the world knows what’s going on there. Apparently a few do, but we certainly don’t.

We’re going to seek clarity in every single case about why information is needed and what protections are being put in place. Virtually every bill contains regulation-making authority and data collection.

Bill 5 also allows for additional gasoline taxes under the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act. This tax increase of up to 1.5 cents will be in addition to the carbon tax increases. Well, guess what. Just the other day Dan McTeague of gasbuddy.com said this: “You’re looking at about a 3.5 percent increase in costs, bringing taxes to 53 cents a litre which, of course, will make Vancouver” — wait for it — “the highest-taxed jurisdiction of any major city not just across Canada, across North America.”

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Well, congratulations to the Finance Minister. She won an award. In fact, we’re ramping it right up to the ceiling. We now, the people of Vancouver, with this Budget Measures Implementation Act and the carbon tax that’s going to be added on an ongoing basis, have now ramped Vancouver costs to the highest tax jurisdiction of any major city across North America when it comes to gas.

Well, I can tell the minister opposite that, in fact, this has been, according to her, all about affordability and all about putting money back in people’s pockets. Well, the fact of the matter is that apparently, from the minister’s perspective, having the highest gasoline prices in North America, looking at ongoing costs for employers and small businesses, layering on taxes, including the speculation tax — I think we’re going to have a pretty good argument that demonstrates that while we may be putting money in one pocket, they’re taking it out of the other pocket at a faster rate than most British Columbians can actually imagine.

There are many other sections that will require additional information, and we will endeavour to get answers through­out the committee stage of this.

[3:30 p.m.]

From our perspective, as I said, Bill 5 implements a budget that is full of risk, and that’s our most heartfelt concern. There are enormous risks for British Columbia on the horizon.

Interjections.

S. Bond: The members opposite can guffaw and make comment about that, but perhaps they want to listen to the Bank of Canada, which today just issued a very dire warning about the future of the economy. In fact, we’re talking about references to 2008.

I would suggest it’s about time that the minister and her team paid a bit of attention to the storm clouds that are gathering. There are razor-thin surpluses in this budget, growing debt and continued tax increases and, again, a complete lack of a jobs plan or economic growth strategy. The government has even given up defending that. They basically just said: “We’re investing in people. That’s how we grow the economy.”

Actually, the way you grow the economy is making sure that British Columbia has a thriving economy, that it is competitive with other jurisdictions. We’ve already pointed out that geographically, we are becoming an island, an island that is not competitive. And it’s going to continue to get worse, as we look at what other jurisdictions are doing in terms of looking at tax reductions, focusing on growing the economy, supporting a private sector economy.

We’re going to continue, every opportunity we get, to urge this minister to reconsider her approach in view of all of the economic warning signs. It’s time that this government took a second…. It’s time that the government actually paid attention to what’s going on around us. It is simply not enough to continue to spend, to continue to grow debt in the province, without a single reference to a job strategy. No economic growth strategy.

And what are we seeing? Dropping consumer confidence. British Columbia’s economy is strong because of the confidence that consumers have had in British Columbia. We’re seeing that weaken. Needless to say, we do not support Budget ’19, and the Budget Implementation Act simply gives life to a budget that we have fundamental concerns about. We are concerned about the risks. We’re concerned about the growing economic storm clouds that we see, with warnings that we’re hearing day after day.

It’s evidenced by businesses being closed, people choosing to leave British Columbia. British Columbians deserve better than that. It is time for this government to rethink their efforts. We’ve seen 19 tax increases since the government took office. There have about no new tax cuts announced since the ones made by the previous government. The list goes on.

With those initial comments…. I know that my colleague and my co-critic will want to make additional comments, but I end my remarks on this note. There are concerns being expressed around the world about the continued deterioration of the economy. British Columbians deserve a government that actually is aware of those issues, that recognizes the importance of prudent and sound fiscal management. It is not about expensive promises promised in 2020, promises that have disappeared from this government’s radar screen and, most importantly, from their budget.

It’s a time for prudence, for caution and for protecting the interests of British Columbians. In our view, this budget and, thus, the implementation of it are simply not sustainable. As the minister in her own words said, we will agree to disagree and certainly will not be supporting either these measures or the budget in its entirety.

Hon. G. Heyman: It gives me great pleasure to stand and speak to Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, although, frankly, judging by most of the comments from the member for Prince George–Valemount, it’s not actually critical that I speak to the bill itself.

However, what I will say is this bill gives life to a number of important measures that are contained in the budget, measures that speak to what British Columbians asked for from their government. The member opposite said that this government needs to pay attention to what’s going on around us. I would say that’s exactly what this government is doing.

[3:35 p.m.]

I would say there are probably 40 MLAs on the other side of the House that wish the previous Finance Minister had paid even a jot of attention to what was going on around them with housing affordability and any number of other measures that British Columbians were crying for day in, day out, which are now getting addressed by a government that puts them in the centre of the budget, in the centre of our policies, and not their corporate friends, to the sole exclusion of everyone else.

The member opposite said this budget doesn’t have necessary prudence. I would beg to disagree. This budget has ample amounts of prudence, and that has been affirmed by commentators across the political and business and civic spectrum. We are more than aware, and the Finance Minister is more than aware, of the challenges facing the global economy. That’s why there are so many measures in this budget to address competitiveness, to address small business, to address venture capital, to give the stability to the mining industry that they have sought for many, many years.

Let’s talk about the claim that we don’t care about competitiveness. If we didn’t care about competitiveness, we would not have worked with the Business Council of British Columbia on how we can diversify B.C.’s economy, how we can work together to market B.C.’s innovation while addressing the challenge of reducing carbon, to give stability and certainty to resource communities, to our existing industrial sectors and to the workers who depend on them.

The members opposite have claimed at times that there is no difference between our climate plan, CleanBC, our climate and economic plan, and what they had started. But there is a difference in every single metric you want to look at, not the least of which is an express commitment that we have talked about, that we will introduce, that will address the competitiveness issues for emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries in full consultation and partnership with them. That was never found under the previous government.

They simply ignored both the climate challenge and the competitiveness issues that go with addressing the climate challenge for many, many large industrial operators in British Columbia, who recognize that their survival depends on reducing emissions and cooperating with a government that will make it possible for them to do so without putting them at risk of competition from other jurisdictions and will help them invest in the measures and technology that can make them world-leading.

Apparently, members opposite think that everything good came from them and everything bad can be attributed to us who are now in government. That’s an interesting perspective, but to me, I think it simply speaks to the fact that they have yet to accept that British Columbians disagreed with their view that they had a natural right to govern in perpetuity in British Columbia, that whatever they did would result in their re-election.

I know that there are many members opposite who look at any one of the investments in programs for communities, programs for families, programs for people that are contained in this budget and wish the previous Finance Minister had invested in even one of them. Because in their heart of hearts, they believe that if they had made some of those investments that people were crying for, instead of telling everyone, year after year after year, that paying off debt came before investing in their future and their children’s future, they might still be in government.

I don’t believe that’s the case. But certainly, when the member opposite says that they have people, British Columbians, calling them for help every day in their constituency offices…. I can tell them who’s calling us for help — or calling us, more correctly, to thank us for help. It’s the parents and families who finally have affordable, accessible child care and see it expanding week after week, month after month and year after year. It is enabling them to have a life and to go out and achieve the participation in the workforce that, for many of them, was previously denied.

[3:40 p.m.]

The renters who were seeing double-digit, sometimes in the mid-30s, rent increases made possible by loopholes are now calling us to thank us for closing those loopholes, for taking the challenges of renters of all ages — students, middle class, seniors, people who can’t afford homes — taking their concerns seriously and taking measures to increase the stock of rental housing and increase the affordability of renting.

Students. Students are not allowed to borrow however much they want under the student loan programs but are drowning under tens of thousands of dollars of debt with interest accruing. Many students who I know left school because they could not face the mounting debt that they knew lay ahead of them and instead chose to try to make their way in the economy without the degrees that would help them make a decent living and help our economy grow and thrive. Those students are thanking us for the measures contained in this budget to eliminate the interest on student loans.

This budget and this Budget Measures Implementation Act are delivering to British Columbians who work hard day in and day out, in communities throughout British Columbia — people who own small businesses; people who have steady jobs; people who are starting out in their careers; people who are dreaming of taking their skills, whether it be in technology or as craftspeople or as tradespeople, and starting their own small businesses. They see assistance in this budget — not just in the tax measures that encourage investment in small business, investment in innovation but also the many measures that help them on a day-to-day basis with their families, whether it’s child care, whether it’s investment in education, whether it’s support for renters or any of the number of other supports that British Columbians have been crying for, for 16 long years. We’ve listened, we’re answering their concerns, and we’re taking measures to help them.

Members opposite talk about how there is nothing in this budget about jobs. If that’s the case, why did they have nothing to say when they oversaw the elimination of 30,000 jobs in the forestry sector and then have the temerity to accuse us of not taking the softwood lumber threat and industry seriously?

We’re working to rebuild rural communities in B.C., to rebuild our natural resource industries by adding value and providing secure jobs to British Columbians. We’re working to make the mining industry, the fossil fuel industry and the forest industry less carbon intensive, more productive, more stable, therefore providing more jobs for British Columbians. That’s what this government is about. If we weren’t about jobs, we wouldn’t have gone to the lowest unemployment rate in Canada under this government’s watch — not that government’s watch, but this government’s watch.

There are any number of measures in the bills that we’ll be debating before this House and in the budget and in CleanBC that will provide impetus to our technology sector that will use technologies to make our resource sector more productive; that will create jobs for British Columbians, not just in the Lower Mainland, but in communities all around British Columbia. The members opposite can scoff if they want, but they are going to have a very long time on that side of the House to do their scoffing, because British Columbians know that we’re providing a better, more affordable and more comfortable life for them.

Let me simply close by saying that when the member for Prince George–Valemount stated that we care not a whit for the tax cost or burden on Vancouverites…. It takes some gall to say that when under the previous government’s watch, house prices in British Columbia generally, but in Vancouver and Victoria specifically, drove almost everyone, every young person, out of a position of ever, ever imagining being able to own a home. Rents skyrocketing. That’s what made Vancouver unaffordable.

As for the gas tax, it’s a permissive measure. It’s a permissive measure for municipalities, and Metro Vancouver in particular, who have asked for tools in order to fund transit expansion. Funding for transit expansion was consistently denied by the previous government.

[3:45 p.m.]

Every measure that Metro Vancouver sought to put forward to fill the funding gap for expanding public transit in Metro Vancouver was turned down by the previous government or put to a phony, ill-advised referendum that nobody wanted, that was guaranteed to fail and that resulted in massive congestion and costs to the people in Vancouver, both in terms of lost time and the costs of being stuck in congested traffic instead of having an efficient and effective transportation system.

If the members opposite want life to be better for British Columbians, if they want life to be more affordable for people in Vancouver, if they want jobs for British Columbians, if they want innovation, if they want prudent budgets, then they can stay on that side, support this bill and let us do our job.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Member for Chilliwack, if you want to make a comment, you have to do it from your own seat, please.

The member for Surrey–White Rock has the floor.

T. Redies: I’m pleased to stand here to make some brief remarks with respect to Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2019. This bill, as we know, contains a number of tax measures, including the main feature of the 2019 budget, the government’s new child opportunity benefit, although it is not coming into effect until late 2020. It also contains a number of other tax measures, some consequential, some extending programs that were put in place under the former B.C. Liberal government, such as the farmers food donation tax credit and the shipbuilding and ship repair industry tax credit.

I know a number of members on the other side think that I’m overly critical of this government and I that don’t always acknowledge some of the good things that the government has actually put in place. So let me say that I appreciate that the government is seeking to provide some additional relief to families with children, with incomes mostly under $100,000, with this new child opportunity benefit.

It’s very clear, especially in the Lower Mainland, that young families are struggling to keep pace with costs — costs that seem to keep rising year over year. Based on some of the language in the budget measures bill and in the budget document, though, it’s not clear to me that this benefit is going to do as much for these families as the government purports, however. It also seems to be eliminating existing benefits for some families who currently receive them. We’ll be exploring that in the committee stage of this bill and in estimates.

When I looked at this child opportunity benefit, I wondered about other people — couples with no children who are making less than $80,000, for example, who are also finding it hard to get ahead, especially in the Lower Mainland. Seniors who are renting. Young people who are living paycheque to paycheque. Young couples trying to save up for a down payment for an apartment or a townhouse. It appears that there’s little relief in this budget or in this budget measures bill for them.

I’d also say that it was kind of curious to me that the child opportunity benefit will not be implemented until late 2020, although the Finance Minister has indicated that’s because the CRA can’t get it in place in time. But for me, for a government that indicates that it wants to address affordability challenges for British Columbians…. Why are they not asking the feds to speed up the implementation? These will be some of the questions we’ll be pursuing in the committee stage and, perhaps, estimates.

Now, on the business side…. The members opposite are going to be very surprised, because I’m going to speak positively about another measure in this budget measures bill. I was pleased to see the mining flow-through share tax credit as well as the mining exploration tax credit both made permanent in this budget. As we all know, mining is a very important industry to this province, and it’s integral, in my mind, that B.C. be able to develop its resources on a sustainable basis. Our go-forward standard of living depends on it.

B.C. has the fastest-aging society in Canada — indeed, one of the fastest in North America. I worry that we cannot get our resources to market fast enough, whether it’s mine commodities, natural gas or even Alberta oil and bitumen, which do and could generate substantially increased tax revenues and transfers for the country and province respectively.

[3:50 p.m.]

Given our aging population and the spectre of an increasingly fewer number of working people supporting a ballooning retiree group, we face a potentially significant drop in our standard of living if we can’t get our resources to market, albeit we must ensure we do it in a responsible and sustainable manner. So it’s good to see the government making the flow-through tax credits for mining permanent in this province to encourage ongoing investment.

The mining of commodities, of course, is a very challenging, high-risk business. And in recent years, it has become increasingly difficult to get permits and mines off the ground in our province. The government’s new mining oversight body, one of the touted initiatives that are, so-called, helping the mining industry, is not likely to make that any easier. But I am digressing from being positive.

Let me talk about another program that I was pleased to see in the budget measures act. While it was started under the previous government, it’s good to see that the small business venture capital tax credit was enhanced with this budget measures act, although I have a few questions on the program that we’ll canvass at a later stage. The increase of the annual tax credit from $60,000 to $120,000 and the raising of the maximum amount that eligible business corporations can raise through the program from $5 million to $10 million are welcome changes, and it will support increased investment in start-ups in our province. So I thank the government for making these two changes.

Now after that list of positives, let me talk to the issues that I have with this budget measures bill and, indeed, with the overall approach to the budget in 2019. Notwithstanding the two programs that I just spoke to, the budget measures bill and Budget 2019 do little for the overall business climate in this province. In fact, beyond these two initiatives, there is glaringly little in this budget and the budget measures act for economic development, job creation and growth in the private sector. It’s the private sector that grows the economy sustainably, not the public sector.

The government is spending at a rate that is not sustainable, especially in a downturn. And capital spending is growing at a compound annual growth rate of almost 14 percent per year. That’s not sustainable, particularly if the economy does go into a downturn. Again I say that there is very little in this budget to stimulate the private sector. It’s the private sector that grows sustainable jobs, not the public sector. When the government spends, taxpayers have to pay it. When the government spends on capital spending, taxpayers have to pay it. So it’s very, very important that government creates a healthy climate for the private sector to invest and to grow jobs.

There certainly isn’t anything for business in this budget measures bill in terms of reducing the growing tax burden on businesses or sufficient initiatives for growing jobs and investment across our province in the private sector. I guess we should be thankful there were no new taxes in this budget. But most B.C. businesses are about to get punished, in 2019, with the advent of the myriad of business taxes introduced last year. From the employers tax to the double-dipping with MSP premiums to the increased corporate tax to yet another increase in the carbon tax as of April 1, B.C. businesses have been hard hit by this NDP government.

Over the last two years, B.C.’s marginal effective corporate tax rate has plunged to the 14th worst of 14 jurisdictions in North America. And that was before the leader of the UCP, the United Conservative Party in Alberta, announced yesterday that if he becomes Premier of our neighboring province to the east, he will cut corporate taxes by one-third — from 12 percent to 8 percent. Moreover, many of the new taxes aren’t even accounted for in the marginal effective corporate tax rate that I referred to.

The onerous employers health tax alone will generate $2 billion annually in tax revenues off the backs of businesses. And this tax will be on top of the MSP premiums that businesses must continue to pay in 2019 because the government chose to double-dip in order to support its massive spending increases. In fact, I did a rough calculation that the EHT, corporate tax and 50 percent of the carbon tax will add about $8 billion in taxes to the business sector over the life of this plan.

The other side seems to think that businesses can take all of this. In fact, actually, we’re hearing stories of businesses who are seeing their profits decimated by this EHT and other taxes. In one case, we’ve been advised of a small business in the Fraser Valley where their net profits are being brought to near zero as they now have to pay $200,000 in EHT.

If the businesses are feeling the pinch, there is a reason. That’s because this government has declared an all-out war on the business sector, who are getting hit with the lion’s share of the tax increases implemented by this NDP minority government.

[3:55 p.m.]

We’re already starting to see the impacts of this. I said last year around this time that all of these taxes have the potential to send the economy into a downward trajectory by dampening competitiveness, increasing costs and choking off the private sector investment. And what are we seeing? A 6.4 percent decline in housing starts, with another almost 30 percent predicted to climb through the balance of the plan period. Housing sales down year over year in January by 40 percent and down year over year in February by 32 percent.

Business confidence is tanking. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the B.C. small business confidence index now sits at 55.4 points, placing it below the Canadian average of 59 by 3.6 points. Compared to last year, according to the CFIB, entrepreneurial confidence in B.C. has dropped 14.1 points. That does not bode well for investment.

In fact, Muriel Protzer, the policy analyst for the CFIB for B.C. and Alberta, described the situation as follows: “This year is already proving to be a challenge for local businesses in B.C. The 2019 provincial budget shows no new meaningful measures to support local businesses. Entrepreneurs still face a mountain of cost increases as a result of last year’s budget that are just coming into play, such as the employer health tax, carbon tax increases and minimum wage hikes.”

Further, as raised by my co–Finance critic from Prince George–Valemount, this budget also introduces another 1.5-cent-per-litre tax on gasoline. At the same time, the government is introducing yet another increase in the carbon tax, of $5 per tonne, in April. This government is on track to raise the carbon tax by 67 percent by 2021, and they’ve removed the revenue neutrality.

On top of that, British Columbians in the Lower Mainland are now expected to pay another 1.5 cents a litre more for their gasoline. So much for making life more affordable. Far from it. This government’s actions have resulted in British Columbia now paying the highest gas prices of any jurisdiction in North America. And gas taxes are only going one way: up.

Governments have to make choices and must walk a careful balance between providing social services and taxing individuals and businesses to such an extent that they either leave the province or, in the case of businesses, stop investing — or, worse, lay off people. I think we are precariously close to that now.

This government has shown no signs of letting up on expenditures. In fact, it is pedal to the metal on spending. Astoundingly, to me, this government spent an extra $2 billion in fiscal 2018-19 than it forecast it would spend. In just one year alone, two billion extra dollars of the taxpayers’ money was spent.

This is all coming at a time when the economic growth party appears to be grinding to a halt in Canada, and, as my colleague from Prince George–Valemount raised, there are a lot of storm clouds on the horizon. The five largest economies in the world are all expected to experience economic slowdowns in 2019, mostly due to self-inflicted wounds but some dealing with economic headwinds, like Japan, due to its changing demographics.

The Canadian economy in the last quarter only grew by 0.1 percent. The governor of the Bank of Canada, Stephen Poloz had this to say: “Consumer spending and the housing market were soft,” speaking with respect to the last quarter, “despite strong growth in employment and labour income. Both exports and business investments also fell short of expectations. And after growing at a pace of 1.8 percent in 2018, it now appears that the economy will be weaker in the first half of 2019 than the bank projected in January.”

The bank is changing its projections after one month. This is happening a lot faster, I think, than people are expecting or people on the other side are anticipating. And while B.C.’s economic growth has remained relatively strong, it’s still declining. Make no mistake. It cannot weather these economic storm clouds untouched.

All of this to say it’s not a given that the strong B.C. economy will go on forever. From our perspective on this side of the House, it seems to us that this government is continuing to spend like there is no tomorrow. As such, while there are positives in this budget measures bill, I remain very concerned with the overall direction of this government, its free-spending ways and its inordinate disregard for the competitiveness of the province and the businesses within it. There will be a reckoning. No economic cycle, positive or negative, goes on forever.

[4:00 p.m.]

I worry that this government will have structured spending in such a way, between the union benefit agreements and public sector contracts, that it will be difficult to avoid significant budget deficits in an economic downturn. When that reckoning comes, I just hope it’s not British Columbians that pay dearly for it in the form of much higher tax increases or substantial cuts to needed programs.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on second reading on Bill 5, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2019.

As we know, this bill implements a number of the tax changes that were outlined in the budget. I won’t go into rather gory detail on this. Of course, I did speak quite a long time to the original budget, and we’re seeing a few of the items there reflected in the implementation act here.

There are, obviously, a number of initiatives — major new initiatives like the new B.C. child opportunity benefit, as well as things like expanding existing programs like the small business venture capital tax credit. I’ll come to some others shortly. There’s a number of other minor changes that we’ve been told clarify administrative aspects of existing taxes. By and large, I and my colleagues are supportive of the overall direction of this budget, as we articulated in our budget speech.

The first one I want to address, though, is section 1 of Bill 5, 2019. This is a proposed change to the Carbon Tax Act. Now, it’s been suggested to us that the legislative change here just clarifies that the existing penalty already exists for selling natural gas without a certificate, and the legislation wasn’t clear enough previously. I must admit a flag was raised by this section, and I look forward to a briefing on this section, in approximately 45 minutes, to ask a few questions directly about what was intended here.

Other sections in the bill are not particularly controversial, from our perspective.

I want to address the flow-through mining tax credit. This is a key piece of ongoing legislation — now becoming permanent — that we’ve seen in budget implementation act after budget implementation act at least every year since I’ve been here. It’s either done for one year or a couple of years, sometimes three years. We know that certainty is critical to the industry. One of the reasons why this is essentially being made permanent is to provide said certainty for the mining sector.

In that aspect, I’m very pleased to see this become a permanent feature of legislation, because we know — I mean, pun intended — mining, literally, is the bedrock industry of our economy. It’s the foundation of much of what we have — that and forestry. We build a foundation with mining and the house with wood from our forestry sector, so it’s critical that we continue to support these industries.

I recognize that the mining sector would have approached the government and suggested that this would be something that they’d like to see. Government has already announced this. In January, they announced that they were going to be doing this and that the tax credit would continue to flow directly from a company through to investors.

My one caveat in all of this is not that I’m opposed to the notion of flow-through tax credits to the mining sector. The problem I have, of course, with this is that we need to ensure that there’s government oversight. The flow-through program is important in terms of attracting investment, particularly into venture capital. But without proper regulatory oversight, it can be exploited.

It is very difficult for the average investor to get access to this flow-through tax credit. You have to be part of private placements. You have to, sometimes, know the right person who is issuing it. So it’s not really a tool that’s open to the average retail investor, and that’s one of the caveats and flags I have. It allows so-called in-the-know investors or investment corporations to get the flow-through tax credits. If there’s no hold on them…. And the holds vary. These can actually be dumped on the market, as soon as they become tradeable, at a discount to the market. In essence, it can be an unfair advantage that certain people in the know get when they have access to the flow-through.

So the notion and concept — very much support. I hope government ensures that there’s regulatory oversight and that we ensure that, in fact, the average retail investor is not put at disadvantage, as only a select few have access to these programs for private placements and so forth.

[4:05 p.m.]

The child opportunity benefit, I would argue, is a flagship change in this government’s budget. It’s a flagship change that we’re very pleased to support. What’s fascinating about this is that you can actually view this as an important transition credit to…. As we start to worry more and more about gig economies and start to worry more and more about artificial intelligence replacing certain jobs in our society, this really is looking like a form of basic income. But it’s really a form of basic income that applies to people with children. I suspect, both in the province of British Columbia and federally, we’re going to see more and more of these kinds of initiatives take place as the gig economy continues.

This change aligns very nicely with the fundamental core values of our party, which is the notion of intergenerational equity. This is a benefit that’s being applied for people with children, who are struggling now with affordability issues. They’re going to be given a little bit of a leg up, and that is something we’re very proud to support — an initiative that we think is a very timely initiative that government has brought in.

Child poverty in British Columbia is stubbornly high. One in five children in B.C. has been growing up in poverty. Honestly, when you think about it, this is not Zambia. This is not some Southeast Asian country that’s struggling with a dictator. This is British Columbia. Twenty percent of children living in poverty in British Columbia? This is unacceptable. I think most British Columbians would argue that this is an unacceptable situation, particularly as our province is so wealthy and as we have so many opportunities before us.

We believe that supporting children in their earliest years…. Whether it be through education by ensuring that kids get the services they need when they need them in the school system, those critical developmental years; whether it be through support to ensure that parents struggling to make ends meet have access to early childhood education provisions and services; whether they have access to child benefits — these are all critical for income security for struggling families in British Columbia. So good on government for doing this.

We understand that it can’t go until 2020. I’m a little…. I understand that the critic from the official opposition was troubled that it’s going to take a year to get in, and government has argued that the revenue agency needs this lead time.

I’m not so sure, knowing the way governments work, that in fact it would be possible for the federal government to do the necessary changes in the time frame that the member opposite wants, in light of the fact that they can’t even still get their payroll system done federally. I don’t know how many years they’ve been working on that. They can’t even fix the T4 slips for their own employees who are filing tax returns this year.

With the greatest respect to the member opposite, I’m going to go….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Yeah, benefit of the….

I look forward to the question at committee stage, because I agree it’s a very legitimate question. But I am quite troubled, federally, when I hear that people are getting T4 slips that don’t reflect the income they actually made.

This credit. One of the good things about this, of course, is it’s being extended to children who are 18. Hon. Speaker, it seems that I always miss out on these. My children have just passed the 18 threshold yet again. When you are born right at the boundary of the baby boom era, you get nothing. When you graduated from university…. We always look at the millennials, and we always look at the baby boomers, but there are those people who were born in the early 1960s, those transition people. They didn’t reap the benefits of the boomers. They didn’t have the people coming to the universities when they graduated, interviewing for jobs.

Back in the day, you had a degree? You got a job. Back in the 1980s, we didn’t have that. So yet again, had I been born a few years later — my generation; those transitional boomers, let’s call them — there would have been a benefit. But no, we don’t get a benefit. So I feel no conflict at all in resoundingly voting for this, for the extending of this tax credit, given that my children have all aged out of this benefit.

[4:10 p.m.]

I’m not sure that families with higher-end incomes, at the higher end, will be better off. In fact, they might even be worse off than under the existing credit. However, I think most people would reflect upon the fact that we have a society where it’s difficult to make ends meet if you’re earning below, say, $80,000 as a net income of your family. It’s really tough, in places like Victoria and Vancouver, to make ends meet.

If you have a couple of children living in a two-bedroom house, you’re maybe spending $1,500 to $2,000 a month of after-tax income. That’s a lot of money. Groceries aren’t going down, transportation costs. Hydro — heaven forbid you get a hydro bill. It’s going up dramatically. I think people understand that it is important to target those families that need it, particularly families that are on the lower income stage.

We’ve got some changes to the motor fuel tax. This is an important change, the one allowing for an additional 1½ cents per litre of gas to be collected in Metro Vancouver. Of course, this is the power that the mayors wanted to fund their phase 2 transit projects. Again, they’re responsible for 20 percent of the cost, and they have a $30 million shortfall.

I suspect people in Vancouver will be concerned, but I suggest that with the transitioning to…. If you view this in the context of the ZEV mandate that’s been introduced, we’re going to find more and more people, particularly in Metro Vancouver and on Vancouver Island, switching to electric vehicles in a timely fashion. The one danger is that if you become overly reliant on fuel taxes, at some point, with the adoption of electric vehicles, you’re going to be in a shortfall down the road — which is a good problem to have, I would suggest, a good problem to find alternate sources.

Let’s continue on, moving forward with this. TransLink’s estimate was that this small tax — 1½ cents — is going to cost the average vehicle $24 a year. I think most people in Metro Vancouver would be pretty okay with a much revamped and upgraded transit system. One of the things, I think, we need to look at is getting transit out into the Fraser Valley in a very efficient manner. It troubles me that TransLink stops and B.C. Transit picks up. There are transitional issues that they have to deal with, and hopefully, that will get dealt with in the months ahead.

The small business venture capital tax credit. A small change here but an important change: effective 2019, the annual tax credit limit that an individual can claim for an investment will increase from $60,000 to $120,000 a year. Again, it’s a small change but a very important change, particularly for the innovation community in British Columbia.

So I take exception with the notion from members opposite that said there’s nothing in here for business. It’s actually not true. This change, while small, is actually critical for the innovation industry: technology companies, start-up companies, companies that are looking to make investments in themselves. This is a very welcome change. It assists companies in scaling up from being stuck perpetually in the bottom echelons of corporate hierarchy. With an ability, through this tax credit, to do some reinvesting in themselves, it allows for a more efficient scaling up of programs — again, something that we’re delighted to support.

Government’s expanding support, at the commercialization stage, to businesses outside of Vancouver and Victoria only — this is important. You know, it’s a good place to start. But businesses in Victoria and Vancouver, I would suggest, also need to get some benefits as well.

Speculation tax. We have a slight change in this bill too. Another exemption to the speculation tax has been added for an owner of a residential property, for a calendar year, if a residence that is part of the residential property becomes uninhabitable fewer than 60 days before the end of the immediately preceding calendar year.

You can imagine a house burning down, for example. It would be pretty rough to be nailed with a speculation tax if your house is uninhabitable, because it happened to be habitable, you had a house fire, and it’s no longer inhabitable. So I’m obviously supportive of this approach, to add this commonsense exemption for people who are being burdened. That would be another…. There are other commonsense exemptions that we might talk about at some point in the future, but now is not the day for that. I’m sure that in question period in the weeks ahead, I’ll hear some other examples.

[4:15 p.m.]

There are a number of other minor changes to existing taxes. For example, section 33 “authorizes the use and disclosure of personal information for the purpose of administering and enforcing the Income Tax Act”, if collected under…. This is why that’s important, because we’re now getting a linking there between the Home Owner Grant Act, the Land Tax Deferment Act and the Income Tax Act, and this allows for sharing. Gone are the days that you can actually buy and sell properties and try to avoid, through nefarious activity, paying the taxes that you’re supposed to pay.

The bill also prevents local governments from averaging or phasing in the additional school tax that was announced. I found it interesting that they did this, because I wasn’t aware that there were municipalities planning to do so. Clearly, if the minister is bringing it forward, there must have been. It’ll be interesting to find out more details there.

In conclusion, as promised, not a long second reading address to this. Obviously, my colleagues and I will be supporting this bill. They’re not all, again, as I say, the things we would do, but we are not government. We are but three MLAs who spend a lot of time going through the documents we have to ensure that the essence of the values that are reflected in our confidence and supply agreement are in bills like this. We’re delighted to see that they are. We’re very pleased, as I said, with the government for funding CleanBC to the extent that they did. As well, we’re very pleased with the professional reliance reform, increasing affordability for students. I could make a cheap shot here, but I’m going to resist the temptation. Oh, no, I don’t think it’s appropriate.

One of the things that is really, really…. I can’t emphasize enough how important it was to get the interest removed from student loans. One of the things I hope to see further, as our province continues to benefit from a growing clean economy, is that we start to think about actual needs-based grants system for certain post-secondary education students. We’re one of the few — I’m not sure if there are any others that don’t — provinces that doesn’t have a needs-based grant system. To me, if I look at the progressive northern European nations and I look at some of the more progressive societies in our world, public education, post-secondary education and education in general is deemed to be a right as opposed to a privilege.

I would suggest that no student in British Columbia should have availability of resources be a barrier to them attending a post-secondary institution. As a society, it’s critical that we nurture our next generation. If they don’t have the ability to go to post-secondary institutions, I think it’s imperative that we actually create some resources to allow them to do so, in a manner that doesn’t burden them for the rest of their life.

If you’re a student who, perhaps, comes from a poorer family, you don’t have the financial wherewithal to pay for your post-secondary education. You may be working part-time as you do it. It’s tough working part-time. You may be working in a restaurant. You may be being paid $13 an hour. You may be getting even $15, even $20 now. Even with tips, it’s tough to make ends meet while paying tuition fees and living full-time in a province. I think a needs-based grant system is the direction that our society here in British Columbia needs to go in, something we’re committed to continuing to work towards advocating for. Ultimately, one of our most important jobs is to preserve our education system for future generations and to not make it one that only the elite can actually attend.

I will note across that I did not take that opportunity to make any cheap shots about any comments that anyone made about the importance of the grant system there.

As I said, we would have made different choices. We are very grateful to the minister and her staff for the process that was put in place here. We do commend the minister for actually listening to the Finance Committee when I saw some of the inclusions of support for the Foundry services across B.C. I was on the Finance Committee last year. The cases being made by Foundry have been so compelling and their successes so great that I was very pleased to see that the minister listened to the report from the Finance Committee. Both two years ago and, I suspect…. I didn’t read the full thing this year, but I know that two years ago we were all in on the Foundry and their presentations. It’s good to see that that process led to it.

[4:20 p.m.]

Also, we provided a submission, like others, and we were pleased that CleanBC was funded. Obviously, one of the things that we would have liked to see more of…. We would have liked to see more investment in terms of, say, riparian habitat preservation; and more investment in terms of protecting species at risk. We recognize the problems with federal and provincial jurisdiction.

We would have liked to have seen, perhaps, more investment in terms of forestry, but again, I recognize government is starting the process to build and take a look at the forest system. Some of the low-hanging fruit that we can actually deal with and that don’t cost that much money are regulatory.

I’m quite excited to take a look at government, despite what question period said — taking a look at our tenure lot licensing system here in B.C. I can tell you that these are Crown trees on Crown land. When we give Crown trees on Crown land to multinationals that don’t actually report to the people of British Columbia but have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profits, those said Crown trees on Crown land are shipped south of the border as raw logs because (a) you can avoid softwood lumber tariffs, and (b) why have a mill in Burns Lake if you could have one south of the border and mill it up there?

We really need to take a look at this. I’m not advocating for reintroducing the appurtenancy requirement, but we’ve got to do better than this tenure lot licensing system.

We could also stop spraying glyphosate on our forests. Why on earth do we think it’s okay? Well, the reason why we do it is not because the forest companies actually want to go into our pine forests and spray glyphosate. It costs them money. They have a requirement to allow the stands to come back, and this is part of what they believe they need to do in order to meet requirements.

However, we would suggest that if you eliminated that use of glyphosate, you actually get a double benefit. Number 1, you get the broadleaf undergrowth — the aspens, for example, and other broadleaf undergrowth, which are critical food sources for ungulates. These are depleting in our province, partly because of predator management but also inappropriate forest management practices which have led to predators having more take-in on our ungulates — and food sources going away. Co-benefit right there.

Secondly, if you allow the aspens and the birches to start to grow up, you provide a natural fire retardancy. We’re spending money after the fact, in terms of fighting fires. We’re spending money rebuilding devastated areas. We’re spending money going into forests and trying to deal with things after the fact.

Perhaps we could take a little proactive approach and say: “You know what? A little bit of forest policy change. Let’s stop spraying glyphosate. Let’s allow that broadleaf undergrowth. We’re not going to have a monoculture stand. We recognize it may take longer for the pines to come back and compete, etc., but we’re going to have healthy ungulate populations, and we’re going to provide a natural fire retardant. And guess what. We’re going to save money in the process.” It seems to me a win-win-win there. Hopefully, the Forests Minister and budgetary measures moving forward will deal with this.

Finally, moving forward, we’ll continue to work to ensure that government continues to deliver on the promises it has meant…. It has offered British Columbia as putting people first — the health and well-being of people first — while, at the same time, ensuring that the innovation agenda that this government has adopted in partnership with our party continues to thrive.

And it is thriving. Next week is the B.C. Tech Summit in Vancouver. I hope to see some members there. I can tell you the community in B.C. is excited. The innovation community feels reinvigorated, and I’m very much looking to see the fruition of this good hard work that’s been going on for the last 18 months or so play out in the next couple of years.

I thank you for your time. With that, I’ll take my place.

N. Simons: It’s a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to this bill, Budget Measures Implementation Act. It’s quite a technical bill. It puts into effect some of the commitments we’ve made in Budget 2019. Some of the initiatives that were put forward, I think, are eminently supportable, and even members from the opposition have said so. I appreciate the fact that they mention that there are many good things in this budget.

I take issue a bit with this idea that under similar circumstances, they would have wanted to contribute to particular areas, but I guess they were being too prudent. Too prudent to ensure that we addressed the child poverty issues in this province. A bit too prudent in order to address the education underfunding that we’ve experienced.

[4:25 p.m.]

Too prudent to ensure that foster parents and home-share providers were compensated adequately. A little bit too prudent to ensure that families had the support necessary in order to ensure their children had adequate opportunities for extracurricular activities.

I think that if this budget is anything, it’s about ensuring that families are strengthened, communities are strength­ened and our ability to provide for people in this province is better than under the previous government’s watch. I know that previously, as an opposition member for a long time, it might take them a little bit longer to get used to sitting on that side of the House. You get a tan on the distant side of your face, but the fact is, I think it’s important that they see that there are different approaches to how public policy is implemented in this province.

I’m very, very pleased to see that we have a government that takes into consideration the impact of policies on families. No more clear is that effort to support families than the introduction of the child opportunity benefit. Now, if members in the opposition had the same kind of interaction with constituents that I’ve had, and I’m sure they must have, they would have probably been a little bit more sensitive to the fact that children in this province, children in vulnerable communities especially, were not having the same levels of success. They were not having access to the same opportunities as others. I believe that this particular initiative, the child opportunity benefit, which replaces the early childhood tax benefit, not only provides support to families until their children reach the age of 18 but also increases the amount that these families will be receiving.

In my previous career, I saw families whose children didn’t have the opportunities that others did. If you actually drill down into the circumstances that families in crisis are experiencing, a lot of times it had to do with economic crisis. A lot of times, it had to do with the stress associated with the economic challenges that they happened to be facing. I’m very pleased that this initiative is being carried through, and I’m very disappointed that for many years — I’ll say for over a decade and a half — the interests of children and the interests of these families were not high on the government’s priority list.

Now I hear members from the opposition talking about the storm clouds that are ahead. They take credit for everything good in British Columbia. They blame the government that has been in power for just over a year and a half for anything bad. I find that pretty transparently false. I think it’s obvious that if they want to be able to take credit for something, they should be able to take blame as well. It’s pretty sad. It’s pretty simplistic, but it’s understandable from an opposition that is used to being able to just get their own way.

For so long, they talked about the need for austerity, the need to cut back, to see the child and family services budget cut, forestry budgets cut, cuts all across government. It’s because they have this mantra that the only thing for the province’s success is the unfettered free private industry. If they only realized that government investment…. When they complain about government investing in infrastructure, who is it that’s going to be doing the work? It’s probably private businesses. It’s probably businesses that are going to benefit the most from government’s investment in itself. I think to say otherwise would be just a little bit disingenuous.

I think when you look at the child opportunity benefit, the single most important impact on families is to provide them with the means to live healthy, quality lives. I think that was one of the most important aspects of this budget. But even at the same time, I think our recognition of the unanimous….

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

I will say the bipartisan Finance Committee, representing members from all three sides of the House, recommended unanimously the elimination of interest on B.C. student loans. Now there seems to be a dispute within the opposition whether that’s a good idea or not. I know that the opposition leader thinks that there should be interest on student loans. That’s his prerogative. He should say so. He should say so clearly. He can even explain that.

[4:30 p.m.]

His reason is that students don’t know how much money they should borrow, and they might default. I’m not sure I understand the logic of that, but I don’t believe that’s a particular position that’s necessarily unanimously supported by that side of the House. I will say, though, that I am proud of a government that looks at the interests of students, after years of requesting that the extra burden of interest be eliminated from the B.C. student loans. I think it’s a good thing to accomplish, and Bill 5 does that through budget measures implementation.

There are a number of other initiatives. I think that the mining flow-through tax credit is something that I talked about with the mining industry when they were visiting the precinct just last week, I believe it was. We talked about what the reason was for this annual tax. As the leader of the Green Party said, every year they just renewed it, year after year after year.

I’m suspicious, in fact, as to why that was the case. I’m pleased that we’re providing some certainty to the mining industry, which I believe is obviously very supported in this House. The resources that we extract in this province and the exploration that’s undertaken is an important benefit to our community. So making permanent the mining flow-through tax credit is good. The exploration tax credit is as well.

I think that other members have spoken eloquently about the importance, the relevance, of the initiatives we’ve taken to improve the economy and ensure that we have a strong economy. I remember being accused of being negative when we sat on that side of the House, and I was having flashbacks about that when I was listening to the two critics of the Ministry of Finance who only seem to see doom and gloom on the horizon.

They’re looking at large world economies and saying there’s doom and gloom there and we need to be…. Yeah, we should be prudent. I really respect the fact that our government has taken a prudent approach.

We’ve invested in areas that have been neglected. We have to right a ship that has been badly listing. I think that the balance that the previous government had was so off-kilter and so dismissive of the needs of families and of communities that we have to see some righting of the ship. I’m pleased that our Minister of Finance and our government, the cabinet, has chosen to make the decisions they have done. I’m really pleased about that.

Hearing the critics — continually, I might add — going on and on and pointing their fingers and jabbing the air at the government in a way to somehow make us feel that we’re to be blamed or to be scolded as children…. It’s a little bit hilarious, in fact. I don’t think that it’s deserved at all. I think that the….

Deputy Speaker: Member, come back to the subject.

N. Simons: I think that in discussing the Budget Measures Implementation Act, the constant sort of almost perpetual negativity speaks volumes about where they happen to be now. I understand that, having been in opposition for — what was it? — 12 long years.

Interjections.

N. Simons: Yeah. I’ll give you your opportunity….

So I’m pleased to be able to support Bill 5. I think it’s taking important measures toward the goals that we’ve set for the province and that the province heard us commit to. It’s another step towards rebalancing things in this province and of making sure that we look after our communities. I’m pleased to support Bill 5.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Member for Nanaimo-North Cowichan.

[4:35 p.m.]

D. Routley: I am pleased to stand up in support of the Budget Implementation Measures Act, Bill 5. I have to say that our budget told a story. It started out distinctly as a story of the Finance Minister’s upbringing in a house of open doors that was welcoming of everyone in the neighbourhood, that was the home of foster children who found love and appreciation where they had none. This was a story of how people, as families, care for each other.

It’s like the contrast you’d find if you watched a television show like Survivor, where people are pitted against each other. In fact, when people face great pressure in their lives, they come together, and they share, and they take care of each other. This is a distinct contrast in world view.

This budget is, in fact, framing that contrast, and the debate of it so far in this House is underlining this contrast between the two sides here. Our budget believes in investing in people in order to have a sustainable economy. Our budget believes that the economy should be providing to the people. This budget shows us how that can happen.

This budget is a deep contrast between what people experienced for 16 years under the B.C. Liberals — where they were left behind, where their concerns and their challenges were not recognized or addressed by government — to a time now where their challenges are being answered, where they are the priority of government — the people of this province.

I’m so proud of that contrasting story. I’m so proud, because what I’m hearing from the other side is that, in a sense…. They say that the private sector creates employment and the government doesn’t. This is a religion. If you look at the facts…. There would not be an aerospace industry or a shipbuilding industry in the United States without military support.

The member who made these comments indicated that the only sustainable jobs are private sector jobs. Does the member call teaching jobs not sustainable, nursing jobs not sustainable, child care jobs not sustainable? We will be providing thousands of child care provision jobs over the next coming years. This is a massive increase in employment in this province.

We will be investing $20 billion in infrastructure. That will create tens of thousands of jobs. We don’t have the audacity or, perhaps, the nerve to put massive numbers, as the other side did every time there was a program or project coming to B.C. — Olympics or anything else. “This will create 100,000 jobs.” None of it materialized. We are materializing benefit for people.

How can the other side say that investments in the people of the province and the infrastructure that supports them are not good for our economy? How could they possibly do that? In any advanced society that you visit, you will judge their progress and their strength by exactly the items that we’re addressing: the infrastructure, the public services, the right to justice, the equality, the equity in a society.

That is what this budget addresses. It addresses tax fairness. It addresses supporting families. This is what this budget does at its core. It supports British Columbians. It supports families.

The B.C. child opportunity fund of $400 million will benefit families of one child to the tune of $1,600 per year, $2,600 for a two-child family and $3,400 for a three-child family. That money will be spent in local economies, driving the local economy in a sustainable way, providing jobs.

So if we shed this religious commitment to the idea that taxes are bad and that spending on people is somehow wasted…. We must shed that, and we must realize, as people are now, as they see what this budget is doing, directly in their lives — saving them money, putting them in a position, finally, where they can actually consider buying a home, having another child…. People are making those kinds of decisions based on the costs that that previous government allowed to spiral out of control.

We want to see these families prosper. We want to see young families prosper.

I’m going to tell you a story, Madam Speaker. It could come across as self-flattery. Recently I was in a grocery store, a Superstore. I no longer shop there, but I had built up $380 in credits on my points card. I saw a young family in their 20s, with a baby and a kid jumping up and down in the shopping cart, making really careful choices about what they bought and not having fancy clothes.

[4:40 p.m.]

I felt like, man, here I am trying to spend these points that I’ve accumulated, and there they are, struggling. So I waited until they went to the lineup, and I told the clerk to pay for their groceries on my card. They don’t know who did that, but I made a difference in their life. I made a $110 difference. What is that for me?

What is it for the members on the other side that this society that’s supposedly the number one economy in Canada can’t support families? What kind of economy can we call good if it doesn’t support families? Yeah, I made a small impact of $110, but this budget will make a huge impact.

The other side of this House would have us re-impose an $1,800 bill on that family. They would have MSP premiums brought back onto that family. They would take away the child care benefits that this budget will provide. They will take away the B.C. child opportunity fund that this budget provides.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, come to order.

D. Routley: That is the contrast. The contrast is one of choice.

It’s 18 months later, Members. The same economy can provide surpluses, can provide sustainable growth and take care of families — finally. For 16 long years, that didn’t happen, and finally I’m a part of a group of people who are restoring the faith that government can have a positive impact in their lives.

Those people, that family in that store, are now in a position where they can actually consider perhaps buying a home. They can put down roots. They can feel secure. They can know that they are a priority of government. They can know that their lives matter, and that has a very high value in my life and in my book.

We had 16 years where the other government raised taxes on those families — the MSP tax that they raised 100 percent. They raised it 100 percent. They raised ferry fares over 100 percent for the people I serve. They raised every fee of government to beyond the reach of average families, and they didn’t care. They watched the housing crisis boil over in this province, and they didn’t care. They watched the money laundering and speculation that has impacted our market and turned the other way. In fact, they made it worse by cancelling the investigations into that. Only now are we finding out that….

You know, if you walk around Vancouver, you see a lot of Ferraris and Lamborghinis. I always thought: “Wow, that’s a pretty high concentration of luxury cars.” Who would know that it’s the highest concentration of luxury cars in North America? Who would know that gangsters can launder money through the purchase of luxury cars? Who would know that the B.C. Liberals would not take any steps to corral that kind of activity in B.C.? Well, we know. We know that. We know that because we saw it. British Columbians know that because finally it’s being reported.

In fact, I started out by saying that this is a contrast. The experience of people with government in this past couple of years is a strong contrast, an inescapable contrast. It’s inescapable because their lives are finally being impacted positively.

I stand in support and pride of a budget put together by a bunch of people who actually care about this, who actually know that investing in people is the foundation of a sustainable economy, who know that without equity, fairness in our society, justice, nothing else is possible. Environmental integrity, anything else? No, unless we have equity. This budget builds equity — equity in people, equity in service delivery. We finally are trying to balance the scales between those who have and those who don’t, and that’s been a long time coming in this province.

[4:45 p.m.]

The contrast, as inescapable as it is, is not found or seen by the members on the other side. Somehow a religious commitment to neo-liberal policy has blinded them to the lives of British Columbians. British Columbians finally see that they have a government that can actually see them, that can hear them, that can understand the challenges they face and that knows that its role is to lessen those challenges, to help lift up the people of this province.

That’s what this budget does. I’m sure every member, once they’ve considered this, will support this budget. They all say they’ve come here to make lives better for British Columbians, so I just wonder how they could possibly not support a budget that does so much of that.

It is a contrast, and the Leader of the Opposition underlined that contrast for every British Columbian recently, where he showed just how out of touch he was with the lives and the struggles of families, of students in this province. It was clear that he can’t understand that. Maybe it’s something I should understand — that someone who has had a life of great privilege has never really faced these challenges in a real way, perhaps.

I mean, I shouldn’t ascribe that to him, but he certainly displayed that. I would say that the government priorities over the 16 years before our government showed exactly that contrast — out of touch with the lives of common British Columbians who struggle. Out of touch with the lives of British Columbians who are the foundation of a sustainable economy, which they seem to want to provide by cutting back on those families.

This budget answers my principles. This budget is supporting the values that brought me to this House. That number one value is that we serve the people of B.C., and the way we have chosen to serve them is to make them priority 1, manage the economy to surplus — to the best GDP and employment numbers and wage growth. You know, we had the lowest wage growth in the country just a few years ago; now we have the highest wage growth in the country.

These are changes that are material to people’s lives. These are changes that aren’t simply a vacuous noise in a chamber in a stone building. These are changes that impact people’s lives, their children, and give them opportunity and finally awaken us, this place and them to the fact that the public interest, the people of B.C., should always be paramount in everything that government does.

It wasn’t that way for 16 years. A lot of people grew up without knowing that reality, but now they’re being reacquainted with it — reacquainted with a government that holds the same kinds of priorities and principles that drive them. Not to cut back from each other — that’s not what families do; that’s not what communities do — but to embrace each other, to hold each other up, to lift each other up exactly as the story that the Finance Minister told in the beginning of the budget speech.

Family, support, investment, equity, fairness, prosperity for all, and this budget does its level best to provide that.

Deputy Speaker: When the minister rises, it will close debate.

Hon. C. James: Seeing no further speakers, I thank the people who have taken part this in this debate. As we said at the start, Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, implements the actions that are necessary to implement the budget.

It’s been a good discussion and a good debate, as we’ve said, so I’m not going to reiterate it. I know we’ll have a chance, at committee, to go through the details of the budget, but certainly from my perspective and from our government’s perspective, this is a budget that is balanced fiscally as well as balanced in its approach.

That, from my perspective, is the difference between the other side and ourselves. It’s the importance of having fiscal responsibility and responsibility to the very people who help build that strong economy. Those are critical pieces, and they go hand in hand. I believe that for long-term, sustainable economic growth, it is critical to make sure that those investments are there.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2019.

[4:50 p.m. - 4:55 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Second reading of Bill 5 approved on the following division:

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 5 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 5, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2019, 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: I call second reading of Bill 9, the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2019. Just for the information of members, we are still on the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family in Section A, in the Douglas Fir Room.

[5:00 p.m.]

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

BILL 9 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2019, be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Family Law Act to add the statutory authority needed to implement planned reforms to the Provincial Court family rules. I want to say that I was very briefly hopeful that I would have a very large audience for this — very briefly hopeful. But there are some people here in the House to hear about this cleanup of Attorney General statutes.

I do want to note that in my first reading, I made an error, and accuracy is important, hon. Speaker. When I did my first reading, I said the bill amends several sections of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, “which was brought into force in 2016.” That act was actually brought into force in 2014. So for those who are keeping score at home, they now have the full idea of what we’re up to.

The ministry and the Provincial Court are involved in a multi-year joint project to reform the Provincial Court family rules courts, court rules, processes and forms — and all of it aimed at improving outcomes for families who need assistance in resolving family law matters.

There are some amendments to the Family Law Act in this bill to allow some of that to happen: in particular, to add authority to family justice counsellors to allow them to conduct needs assessments for parties under the new rules; to add authority to allow a Provincial Court judge to conduct a review of a decision made by a new judicial officer role under the new rules; and to ensure that the running of limitation periods under the act are suspended during the time period that the parties participate in the early resolution processes created by the new rules.

Finally, the bill contains amendments to several sections of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act itself, as I mentioned. The purpose of these amendments is to improve the ability of these sections to achieve their purpose and clarify their operation and, in so doing, lessen the potentially time-consuming and costly need to seek court direction on the application of these sections.

The amendments include provisions to improve the ability of beneficiaries and intestate successors to nominate an administrator of an estate; to improve the ability of persons with an interest in an estate to initiate or defend proceedings to recover or protect estate property and to enforce obligations owing to an estate; and to provide for the protection of an unlocated beneficiary and intestate successor or a potential wills variation claimant when an estate is distributed.

M. Lee: I rise to speak to Bill 9, the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2019. I do appreciate the briefing that the Attorney General and his staff arranged for me on this past Monday, on this bill.

First of all, let me just say that we need to continue to find ways to improve the effectiveness and the accessibility of our judicial services, particularly in this instance — to administer disputes in a timely way regarding family law and estates matters. Of course, we don’t want to see situations where we’re dealing with estates of loved ones who have passed being drawn out in terms of the allocations of those estates and how they might be distributed.

As well, of course, in terms of family law matters — situations between parents and children and the like — we need to ensure that we have stable and effective ways of ensuring that we go through those processes in a responsible manner.

Having said that, I do have some questions about Bill 9 as presented. During this speech, I just want to briefly highlight a few of those that I know we will be discussing more at length at the committee stage on this bill.

As the Attorney General has just mentioned, I do understand that the Provincial Court of B.C. and the Ministry of Attorney General have been collaborating on a project to reform the way family law matters are dealt with in the Provincial Court in a project called the Provincial Court family rules project. I understand that this project’s purpose is to transform the family court process, the rules and forms in accordance with the report by the national Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters and that the ministry and the Provincial Court has tasked a working group to work with the reform to the rules.

[5:05 p.m.]

Currently the ministry and the court, as we understand, are collaborating on operationalizing some of the key aspects of that work through a prototype in Victoria. During the briefing, when I was getting an update on this, I did ask to see a copy of that prototype, as it certainly would be helpful to understand the changes that are being presented in this Bill 9, because this is being done in advance of the actual, as I understand it, finalization of those rule changes which actually will also go out for consultation. I do think it will be helpful, nonetheless, to get a better understanding — and perhaps we’ll do that at committee stage — as to the specific family court rules that are being changed. Some of those rules are alluded to in this bill in the various sections, but we will want to canvass the status of those proposed changes to the family court rules.

As the Attorney General has mentioned, Bill 9 proposes amendments to the Family Law Act. Effectively, that act sets out the ways that proceedings would run in dispute resolution, including in areas relating to child support, custody, divorce proceedings and other matters. One particular section that the Attorney General did highlight just now was the proposal to amend subsection 10(2.1), where: “Subject to a court order, a family justice counsellor may grant to a person an exemption from the requirement to participate in all or part of a prescribed process.” That prescribed process, as I understand it, will be set out in the amended rules. Where, for example, a family is going through a particular divorce situation, that family…. The justice counsellor who is assisting with that process may grant a person an exemption from the requirement to participate in all or a part of a prescribed process, which would include dispute assistance and referrals that the counsellor would provide.

We would want to understand the totality of the discretion and authority of the justice counsellor, because eliminating or exempting that individual from certain steps will presumably speed up the process. But in the interest of speed, of course, we’ll want to ensure that due process and assistance is provided to those family members, particularly as we continue to see, in the interests of cost saving, a variety of changes being made to court rules. There is a balance there in terms of ensuring that individuals in British Columbia — that their rights are properly supported. So as we look at that, we will want to understand, again, the interaction between the legal framework that’s being changed with the amendments proposed in this bill with those family court rules.

I will say, in terms of the sections of Bill 9 that are proposing amendments to the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, that these amendments have been compiled, as I understand it, over the course of the last number of years — input that the ministry has received from members of the bar or court registries dealing with the various administration of these matters under this particular act. So on their face, the amendments would appear to be fairly minor and an attempt to streamline the processes under this act.

One particular set of amendments that I just want to highlight at this time — and we’ll look at this more in committee — is the proposed conditions under which a personal representative of a deceased person can distribute the estate without the consent of all beneficiaries if there is a sufficient sum that is set aside. Understandably, this can, again, speed up the process in which proceeds of an estate can be distributed, but again recognizing that we’d never want a situation where proceeds are not sufficient that are left in the estate to deal with what is at balance in terms of what is owing under that estate.

Certainly, in terms of the role that I have in this House and with the Attorney General ensuring that we are protecting the judicial processes in this province, it will be evident that both of these acts need some revision. I don’t question that, but I do want to better understand at the committee stage the comprehensive nature in which these amendments are being proposed and the reviews that are being done.

[5:10 p.m.]

Certainly, even under the Wills Act, from time to time we do run into individuals who do struggle with the implementation of that will — in the interpretation of that act, I should say. The question would be whether there have been other changes that have been considered under that act.

I know that the Attorney General has received letters on at least one other provision of that act, certainly something we might touch on during committee, but looking to ensure that we have a comprehensive approach to the revision of any act dealing with our judicial process, ensuring that we have proper and due consideration, the kind of consideration with members of the bar and the judiciary. I know that that part will be on the pilot project, on the family justice side. I’d like to see a similar process and understanding of that on the will side as well.

With that, I look forward to having more of this discussion for some of the matters I’ve outlined in my speech here today.

B. D’Eith: I appreciate the chance to speak in support of Bill 9, the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2019. If approved, the amendments will affect two acts, the Family Law Act and the Wills, Estates and Succession Act. These are both really important acts in the sense that they deal with times in people’s lives, sometimes the most stressful times in their lives, and I’ll talk about that a little bit later. If we can do anything as government to make these processes better, faster, more efficient and more fair, that’s a good thing for the people of British Columbia. So I’m very pleased to speak to this because I do believe that a number of those things are being met.

As far as the first part — I’ll just give a summary of each one — the effect on the Family Law Act, the proposed amendments actually had a statutory authority needed to implement planned reforms to the Provincial Court family rules to improve family court processes and provide better access and outcomes for families who need assistance. That’s really important. This is for family law matters.

The other thing that it does, which is important, is give additional authority to family justice counsellors to conduct needs assessments, clarify the participation in assessments and dispute resolution processes. It also, during that process, allows suspension of the running of time for starting a spousal support claim under the Family Law Act. One of the problems, of course, is that if you’re appearing, not in front of a judge, but there’s another timeline running, that would, again, put pressure on families. So the nice thing about this is that it suspends that. I’ll get to that a little bit later, as I talk to it.

It also adds authority to allow a Provincial Court judge to review decisions of a judicial officer if they happen to manage cases.

The second act, the Wills, Estates and Succession Act. These proposed amendments will support families by providing more flexible administration of estates and clarifying the rules around beneficiaries who cannot be located, which is very important. The amendments make a number of minor clarifications and improvements to the act that were developed after consultation with people practising in the area and users of the act.

Let me first talk to the amendments to the Family Law Act. As I said earlier, of course, this is any kind of time when people are going through divorce or having a situation where they’re separated. It’s a very stressful time in people’s lives. When you have 38 percent plus of marriages that will end in divorce, it’s really important to make sure that we deal with these things and make sure that we make life as less stressful as possible.

Unfortunately, I, myself, have gone through the process once and many of my friends have gone through this process. I actually have very dear friends, husband and wife, who is going through this right now. It affects not just them. It affects their friends. It affects their children. It affects the friends of their children, the friends of their friends, their grandparents.

[5:15 p.m.]

It’s not just the two people. Often it’s the family and their children and everyone around them. So the quicker and more efficiently and more fairly that the court system can deal with these situations, the better. That’s why I’m very pleased with these amendments.

I applaud the Attorney General working with the Provincial Court of British Columbia, collaborating to make reforms that will make family law better in the provincial courts. There’s actually the Provincial Court family rules project that’s arisen out of this collaboration, which is very important work. It’s transformative work within the family court process.

It’s reviewing the rules and the forms. It’s important work to make sure that we actually embrace the vision and direction of another report that was put out by the national Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters. How does that report impact on British Columbia and British Columbia laws, and what can we do within our system to make life better for families dealing with these really tough situations?

There are some specific aims within this project to improve efficiency and effectiveness of the family court process, to help make things better for people who are going to family court and to reflect on the process of the courts and the rules and the forms to make sure that they are easy to use. I remember many, many moons ago, when I studied law at UVic, there was a movement towards plain-language drafting. I know many acts have moved in that direction in the last few decades, which is wonderful to see. But the essence of that movement is to make law more accessible to people.

Being a lawyer and understanding that I spent, in my career as a lawyer, so much of my time explaining the law in layman’s terms to individuals…. You have a stressful situation, like a divorce or a family matter, and people are very emotional, very upset. It’s already a stressful time for them, and then they have to try to get their heads around a very complex area of the law. The easier we can make the forms, the easier we can make the process, the more understandable we can make the process, the better.

There are some specific objectives of the project which I thought were worth looking at. Some of the things — not all of the things — in the project are being brought in specifically by this act, but it’s really good as a context to look at what the project is looking at.

At a basic level, there’s this idea of a transformative vision for Provincial Court family rules — again, to try to make things more accessible and easier. Also, this idea that you should have all court events being meaningful. That’s important because often people will show up in court and they might not have the right documents. The point is there might be time wasted in a courtroom. So it’s very, very important, with scarce resources and dockets that are full and courts that are full, that every moment that people are in court is meaningful and that it has some impact and that the families aren’t impacted by having to go away and come back and wait; the clerks, the staff, the judges, of course, aren’t having to do that as well.

The other thing that’s really important is making sure that only the cases that require judicial direction, mediation or determination actually go before a judge. Now, this is really important. Again, I think it’s a very important movement and idea because, as we know, probably the most expensive part of the court is getting in front of a judge.

[5:20 p.m.]

Anything that we can do to make sure that when that judge is actually hearing something from these people’s lawyers or themselves, it actually is something that’s appropriate to be in front of a judge — again, that’s waste; that’s time wasted in a court system that is so jammed…. Anything we can do to make that better is a good thing.

Of course, again, that any case that goes to court is actually court-ready. We hear many times of people coming to court. They have their lawyers. They’re all ready to go. The judge has a look at the documents, and they suddenly realize: “We don’t have enough to go on. You’re going to have to go away and come back another time.” So any steps that can be made to actually make it more court-ready…. Any kind of case that is ready to go when they get in front of a judge is a good thing. That also goes with efficient use of the court staff, judicial officers and judicial resources.

Whatever can be done prior to going in front of a judge, whatever actions can be taken to make the case more efficient, quicker and easier for the judge to deal with and have all the information, is going to be better. It’s going to be a lot more cost effective. It’s also going to have a better result for people. It’s also going to be better for the people going through the process, again, in this very stressful time.

The other thing is proportionality, and this is really interesting to look at, as well, because there are different levels of matters that go in front of courts. Of course, you can go to small claims court for anything under $50,000, or you could be suing for millions of dollars in Supreme Court. That’s a proportionality that’s being determined by different jurisdictions of courts.

In a family law situation, there are all sorts of different proportionalities where a great deal of time could be spent on things that really should have been settled or dealt with outside of the courtroom, and sometimes much bigger things don’t have the time that they need. So the proportionality is very important as well.

Another important issue that is starting to be addressed is this idea of consistency around the province. I think that’s really important, because you don’t want to have a situation where a court in Victoria or a court…. Actually, we’re very pleased we’re going to be opening a new courthouse in Abbotsford, which I’m very excited about. That’s happening. That already has the shovel in the ground, which is very exciting.

The point is that all over the province there are provincial courthouses, and we have to make sure that the services that people are getting are consistent, that the experiences people are having are consistent and that it doesn’t matter where you’re going in British Columbia, you’re going to get that same level of consistency. We expect that from our health care system, and we should expect that from our judicial system as well.

Another issue. Of course, this is appropriate. I was just talking to one of my colleagues who happened to delete his partner from his Facebook post, and obviously, marital bliss fell apart immediately. Technology is having a huge impact on people’s lives, you know. Swipe left; swipe right. It’s ruining families everywhere.

But actually, seriously, the reality is that there are some amazing technologies that can be used and should be used in terms of case management. It’s very important for the courts to be able to move forward in that way as well.

There are other issues around decisions affecting children. One of the basic concepts in family law is looking at the best interests of children, and that’s very important — making sure that the time frame of the courts is done to a child’s time, right?

Children don’t operate in the same time frame as we do. I remember back in elementary school, 15 minutes for recess seemed like an eternity. It really did. Now 15 minutes is like 15 hours. Children process time differently, and courts need to take that into account. The court needs to be oriented to the needs of the children as well the families, which is really important.

Also, part of it is…. There’s enough conflict going on around the family during these times, so why wouldn’t we make the processes easier? All you’re going to do is create more conflict within the family.

[5:25 p.m.]

The other thing that’s really important — and I’ll get to this in Bill 9 — is this idea about the adversarial courtroom process and the non-courtroom sort of dispute resolution process and community resolution processes actually working in harmony together. That’s part of what is happening here.

Let’s look at Bill 9 itself, with that preamble. Actually, a long preamble, but it’s important as a context to see what these changes are all about.

The idea here under Bill 9 is that the model will provide families with an early assessment by a family justice counsellor to determine a family’s legal and non-legal needs and make appropriate referrals. Before you get in front of a judge, there’s that assessment, which actually should streamline things, but in order to do that, there has to be a change so that the time limits for applying for spousal support are suspended. That’s really important, because if you move to an alternate dispute resolution process, and the timeline for spousal support is still running, that puts undue pressure on the process. You really want, in an alternative dispute process, to have that time and space for the families to deal with that. So that’s very, very important.

The second thing is the legislation provision also authorizes family justice counsellors to exempt parties from certain processes. Having a rigid system in a dynamic and often difficult family situation can create a lot of problems, so giving that family justice counsellor the right to exempt parties is really, really important.

Also, the working group that I talked about earlier is also exploring options around the use of judicial officers and judicial resources. The idea around this is to have a new judicial officer role, and Bill 9 actually allows this possible implementation by regulation. As was mentioned by the member opposite, yes, there is a pilot project going on in Victoria, a prototype, and this will allow that to move forward. The act also allows judicial officers any ruling they might have to be reviewed in a judicious and quick manner.

All of those things will really help to streamline the system, will help to get cases ready for court, to get only the things that need to be in front of a judge in front of a judge and try to deal with as many things out of the courtroom as possible. So I’m very, very pleased about that.

Another really tough time in any family’s life is obviously when someone passes away. The Wills, Estates and Succession Act has been in long need of amendments over the last number of years, so I think it’s very important that some of these amendments be made.

One of them, of course, is to improve the ability of beneficiaries and intestate successors to nominate an administrator of an estate. What that means is if you have an executor…. In a will, the testator puts the name of executor or executors in the will, and that’s important. But if someone dies without a will — they die intestate — then you’ve got this court-ordered administrator that has to be appointed, and that’s created a lot of issues in the past. Improving the beneficiaries and intestate successors to be able to help with that process is really important, and it’s a long time coming. I really think that that’s a very, very important change.

Another part of the bill is to improve the ability of a person who has an interest in an estate to recover or protect estate or property or to enforce obligations owing to an estate. Part of the problem there is that sometimes properties will disappear or be liquidated, and really, it’s important to be able to protect that right.

Another important protection is if there’s an unlocated beneficiary or intestate successor or there’s a will variation claimant, the administrator…. What they can do is they now, under this act, would have to actually set aside a portion before they settle the will or settle the estate, which is important because if all the property is settled and all the money is paid out or all of the properties are dealt with, that doesn’t protect some of those sort of unprotected people. So those are very important parts.

[5:30 p.m.]

I’m very pleased to have spoken to this bill. Again, I’d like to say thank you very much to the Attorney General and his staff, who seem to provide a large number of wonderful bills to this House and continue to do so, and I hope they bring more.

As I leave my points, I’d like to say that I support this bill wholeheartedly.

D. Routley: Again it gives me pleasure to stand in support of a bill brought forward by this government. As in keeping with its budget, it reflects priority-making that I think British Columbians consider to be owed to them — that they would be the centre of what government does and that their needs and problems would be the subject of the attention of their government. This issue is obviously one of great import to people and families — and a very difficult and vexing one as well.

Bill 9 is certainly meant to streamline and make more efficient the court system. There is a pragmatism and expediency in doing that — that government can answer some of its financial and management goals. But really what underpins that is a higher principle — the principle that our system and the measures this Legislature takes should support families and support the lives of British Columbians and make them better, particularly where it’s most difficult to do that.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

This bill, I think, while it doesn’t seem like much…. In fact, the Attorney General described it, more or less, as housekeeping. And I understand that it is — the details and the edges of the issues that are being addressed by the bill. But that doesn’t change the fact that there are some very important principles at stake here. In fact, when families find themselves in this situation, perhaps reason is not always driving people’s decisions.

I have to say that my parents divorced when I was quite young. That was at a time when divorce was not at all a common thing really — not as common as it is now. Unknowing at the time, I was lucky enough that my parents were so positive and supported each other through that process. They always attended family events together with their new spouses. Never really spoke ill of each other to us as kids.

So we were spared much of what people face when they wind up in the system. It’s only later in life, as all of us know — in our own lives or lives of those close to us — how terrible these outcomes can be if people don’t approach with the kind of good spirit and goodwill that my parents happened to be able to muster in a very difficult time. That doesn’t mean that people who can’t muster that goodwill don’t deserve the support. In fact, I would argue that they deserve more support than anyone. Not only is not addressing these problems — and slowing them down and offering up opportunities for conflict — a damage to what we do and what we hope to achieve, but it has an enormous toll on the lives of children and the individuals involved in that conflict.

I think that this bill is addressing the details of what the act does in people’s lives. It’s important because it tries to address one of the most vexing aspects of this, the most difficult thing to pick through all the procedure and get to: that when people are in this kind of conflict, they, very unfortunately, sometimes will use these systems and these measures as weapons. I would suggest that when couples break up, there is often a sense — at least on one part or on both parts — that these court processes and other processes that address their problems are to be intentionally or unintentionally ground to a halt.

[5:35 p.m.]

We all pay for that. We all pay. The efficiency of government, the efficacy of the decisions we make and the expediency that I spoke about before are impacted by that, but far more importantly are the lives of children involved, in particular, and also the lives of the couple that might be breaking up and their ability to move on.

As long as we offer a system that doesn’t have speedy measures that can address the problems that people face, as long as we allow for cases to come to court unprepared, or don’t necessarily need to be in court, we are contributing to that difficult slowness of the process, and then we are contributing to damage in people’s lives.

I think it’s a really difficult thing for the Attorney General to have chosen to address. The national Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters certainly points us in this direction, but it’s only the courage of the current government and the Attorney General in addressing this that we could actually get to these points.

One of the objectives of the project that I referred to is that all court events are meaningful. That seems like a rather obvious statement. It seems fairly simple in its proposition. But, in reality, it is quite opposite from what people experience. They will go to court. They will take time off of work. They will have to arrange child care. They will be stressed at a time when they’re already enduring enormous and debilitating stress, and it will be to no purpose. It will contribute to the frustration, the anger and the animosity that brought people to court in the first place. So this is an important measure. It’s important.

The way that these court events are made meaningful is that only disputes that need to be addressed by the courts would get there. In order to achieve that, this bill allows counselling so that families can, perhaps, resolve, be referred or referred straight to the courts, depending upon their need. A needs-based referral is so vital in trying to clean up the entanglement that we see in family courts.

This assessment will be an important measure. But the Attorney General wisely included a measure that will allow the suspension of time limits on spousal support so that people can really invest in an alternative method of resolving their problems without fear that their interests are being undermined by the clock. That relieves another pressure that’s on families at a very, very difficult time.

If the counselling decides that the case should go to court, then the act actually supports families having access to resources. Therefore, I understand and believe that they will come to court better prepared; that court events will be meaningful, as is called for here; and people will have restored in themselves some kind of faith in the process.

That’s another rather courageous aspect to this bill, which appears to just deal with issues on the edges of the Family Law Act but, in fact, addresses some very core principles. That, I think, is worthy of some kind of credit and support. I hope all members in this House will support this measure. We all know people, if not ourselves, who have been through these very difficult circumstances. You know, having a government that will hear their issues, understand their challenges and actually see them is a very important thing. For that, I would give congratulations to the government and to the Attorney General for having the courage to step into these matters.

[5:40 p.m.]

It’s not easy. There will never be something worthwhile done without challenge and without struggle, but this is certainly worthwhile. I’m confident that when all the members of the House examine how this act will support families at one of the most difficult times in their lives, they will all support this bill.

You know, it also deals with families who face another one of the most challenging times in their lives — that is, the loss of someone in their family and the very difficult measures that they face in dealing with wills or estates or people dying intestate. Having more flexibility in how those circumstances can be addressed is vital. So often families are, at a very difficult time, having to understand very regimented processes that don’t allow, perhaps, for their personal circumstances to be reflected in who is managing an estate or how it’s managed. This act will address that other difficult end of the spectrum for families.

I speak in support of the bill. I hope that all members in the House will support the bill, because what it does is it puts people first. It puts people at the centre of government’s actions. It takes steps that will have a material impact on peoples’ lives. It takes steps that will pay off perhaps many, many years in the future in the lives of children who will grow up understanding that these conflicts can be resolved in a civil way and that the system is there to support them, not to further burden them. I think that that’s a real gift to the families of British Columbia, so I support this bill wholly and wholeheartedly.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you very much to the members of the Legislature who spoke to the bill: to my colleagues in government for their eloquent comments and their kind compliments; to staff, who did do some very good work on this, and to my office — very much appreciated; and to the critic for the thoughtful questions we’ll get into at committee stage.

With that, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 9, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2019, 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 Bill 2, Protection of Public Participation Act, 2019, committee stage.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 2 — PROTECTION OF PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 2; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 5:43 p.m.

On section 2 (continued).

The Chair: Did the member need staff to join us now?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, if my staff could please come in.

The Chair: All right. We’ll just have a brief recess while staff join us now.

The committee recessed from 5:43 p.m. to 5:44 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: I just wanted to share with the House that joining me is Russell Getz, legal counsel, and Darin Thompson, legal counsel, here to assist me with committee stage. I look forward to the members’ questions.

[5:45 p.m.]

The Chair: We were on section 2. We’d just finished section 1. I believe we’d just passed the definitions.

Any questions on section 2?

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

M. Lee: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just in the context of section 3, I ask, through you to the Attorney General, if he could just walk through the intention of “qualified privilege” in this particular provision and the way it’s framed.

Hon. D. Eby: One defence to a claim of defamation is the defence of qualified privilege. That’s the defence in which allegedly defamatory speech or writing is privileged because it’s communication by and to people who share an interest in the matter being communicated.

However, you can lose that defence. Current case law holds that neither news media nor people who receive a communication through the news media have the required interest. So defendants are at risk of losing the defence of qualified privilege if their communication is reported on by the news media or witnessed by other people, as will be often the case in matters of public interest.

So without this provision, a defence of qualified privilege that might otherwise exist would not be available if the communication in question was reported on by the news media or witnessed by others.

The provision is aimed at addressing the unfairness of an otherwise appropriate defence of qualified privilege were it to be unavailable — respecting communications on a matter of public interest — simply because, as will often be the case, the communication is reported on by news media or witnessed by others.

The provision does not relieve the news media of liability, which have other grounds of defence where appropriate. The modifications, though, I will note, of the requirements — the defence of qualified privilege — apply only to circumstances to which this act would apply — that is, where the defence of qualified privilege is available, respecting communication on a matter of public interest between two or more persons who have a direct interest in the matter. It is not a change to the law of qualified privilege generally. So again, only on matters of public interest.

M. Lee: In terms of the context of this particular provision, how is the term “public interest” to be interpreted? What’s the intention, as it’s framed in this particular provision?

Hon. D. Eby: With respect to the definition of public interest, the member notes properly that this is not a defined term in the act. That was intentional. We are intending to incorporate the evolving case law around, and the existing definitions in the case law, of the meaning of public interest.

The member will know that this bill is based on the Ontario legislation, which itself became the model legislation that we then incorporated here in B.C.

That act — the Ontario legislation that maps out very closely to what we have in the House here today — was considered by the Ontario Court of Appeal in a decision called 1704604 Ontario v. Pointes Protection Association. In that case, the court said, “Have a look at Grant v. Torstar,” which is a decision where the Supreme Court of Canada discusses the matter of public interest and what public interest means and went into some detail about that.

I’ll take the risky liberty of paraphrasing the Supreme Court here in saying that generally, at paragraph 102 and 105, the court held that the public interest does not extend to matters of mere curiosity or prurient interest or in which the person concerned has a reasonable expectation of privacy. So it’s sort of a negative definition there.

[5:50 p.m.]

Also, in public interest, Grant at 102, the potential subject matter is wide-ranging, including politics, science and the arts, the environment, religion or morality; and generally, it’s a matter of public interest if it relates to a subject in which a segment of the community would have a genuine interest in receiving information.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

M. Lee: I think that the Attorney General’s overview of how public interest might be interpreted or utilized under this proposed legislation is…. I acknowledge that overview. Just note, of course, that the way that this…. What is really, fundamentally, the important test here in this act is section 4. As we know, the way it’s laid out, we have a two-part test under sub 4(1)(a), in terms of it arising “from an expression made by the applicant, and (b) the expression relates to a matter of public interest.”

In the second arm of this test, I would ask the Attorney General: the overview that the Attorney General just made…. In terms of what is public interest, would it be the same answer for this particular section, as well, in terms of how public interest is to be utilized? Is there any different interpretation of public interest in the context of sub 4(1)(b)?

Hon. D. Eby: The member correctly notes that the words “public interest” are used in different sections in the act, and they may have different meanings, depending on where they show up. The section that the member refers to, sub 4(1)(b), is “the expression relates to a matter of public interest.” The member is right. That has the same meaning that I just went through, the Grant v. Torstar definition, as the court sees it currently. Now, there may be another case that comes down the line that refines that definition of public interest or expands it.

This legislation is intended to incorporate that evolution in the case law as the courts consider what is public interest. It’s meant to be a light touch so that it incorporates that case law. But the member may note that sub 4(2)….

Interjections.

The Chair: Apologies, Attorney General. There’s been some disruption in the House.

Hon. D. Eby: Subsection 4(2)(b) also refers to public interest. But this is a different public interest. That is, the public’s interest in continuing the proceeding outweighs the public interest in protecting the expression. The court, in Pointes Protection, went into some detail on this public interest test, which is distinct from the public interest. So you could have expression that relates to a matter of public interest, that passes the test in sub 4(1) but doesn’t meet the test in sub (2)(b), which is that the impact on the person’s expression is serious enough that the public interest in continuing outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression.

[5:55 p.m.]

The court looks at a couple of different factors about what you would look at to determine the public interest in allowing the expression to continue or in truncating it or restricting it through a defamation action. The court looks at, for example, whether the expression contains deliberate falsehoods, gratuitous personal attacks or vulgar and offensive language and would note that there would be less public interest in protecting speech like that than there would if the same expression had been delivered without the lies, vitriol and obscenities.

Another example of what the court could look at in terms of public interest in this test, in 4(2), would be whether there was sufficient evidence or whether there was evidence of actual libel chill generated by the plaintiff’s claim, which could be an important factor as well. The court notes that these assessments are qualitative and, to some extent, subjective but notes that a plaintiff’s claim will be dismissed if the plaintiff cannot meet the persuasive burden under 4(2)(b). So it’s not insignificant, and it’s important for the court to engage in that weighing process around the public interest, which, as the member properly notes, is distinct from the other section.

M. Lee: I appreciate that.

In talking about section 4, the Attorney General has anticipated one avenue that I would like to discuss more at length, which is certainly section 4(2)(b) and the double use of public interest in that section. Certainly, the Attorney General has highlighted how that would be interpreted, to some degree, within that section. But just before coming to that, because that is an area that I would like to discuss at length…. Going back to 4(1)(b), I think we’ve canvassed that in terms of use of public interest in that particular arm of this test.

The other point I just wanted to canvass briefly is 4(1)(a). In the previous committee session that we had when we had the opportunity to go over the use or the definition of the term “expression,” the Attorney General did indicate that it was a fairly wide definition, with only a few things that might potentially be exempted from that in terms of what might be found under the Criminal Code or violations of the Charter. Just on that point, when we look at the gating item that this is, section 4(1)(a), particularly as to how expression will play when you look at that against 4(2)(b), this expression gets picked up again when we talk about, at the very end of that section: “…proceeding outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression.”

So again, there is an interplay here between what the nature of this expression is and the public interest in protecting that expression. Just to, again, clarify one specific point — that the use of “expression” under 4(1)(a) is one that, in that context, is neutral in the sense that it has no element of public interest attached to it, that it is an open-ended definition, subject to the qualifications the Attorney General made previously in committee. I just wanted to confirm that that is the case — that the intention is, from the drafters from the Attorney General Ministry, that that has no qualification attached to it. It’s an open definition in terms of how it was first defined.

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member will note that section 4(1)(a) and (b) is a two-part test, that (a) and (b) are connected by “and.” You have to meet both requirements in order to apply for dismissal. The proceeding has to arise from an expression made by the applicant. There has to be an expression that’s at issue, and the expression has to relate to a matter of public interest. It can’t be sort of tangentially related to a matter of public interest. It needs to relate to a matter of public interest.

The member does raise sort of a broader question about expression — what expression is and means in terms of the act and what this act incorporates. He will recall that section 1 has a definition of “expression,” which means any communication, verbal or non-verbal, public or private, whether directed or not at a person or entity.

The meaning of “expression” in the act is consistent with and grounded in some very well-established and substantive law. The member is familiar, I know, with section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: namely, “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.” Grant v. Torstar talked a little bit about the constitutional status of freedom of expression — namely, that all Canadian laws must conform to the Charter, including the constitutional status of freedom of expression.

In Pointes Protection Association, the court noted, of course, as one would expect, that the court presumes that freedom of expression does not capture expression in terms of…. This Protection of Public Participation Act does not capture expression that would be beyond the pale of the Charter — things like hate speech, which is captured under the Criminal Code; a threat of violence; or an act of violence as an act of expression — which I know all members of the House, and myself included, would be loath to protect, in terms of how this act operates.

I note further that “expression” in Grant includes expression that cannot be proven true at the time that the expression was made. In particular, the court said: The argument that a false statement cannot advance the purposes of section 2(b) of the Charter is belied by the fact that the existing defamation defence of privilege concedes that “sometimes the public interest requires that untrue statements should be granted immunity because of the importance of robust debates on matters of public interest…or the importance of discussion and disclosure as a means of getting at the truth.” The court also noted that that argument “overlooks the fact that…2(b) protection is not confined to statements that a person can ultimately prove are true.”

The member can see that there is quite a deep well of court case law behind the term “expression.” It is incorporated to some extent into this act and discussed in the Pointes Protection decision as well — in terms of what “expression” does not include and what the court, I believe, properly concluded the Legislature did not intend to include in Ontario, and that, certainly, we don’t intend to include here under our Protection of Public Participation Act bill.

M. Lee: Just going to subsection 4(2)(a), in terms of the nature of the proceeding, there are three parts to this, in effect — the first being grounds to believe, secondly, substantial merit, and, thirdly, no valid defence. Taking those particular formulations of terms in order, I would ask the Attorney General if he could first comment on the test that typically would be applicable here, what’s intended by the drafters when we say there are grounds to believe, in terms of the framing of what that benchmark would be, in terms of the threshold of the use of the term “grounds to believe.”

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Subsection 4(2)(a), as the member notes, sets out two grounds that the court must consider, a two-part test in sections (2)(a)(i) and (ii): “the proceeding has substantial merit.” The framework of subsection 4(2) is that the court must make a dismissal order in the event that the applicant passes subsection 4(1). If the applicant can show, “This is expression that I made; this expression relates to a matter of public interest,” the court must make a dismissal order.

Now, subsection (2) says “unless the respondent” to the application — this is the person who started the lawsuit in the first place, the person who was allegedly defamed — “satisfies the court” of a couple of things. First of all, the person who started the lawsuit needs to show the court that there are grounds to believe that “the proceeding has substantial merit.” The second thing they have to show the court that there is grounds to believe is that “the applicant has no valid defence.”

Usually, in litigation, just proving that your proceeding has substantial merit would be sufficient to show, to satisfy the test that the thing should go forward. However, because defamation is a unique tort — where, basically, all you have to do to start the defamation action is just allege that the person’s communication caused you to be looked down upon by your neighbours or by the community in some way — the defences are quite different. They’re kind of stand-alone defences. There are a number of special privileges. They’re broken out separately because the tort of defamation is so unique.

With respect to this demarcation between the elements of the tort and the various defences, what it does is that it puts the burden on the person bringing the lawsuit to show these various things before the lawsuit gets to continue. That is a change from the bare tort of defamation, where all the defendant has to do is show up and say, “I’ve got this claim,” and then everything shifts over to the defendant to prove that they have a defence to the claim. So all of the weight goes onto the defendant. This kind of shifts the burden back onto the plaintiff who brought the lawsuit in the first place.

The court in Pointes Protection looked at this and made this analysis: “There is a clear demarcation between the elements of the tort that the plaintiff must prove and the various affirmative defences that the defence must prove if the plaintiff meets its initial onus.” That’s a more elegant way of saying my point that I was trying to make earlier, about why there are two sections here — that the proceeding has substantial merit and that there’s no valid defence.

[6:10 p.m.]

For the first section, that there be substantial merit and that the respondent plaintiff has to show that there is substantial merit, the court considered that and said that what you have to do is show that your case is legally tenable and supported by evidence which could lead a reasonable trier to conclude that the claim has a real chance of success.

The court, in my opinion, properly concluded that the question is not about whether the motion judge thinks the evidence is credible but “whether, on the entirety of the material, there are reasonable grounds to believe that a reasonable trier could accept the evidence.” That’s the substantial merit piece.

Then with respect to no valid defence, this section…. Again, the court said it very nicely in Pointes Protection Association, so there’s no point in me trying to say it better than the Ontario Court of Appeal.

“The provision contemplates an evidentiary burden on the defendant to advance any proposed valid defence in the pleadings and/or in the material filed in the section…for application. That material should be sufficiently detailed to allow the application judge to clearly identify the legal and factual components of the defences advanced…. Then the persuasive burden moves to the plaintiff to satisfy the application judge that there are reasonable grounds to believe that none of the defences put in play are valid….

“The onus rests on the plaintiff to convince the application judge that, looking at the application record through the reasonableness lens, a trier could conclude that none of the defences advanced would succeed. If that assessment is among those reasonably available on the record, the plaintiff has met its onus.”

The member will note that we’re leaning very heavily on the Pointes Protection decision, because it is certainly one that we think was very reasonably decided, and the court very elegantly described the intent behind the model legislation, which we’ve adopted here. This section being identical to Ontario helps me illustrate what our intent here is in including these provisions in British Columbia.

M. Lee: I appreciate that in terms of the description of no valid defence, there will be what is, to a reasonable trier, an agreed or understood set of defences that the applicant could raise in the face of this.

In terms of the actual application of this provision, what’s the assessment by the Attorney General, in terms of the reasonableness of that application, in the sense of what the respondent needs to satisfy the court of? As to the fact that the applicant has no valid defence, to what degree and to what extent does the respondent need to go in order to demonstrate that?

Hon. D. Eby: The applicant does need to say: “Here are the defences that are available to me,” and one of those might be truth. You know: “If what I said was true, and I’m going to be relying on the defence of truth in my materials.” And then the respondent, who’s the plaintiff, will be…. The persuasive burden, as the court puts it in Pointes Protection, will to move to that plaintiff to satisfy the judge that there are reasonable grounds to believe that that defence would not be valid.

One of those ways is to show that, actually, the statement wasn’t true, to put in an affidavit, for example, evidence that would show that there is no reason to believe that the statements made by the individual are true, so therefore, the defence of truth is not available to that person. That’s just one example.

It’s hard for me to say it better than the Court of Appeal that the onus rests on the plaintiff to convince the judge that in looking at the record through the reasonableness lens, a trier could conclude that none of the defences advanced would succeed.

[6:15 p.m.]

Now, each of the defences has unique elements that the court would be looking at. And the applicant, having said, “I’m going to rely on qualified privilege. I’m going to rely on truth,” whatever defence, the court would then be looking to the plaintiff, in affidavit material or in other evidence in front of the court, or an argument that there simply isn’t reason to believe that defence applies at all, to convince the judge that none of the defences advanced would succeed through the reasonableness lens. Hopefully, that clarifies things for the member.

M. Lee: Just going to what I think is the fundamental test for this provision under sub 4(2)(b). This, of course, is finding of the appropriate balance between the public interest in protecting the expression, and of course, that expression, as we have talked about under sub 4(1)(b), is an expression which relates to a matter of public interest.

This is part of the challenge. I appreciate that we’ve had, with the entire Court of Appeal application…. It is for the courts to apply this legislation, as they’ve done in Ontario, and for B.C. courts, if this legislation passes, to interpret and apply that here in British Columbia. But the way that this provision is framed utilizes the term “public interest” in a number of different ways. We can hope that British Columbia courts will be able to navigate through this provision in the way that the Ontario Court of Appeal has.

I would just note that even as you parse through the language in sub 4(2)(b), again, even if you just look at that part of the provision…. It’s talking about the public interest in protecting that expression, which, in turn, relates to a matter of public interest. So we have the term public interest used in both ways — to be something of desirable intent, objective, which is to protect that expression. And the expression itself is one of public interest.

It seems somewhat circular if you read it in that manner. I’d ask the Attorney General if he sees any challenge in the courts of British Columbia utilizing this particular part of the test.

Hon. D. Eby: I certainly have confidence in the court to be able to read the legislation and come to the necessary understanding to apply it to the facts. The context that the word public interest is set out in the legislation with the intention that the court should be able to quite easily distinguish the terms.

Now, I will note that, although they’re the same words, there are different public interests. There are two public interests, right? There is the matter that the individual commented on, which was a matter of public interest: talking about this hot political issue. I’m talking about this development in my neighbourhood. I’m talking about something that I’m concerned about. This is a matter of public interest.

Then there’s another public interest, which is the public interest in protecting the reputation of the person who’s building the development, and there’s the public interest in being able to hear about this person’s opinion, and there’s the public interest in those two separate pieces. What we really need the court to do and what is very difficult to prescribe…. That’s why it’s this broad test. We need the court to engage in a waiting exercise.

[6:20 p.m.]

Although the comment may have been defamatory under the old test, the impact of libel chill on anyone speaking out about this particular issue is so significant that allowing the lawsuit to continue would have such a detrimental effect on free expression that that would not be in the public interest. Although yes, it was a defamatory comment, likely, and yes, likely the plaintiff would succeed, there is significantly more public interest in allowing that to go ahead compared to putting a chill on anyone who would want to speak out on this particular issue.

Or in the reverse, yes, this individual was speaking out on a matter of public interest. It appears as though they wanted to express themselves on this important matter that the public has a right to hear about and to know about.

But it was so obviously false, full of profanity, absurd to the extreme — as the court said, “Deliberate falsehoods, gratuitous personal attacks, vulgar and offensive language” — or it just didn’t really contribute anything to public debate, and it doesn’t have a significant impact on the willingness of other members of the public or journalists or others to participate in the public discussion about this issue. So we’re going to weight it in favour of allowing this defamation action to go ahead — that this person should rightly be sued for what they said.

That weighting exercise between those two competing public values — the protection of the reputation of the plaintiff and the protection of the expression rights not just of the defendant but also of other members of the public both to hear the expression or to express themselves on the same issue — is what we want the court to engage in here.

Courts are uniquely suited to doing that kind of work. We ask courts to do that all the time: to weigh different interests and come to a conclusion about what is in the best interests of the public to go forward, What’s in the public interest to do? To protect the expression, or to allow the lawsuit to go ahead because this conduct should rightly be sanctioned by the court in the event that the claim is made out?

That is really what is intended to be captured here. I think that that weighting test will be very familiar to judges, and they should be able to make their way through it quite easily.

M. Lee: Well, recognizing that, at this time, only Ontario has this legislative framework in place, so the courts in Ontario are obviously working through this legislation through the Ontario Court of Appeal…. In British Columbia, though…. I appreciate that, certainly, as legislators, we put it in the hands of the courts in the way that we employ their judgment, literally, and the way that this particular section is calling on the courts to make this determination.

We’ve covered, I think, in the Attorney General’s response, the second part of this test. I’d like to just come back to the first part. An area of concern, still, in terms of the clarity around it, is…. The test is where the harm that is “likely to have been or to be suffered by the respondent as a result of the applicant’s expression….” If you stop it there, that harm, we would expect, would be concerns around the respondent’s reputation, business or personal interests.

This is something, of course, that the panel in Ontario, when they reviewed the necessity of bringing on the legislation in the first place, were quite minded to the balancing of interests, certainly. And certainly, they acknowledged that the protection and promotion of this kind of expression should not be a cover for expression that wrongfully harms reputational, business or personal interests of others. So that, certainly, is an acknowledgment on the plaintiff’s, or respondent’s, side as to what’s at stake.

[6:25 p.m.]

This particular formulation goes on to say that that harm “…is serious enough that the public interest in continuing the proceeding….” The words “the public interest in continuing the proceeding” — I’d like to ask how those particular words are to be interpreted by the courts in the context of this particular section.

Hon. D. Eby: This is the weighting test that the court will be engaged in, in part. And “the harm likely to have been or to be suffered by the respondent” is something that the respondent is expected to provide some basis on which the judge can make an assessment about the harm.

For example, if somebody is defamed and they’ve lost a job or they’ve lost a contract as a result, or they’re likely to…. If it started a review process that is likely to end in them having economic harm, or it’s resulted in people putting posters up around their neighbourhood about what a terrible person they are. The kids can’t go to school anymore. These kinds of things. You don’t have to prove it, because this is the beginning of the process. But the plaintiff is expected to set out some evidence of harm here.

The reason for that is the act is intended to allow to proceed those very serious defamations that actually are likely to lead to harm or have actually led to harm to the plaintiff, in the event that that harm is disproportionate to the expression right that is being protected there.

The member asks what the test is around the harm being likely to be realized by the plaintiff. What is the test that it’s serious enough that the public interest in continuing outweighs the public interest in protecting the expression?

That is really the weighting where the court is like: “Wow, this individual suffered economic harm, suffered really serious reputational harm in their home community. This is a really big deal for this individual that the defamation resulted in, and I’m weighing this against the public interest in the expression that this individual made that was full of profanity. It was totally false, apparently. It appears to be totally false on the application materials that are in front of me. I think that we should continue this proceeding, because the harms are significant. The value of the expression was minimal.”

You can easily imagine the opposite. Really, someone speaking out on a matter that appears to be, more likely than not, true — or at least a reasonable conclusion about a matter of public interest or politics or art or any of the other categories that we’ve been through — and there is just no evidence of any harm to the plaintiff, or even suggestion of any harm that they’re likely to suffer as a result of that expression.

Then the court would say: “Okay. Well, it’s pretty clear, on looking at this harm test, that there’s very little, if any, harm likely to be suffered by the plaintiff, and the public interests in hearing the expression of this individual is very significant. This journalist who wrote this important story about this issue is very significant. So here we believe that we should stop this proceeding from continuing. We believe the impact on free expression is too significant and the harms are too minimal to allow it to continue.”

M. Lee: Thank you to the Attorney General for that response. As I hear him, in responding, the last part of what he just said is how I see it as well. That is, the balancing test ought to be between the harm that is suffered by the plaintiff or respondent — balancing that against the public interest in protecting the expression at issue.

That, in fact, when we talk about the report of the Anti-SLAPP Advisory Panel to the Attorney General of Ontario, dated October 28, 2010…. When I look at that report and sub-item 7(iii) of that report, just above the heading “Issue 2.” When they look at a potential model of formulation, which is the model that presumably the Attorney General Ministry in Ontario had worked with in order to develop their own legislation….

[6:30 p.m.]

Originally, that framing was exactly how I just expressed it. That is, it talks specifically that the balancing test would be: “The harm it has suffered outweighs the harm done to the public interest, especially in freedom of expression, by allowing the action to continue.”

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Obviously, Madam Chair, that is a formulation, not legislative language. But even if you convert that formulation, by way of report by that panel to the legislative language, I acknowledge that legislative language did not get implemented in the Ontario act. But it is something to consider where the panel itself, in Ontario, did actually go to a simpler formulation, a formulation that, I would suggest, would be more clearly read and interpreted by the courts.

The legislative language that’s been put into the Ontario act that has been replicated here in Bill 2, in my view, raises another potential requirement, which is the language that we were just reviewing and discussing, which is: not only is it a “harm likely to have been or to be suffered by the respondent as a result of the applicant’s expression….” I would stop it there and then continue on: “outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression.”

That’s how I would see this test. I would suggest that that would be a clearer test. It doesn’t stop at there, though. It inserts the words “is serious enough that the public interest in continuing…the expression.”

Again, I come back to this term “public expression” and how it’s utilized in different ways in this section, and I think it’s challenging. I think it’s challenging in terms of, certainly, from the respondent and the plaintiff’s counsel, to demonstrate to the court how it would be serious enough that the public interest in continuing that expression or continuing that proceeding would outweigh the public interest in protecting that expression. I will just ask, at this juncture, if I could give the further opportunity to the Attorney General to ask if he would see that this additional language does raise another requirement on the respondent and the purpose for doing that.

Hon. D. Eby: I take the member’s point. I will suggest to the member there are a number of benefits in the phrasing that’s been put forward here.

First of all, this follows legislation from Ontario. We have the benefit of their jurisprudence paving the way a bit in terms of understanding how the bill will be implemented and understood by the courts. That’s a useful thing. And there likely won’t be a huge number of these cases. So with two provinces with identical legislation, or near identical legislation, the discourse between the courts, the number of files that go forward and the case law that’s likely to be created will be helpful in both provinces.

Second, I note that this is wording that was suggested by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. The hope is that this is legislation that will also be picked up by other provinces as well, allowing for more consistent development of jurisprudence across Canada on this area of law.

The context, just generally in terms of why, even without those things, we believe that this is helpful statutory drafting for a court is that it gives the court the context and the intent and the balancing that we hope the court will engage in when they’re met with one of these applications in determining whether or not the public interest in continuing the proceedings outweighs the public interest in protecting the expression. That balancing test is really the heart of what we’re seeking to do here.

[6:35 p.m.]

M. Lee: Just on the tail end of that response. I’d just like to ask then: what, in the Attorney General’s view, would the court need to consider in determining whether the public interest in continuing the proceeding, for the respondent in this case…? How would the court actually apply those terms?

Hon. D. Eby: This is a fact-based inquiry that the court is invited to pursue here. I again will defer to the minds of the Ontario Court of Appeal, where they say the public interest evaluations required in this section — they mention, obviously, the Ontario section: “cannot be reduced to an arithmetic-like calculation. It would be misleading to pretend they can be. The assessments are qualitative and, to some extent, subjective. Because the balancing of the competing public interests will often be determinative of the outcome of the…motion, and because the analysis contains an element of subjectivity, it is critical that motion judges provide full reasons for their…evaluations.”

In that section, the court talks about the fact that this is obviously a fact-driven process, but the assessments are qualitative and, to some extent, subjective.

We do ask courts to engage in these balancing acts all the time, weighing different values that are in competition. This is one of the challenges that we put on our judiciary. They’ll be familiar with the format, and they will be asked to weigh whether the public interest in continuing the proceeding, given the reputational interest of the plaintiff, outweighs the public interest in protecting the expression, given the interests of the public and the individual engaging in the expression to have the opportunity to hear that expression and to have the opportunity to make that expression.

I hope that assists.

M. Lee: Let me make a comment, and then there is an amendment I’d like to propose to this particular provision.

I, in the context of what we were discussing…. It is the subjectivity and the qualitative nature of the determination by the court that I believe, as legislators, we should try and narrow in terms of how it might be applied. Public interest can be a very amorphous term, as the Attorney General just cited, even in the eyes of the Ontario courts. As a result, it can be case specific.

In the interest of some enterprises in British Columbia, you would think that a business interest, a private property interest, the ability of the economic interest, are fundamental and important to any particular organization or to a community. How that might be defined in the area of public interest is to be determined.

With that in mind, I would like to propose an amendment, if I may.

[Section 4 by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

4  (2) If the applicant satisfies the court that the proceeding arises from an expression referred to in subsection (1), the court must make a dismissal order unless the respondent satisfies the court that

(a) there are grounds to believe that

(i) the proceeding has substantial merit, and

(ii) the applicant has no valid defence in the proceeding, and

(b) the harm likely to have been or to be suffered by the respondent as a result of the applicant’s expression is serious enough that the public interest in continuing the proceeding outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression.

(i) is serious enough that the public interest in continuing the proceeding outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression; or

(ii) outweighs the harm to the public interest by allowing the proceeding to continue.]

On the amendment.

M. Lee: If I may speak to the amendment and to those present here, including my friend from Saanich North and the Islands.

[6:40 p.m.]

Hopefully, members in the House have heard the last set of discussions here. In context, what this amendment does is it preserves, under section 4(2)(b), the lead-in language. We’re still talking about the harm likely to have been or to be suffered by the respondent as a result of the applicant’s expression. That remains. In fact, the second component remains as well, which is sub (b)(i): “is serious enough that the public interest in continuing the proceeding outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression.”

That is the current formulation of this section. What this amendment would do is provide a second alternative, an alternative provision that can satisfy the test — which is to simplify it. So in the alternative, or (ii): “outweighs the harm to the public interest by allowing the proceeding to continue.”

The only difference, of course, between sub (i) and sub (ii) is not using the words “is serious enough that the public interest in continuing the proceeding” — those words. So the purpose of this amendment would provide the court with two alternatives: the current formulation of the test in this bill and a second alternative which would simplify the test and do away with this need to balance conflicting public interests.

Again, it would put us back to where the test would be balancing the harm to the plaintiff for reasons of economic interest, the reasons that the Ontario panel to the Attorney General had cited in 2010 and the actual formulation they originally had, which is, again, the harm to the plaintiff versus the harm to the public interest by allowing the proceeding to continue.

The intention of this amendment is only to simplify the test — to provide the courts of British Columbia with a second alternative in order to determine whether the applicant has satisfied the court under this act. That’s the intention of this. I think it simplifies and provides a second route, which is intended to be simpler, and on its face does still preserve the alternative. So the court can still rule through that basis, which we’ve been discussing, versus the second alternative, which, again, as I suggest, is a simplified test.

Hon. D. Eby: So a couple of comments. The member’s proposed amendment is a departure from the Uniform Law Conference of Canada’s model legislation and a departure from the Ontario legislation, which will create some uncertainty in the application of the test.

What the member has done, in subsection (b), is he has broken out (b) into two subsections, which are two tests separated by an “or,” which means that the court would be looking at two separate tests instead of one test. Now the principle of statutory interpretation is that the Legislature doesn’t…. Essentially, that the second test is there for a reason, that there’s something different about it…. It brings some other element to the table. That’s what the court would be looking for between these two tests. That’s the reason why it’s there.

Just in reading the two tests, it’s difficult for me to see what the difference is between the two tests. So test sub (i), as the member says, is, as the bill currently reads, that the harm that will be suffered by the plaintiff is serious enough that, on the one hand, the public interest in continuing the proceeding outweighs, on the other hand, the public interest in protecting that expression.

You can picture Themis, the goddess of justice, with the scales. On one side of the scale, the public interest in continuing the proceeding, allowing this person to be sued for defamation, outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression. The scales on one side or the other, going back and forth. This is the test we want the court to engage in, exactly.

The member has added to that a second test, and it’s separated by an “or,” which means that the court has to do a two-part….

[6:45 p.m.]

If either one of these are satisfied, then that’s enough to determine it — or outweighs the harm to the public interest by allowing…. The harm suffered by the plaintiff outweighs the harm to the public interest by allowing the proceeding to continue.

So here the member again has the harm to the plaintiff and again has the harm to the public interest in allowing the proceeding to continue, one assumes, in relation to protecting the expression.

If I were to give a generous reading, I would say this is a broader public interest test, that this would incorporate the public interest in protecting not just the expression but the public interest, maybe, in efficient use of judicial resources, the public interest in other aspects that might not be related to expression. Because it’s not explicitly linked to the public interest in protecting the expression, and the reason for dropping is serious enough that the public interest in continuing the proceeding….

Maybe on this second test, this would contemplate that for public interest that’s not related directly to expression, the harm wouldn’t have to be as serious in terms of the harm suffered by the respondent. Because the words “serious enough” have been dropped, so it’s not as qualitative, the court isn’t invited to do that.

I guess the core for me is really that the intention is that the court do a balancing test between the public interest of the harm to the reputational interests of the plaintiff and the expressive rights of the defendant and the public’s right to hear the expression of the defendant, or see it or whatever. That is the balancing test you want the court to engage in.

The member’s second test, to my reading, introduces some uncertainty about how the court would interpret that. It doesn’t necessarily add anything in terms of that balancing test and invites the court to find a reason why that’s been put in there and apply that secondary test, because it must be there for a reason. In that sense, it introduces uncertainty for both plaintiffs and defendants about how the courts would interpret that, because it is not based on the same language as the Ontario statute, where there is some case law now, and people do have some understanding about how that would be considered by the court.

For those reasons, I will not be supporting the member’s proposed amendment.

The Chair: Any further speakers to the amendment?

M. Lee: Just to say that I appreciate the points that the Attorney General has made. I just would say in response that there has been, certainly, as we’ve reviewed on second reading, a history of this form of legislation in this province.

We’ve seen Ontario go forward with that legislation more recently. It still is legislation that…. Despite the fact that it’s been adopted in many different forms in the United States, as we canvassed during second reading, there is a variation on the scope of this type of legislation, particularly in the United States.

I acknowledge, of course, Ontario has been first out the door, so to speak, on this sort of legislation. I would note again that the review that they had done effectively set out the formulation that I have set out in sub (2).

The amendment tracks the basic language that the own panel to the Attorney General had recommended. It wasn’t adopted, for some reason, and that’s my concern. The concern around how the court would weigh now two different alternatives, as the Attorney General says…. Obviously, we have a difference in view on that. My concern is the first arm, which is the reason why we provided a second one.

As he has said, by providing a second one, he’s concerned that that would cause more lack of understanding or clarity, let’s say, by the courts. I suggest that that’s already there. That’s the reason why I’m providing a second, more simple route which only puts the court having to weigh the harm to the plaintiff versus the harm to the public interest by allowing the proceeding to continue. There’s not a double use of public interest.

[6:50 p.m.]

I think when you have competing public interest, it gets hard to determine at all times because, again, of the all-encompassing nature of public interest for a local community. A local community is one where you shouldn’t be dividing the economic interest, let’s say, of a business organization versus reasonable expression and concern by other local citizens in the community. It should be the full public interest. That’s why I believe that the second formulation only pits the harm to the plaintiff and that particular plaintiff’s organization, be it business or any other operation or enterprise, versus that public interest in the expression.

With those words, I’ll just say that obviously I’m in favour of this amendment, and I would encourage other members of the House to vote in favour of this amendment.

The Chair: The question is the amendment on section 4 proposed by Vancouver-Langara.

[6:55 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:59 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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 7 p.m.