Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 5, InBC Investment Corp. Act. In Committee A, Douglas Fir Room, I call continued budget estimates debate on the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture. When that finishes, I’ll call the budget estimates debate for Advanced Education and Skills Training.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — InBC INVESTMENT CORP. ACT

(continued)

T. Shypitka: I’m happy to continue the debate on Bill 5, InBC Investment Corp. Act.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Where I left off last time was along the lines of transparency that this bill represents. When launching InBC, the NDP said the Crown corp. would have “the highest standards of transparency and accountability to the public.” But when asked to provide copies of InBC’s business plan, the NDP’s response was “the business plan is confidential advice to cabinet.”

Doesn’t really spell out a lot of transparency and ac­countability to me. As a matter of fact, we’ve seen this dance before a few times with, most recently, the COVID response rollout, the vaccine rollout. We also saw some similar lack of transparency with Site C and their assurance board and some of the geotechnical issues that have happened with that project and not coming forward to the public — which is publicly owned, by the way, just like this corporation would be publicly owned. It’s essentially a loan from the taxpayer. I question the transparency that this bill represents.

Also, going into what anchoring talent and property means in this bill. When I hear of “anchor,” I think of a lead weight. Is it fair to say that these investments come with a list of conditions to entrepreneurs that are getting this investment? We don’t know. Once again, it speaks to the lack of transparency. We don’t know the conditions that anybody that’s involved in this corporation is going to have to go through.

As I mentioned before, and as my time runs short…. I mentioned earlier that to encourage and grow a business and people’s skills, entrepreneurs and businesses just want government essentially out of the way. They want to clear the runway. The best thing that government can do right now…. And we need it now, not next spring when this bill will start to eventually roll out and then transcend for the next three years. We need this now.

[1:35 p.m.]

Government’s best course of action is to allow the playing field to be competitive, to allow the processes in which our businesses are starting up to be streamlined and efficient, and address our competitive disadvantages that we have right now in this province. That really comes down to regulation, legislation and policy.

We really would encourage government to look at those. I highlighted several projects just in the mining sector alone. I didn’t even go into LNG, where we’ve got several projects there that are on the shelf ready to go.

Just in the mining sector alone — I speak to mining, because it is Mining Month, after all — we’ve got at least five, maybe a half-dozen projects on the table right now that have gone through EA, gone through all the processes, but they’re being stonewalled at the end to get over the finish line, to get into production. Those projects represent about $2.2 billion in spend and about 3,000 high-paying, highly skilled jobs that we can have right now before this program would even roll out. This is something we really need to focus on.

I speak to mining, but there are also LNG projects, forestry projects. There are a lot of projects that are in the hopper right now ready to roll out that government seems to have abandoned. I don’t think it’s fair, because I think these folks, these businesses, have been there for us for a long time — some of them for 140 years, some of these industries, such as mining, agriculture, forestry and fishing. These have been the backbone of our economy.

These are the people that have been affected mostly by COVID-19 and the pandemic. We really need to look to those folks that have supported our economy for so long and not abandon them in coming up with this new scheme to invigorate skills training. Let’s be clear. We all want our people of British Columbia to be highly trained. But the entrepreneurs and the businesses, they’re the ones that do it best. They know what they’re doing. I don’t think government knows better than what industry already knows. So why are we trying to reinvent the wheel with this bill?

I’m all for encouraging and creating conditions that will foster a thriving economy, but let’s get that immediate low-hanging fruit that we can address right now. It’s billions of dollars sitting waiting. Fiscal policy, education and creating spaces, and improving processes are things that we can do right now and won’t cost anything other than political will. From there, we can see where we need to go.

If government wants to invest in anything, then I suggest it invest directly to those businesses and hard-working people that have already built this province, who are here right now wondering where their next mortgage payment will be coming from. To those that are watching a family businesses right now — I know many that have been around for decades — go up in flames: we can do better. We need to put trust back into the people of B.C. who have built this great place. Government need not manufacture something that is already here.

With that, there are a lot of unanswered questions on a half-billion dollar ask of taxpayer money, and I will not be in support of this bill. It’ll obviously pass with a majority government and seeing what I’ve heard from the other side, so we’ll see what happens at committee stage. We’ll be asking those hard questions, but I will not be supporting this bill.

B. Banman: It is indeed an honour to share my thoughts and my views with regards to Bill 5.

At first, I would like to commend the idea behind it, the concept behind it. I think that it is timely and worthwhile to encourage investment. However, having said that, two things come to mind.

[1:40 p.m.]

While half a billion dollars sounds like an awful lot in the investment arena, it actually is not as much money as it used to be, surprisingly enough. While the idea has merit, I question the vehicle. Let me share some thoughts on that.

I’ve had some discussions with a friend of mine that has gone through a start-up. It’s in the green energy field. The biggest challenge was finding investment for that.

There currently is a pent-up demand to invest in all kinds of start-up businesses. There is money that is sitting there. We’re really not making much money in the banks, so there is a pent-up demand of people searching for good investments, for good vehicles into which to put their money. I think that rather than come up with a Crown corporation, it would probably be better to use some of the existing tools that we have to better unleash some of that pent-up money that’s sitting on the sidelines waiting for the next great idea.

The risks that I see are this. I think it’s problematic when government starts to get involved and pick and choose which businesses we shall invest in and which we shall not.

Deputy Speaker: Member, excuse me for a moment. We’re going to take a five-minute recess to regain quorum.

The House recessed from 1:41 p.m. to 1:45 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Just to advise members, quorum in the House is ten, including the Speaker. We had been down to eight. So the choice was either to go for a recess or ring the bells. I thought a recess would be easier.

Abbotsford South, please continue. Sorry for the interruption.

B. Banman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have to say that you got my heart racing. I was trying to think what the heck I did wrong, but I appreciate you making sure the House has quorum.

As I was saying, I commend the concept, but I think that, first off, within the investment community, while half a billion dollars is nothing to sneeze at and it is, indeed, something that taxpayers of British Columbia need to be concerned about, there are billions and billions of dollars sitting, waiting, looking for the right idea.

I believe that what government needs to do, and has always needed to do, is to set up the right conditions in which business can thrive. There are a number of ways that government can do that. I think to when I was running the city of Abbotsford and when I was the mayor, part of what we did there was to ensure that you had land use in neighbourhoods where you had abilities for business to come in and have an ability to thrive. You set up the right conditions, and the business would come in and fill in that niche. I look at this in a very similar attitude.

I think that right now, during this pandemic, the first thing that we should be doing and ensuring is ensuring that the business that we have…. I go by that adage, when my grandfather ran his sporting goods store in Chilliwack, that the customer that you have is always better. The businesses that we have are the ones that we should be focused on the most, if we are going to give tax incentives or be able to give them a way of keeping their doors open. Those have to come first.

I worry that what we are now going down the path of is setting up a Crown corporation which, quite frankly, in the overall investment world, is going to be underfunded. It’s going to be in direct competition with investment pools that are out there waiting now. We should be looking at how competitive we are as a province.

If we want to, for instance, encourage the green economy and green ideas, I believe that we could put tax incentives in there now that would immediately have money the second after the ink is dry. It would grow our investments now. Investment pools and investment funds and headhunters are looking for businesses — and the areas in those businesses — that they can invest in that there would be tax advantages.

Rather than it take time for a Crown corporation to be built up…. My understanding is that at the earliest, we are looking at the spring of 2022, whereas what we need are jobs and investments now. That’s almost a year away.

[1:50 p.m.]

How that’s going to benefit anyone today, tomorrow, when it’s a year away…. I think that it’s a mistake. In addition to that, I don’t believe that it is government’s job or position to actually be picking what companies should benefit and what companies should not.

I know that my member in Abbotsford pointed out that in Abbotsford we have a number of businesses around the airport that are on leading edges of technology, leading edges of combatting forest fires, leading edges of aerospace technology. Which one do we pick and which one do we not?

It’s not government’s place to invest in individual companies. I don’t think that it is wise, on behalf of the taxpayers, especially with start-up companies, because most start-up companies are not successful. That’s one of the reasons why I don’t believe that government should be involved in this. How many losers do you pick before you get that one winner? Unfortunately, most start-up companies are not successful within the first ten years. Maybe one out of 100 will survive, if not less.

I think what we could do that would be probably more advantageous and unleash, as I was saying, billions of dollars is to make sure we’re competitive with regards to how we set the playing field for people to invest in British Columbia.

I think there are ways that we could actually funnel money into the research departments of universities. I know of one company, in particular, that has invested money in not only UBC but also SFU, with a corporation that they were trying to get up off the ground that, as I was saying, was involved in green technology. I eagerly anticipate where they’re going to end up.

If we take a look at our neighbours directly to the south in Washington state, those that have money now, looking for investments, would pick Washington state to invest their money in over British Columbia because of the tax advantages that they have.

If we choose to, out of a social conscience, decide that we want to encourage the green economy, there are ways now that we could use some of the investment tools that we have and sharpen our pencil a little bit in those areas and give those companies and those investors an advantage. There’s pooled up, pent-up money waiting right now, where people want do the right thing. I think better leadership would be by opening that up to all and not restricting it to a few. Let the market figure out which are the ones that are going to survive and which are the ones that are not.

I think when government goes down into this road, it’s a slippery slope. I think it’s wrought with peril. Just managing the bureaucracy and management of a new Crown corp in and of itself reduces money that could be going into some of these start-up companies, as I was mentioning.

While I support the concept, I can’t support the way this is being executed, because I do not believe that it is government’s place to pick winners and losers, to pick those companies that they decide on, based on whatever ideology at the time. I’m not so sure it matters who’s in power at this point. I just do not believe that a Crown corp should be the one that is picking this.

[1:55 p.m.]

The other thing is that some of these…. My understanding is that these corporations don’t even necessarily have to be profitable. That’s alarming — with the taxpayers’ dollars. Then there is the time delay, as I mentioned. And there’s also…. Let’s, for instance, take the technology fund. Now, there is a sector that is key to British Columbia’s jobs plan. It’s actually growing faster than the overall economy on its whole, in its entirety. The B.C. tech fund was a $100 million venture capital fund.

I struggle with the transparency of this. When we were asked about the transparency of it and how it would be set up, we were told: “Well, that’s the privilege of cabinet.” I find that troubling. I think that we are duplicating those in that sector, again, and government is setting up a competing investment fund that already exists. I don’t believe that that necessarily has to be done. The talent already exists out there. What they are looking for is incentive to come to British Columbia. That incentive can be utilized by dangling a carrot of tax incentives. Let’s make British Columbia the most tax-advantaged place in Canada or North America so that companies will be tripping over themselves to invest money in British Columbia.

There are tools that we could use to make this where British Columbia becomes the centre of excellence for green technology. It would be a much better tool, because instead of limiting it to $500 million, we could be surprised and find trillions of dollars come our way if we set up the right incentive. I know that I heard that there was talk of Ireland, for instance. Well, Ireland has some of the lowest taxation rates for corporations in the world — as opposed to where we are, which we’re nowhere near. There’s room for improvement.

I just am at a loss as to why government would want to set up a Crown corporation when, in fact, all they would have to do is just change some legislative rules with regards to taxation, and all of a sudden, money would be coming out of the woodwork to invest in companies here in British Columbia that want to start up in British Columbia and want to succeed in British Columbia.

You know, I am brought to mind when I took a trip to Kelowna that here’s an example of how the province has participated and continues to participate in Kelowna, where there was a combination of education, investment and helping tech sector jobs perfect what they were doing, perfect their pitch, perfect their ideas. They were given a helping hand and then were brought in front of angel investors so that they could get their tech sector jobs off the ground. I think that is a much better way than what this Crown corporation does.

[2:00 p.m.]

I can see down the future, where this Crown corporation will be underneath the scrutiny and actually will become an embarrassment, I hate to say, because of the amount of money that will be lost. In addition to which, if you take a look at what the return on investment is, most in that sector would say that they need a return on investment of about 16 percent. This is way less than that. It’s set up for failure already.

I, again, go back to…. You’re better off to keep the customer you have than you are to go try and find new ones and ignore your current customers. Our small businesses are our current customer. They’re the ones that pay us taxes. That’s our tax base. If you want to look at it, that’s the profit government gets. It’s off of the tax base of the existing business that we have.

Those are the businesses that we want to help right now get through this pandemic. Those are where the current jobs are. These are our friends and neighbours and small businesses — the vast majority of businesses in British Columbia.

It is worth noting that a dollar in a small business has the impact of about six times that in a larger corporation in your local economy, because those profits are reinvested and spent generally in that local economy. So you want to nurture those small businesses.

Currently, right now, they’re in a bit of a drought. They could do with a little bit of help. If we were going to spend money, I would suggest that we spend a lot more towards our local small businesses than in setting up a new Crown corp.

I guess it’s worth noting that currently, from what I’ve read, it’s like one in seven small businesses are at the risk of closing their doors for good. The problem when a small business closes its front doors is that it generally loses the doors that they live in as well.

My family went through that back in the late ’70s. My father had a business, and due to the high interest rates of 21 and 22 percent at the time, he was forced to liquidate the stock that he had and close his business. The devastation resulted in my parents divorcing because of the financial pressures. The place that we lived in had to be liquidated. It was devastating. It didn’t just happen to my family. It happened to a number of families that I knew at the time. That’s currently what we’re going through.

If we want to talk about helping people currently, who are on the brink of losing everything, that’s where our efforts should be put, not in a new idea that is wrought with peril because it is not set up according to experts — and according to my opinion, not set up correctly. There are tons of small businesses out there where families are going to be in upheaval, because not only will they lose their source of income, but they will most likely lose everything they have. I speak from experience on that. My brother and I lived through it. We watched it.

If we’re going to spend some money, I believe that’s where you want to invest. Save families from having to go through what my family went through and what some of my friends’ families went through. There were a number of us. It all kind of happened to us at the same time.

These are incredibly dangerous waters, I believe, for the government to get into. I think it would be much safer and wiser to create some tax incentives and actually have more investment than the half a billion dollars that we’re talking about here.

[2:05 p.m.]

Like I said, I applaud the effort. I applaud the idea. I just think, at the end of the day, that it’s going to be an experiment — an expensive experiment — on taxpayers’ dollars that is not going to work out well. I think that it will become bureaucratic in nature, because that is the very nature of government itself. I think that it will not be as transparent as some of us have been led to believe it will, because that is the very nature of Crown corps. It is the very nature of government, because now our reputations rely on it doing well.

I think that, in addition to that, there are way better uses we could put our money, our hard-earned tax dollars towards. Currently, we have a shortage of skilled workers to take on some of these jobs that are out there. When I look at most corporations that I talk to — I’ll talk about the aerospace technology, because it’s in my riding — they have to import those skilled technicians, generally, from other areas of the world.

I’m happy to have them, but we should be producing those jobs here at home. If we’re going to invest these kinds of dollars, we should be investing them in our children’s future, giving them the skills and the tools that they need to take on some of these high-skilled jobs that are out there that we can’t fill.

I would love to support this particular initiative, but I can’t. I can’t, because in my heart, I know it is not the job of government to pick what individual business it is. This used to come before council all the time. It was one of the hallmarks that government cannot give a business a competitive advantage — a particular business.

We could, however, open this up, and it would be bigger and bolder and brighter than this particular idea, because the investment dollars would come into British Columbia in waves. There are people that are looking for places right now to invest their money. All we have to do is give them the right tax incentives to be able to do it.

I would encourage this government to retract this and rethink it. I know that they won’t, because they have us outvoted and outnumbered, but this will come back to haunt the NDP like the fast cat ferries did. Trust me. This will be a boondoggle, an absolute boondoggle of taxpayer proportions. Part of me says: “Hey, go ahead and do it at your own peril, because you’re going to be having to face the music on this one down the road.” It’s not well-thought-out. Heart is in the right place; it’s just, I feel, going to end in absolute, utter disaster. There are much better vehicles that we have in our back pocket now that would open up money the day after they’re signed.

I encourage members of this House to draw away from party lines and turn this particular one down. I think it’s going to come back to haunt this government in a big way.

Anyway, with that, Mr. Speaker, I will thank you for allowing me to say a few things on this. I, once again, would encourage my fellow MLAs to think long and hard on this one. I worry that this is not the best way to use hard-earned tax dollars. There are so many other, better ways that we could put that money to work immediately, especially when one takes a look at this budget. Those dollars could help existing businesses in a much better way than this ever will.

Deputy Speaker: Members participating remotely, just another reminder. Electronic communication devices should not be used while you’re in the House, and you’re in the House right now. Please turn off your cameras if you plan on using your electronic devices for communication. Thank you.

[2:10 p.m.]

T. Halford: I rise to speak on Bill 5 today, the InBC Investment Corp. Act. I think it’s important we also realize, too, that in this time right now, thousands of businesses, small and large, are struggling in this province. What worries me is that, particularly with an NDP government, when NDP governments get into business, they become big business, big business becomes small business, and small business goes out of business. I’ve said that before, but I fundamentally believe it to be true.

We are looking at an investment by this government of half a billion dollars, as my colleague from Abbotsford South pointed out. Now, half a billion dollars, at a time when this government in the latest budget is touting a $500 million investment into mental health and addictions…. I really do struggle to see how an investment of that size — how it could be so important to help another investment and other ministries in this government. We’re talking about half a billion dollars.

Now, this government likes to say it’s government-funded. I think we need to correct the record on that. It’s taxpayer-funded. They are taxpayer dollars. I think when taxpayers put their hard-earned dollars toward government initiatives, such as what we’re talking about here on Bill 5, they expect some form of return in that investment. I am troubled, because I think that this investment, this particular investment, is flawed.

Now, this pandemic has been like no other that we’ve ever experienced in our lifetime. Lives have been lost. Businesses have been lost — many businesses. There is not an MLA in this House that cannot tell multiple stories of small businesses going out of business in their ridings. That is a very, very sad characterization of where we are. I don’t think any part of our country, any part of North America or this world, is immune to that in these times. But we have to look at us as a collective group. We have to ask government: what are we doing in the moment to help businesses absorb that pain? I don’t think that this piece of legislation addresses that.

I think in the long term, as my colleague from Abbotsford South pointed out, it could actually hurt. I think it will definitely hurt the taxpayers of B.C. I think when we can do things with money that this government is putting towards this program…. I see government getting larger, and I see businesses in B.C. getting smaller. I don’t accept that.

When you look at the support that this would give businesses, none of it is immediate. We’re talking about investments that are a year away. A lot of the businesses in our ridings don’t have a year. They don’t have months. Some of them don’t have weeks.

I know that in my riding of Surrey–White Rock, White Rock city council, actually, met yesterday to find ways that they could keep struggling businesses, particularly those on Marine Drive, afloat over the next few months. They’re trying to find those strategies in real time, and they’re making those investments. They made one yesterday, where it’s going to be one-way traffic down Marine Drive so they can expand patio space. They’re going to probably absorb about, maybe, a $100,000 hit because of different barriers they’ve got to put up and make sure that emergency vehicles can get down and everyone back.

Those are areas where we need to be helping. I know that this government has talked about the economic recovery benefit and the circuit breaker — those things. I think we need to pause for a moment.

[2:15 p.m.]

The other thing that gives me a little bit of indigestion is the fact that since this government has come back with a majority, it hasn’t been smooth. In fact, it’s been pretty rough. Everything that this government has tried to roll out has stumbled. You know, that’s not my opinion. Those are facts. When we look at the Premier’s promised $500 to $1,000 rebate, well, that didn’t roll out properly. People didn’t get the money when they were promised.

Why I’m equating…. People are probably wondering why I’m talking about things in the past. But it’s important, because we’re talking about a bill here coming in the very near future, and we’re talking about this government’s track record in terms of how they roll out programs. It’s not a good track record. In fact, it’s a track record in failure.

When we’re talking about the circuit breaker…. We talked about those months where businesses were dying. They were just holding on. They were trying to make payroll. People were dipping into their RRSPs, their life savings, their pensions, just to make payroll, to make sure people had food on the table, that they could meet a mortgage or a rent payment. And government got in the way. “We’re going to give you money, but we’re going to make sure that you…. We want to see everything.” Then when we gave them everything, it was: “Yeah, that’s not good enough. We want to see some more.”

There are countless examples after examples. I know that this government wants to hit the mark. I do. I don’t question that at all, but I think that we realize that this government has continued to miss the mark since they’ve come back from the election. I don’t know if that’s because they’ve taken their eye off of what’s important. I don’t know if it’s because they don’t support business. I believe that they do ultimately want to support business, but I just don’t think they know how.

When we look at a half-a-billion-dollar investment, what are British Columbians really getting for this, besides a big bill? When we say it’s going to be independent, and it will not have government interference…. It’s going to be run by an independent board. Really? Who’s on the board? If we look at that, I think everybody in this House will agree that when the name Carole James comes up, we think about a very, very special person that gave so much to British Columbia. But she’s a former NDP Finance Minister and a former leader of this party. We have two deputy ministers, who at the end of the day are accountable to the Premier’s office. We have a special advisor to the Jobs Minister. And we have an economist from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Now, I think that we’re being a little loose with the term independent. I think that when we talk about independent, I’m not sure that that meets the strength test. I’m not sure British Columbians would call that independent.

Now, I know a lot of the people on that list, and they’re good people. A lot of them have served this province well. I don’t mean these comments to diminish any of that, but if you’re going to label something independent, make it independent. But what we’re seeing here is clearly not that. I really do believe that when we are looking at different things on how to help, this doesn’t hit the mark.

When we look at things where we want to encourage investment in British Columbia, some of the best things to do are, kind of, get out of the way. Make sure that we understand, make sure that people understand that when they’re investing in British Columbia, they’re investing in a place that will support them, that will not gouge them, that will not surprise them, that will not take advantage of them. Because if you’re investing in British Columbia, as a small business or a large business, I think one of the things you want from a government is certainty.

[2:20 p.m.]

There’s not a lot of certainty here because this government continues to change the goalposts. We cannot attract investments when we’re seeing the markers moved continuously by this government.

We’ve seen that over the last couple of months since this government has come back. Now, I get it. Sometimes you let your foot off the gas. You take your eyes away. I think what we’re seeing right now is a government that is scrambling, because we are seeing small business scramble. We are seeing big business scramble. We are seeing layoffs. We are seeing a government that is struggling to provide for British Columbians when they need it the most.

When we talk about $500 million — think of that mon­ey. Now, I have a colleague from Cariboo North who has made impassioned, emotional pleas for her constituents in terms of the dire transportation needs they have in their riding. We’ve seen the pictures. We’ve seen the news. We’ve seen the deplorable conditions that many of these roads are in. Heard crickets from the government on this issue. But what we’re talking about is a $500 million investment that will pick winners and losers. There will be more losers than winners, and ultimately, I’m scared that the taxpayer is going to be the biggest loser in this.

When we’re talking about the prioritization of money for government…. When this government says, “We are making the single biggest investment in mental health and addictions,” which by the way…. The lowest investment in those three years is this year, where we are seeing record-setting numbers of deaths that are happening at a very tragic rate.

When my colleague from Cariboo North has to go out and plead for support from this government to get the infrastructure upgrades she needs for her residents and the other communities around, I’m going to look at a $500 million investment with some pretty judgmental eyes. I think we all need to do that.

I think we all need to realize that when government gets involved in business, a few red flags go up. When we are looking at how we are going to pick winners and losers…. Again, I fear that when we are picking winners, there are always people that are going to be unsuccessful. How are we supporting them? How is this government going to support them? What’s the consolation prize?

We want to be open for investment in B.C., not closed. But when we continue to nickel and dime small business and big business, when we continue to surprise employers and employees with added additional costs, which this government has done continuously since it came back, I think we need to realize that maybe this fund isn’t where we need to go.

I think the fact is that we had to load something up and call it, dress it up as, independent, and it is anything far from independent. You know, when you read the list, it can almost look like a riding association meeting for the NDP. Nothing to me says independent about that. We’re talking about $500 million. We talked about a program today to provide kids with produce and veggies and milk. They’re not getting their money, but we’re about to spend $500 million.

With that, I will end my comments, but I will end them by saying that I think we need to do better than what’s in front of us today.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, would the minister like to close debate?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate all the comments. I think there are a few comments in particular that I do want to respond to, and to start off by saying that we’re proud here in British Columbia.

We have had the highest per capita supports for people and businesses in the entire country. That’s why we’re proud to lead the country in jobs recovery, even in the middle of a pandemic. Third wave, and we’re at 99.1 percent of pre-pandemic job levels — 99.1 percent. That’s because of the supports we put in, a historic amount of supports. Many of the supports, we worked on with the business community.

Some of the members talked about: “Oh, well, the taxes are high in British Columbia. No businesses want to come here.” Shopify just announced that they’re announcing hundreds of new jobs here. Microsoft announced 500 new jobs here. Best Buy is moving their headquarters from Ontario to British Columbia. Apple has announced that they’re moving a brand-new centre here. Mastercard is moving one of their new technology centres here, in British Columbia. That’s just the tech sector.

We continue to see historic investments. They see a government in British Columbia that has got a steady hand on the wheel, that is doing the best they can to manage a pandemic, letting the health experts lead and putting in the supports that are needed to ensure that the public is safe and that businesses can survive. The member for White Rock, who just talked about how hard it is for businesses, knows that businesses in his community have seen the benefits of the grants that he talked about.

I do want to touch on a lot of the comments that have been made by the members of the opposition around winners and losers. Well, they chose winners and losers. Winners were donors. People who donated to them were winners when they were in government. Donors to their party were getting contracts. Donors to their party were getting inside information about legislation and laws that were coming before developers were. It’s all on the record.

Here we’re going to see an investment that is lauded — overwhelmingly popular with the business community. The member from Abbotsford said: “Oh, well, experts are telling us….” They haven’t named a single expert that’s told them anything. It’s just rhetoric. There are no real people. There are no real facts. They’re using an article from the local paper and just recycling it in their words. I certainly hope that they’re paying at least a quarter to the journalist who wrote that article for every time they use his words to fill some time on this debate. We’re proud of these investments — this investment in particular.

One other claim that’s been made on this call many times is that government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers. I think that perhaps the newer members may not be aware, but the members who have been in government, and certainly those who have been ministers, know that governments help de-risk projects for the private sector all the time. This is not a new thing.

In fact, when tax credits started for drilling and the oil and gas industry, it was to help de-risk, at that time, the new technologies that were coming on board. Governments have been putting up money to help the business community, the private sector, de-risk on new initiatives all the time. What we’re doing with this fund is, yes, saying, “Fine, we’ll support businesses,” and that. But we want to ensure that the public sees some benefit from those investments.

That’s what is fundamentally happening here. It’s not brand-new. It’s just something that has been done, as was mentioned, in Ireland. The member from Abbotsford said: “Oh, Ireland has got the lowest taxes in Europe.” Well, Denmark is actually the leader in this fund, and they have the highest taxes.

By the way, many of the business community experts we use do talk about how Denmark is doing the right thing. When we ask them, “How is it that they’re doing that with high taxes?” they don’t really have an answer for that.

I think that hearing, certainly, not all the members of the opposition…. Many of them remind me that they’re still living in yesterday — very much in yesterday’s party. They’re not thinking about where the future is. That’s what we’re trying to do here, with this fund. We’re looking at the future opportunities ahead of us.

[2:30 p.m.]

The hon. opposition critic for this file had some good points. I really appreciated his comments and look forward to talking to him further about this. He talked about strings attached. ESG and the triple bottom line are not strings attached. Those are values of British Columbians. When we invest and when we support businesses, we want to know that our values are being reflected in the outcomes of whatever that investment is.

When we say planet, people and profit, those are not strings. If they feel that way, then I pray for the province that they don’t get an opportunity to run this province again. If they think that putting the planet and people in the main agenda for a fund is strings attached, they’ve got bigger problems, if that’s the case.

There are a few things that I wanted to share on the record. First, I’ll talk about the independence of decision-making. Now, if you look at the bill…. I know many have. I certainly know my opposition critic went through the bill. But many others were not talking about the bill, because if they had looked at the bill, they would see that in the legislation, it says that the chief investment officer is not to get any direction from government or even the board.

The chair, the board members can’t go walk over to the chief investment officer and say: “Hey, guess what. I’ve got a company I think you should invest in.” They can’t do that. That’s why it’s in legislation. So when the opposition talks about how, well, they created a great fund, and it was called the B.C. tech fund…. There were no answers, to the B.C. tech fund, to where the money was going. In fact, the current Attorney General had lots of questions about where that money was going, and we could never get answers.

Now every year there will be a public report made in front of the Legislature so all members can see where investments are being made. Every five years an independent audit will be done so the public can see where investments are being made. You know, perhaps the members…. Certainly what the last few speakers from the opposition don’t know is that there is a need for patient capital in the market. This is not something that just came up.

What I’d like to do is to read through some of the stakeholders who have said that this is needed. We’ve got Tessa Seager, who’s the director of government affairs for the Council of Canadian Innovators.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

She said: “Access to strategic capital is a key ingredient in any company’s scale-up journey. CCI applauds the government’s new strategic investment fund and looks forward to working with InBC to ensure investments benefit our homegrown high-growth firms.”

Jill Earthy, CEO of Women’s Enterprise, says: “We are thrilled to see you launch InBC, which will support the scaling of small and medium-sized businesses across B.C., with a focus on diversity and impact. We look forward to economic recovery. It will be essential to build on the entrepreneurial strengths of our province.”

Sue Paish, who many members may know is the CEO of Canada’s Digital Technology Supercluster, said: “Supporting high-potential small and medium-sized business across the province will create jobs, drive innovation and accelerate B.C.’s economic growth, with a sustainable and inclusive economy that will benefit British Columbians across the province.”

Virginia Balcom, executive director of SFU Venture­Labs, said: “InBC is the support that high-growth businesses need to tackle solutions to some of the world’s most pressing problems. SFU VentureLabs is excited for this new fund and looks forward to helping B.C.’s growth companies be ready to use B.C. funds to fuel their ideas, scale their businesses and drive economic and social benefits.”

Members should get comfortable, because I’ve got a few pages of these.

Krista Mallory, manager at Central Okanagan Economic Development Commission, regional district of Cen­tral Okanagan, for the member from Kelowna who said: “Why is this even needed?” I listened to the debate. She said: “Why is this even needed? This is not needed.” She says: “InBC is the support that businesses need to grow and create jobs all across British Columbia. We’re excited to see the province launch this new strategic investment fund for British Columbia.” Central Okanagan Economic Development Commission — the ones she referred to when she said: “I worked with them, and they said this was not needed.” Perhaps she should reach out more to those in her community.

Kari LaMotte, managing director of Entrepreneurship@UBC says: “The InBC fund will fill a critical gap in our B.C. innovation pipeline, deploying strong early grant capital with follow-on investment capital. British Columbia could see a greater impact not only on economic recovery but overall retention of capital, talent and IP.”

[2:35 p.m.]

Jeanette Jackson, CEO, Foresight: “Raising capital is a key challenge for clean tech ventures. InBC is the support businesses need to anchor and scale in British Columbia, creating green jobs and accelerating the adoption of clean tech innovations needed to address urgent climate goals.”

Bentley Allan, associate director of Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions, says: “We need an investment vehicle like InBC to help companies take advantage of economic opportunities. It has the potential to help build low-carbon industries and play an essential role in the success of low-carbon innovation here in British Columbia.”

Jeff Ward, who is a founder of a company here in British Columbia, says: “The first-of-its-kind investment into InBC is not only focused on job creation and accelerating businesses, but it puts emphasis on positive social impacts through B.C. innovative businesses. I’m excited to see how it’ll work with Indigenous businesses that can support and accelerate through InBC.” Jeff is an Indigenous owner of a business here in British Columbia.

Bridgitte Anderson, maybe familiar to some of the members on the other side, who is the president and CEO of the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, said: “This significant investment in InBC funds provides the opportunity to up our game, anchor businesses and IP in British Columbia and increase productivity and competitiveness.”

Stephanie Andrew, founding partner of the Women’s Equity Lab and Capital Investment Network, says: “We’re happy to have InBC provide additional capital for investments, capitalizing promising companies so they can compete on the world stage and reach new milestones, valuations and exits.”

Karimah Es Sabar, CEO and partner of Quark Venture, said: “I am delighted to see B.C. establish a new invest­ment corp. to support innovative technology companies through strategic investments, building on the federal STEP program.”

Anita Huberman, CEO of the Surrey Board of Trade, says: “Surrey Board of Trade looks forward to working with the B.C. government on strategic investment fund InBC, because as Surrey becomes the largest city in B.C. by 2030, we need to capitalize on the economic development initiatives of industry growth.”

Hans Knapp, Yaletown Partners Inc. partner, said: “We’re particularly excited to see the province launch this new strategic investment fund for B.C. businesses, as we believe it will attract investment capital from outside of B.C., thereby multiplying positive economic impacts.”

Paul Geyer, Nimbus Synergies Inc.: “The InBC fund would be a game-changer for B.C. companies requiring growth capital. Currently there are very few local funds providing this type of capital in B.C., and a new fund will definitely help B.C. companies grow and scale internationally.”

Kim Furlong, CEO of CVCA, says: “British Columbia is one of the top three destinations for private capital in Canada today. The creation of InBC is a recognition of the incredible high potential of the province and the government of B.C.’s commitment to provide innovative companies access to capital needed to grow and prosper.”

Paul Lee, managing director of Vanedge Capital: “We’re thrilled to see the launch of this important initiative to grow the innovation ecosystem here in B.C. InBC is crucial to the future prosperity and well-being of B.C. and all British Columbians.”

Sam Mod, CEO of FreshWorks Studio in Victoria: “InBC is a bold and entrepreneurial initiative from the government, and we’re thrilled to see the province launch this new strategic investment fund for B.C. businesses.”

Stephen Nairne, chief investment officer of Raven Indigenous Capital Partners, says: “InBC is a support that businesses needed to grow and create jobs in British Columbia. We’re thrilled to see the province’s commitment to supporting local entrepreneurs through the launch of this new purpose-driven investment vehicle for B.C. businesses.”

Blair Miller says: “We’re excited to see the province’s InBC for B.C. businesses. We look forward to partnering with the government of B.C. through our Telus pollinator fund for good to invest in companies that will drive economic rejuvenation and have a lasting social impact.” That’s Blair Miller, managing partner of pollinator fund for good, with Telus.

Jerome Etwaroo, associate director of Coast Capital Innovation Centre at UVic: “The University of Victoria start-up incubator works closely with students, faculty, alumni and community partners to turn ideas and vital research into useable solutions that impact our communities. InBC is a critical investment to accelerate growth of B.C. start-up companies.”

Fiona Famulak, who’s the president and CEO of B.C. Chamber of Commerce: “The launch of InBC is a win for B.C. that will help attract investment and move us towards a clean post-pandemic economy, while creating jobs, anchoring talent and leveraging technology.”

[2:40 p.m.]

Kim Baird, chancellor of Kwantlen Polytechnic Univer­sity and a member of the Indigenous Business and Investment Council, says: “The government of B.C. has such an important role to support economic development. The creation of InBC Investment Corp. will allow our province and businesses to grow wealth together.”

Paulina Cameron, who is a CEO and a CPA, says: “We’re excited to see the province launch InBC for businesses and look forward to work with InBC to ensure women entrepreneurs have equal access to its resources.”

Hon. Speaker, I’ve got another five pages, but I’ll save all of the quotes for everyone. If they want to read them, feel free to reach out. If they would like to hear more, I’m certainly happy to share that in committee stage.

In closing, I’ll just say that we’re proud of this fund. I’ve heard a couple of members talk about the board members of InBC. In particular, highlighting that there are two deputy ministers on the board. Deputy ministers serve the people of British Columbia. They serve the people of British Columbia.

One of the deputy ministers that’s on it was the associate deputy minister for Premier Christy Clark. The other one served the B.C. government as well. To suggest that they’re insiders of some kind, when they were actually deputy ministers under the B.C. Liberal government for 16 years, served the public in a good, faithful way…. So discouraging to hear the members opposite talk about that about our public servants. People should know better.

These are people who have worked tirelessly throughout this COVID pandemic to ensure that we have the supports and infrastructure that people need. People should be ashamed for referring to them in that way.

Now, with that — before I get too fired up — I’ll say that we’re proud of this fund. This fund is game-changing. I didn’t even talk about the B.C. Business Council. I didn’t even talk about BDC Capital, who is excited about this. I didn’t even mention that there are capital funds from all over the world that are reaching out to us right now saying: “How do we partner with you?”

Singapore wealth fund, Ireland strategic investment fund, the Scottish bank — all of them that invest outside of B.C. are saying: “How can we partner with you?” Not only $500 million, but how do we turn that $500 million into $1 billion, a billion and a half, by having other funds fund with us? These are the opportunities we have in British Columbia.

I know some members have indicated they will not support this. But I certainly hope some of the thoughtful ones do, because I think they understand what this means for our economy and for our future economy.

With that, I will move that this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

An Hon. Member: Division.

Deputy Speaker: Division has been called. Of course, pursuant to the sessional orders, that vote will take place 30 minutes prior to adjournment tonight, which is around 6 p.m.

Thank you, Members.

Thank you, Minister.

Hon. S. Robinson: I call Bill 4 for second reading.

BILL 4 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2021

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 4, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2021, be now read a second time.

As we look with great anticipation towards the finish line in this pandemic, Budget 2021 sets British Columbia up for the stronger times that are, indeed, ahead. Bill 4, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2021, works to implement critical aspects of Budget 2021. It amends 22 statutes.

Bill 4 amends the Carbon Tax Act to give legislative effect to our government’s decision to put a one-year pause on the increase in the carbon tax rates. This was a difficult decision, because our government understands that putting a price on carbon is one of the most effective ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But we also understood what moving from a $40-per-tonne rate to a $45-per-tonne rate would have meant for businesses and families, just as the pandemic hit.

Delaying the move to a $45-per-tonne rate to this April will reduce carbon tax revenues by an estimated $445 million over two years and produce savings for families and businesses as we continue to work through the pandemic.

[2:45 p.m.]

Bill 4 adds the increased employment incentive provisions to the Employer Health Tax Act. This increased employment incentive is a one-time, refundable tax credit to encourage hiring in the fall of 2020. The credit is worth up to 15 percent of the increase in payroll in the fourth quarter of 2020, compared to the third quarter of 2020. The credit is focused on helping employers in B.C. and has provided much-needed support to ensure that B.C. employment is stronger than it would have been otherwise. The proposed legislation outlines which employers are eligible for the credit and the remuneration that can be used to calculate the amount of the credit.

Bill 4 also adds the B.C. recovery benefit provisions to the Income Tax Act. The B.C. recovery benefit is a tax-free payment of up to $1,000 for families and single parents and up to $500 for individuals, and forms part of the B.C. government’s ongoing pandemic relief. Additional provisions are included to accommodate individuals on social assistance to ensure that they also receive the B.C. recovery benefit. Through this important program, we’ve been able to rapidly get more than $1.3 billion in pandemic relief into the hands of British Columbia families.

Bill 4 also amends the Income Tax Act to allow for repayment relief under the emergency benefit for workers. This will allow us to provide repayment relief to self-employed British Columbians in a way that parallels federal repayment relief for Canada emergency response benefit recipients. As announced on March 10, 2021, the bill amends the Income Tax Act to extend the book publishing tax credit for five years, to March 31, 2026. This tax credit continues to support B.C. book publishers, an industry with a predominantly female workforce.

As part of our COVID-19 supports, the bill amends the Income Tax Act to extend the deadline to file tax credits to the earlier of December 31, 2020, and six months from the original filing deadline for the book publishing tax credit, the film tax credits, the interactive digital media tax credit, the mining exploration tax credit, the scientific research and experimental development tax credit and training tax credits. This bill also proposes other minor technical amendments to the Income Tax Act to ensure that certain B.C. tax programs continue unaffected, despite changes to the federal Income Tax Act.

The bill also amends the Hydro and Power Authority Act to clarify that the Employer Health Tax Act applies to B.C. Hydro. The amendment is effective retroactive to January 1, 2019.

Bill 4 also provides the authority to enable various provincial sales tax measures that will be completed by regulation. The first is a COVID relief measure that temporarily expands the PST exemption for new residents’ effects.

The other PST regulation authorized through Bill 4, exempting e-bikes from the PST, fulfils a key mandate commitment and contributes to both CleanBC and our government’s 2019 active transportation strategy, “Move, Commute, Connect.” Exempting e-bikes from the PST will accelerate e-bike adoption, reduce car trips and get people outside and active, whether it’s through biking to work, running errands, or perhaps even dropping kids off at school or at soccer practice by e-bike.

The Provincial Sales Tax Act is also amended to address the so-called grey market for vehicles described in Peter German’s report on money laundering. This measure, announced in Budget 2021, will make it tougher to participate in this grey market.

Additionally, various technical amendments related to the Provincial Sales Tax Act are made for clarity, consistency and to make minor changes consequential to previous amendments.

Bill 4 amends the Motor Fuel Tax Act to expand the definition of “person with disabilities.” This definition is used to establish eligibility for a fuel tax refund program that returns up to $500 per calendar year to people whose circumstances may make them more reliant on personal vehicles for transportation.

There are two aspects to this expansion. First, the definition will now include people who live on reserve lands and who receive disability assistance from the government of Canada under a program generally equivalent to B.C.’s own disability assistance program. Second, we’re removing part of the test that applies to members of Her Majesty’s Forces.

[2:50 p.m.]

Under the long-standing rule, the statute specified that members of Her Majesty’s Forces qualified for our fuel tax refund program if their pension was the result of active service in a war. Through Bill 4, the statute will now recognize that our armed forces members, to whom we owe a great debt of gratitude, qualify for the fuel tax refund program if their pension relates to any form of service.

Bill 4 amends the Tobacco Tax Act, as well, to increase tax rates for cigarettes, heated tobacco products and loose tobacco. When these changes take effect on July 1, cigarettes and heated tobacco products will be taxed at 32.5 cents each. Other forms of tobacco that are taxed by weight will be taxed at 65 cents per gram.

Our government’s hope is that responsible tobacco taxation will discourage tobacco consumption in British Columbia and ultimately prolong the lives of current smokers and those around them. Following budget day, we heard congratulations from the Heart and Stroke Foundation, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada and the Canadian Cancer Society, with the latter pointing to tobacco taxation as “a win for cancer prevention” and “the most effective way to reduce youth smoking.”

Various amendments related to the Speculation and Va­cancy Tax Act are made as well. These include an amendment to exclude an individual whose beneficial interests in a property are contingent on the death of another individual from the definition of “beneficial owner,” an amendment to expand the exemption for registered charities to the trustees of the registered charity, an update to the new numbered line used to report total income in the federal income tax and benefit return form and an amendment to clarify that an assessment may be made on any day within the defined period of time.

The bill amends the Assessment Act to expand the op­tions for B.C. Assessment and its clients to use electronic delivery of notices and reports. This change will improve service delivery for clients who choose electronic delivery and help maintain B.C. Assessment’s own source revenues while continuing to meet the highest privacy standards. Minor amendments to the Vancouver Charter ensure consistency with the amendments to the Assessment Act made by this bill.

In addition, the Ports Property Tax Act is amended to add the district of Stewart to the list of municipalities which receive annual compensation from the province under the ports competitive initiative. Stewart World Port was added by regulation as a designated port under the act beginning with the 2021 tax year.

The Property Transfer Tax Act is amended to limit arbitration to situations where the dispute relates to the fair market value of a property. In addition, the Police Act reference to current-year policing costs is replaced with a reference to the previous year’s policing costs. This timing change will allow calculation of police tax rates earlier in the tax year.

The bill amends the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act to end the annual allocation of amounts to the British Columbia training and education savings program special account after the 2020 calendar year. After operating the program since 2014, it has now become apparent that the annual transfers have resulted in an overallocation of funds to the special account. There is a current balance of over $500 million in the account, and that amount can support eligible B.C. recipients for an additional ten years before any additional contribution to the account is required. This amendment will ensure that the balance of the special account better reflects the costs of the program.

When a child in B.C. turns six years old, they are eligible to apply for a $1,200 registered education savings plan grant, which is paid to applicants out of the special ac­count. Program eligibility and payments to qualified recipients are not impacted by this proposed amendment.

Finally, Bill 4 amends various statutes for two purposes. First, to allow parties to appeal a tax decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia without having to first obtain leave of a justice of a Court of Appeal, the following statutes are amended to harmonize appeal procedures with the Court of Appeal Act. That’s the Carbon Tax Act, Employer Health Tax Act, Forest Act, Income Tax Act, Insurance Premium Tax Act, International Business Activity Act, Logging Tax Act, Mineral Tax Act, Motor Fuel Tax Act, Property Transfer Tax Act, Provincial Sales Tax Act, Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act and Tobacco Tax Act.

Second, to improve the flow of information used to inform and evaluate fiscal policy, the following statutes are amended: the Carbon Tax Act, the Home Owner Grant Act, the Insurance Premium Tax Act, Land Tax Deferment Act, Logging Tax Act, Motor Fuel Tax Act, Property Transfer Tax Act, Provincial Sales Tax Act and Taxation (Rural Area) Act.

[2:55 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister for presenting this bill. Of course, typically, this bill is technical in nature. In past years, of course, any time a budget is presented, there are the technical components of a bill that need to be put forward any time there are changes.

I do find it interesting…. Let me just start. I’m just going to make brief comments, because a lot of my comments and questions will come when we get to not only committee stage but during the estimates debate on finance. But I do find it interesting that the minister ended her comments very quickly and, I would argue, brushed over the facts — some of the big complaints that I’ve been hearing. Before I get into the budget components themselves.

The minister just referenced over a half a dozen different acts where there are going to be changes being made around collection of information around fiscal policy, as the minister kind of quickly put it. Let me just explain that a little bit. It will be interesting later on, when we get into information sharing with the minister, on the actual needs for this. But there are quite a few of the sections where changes have been made, and the wording actually is “allows government employees to use the data to create fiscal policy.”

What’s interesting, though, is the government is changing a lot of the acts to gather more information from businesses, from communities, from citizens. You look at the homeowners’ grant — specifically, on that one, some of the debates that we’ve been hearing and concerns that people have of now having to put their social insurance number on the form.

The minister, by her own comments, has said: “Well, this is to gather as much information as we can for the NDP government to create future fiscal policy.” I can tell you, without information on what that means, there are a lot of people that have a lot of concern about this government continually trying to get and gather more personal information for some future reasoning.

When we look at the budget itself, obviously Bill 4 is here because of the budget that was tabled just a few short weeks ago. One of the underlying themes that we’ve seen is hardly any opportunity for revenue generation, other than this government going back to the public trough of taxation. One of the biggest issues that I have and that we’re hearing is the fact that this is going to continually undermine British Columbia when it comes to competitiveness, when it comes to confidence for investment and when it comes to certainty within the province.

When the government continues to highlight, especially in Bill 4 here, the amount of changes that are required around taxation and taxation policy…. I can tell you, as a former business person myself, that that raises the hair on the back of anyone’s neck — when you wonder about what that means for future, what that means for investment, and whether British Columbia is the proper place to be putting any of your capital or investment dollars into the future.

I would hope that all sides of the House want to see British Columbia thrive. But to do that, we have to have a positive, competitive investment climate. That also means giving some certainty and, as I say, confidence that government is going to deliver on the promises that they’ve laid out.

When you look at the last election, or even the one prior to that, the NDP government continues to lay out promises that they’ve been unable to deliver on. Again, that raises the concern for people of: “Which promises do we believe? Which ones should we be trusting?” When the Premier and the ministers stand up and say, every election, “$400 renters rebate,” but it doesn’t happen, well, I guess we’ve given up believing that one. Meanwhile, the government is sitting on $1.1 billion of unallocated funds that could be used right now during the COVID recovery issues.

[3:00 p.m.]

I know I’ve challenged the minister before in government on the fact that they continue to try to make an­nouncements for helping people during this unfortunate pandemic and the crisis that we see ourselves in, in the province. That is why all three parties in the House worked collectively and collaboratively to ensure that there were dollars approved and set aside in order to help people right now in crisis.

Nowhere in the last 18 months do I remember the discussion being: “Don’t worry. We’re going to hold on that money.” I don’t remember us voting on a policy that says: “Let’s approve money for government to sit on.” I was under the impression that everything we’ve discussed so far was to help people, which it hasn’t done to the extent of what government has promised.

Right now we have almost 40,000 people in the private sector who are still unemployed, since the pandemic started. What are we doing to help those people? What are we doing to help communities right now that are struggling? What are we doing to help small businesses and restaurants that are on the brink of bankruptcy? Now, the ministers in the NDP government will try to stand up and say: “Don’t worry. We have all of these policies that we’ve announced, all of these grant application processes that we’ve announced.” But they neglect to say how hard it is for people and for companies to qualify.

That was nowhere in any of the debates or discussions we had that I remember, when all three parties said: “Let’s do what we can to help people. Let’s get the money out the door.” It’s actually a shame that the government still sits on all of that money. Not only during the discussion on this bill around some of the changes that are required but also during the estimates process, I’m hoping that the minister will be able to give factual and non-political answers to why government is actually still sitting on money and why people are still waiting.

I just get very frustrated, on behalf of so many people who have reached out to me as the Finance critic and who are baffled by the lack of response from this government on fulfilling most of their promises. In fact, even some of the areas where government has put in policy changes…. I look at the speculation and vacancy tax, for instance. Well, that, for the most part now, is affecting and hitting mostly B.C. residents.

I have been copied on emails from people who have been, I will say, targeted by something like the speculation and vacancy tax. You know, I’ve got emails. A 90-year-old woman in the Okanagan inherited from her brother, who’d unfortunately passed away, a piece of land on a lake with nothing on it. She now has an $8,000 bill that she has to pay for speculation and vacancy tax. When she tried to challenge that, when she tried to question the minister and the ministry, the email response was: “Well, you could actually develop that land and rent it out, or you can sell it.”

There was no compassion. There was no understanding for what this woman was actually going through — a 90-year-old woman who’d lost her brother and who now has to pay $8,000 for a piece of land she inherited. And the government’s response is: “Well, just sell the land. We know it has been in your family for 75 years. But you know what? We have this new policy.” Somehow, having this land is going to help people who are struggling to find affordable housing right now.

These are exactly some of the flaws that we identified on day one through some of the policy and taxation collection schemes that the NDP have. I was, though, interested to hear the minister’s comments when she mentioned the speculation and vacancy tax on Bill 4 and some of the changes. It’ll be interesting to see now if she’ll be able to contact this woman, and others that I’ve heard from, to say that they’re actually making positive changes to not target and negatively affect people in British Columbia who should not be paying this extra tax.

[3:05 p.m.]

I won’t get into much more detail on the actual budget itself, because I know we’ll have lots of opportunity to do that later. When you look at Bill 4 itself, there are a lot of technical changes, a lot of changes that are benefiting government because of taxation — taxation increases, taxation law changes — and then the information-gathering, as I mentioned at the onset, by government from the citizens of British Columbia for possible future taxation policy, whatever that means.

The history of the NDP will have a lot of people concerned that that means we’ll be paying more taxes. Is it worth investing here in British Columbia? What does that mean for affordability in the province? I look forward to the minister explaining, in a little bit more detail, what the positive effects — not to government but to the citizens of British Columbia — will be because of the taxation law changes that will be taking place through this bill.

I look forward to getting to estimates with the minister so that on other areas that I talked about and that are part of this bill, we can get into more fulsome discussion on this budget, which has had really no plan to help people, and how the government will now be able to change that and identify areas that will be helping the people of British Columbia, even though they’ve neglected to increase the budget in so many areas where it could have actually done so. If nothing else, the NDP has failed to follow through on most of their election promises. There’s nothing in the budget or in this bill that does that.

I look forward to the discussion, to the debate, as we go forward, and the explanations from the minister to follow through with the lack of information that people are looking for.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Minister of Finance to close debate.

Hon. S. Robinson: I have to say, in listening to the member’s comments, that he clearly hasn’t read the budget document very well. There’s lots in there for British Columbians — in particular, making sure that we continue to protect their health and their well-being, which has been a priority of our government since we formed government in 2017, certainly through the pandemic and certainly with this budget, as well as supporting people and businesses.

We have been there for British Columbians from the beginning of the pandemic. We will continue to be there for them as long as they need their government there responding to their unique challenges. We work together with people to make sure that we understand what their needs are so that we can be responsive. We have, I believe, demonstrated that through this pandemic. We’re going to keep doing that, because that’s what this budget is about.

I also want to certainly acknowledge that we recognize that with the robust vaccination program that is be­ing undertaken right now and everyone getting vaccinated, the opportunities that come with recovery are very significant. We are preparing, through this budget, for that as well.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 4, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2021.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 4 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 4, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2021, 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 8, intituled the Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2021.

BILL 8 — PUBLIC SAFETY AND
SOLICITOR GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill 8, the Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2021. In the lead-up to the fall 2018 federal legalization of non-medical cannabis, the province had to develop provincial legislation to regulate cannabis distribution and retail sales, under very tight timelines. That legislation, the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act, has enabled the successful implementation of a licensing regime for private cannabis retailers in B.C., of which there are now over 340 across the province.

[3:10 p.m.]

Because of the uncertainty about the final text of the federal legislation and the fact that the B.C. retail licensing regime was still under development, the B.C. legislation included temporary extraordinary regulation-making powers. These powers ensured that unforeseen issues could be addressed quickly. Because of its extraordinary nature, that regulation power included a sunset clause, and as a result, any regulations made under it will automatically be repealed on July 9, 2021.

The draft amendments in this bill serve primarily to make permanent the regulations made under the ex­traordinary regulation power and ensure that administration of the retail licensing scheme can continue without interruption. I would note that one specific example of how the extraordinary regulation power was used was to establish a robust, fit and proper determination process to prevent individuals associated with organized crime from entering the legal cannabis industry.

The bill also includes some housekeeping amendments for clarification purposes and to ensure the legislation functions as intended. I want to emphasize that these amendments do not change government policy with re­spect to cannabis regulation.

As well, this bill also includes a minor amendment to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act. While that act generally prohibits public consumption of liquor, section 73(2) allows a municipality or regional district to make a bylaw designating public places under its jurisdiction where liquor may be consumed. In response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, some local governments, including the cities of North Vancouver, Port Coquitlam, Penticton and, most recently, New Westminster, have used this authority to designate public places for liquor consumption where people can more easily maintain physical distance, supporting the orders and recommendations of the provincial health officer.

The section as currently drafted only applies to municipalities and regional districts. However, there is a unique situation in Vancouver. The Vancouver Charter grants exclusive jurisdiction over all public parks in the city to the Vancouver park board. Because the park board is not a municipality or a regional district and the city has no jurisdiction over park board land, this means there is no local authority that can currently designate public parks under park board jurisdiction as places where liquor may be consumed.

The amendment in this bill would address this inconsistency in authority by extending the power to designate public places for liquor consumption to the park board. The park board has requested this authority. If and when the park board decides to use this authority, the selection and designation of sites will fall entirely to them. Any necessary compliance and enforcement activities will similarly be the responsibility of the park board and the local police.

This proposal is in line with longstanding policy that responsibility for decision-making on liquor consumption in public places is most appropriately placed with local authorities.

M. Morris: Listening to the minister speaking on this…. We had a great briefing with staff, as usual. Some great folks working in your ministry. It clarifies a lot of things and eliminates some of the confusion that we’ve experienced in the initial stages of enforcing this particular statute and this new phenomenon of legal cannabis in Canada and across British Columbia.

I see this more as an evolution of the statute itself to make it easier for law enforcement and for people to do the job that they have to do. But I do have a couple of issues to speak about here. I wouldn’t be doing my job if I didn’t.

I go back to a media release back in August 2020. Many of my colleagues have had constituents come in to speak to them — I’ve spoken to many — with respect to people that have followed the guidelines and the requirements under this legislation, ordered to obtain legal cannabis retail approval. They’ve invested a lot of time and energy. I’ll talk about the fit and proper thing. That’s a great addition to this particular statute.

[3:15 p.m.]

Part of the problem that we have is that individuals who put out a lot of time and effort and money and reveal their souls to the world in the application process are often thwarted by illegal sales on First Nations reserves and downtown Vancouver and other communities that we have around the province.

In August of 2020, the minister is quoted in a media release and says that “the issue of enforcing provincial law on First Nations is challenging, as the province is leery of triggering court challenges that could potentially have a major impact on provincial and Indigenous laws.” So this is confusing. We have to ask: who then does this particular bill apply to? Who does Bill 8 address?

I’m going to talk about this for a little bit. The laws of general application apply on First Nations communities. I understood this during my years of enforcement within the RCMP. But one of the concerns I have over a statement like this is the vulnerability that is extended then into our First Nations communities. It could be through willful blindness on behalf of the First Nations itself, or it could be through blackmail or intimidation by organized crime.

We’ve seen this in other locations across Canada, where organized crime will use these nebulous areas or these grey areas to see into and exercise their strength through blackmail, through intimidation or through other means in order to sell their product. Do we know where these illegal retailers are getting their product from?

The whole premise of the safe supply, in Canada under the federal legislation, was health, to make sure that the product that British Columbians and Canadians were buying met the rigorous health standards that we have in Canada. We all know…. Those of us that were in enforcement know, but I think the general public probably has some idea about this. Some of the ingredients that were used in these illegal grow operations to obtain volume and mass and weight in order to make a dollar were…. The health concerns of the public were tossed out the window. We saw a lot of this transpire across the country. British Columbia had a reputation for good bud and bad bud. We’ve seen it on both sides.

I go back to my years of enforcement. For a number of years, I enforced the Excise Act in northern British Columbia — stills and illegal whisky and illegal spirits. A lot of the public was under the impression that because it was a revenue statute, the RCMP had to get involved and take down these stills, because the government was losing money on it. That was the furthest thing from our minds when we were enforcing the Excise Act and taking down the illegal stills.

Some years I would take down two or three dozen illegal stills and hundreds of gallons of moonshine. About 99 percent of that moonshine was poison. It tested at very high concentrates of fusel oils and other contaminants in it that were harmful to an individual’s health. I think that might be the impetus behind guaranteeing the wholesale availability of cannabis in Canada and British Columbia — to ensure when government puts their stamp on it, government is saying: “This is safe. This is okay for you to consume, and it won’t cause any serious side effects.”

By not enforcing in some locations that might be into this so-called grey area is jeopardizing and putting people’s health at risk, but it’s also enabling organized crime. We see the proliferation of gang slayings and activity across the Lower Mainland here. It’s not isolated to the Lower Mainland. We see it in Prince George. We see it in Kelowna. We see it in just virtually every community that we have in British Columbia. If organized crime and gangs see an opportunity, they will take it. This is an opportunity for them. There are all kinds of experiences over the past 20 or 30 years that I can think of where organized crime has taken advantage of this.

[3:20 p.m.]

Clause 18 of this bill brings in what the minister referred to as the fit and proper determinations. I like this. I just want to read a couple of sections from this. It shows you the rigour that the minister and his staff had foresight to put into this particular legislation. I commented on it during the briefing as well — that I thought it was excellent.

Of course, they’re much the same provisions as we have under the Liquor Control and Licensing Act as well. But it says that in determining whether an applicant or a licensee is fit and proper or of forming an opinion about whether an applicant or a licensee is fit and proper, the manager may take into account any associate of the applicant or licensee and any person having a connection to an associate of an applicant or a licensee. So they’re bearing their soul. They’re putting their application in. They’re paying their fee.

I’ve heard stories of fees as high as $30,000, $35,000. That’s in addition to the hundreds of thousands of dollars that they might have invested in obtaining a lease or building facilities on the property. Then, of course, tying those funds up for a couple of years as they go through this process. But they’re also saying: “Here I am. Check me out. Oh, and I’m hanging around with, you know, my friend from the Shuswap. I’m hanging around with…. I’ve got associates in other parts of the province that may have a direct connection to me and my business.” They check those folks out as well.

Illegal retailers don’t do that. They don’t care. They’re just going to go, and whoever provides them the muscle or the money or the transportation or the ability for them to sell their product without any hassle by enforcement officers, they’ll take that opportunity.

Another part of that same clause, under this bill…. It’s a new section under “Fit and Proper.” So 29.5 says: “If the prescribed checks conducted by a relevant manager” — under the section that I spoke about — “disclose that an applicant or a licensee, or an associate of the applicant or a licensee or a person referred to in section 29.4(1)(c), is or has been involved in criminal activity, the general manager may rely on the disclosure, without any underlying sensitive law enforcement information, to determine that the applicant or licensee is not fit and proper.”

That’s quite a statement there. We have a number…. We’ve seen it on the news, where a number of these illegal retailers were pleading, saying: “Well, I’ve been doing this for a few years now. Let me…. Just sign me off, and grandfather me in, and let me carry on.” But they were committing the criminal offence of trafficking in a controlled substance.

Any retailer that is currently involved in that — trafficking in a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance that they obtained from an illegal source, pretty much anybody that’s operating an illegal retail outlet — won’t be guaranteed, or they won’t get any kind of a licence in the future, because of that particular section.

I know that there are provisions under the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act — I believe it’s section 119 — where government can assist some of these First Nations communities in getting to that place where they are legal. But I see a bit of a conflict that might surface during this process because of this particular section here. They’re very strict.

I think that the strictness of this particular section indicates that government recognizes the inherent public safety risks associated to illegal cannabis retail, either through organized crime and the vulnerability to the blackmail and the intimidation that these organizations perpetuate, or through the health risks that are associated to selling a product that you don’t know where it comes from. You don’t know what was used in the growing process itself that might lead to health factors down the road.

[3:25 p.m.]

Another quote from about that same period of time, from the minister, says: “Although the province takes the position that B.C.’s Cannabis Act is a ‘law of general application’ that applies to all of British Columbia, including First Nations’ land, the minister says there is concern that this interpretation could be ‘tested’ by actions such as enforcement.”

The interpretation could be tested by actions such as en­forcement. As a seasoned veteran police officer that has enforced all kinds of statutes and laws over time — long-standing laws, new legislation — it’s always tested. That’s the evolution of our case law in Canada. The letter of the law prevails. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms prevails. That’s the foundation upon which all our law is drawn. But if there is a concern that the minister has expressed in this regard, he sheds, again, a little bit of haze over this process to say we’re not really sure that our laws are going to stand up to a Charter test or to an argument here.

Police and Crown counsel should not be put into a position by government where they have to enforce and prosecute dubious legislation. I know, when I was sitting in the chair, if we had a bill brought in to me as the Solicitor General, it would be yellow-flagged or red-flagged as to what some of the possible implications might be from a Charter perspective or from the legal perspective, where it might interfere with some other statute or some other provision of a law somewhere else. I’m just wondering — we’ll talk about this at the committee stage — whether any of these cautionary flags have been raised during this process.

The issue that the minister spoke about — about how the interpretation could be tested by actions such as enforcement — is a good thing. If the public safety unit goes and raids an illegal retail facility, and that facility feels that their rights have been infringed under the Charter and the law has not been properly interpreted, they have every right to take that issue before the courts and appeal it before the courts. It’s not up to the minister. It’s not up to the police to interpret whether that legislation is true and just under the Charter. It’s up to the courts.

I would say let’s enforce this legislation to the letter — to the letter — the way it’s been written, and let’s shut down all illegal grow operations in British Columbia, no matter where they sit, and ensure that British Columbians get a product that is not going to jeopardize their health, make sure that they’re going to get a product from a retail outlet that is not hooked up to organized crime, that’s not associated to the gangland slayings that we’re seeing right across the province, particularly in the Lower Mainland here.

If that retailer honestly feels that they have been targeted unjustly by the police, then challenge that. Take it to the court. Take it to the highest court in the land and get clarification on whether or not they can legally have that retail sales within their First Nations community or wherever that retail outlet may lie. Let them challenge the federal component of this on the supply of cannabis. If they feel that they should be able to buy it from anybody, from any source in the country, let them challenge that, and let the courts determine whether this is a true and just law that is going to protect the public and protect the health of the public moving forward.

In essence, when I looked at the bill — and I went through the bill in fine detail — I liked what I saw in there. I think it’s got potential to hold things together and to fulfil the intent that the minister and the government intended when they passed the Cannabis Act during our first term. I think it will hold that.

I think it will withstand, in my experience, the scrutiny of the courts moving forward. But let’s not be afraid to push it out there and enforce it and have somebody challenge it. If they don’t challenge it, great. We’ll take that illegal cannabis off the street, and hopefully we’ll keep people from suffering from any ill health concerns as a result of consuming that at the end of the day.

[3:30 p.m.]

It will be a big step in starting to shut down organized crime. They will take advantage of every crack in the armour that they can.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

I think a strong enforcement action is what’s needed, particularly in today’s world, in order to thwart that activity and make sure that the legal retailers that go through this rigorous process, that bear their soul to the world to show them that “I have nothing to hide; I haven’t committed any criminal activity; I’m not associated to any known criminals that are going to help me with this” — that they will get a return on their investment, and the public will be in a much safer position at the end of the day.

I look forward to the committee stage, where we can kind of pop the hood open on this a little bit more. I’m not going to spend too much time on it at the committee stage, but I do want to examine some of these issues in there.

G. Kyllo: I’m certainly proud to rise today with respect to Bill 8, Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act. As my colleague the member for Prince George–Mackenzie has shared, there are definitely significant concerns when it comes to the current cannabis legislation and the lack of enforcement.

I did have an opportunity last year during the estimates process to ask some fairly succinct questions of the Solicitor General with respect to the applicability of the cannabis legislation. Through that process, the minister was able to confirm, as he has previously indicated, that the cannabis retail legislation is identified as being laws under general application, which means they have force and effect over all lands in Canada, including First Nations lands. As we know, the federal government has a responsibility for the production and cultivation of cannabis in Canada, and it is the province’s responsibility with respect to the safe retail sale.

Now, I’ve had a number of businesses, over the course of the last few years, write letters and visit me in my constituency office in Salmon Arm expressing extreme concern of illegal cannabis operations that seem to be proliferating throughout the Shuswap region, operating with apparent impunity. Yet despite bringing these legal operations to the attention both of the RCMP and the community safety unit, there’s been no action undertaken whatsoever.

One particular operator had shared with me that it cost him upwards of $500,000 to set up his legal cannabis operation — the requirements as far as the background checks; the requirement for proof of insurance; significant security planning; security cameras; the manner in which he has to purchase all of his cannabis products from federally approved sources; and, of course, the responsibility for registering with WorkSafeBC, employment standards as well as ensuring that he’s registered also for goods and services taxes as well as provincial sales taxes. So significant burdens, significant costs, in getting set up and established as well as ongoing operational costs.

The question that was raised to me by my constituent was: “How can I compete with an operator that is operating illegally, that is buying from illegal sources — in many instances, likely the black market?” There’s no consumer protection for people that walk into that store. They have no determination on what the quality of the product is, what the THC or CBD levels might be. They are not paying the appropriate provincial sales taxes or goods and services taxes.

What has happened is government has created, through their lack of enforcement, a true winners-and-losers scenario. The legalized operator that jumps through the hoops, two years in the application process, doing everything right — how can he compete with an illegal operator that is operating just down the road?

It’s very unfortunate for this constituent to raise concerns both with the CSU and the RCMP, and both organizations appear to be just pointing the finger at one another. Meanwhile, the illegal sale of cannabis continues to proliferate, and consumers are not protected.

[3:35 p.m.]

There was a letter response by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to my constituent back on November 17, 2020. I won’t go through the entire letter, but this one portion, I think, is important to note. It states:

“In gathering information from the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, subject matter experts in the RCMP, in the community safety unit, CSU, I feel the CSU is the lead in the area in which you are concerned: the sale of cannabis on Indigenous lands. The CSU was formed specifically to carry out compliance and enforcement activities against unlicensed cannabis retailers and other illegal sellers in all areas of British Columbia.”

The RCMP are basically identifying that the community safety unit, which is a branch of the Solicitor General’s office, has the ultimate responsibility for the enforcement of the cannabis retail legislation in British Columbia, yet they’re choosing not to act.

In the estimates process, as I mentioned, I was able to ask the minister a number of questions with respect to the applicability of the law on the general application. It’s interesting. I’m going to share just one short segment. I was fortunate enough to have about 30 minutes of questioning the minister. But this one piece, I think, is a bit telling.

I had asked the minister: “As a follow-up, is the minister able to share with some specificity the type of consultation that was undertaken…with respect to…what were the major concerns, if any” and if these “were brought forward by First Nations communities throughout that initial consultation?”

The minister shared…. He goes on to say: “The consultation took place through correspondence to First Nations across the province, outlining” — what we were seeking — “that we have to introduce the legislation, with regards to legalization, as required by the federal government legalizing cannabis. We asked for their views.”

He goes on to say: “We got, I would say, a limited response back. Having said that, there was also the public consultation that took place, for which a number of First Nations gave their views and their issues that they were concerned about.”

I went on to ask the minister: “How would the minister describe cannabis retail operators who are currently selling cannabis products on First Nations reserve lands without necessary licencing approvals? Would they be considered legal or illegal?”

The minister shared: “I thank the member for the question. Well, the view of the province is that these, as laws of general application…. If they are not licensed by the province, they would be illegal.”

The minister has acknowledged that these operations, retail operations, that are not licensed are operating illegally. The CSU unit has the ability to actually provide administrative penalties, seize product or otherwise shut down these illegal operations, yet they choose not to. The concern is not just for the business owner that has the inability to compete with an illegal operator. The concern also has to do with the number of consumers that are buying product without the certainty of what’s in the packaging.

I know that when the cannabis retail legislation was debated here in the House, one of the very important areas that was brought up — and I believe it was the minister who shared it…. Imagine going to buy yourself a six-pack of beer at the liquor store, but you don’t know what the alcohol content is. It could be half a percent. It could be 8 percent. The consumer has no ability to actually determine the strength of the product that they will be purchasing.

There’s a reason why we have federally and provincially legislated requirements which actually state that the product has to be tested and actually has to be able to show the ingredients and the alcohol content of the product. This is no different than cannabis. Illegal operators are selling cannabis that is not identified as to the strength of the product, whether it’s THC or CBD — the other acronym that is utilized, I believe. So the consumers are at risk.

As well, it’s my understanding that because, largely, the illegal cannabis product is sold by weight, many illegal growers put additives in the soil which add to the weight of the product. Many of these additives are actually carcinogenic. Consumers are at great risk, yet what we see from this government is a lack of action.

[3:40 p.m.]

My constituents who raised the concern about the inability to compete shared with me that there was one retail operator down in Lake Country. The Speaker may be familiar with that particular location. There was an illegal store that was operating. That store had a number of COVID cases, and they had to shut down for three days.

During the three days that the illegal cannabis operation was shut down, the legalized store’s sales went up 300 percent over those three days. As soon as the illegal operator started selling again, the legalized cannabis store’s sales went back down to levels which were a third less than they had achieved when the illegal operation was actually selling product. So it is having a significant impact on the legal operators.

I think we have to ask ourselves: why is government failing to act? We haven’t seen any education or enforcement action that actually has reduced the number of illegal stores operating throughout the province, specifically in Shuswap. There is a proliferation. The problem is getting worse, not better. In the meantime, consumers are at risk. It’s very concerning to me why this government appears to be being picky-choosy with which laws they choose to actually apply and to enforce in this province.

With respect to Bill 8 and some of the other legislative changes that are coming up, I certainly appreciate the opportunity of having the odd beer or glass of wine. I think that the opportunity for a husband and wife to maybe go to the beach and have a picnic blanket and share a glass of wine or maybe a cold beverage…. I certainly don’t have any personal problems with that. I don’t know that most British Columbians would.

The problem becomes when people overconsume, and there are laws which are made available in order to deal with that overconsumption. Taking away that privilege and opportunity for all British Columbians as a means to try and safeguard those few that may overindulge…. I don’t know that that necessarily is the right approach. I appreciate the opportunity for the Vancouver park board to actually do broader consultation and make their own determination. I certainly don’t have any specific issues with that.

With that, I think I will take my seat and allow some other colleagues to provide some further comment with respect to Bill 8.

M. Lee: I appreciate that I have the opportunity to join my colleagues, the MLA for Prince George–Mackenzie and the MLA for Shuswap. I also want to speak to this Bill 8.

Let me just start with the last point that the MLA for Shuswap had said in relation to the aspect which enables the delegation of authority, effectively, to the Vancouver park board. This is something that, of course, the Vancouver park board had put forward some time ago — in fact, almost a year ago — and had hoped that the provincial government would give them the authority to move ahead like other municipalities around the province, like North Vancouver and Port Coquitlam and other nearby municipalities.

As we’ve seen with COVID, there have been so many different important spaces that we need to ensure that we have available for residents, including in the Vancouver area, many of whom, of course, don’t live in places with backyards and don’t have the ability to recreate or space out, let’s say, even in their bubbles, in a more safe manner during COVID.

[3:45 p.m.]

We’ve seen those challenges. The 22 parks that the Vancouver park board has proposed to put forward — that needed bylaw from back in July of 2020 has been delayed until now.

I am certainly pleased to see the government step forward, and I appreciate the comments that were just made in terms of ensuring that people are responsible in our public spaces. I think that, obviously, is a very important consideration, including community safety and the safety of our children and families. Particularly in Vancouver, we’ve seen many of these public spaces being utilized in a responsible manner, barring the unfortunate gatherings of a big nature during COVID.

I mean, putting that aside, which was not responsible behaviour, in terms of alcohol consumption, we know of course in many of our city parks people are bringing the occasional wine or beer to the parks. This is going on. I think that people can do this responsibly, and we expect that people will do that responsibly in our city parks.

The 22 parks in Vancouver that are being included from the Vancouver park board area include many of the larger parks in the city, including Stanley Park and Kitsilano Beach and three parks in my riding of Vancouver-Langara. One of them is Queen Elizabeth Park, which I grew up across the street from. It’s certainly a jewel for the Vancouver city park area. We’ve seen that also with the other park that is included here, Fraser River Park, which is another great stretch in a public space area, well frequented, including by those with dogs and recreating on the public trails there along the water of the Fraser River, as well as Langara Park, which is right next to Langara College in my riding and next to the Canada Line.

These are examples of these important urban spaces which we do need to open up more. I’m encouraged to see the ability of the Vancouver park board to move forward with their plans and to ensure that it’s done in a safe manner, in a responsible manner, where they will be able to permit their park concessions to sell beer and coolers and cider in these parks. As I say, in terms of what COVID has demonstrated, particularly with the density that’s being created, for example, in the Cambie corridor in my riding — the build of a second town centre at Oakridge Centre, 15,000 units plus being added to that area alone…. There’s great density that’s being created.

I think that for the province to recognize how people need to continue to recreate…. Our city parks system in Vancouver is essential for all of that greater density, so it’s important that we have the ability, in a local context, to be able to have that flexibility to move forward with the pilot projects that the park board is looking at.

Certainly, I’m familiar, through city councillors, colleagues there, that the city of Vancouver had piloted similar proposals making spirits, beer and wine available in public plazas which were under city of Vancouver ownership or control. I think those pilot projects in Vancouver were met with much public support. And we continue to see, back to the responsible drinking aspect….

The point’s been made that on Granville Street, in licensed facilities and bars and pubs and nightclubs pre-COVID, we’ve seen lots of challenges there on city streets after the bars are closed down and let out for the night. There are lots of different considerations about what’s done in a responsible manner.

[3:50 p.m.]

Obviously, we continue to hope that Vancouver city residents will continue to act responsibly and use this greater flexibility, as the park board works to free up these spaces, in a responsible manner that is also respectful to the neighbourhoods.

I will say, of course, that there are some parks that are not included in this city of Vancouver move-forward, and that includes parks in the Marpole space, which is in my riding as well, the South Cambie area. I think there are some areas that will need to be considered as to whether this program expands into the Strathcona area, Shaughnessy and Victoria-Fraserview areas. I think that considerations need to be made as to the local residential neighbourhoods and all the young families and others that play in these places. So I look forward to that program going forward and certainly am supportive of the bill in terms of that aspect.

Speaking to the other aspect of this bill and the major thrust around cannabis, I know that the member for Prince George–Mackenzie has spoken at length, both during this bill debate and previously, about the concerns about unlicensed dispensaries and how they have been freely able to compete with licensed cannabis retailers. Examples have been given, including unlicensed cannabis stores operating on Indigenous land throughout the Okanagan. You know, this obviously is a concern for the reasons that have been stated, but also, we see this in the city of Vancouver. In the city of Vancouver, there are many unlicensed cannabis retailers that are operating, and the city of Vancouver continues to have a lot of challenge in terms of how these unlicensed cannabis dispensaries are operating.

For the same reasons that the member for Shuswap outlined, this is a large concern. It’s a large concern for those who have invested time, energy and resources into going through the very significant regulatory process to obtain a licence, to be a licensed retailer, under provincial rules and regulations. Obviously, there is the $7,500 application fee; the $1,500 monthly fee; as well as, in the city of Vancouver, for example, a $30,000 city of Vancouver business licence.

Licensed retailers ought to be, of course, within the tax regime of our province. I know when the federal government looked at this whole regime and the province is looking at implementing the regime in terms of how it’s been doing it to date, we need to ensure that there is no tax leakage. Given the nature of cannabis sales in our communities, it needs to be regulated. But certainly, the additional cost that is put on licensed retailers and the tax revenue, the tax that should be paid, needs to be occurring. It creates a very unlevel playing field for these licensed retailers when they see so many unlicensed operations conducting business, for example, in the city of Vancouver.

I think that when you look at Health Canada regulations, the provincial regulations and the city of Vancouver regulations, there are, obviously, three levels here that a licensed retailer needs to be complying with. Going beyond just mere cost factors, there is the health perspective. I think from a Health Canada perspective, it’s important that only licensed operators are operating in this space, because when you allow unlicensed operators to be operating, they’re putting everyone at risk, including children and youth.

[3:55 p.m.]

For example, I was talking to a licensed retailer recently who was reminding me that the regulations under Health Canada, for example, for edibles includes a concentration or dosage which is at the 10 milligram dosage level, in terms of concentration. So that’s the licensed level of any cannabis component that should be in an edible under a licensed retailer in Canada, in British Columbia and in the city of Vancouver. But it’s commonly known that when you go to an unlicensed retail operation, there can be dosages of 300 to 400 milligrams.

The reason, as I understand it, that it’s set at the 10 milligram level is because in the event that a child or a youth or a young person, not to mention adults — anyone of any age — comes into contact with an edible, if it for some reason gets picked up accidentally or otherwise by a young person, that is the deemed health level that is protective of our children. But that’s not happening if someone buys a product from an unlicensed retailer and that gets into a home, and a child picks that up and bites into that.

They’re knocked down for days at that level of concentration. So this is a health concern. This is where this province needs to ensure that they are enforcing the licensing of these retailers, because when it falls down, everyone suffers.

Again, in the city of Vancouver, we have seen many, many unlicensed retailers. When I talk to the city of Vancouver, both at the staff level and the city council level, I understand, certainly, that the city of Vancouver does its part, that it needs to continue to ensure that licensed retailers have the appropriate business licenses, which as I mentioned before is a $30,000 license per year, and that where you have an unlicensed retailer, typically, if a city of Vancouver bylaw enforcement officer comes around, these unlicensed retailers will get fined. They’ll get warnings.

In terms of the actual enforcement, they’re looking for and looking to the province to ensure that there is proper enforcement. This is what I know that the city of Vancouver has been looking to this province to do, and it is failing to do that, at the risk of our public, our children, our youth and our families, in terms of unlicensed product getting out.

We know the challenge with vaping products, in terms of the oils that are used, again, in terms of the carrier oils — that they have very harsh consequences on the lungs. We’ve seen that in terms of the studies that have come out. Again, Health Canada has very strict regulations on any vape-type product that is sold in a licensed retailer. Again, that kind of exposure is there in an unlicensed retailer context.

We know that…. For example, I have a good friend whose father is elderly and does rely on CBD products, as we hear from others who are using these medicinal marijuana–type products to deal with their pain management later in their years. It is a fairly effective product for them. In an unlicensed retailer context, a lot of that can get mixed. There have been situations where the wrong product has been given out, which has THC components to it, as opposed to the CBD components.

I think that these are just examples of why it’s vitally important that this province get a grip on these unlicensed dispensaries, including operating in the city of Vancouver. I would hope that what is set out in this bill will give the mechanisms — and the tools — to ensure that the province step up their enforcement activities. I think that the fit and proper test, as set out in this bill, is certainly an important test, as it ports over, under clause 18 of the bill.

I think that, again, as I understand, in the same way that an inspector would come in under the liquor act, we’re talking about warnings, fines or suspensions of the licence itself. So with the discretion that’s being used here….

[4:00 p.m.]

It’s one thing to set it out in the bill or the act. It’s another thing to actually utilize it and to have the resources that the member for Prince George–Mackenzie has been in continual dialogue with the minister about in terms of ensuring that his ministry is dedicating the resources for enforcement. I would expect to see, of course, with these greater tools, under this legislative instrument, that there would be the companion increase of resources to ensure enforcement. I’m sure that that is something that will be covered in the ministry estimates, of course, in the weeks to come here.

Certainly, one provision of note that I…. I may or may not have the opportunity to join the member for Prince George–Mackenzie in committee stage on this bill. But just to mention it in this second reading process, the language that’s utilized in section 29.5 of clause 18 of this bill, in terms of criminal activity, has a particular carve-out that I think bears some reflection in terms of what the general manager may rely on in terms of the disclosure under the prescribed checks that are conducted by the general manager or the security manager under section 29.4.

The reference that is the carve-out of interest, at least from my perspective, is whether the general manager may rely on disclosure without any underlying sensitive law en­forcement information. I think that, of course, when there is a matter under investigation, there is sensitive information that may or may not flow at all. The question would be: what is the ability of the general manager and security manager to actually implement and make and utilize these provisions? To the extent that there is criminal activity involved, what indications or other information will the security manager or the general manager be considering around this particular operation of concern?

Again, we’ve seen in Vancouver and around the Lower Mainland unfortunate reminders, on a daily basis now, of the level of organized crime activity that’s affecting the safety on our streets with all of the shootings that are occurring. This is something that, again…. This minister and this government need to step up in terms of their resources and activities to ensure that our public is kept safe. They’re not doing that, regardless of the additional investments that the minister spoke about yesterday in question period. I think it was yesterday.

I think that it is very important that we continue to look at where the gaps are in the system. People don’t feel safe in Vancouver, in Surrey, in the Lower Mainland. Again, unlicensed cannabis operations that are occurring…. They’re allowed to operate in the city of Vancouver and elsewhere in the Lower Mainland. It’s only fueling the amount of criminal activity and organized gang activity, organized crime activity, that’s occurring in Vancouver and in the rest of the Lower Mainland.

These are just the tools that, of course…. It’s easy to pass legislation. But what we need this government to do is to ensure that they have the proper resources to ensure that we do have the supports necessary for law enforcement around this province. That includes filling those additional 200 vacant spaces that my colleagues have been pushing this government to fill with no answer.

I think that, as we come forward with this Bill 8, we’ll want to ensure that, for example, the RCMP community safety unit is given the resources necessary to deal with what is, in the words of the member for Prince George–​Mackenzie, a massive job that they’ve been tasked with here. As we raise the level of expectation around enforcement, we need to ensure that the resources are there. We’re not seeing that from this government.

[4:05 p.m.]

I would just say that it’s one thing for this government to defer to the RCMP. But it’s another thing to ensure that there are the right levels of resources provided to law enforcement around this province, including in the Okanagan, as we’ve talked about, in terms of the operations that are operating illegally there, and also in the city of Vancouver.

I hope to see additional discussion at the committee stage with the member for Prince George–Mackenzie and other colleagues. Hopefully, we’ll get better answers from the minister in terms of what this government is going to provide to support the measures under this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General to close debate.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the debate and the discussion that’s gone on. I listen with interest to the concerns raised by my colleague from Prince George–​Valemount. I know that we will have a good discussion in committee stage on many of the issues that he’s raised.

I hear the comments from the member for Vancouver-Langara, particularly around alcohol, and I look forward to being able to deal with those issues. I note the comments that he made towards the end. I’ll just say that, frankly, there were many factual errors in those statements. I look forward to addressing many of those later in the debate as well.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 8, Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2021, 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 committee stage Bill 2, Public Interest Disclosure Amendment Act.

Deputy Speaker: We’ll take a two-minute recess while we prepare for committee stage.

The House recessed from 4:07 p.m. to 4:11 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 2 — PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 2; N. Letnick in the chair.

The committee met at 4:11 p.m.

On clause 1.

Hon. D. Eby: I want to note today that I’m joined by Alex Stirling, legal counsel, policy and legislation division, and Colleen Rice, director, justice policy and legislation division of the Ministry of Attorney General. I look forward to any questions that my counterparts may have in the House during committee stage.

M. de Jong: I am grateful to the two officials that the Attorney has just mentioned for the time they spent providing me with a bit of a briefing on the bill several days ago, or last week. I can’t remember when it was.

I thought, insofar as we’re dealing with a piece of legislation that purports to amend a bill that has been in force for just under a year and a half — the original bill enjoyed, I think, widespread support in the chamber, the Public Interest Disclosure Amendment Act, sometimes referred to in an abbreviated way as a whistleblower protection act — that it might be appropriate to seek from the Attorney something of an update as to what has occurred since December of 2019, when the original bill was enacted.

It represents a tool, a statutory tool, a form of statutory protection. To what extent has the tool been made use of might be an appropriate place to start. I will say this on the record, what I indicated to the Attorney a few moments ago. Rather than come back to that theme, section by section, I thought it might make sense to pose some of these general questions to the Attorney as part of our discussion around section 1, which is admittedly a section that amends definitions.

Perhaps we can start there, and I have some specific questions about how the tool has been made use of, but I’ll start with the general question.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that there has been some uptake with the existing legislation since implementation within the Office of the Ombudsperson, within the core public service of government. Between December 1, 2019, and March 31, 2020, there were 57 matters in total that the Ombudsperson’s office was involved in.

Seventeen were requests for advice, 18 were general inquiries about the act and how it works, and 22 were disclosures provided to the Ombudsperson. Of those 22, 11 were assessed by the Ombudsperson and resolved in various ways I’ll get to in a sec, and 11 others were carried forward to the next year. That’s this year, 2020-21, or, I guess, last fiscal.

Then of those 11 that were assessed, six were declined for investigation because the discloser was not an employee or former employee of a ministry or office and was not within the PIDA regime. Four were declined for investigation because the disclosure did not meet the definition of wrongdoing or didn’t provide adequate particulars for the Ombudsperson’s office to be able to investigate. One disclosure resulted in a matter being investigated. I don’t have any information about how that was resolved beyond that it was investigated.

With respect to those disclosures, as of March 31, 2020, five disclosures had been received by the agency designated officer for the B.C. Public Service. No disclosures were received by the designated officer for political staff. As of March 31, 2020, I can also tell the member that the agency designated officer for the B.C. Public Service received notification of one disclosure made to the Office of the Ombudsperson under PIDA. In that case, the Office of the Ombudsperson elected to initiate an investigation under PIDA, but as of the date of the report that I have, the investigation was not concluded. And four inquiries were received by agency designated officers.

Between disclosures to agency designated officers and to the Ombudsperson, the member has a bit of a picture of how the act has been working. In informal conversations with the Ombudsperson’s office and the Public Service Agency, we’re advised that this year the member should expect to see roughly similar numbers — new matters but not a significant uptick or a reduction in the number of matters coming forward.

We are seeing some activity. People are using it. They’re contacting the Ombudsperson. They’re contacting their designated officers. Based on those activities, the Ombudsperson has brought forward recommendations to government, which are contained within this bill.

M. de Jong: That’s helpful information. Does the Attorney contemplate that kind of a summary…? He’s been in government long enough to know that virtually every agency of government provides some kind of an annual report. Is that the kind of summary that we might expect to see at the end of a service plan for the Ministry of the Attorney General or in some other venue?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There are two entities that report out on this. The first is the Office of the Ombudsperson. With respect to queries that go directly to the Ombudsperson or disclosure, the Ombudsperson provides reports on that, with a breakdown of where those requests have gone.

Then the Public Service Agency is the other entity that provides reports on this. Where reports were made to designated officers, the PSA provides that in their annual report and in the context of a larger report about inquiries to ethics officers about things like conflict of interest and so on within the public service.

Both reports are expected soon, in May and June, so in the coming weeks. They won’t be at the exact same time, but they’re in the coming weeks and should be available imminently, from what I’m advised.

M. de Jong: I’m going to pose a question or two. I don’t want to get hung up on the numbers, because I can go back and check the Hansard. If I’ve written these down correctly so much the better, but my purpose in pursuing the question is not to pin the Attorney down on particular numbers.

I thought he said there were, in his summary of activity, if that’s the right term to use, 22 disclosures over the period starting December 2019. I think that was the calendar year. I can’t remember what the cutoff was, but essentially until the end of 2020. He can correct me on that.

Am I correct, when I hear that statement and we use that term, which is a particular term under the act, that that means 22 disclosures, by definition, of wrongdoing made by a discloser in accordance with the act? I just want to confirm that.

Hon. D. Eby: My apologies to the member. I should have provided references so that he could circle back.

For the Ombudsperson data, it’s from the 2019-20 annual report, at page 14. For the public service numbers that I used, the agency designated officer figures, that was from their 2019-20 annual report, on page 5.

The member was curious about calendar year versus fiscal year. I was a little confused on that myself in my answer, so I’ll just clarify because it is not clear. The dates are a bit unusual. For both reports, the time period is December 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020, because the act came into force mid-fiscal.

The last question, to the member, around the disclosures. I think it would be right, to understand the disclosures, that the person coming forward to the Ombudsperson, or to their agency-designated officer, believed they had a disclosure of wrongdoing and was categorized as such.

When you look at, for example, the Ombudsperson’s breakdown of those 22, of the 11 that the Ombudsperson had time to assess during the fiscal, six were declined for investigation entirely because it was not an entity that was covered under the act. It may or may not, in the member’s mind, count as a disclosure, because it was brought forward by someone not in the public service. Four were declined because the disclosure did not meet the definition of wrongdoing. Although the person thought they had something in the disclosure, for whatever reason, the Ombudsperson’s office disagreed. Either there were inadequate particulars or it just didn’t meet the standard.

There was one that resulted in an investigation that’s carried on, and 11 that were carried forward for assessment in the next fiscal. So those 12 — the jury’s out, I guess, to turn a phrase.

Then for the public service, there were five disclosures received, but no investigations initiated, no investigations concluded and no investigations carried over. They were still, as of the time of the annual report, being assessed, and no investigations had been concluded.

[4:25 p.m.]

The chart indicates that no investigations had been initiated, but it looks from the text like there was assessment, which may be a step before investigation, I guess, in terms of the public service report.

M. de Jong: All of this, by the way, is, I think, helpful as people learn about the operation of the legislation that we are actually in the process of making some amendments to — modest amendments, in most cases. Can I ask about the…? In one case, the Attorney indicated that the disclosure had led to an actual investigation.

By the way, in the part of his answer that related to this, he made this distinction, which I believe was the correct one with respect to the wording of my question: that I was reading from the definition of the act. He pointed out to me that the statistics he gave about 22 disclosures represented instances where the discloser believed there had been wrongdoing. I think that’s an important distinction. But in one case, it led to an investigation.

What is the Attorney able to say about the mechanism or the means by which knowledge of the outcome of that investigation does or doesn’t flow into the public domain?

Hon. D. Eby: There are two mechanisms by which the Ombudsperson lets the public know, and government by extension, about the outcomes of investigations. The first is through the annual report, subsection 38(2). The Ombudsperson provides a report that describes the wrongdoing that was found and the corrective action, if any, that was taken. That section sets out that reporting.

In situations where the Ombudsperson believes that there’s a public interest in a report or an interest to a particular person, which requires reporting outside of the annual report process, under subsection 40(4), the Ombudsperson can provide that report outside of the year-end reporting process.

Those are the two mechanisms by which government and the public would be advised of issues. We’ve not received any advice from the Ombudsperson about the outcome of that investigation, to the best of my knowledge. One would presume that there would be something in the annual report, with respect to that investigation, unless it’s still ongoing.

M. de Jong: Again, that’s helpful. Would the government generally get…? Let me make sure I ask this question fairly and accurately. Does the investigative process work in a way where the government would receive advanced notice of the outcome of an investigation?

[4:30 p.m.]

I’m trying to be practical about how this operates, insofar as this would involve, if I remember, the executive official within a ministry, for example, so there would be some knowledge. There would be some practical knowledge of a disclosure from that point of view.

Would a government have advance notice of the conclusion of an investigation, or would it discover, through the two processes, that the Attorney General…? Or I guess the two processes — a separate report or the annual report under subsection 38(2).

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: Under section 21, the Ombudsperson…. I’ll take a step back. With respect to the Ministry of Attorney General having responsibility for the statute and the regime, I think it’s safe to say that the Ombudsperson has taken the decision to reserve information about disclosures, number of disclosures, number of investigations and so on to the Ombudsperson’s office to disclose at the year end, as opposed to intermittently throughout the year. We don’t get regular updates from the Ombudsperson’s office about how many disclosures there have been or which ministries or anything like that.

With that said, there is a process for when the Ombudsperson starts an investigation. Under section 21, if the disclosure results in an investigation by the Ombudsperson, the current act requires that the discloser is notified that there’s an investigation, but also — and separately — the designated officer within that agency or ministry is also notified that there is an investigation. That is proposed to be amended under this bill to replace the designated officer with the chief executive rather than the designated officer. We can talk about that when we get to that section.

At the end of that investigation, there is a report issued by the Ombudsperson’s office under section 27. It is provided to the government body. Then, under section 30, if there is a decision to do one of the special disclosures that I talked about, because it’s in the public interest or there’s a specific person that would benefit from an earlier disclosure, an advanced copy of the report goes to government. Government has the opportunity to provide submissions with respect to it, and then those are released concurrently with the public disclosure of the investigation report.

[4:35 p.m.]

M. de Jong: In a circumstance where there is an investigator — there’s a disclosure that leads to an investigation — and then a specific finding of no wrongdoing, are the reporting mechanisms that the Attorney referred to the same? I suppose a way of asking: does the public, through those mechanisms, become aware that there was an investigation and the outcome of that investigation, whether there was a finding of wrongdoing or not?

Hon. D. Eby: In the situation of an investigation that led to a finding of no wrongdoing, the most likely outcome is that the statistical information about the outcome of investigations would be provided to the public. Our understanding is there would be a report from the Ombudsperson under section 27 to the government body indicating that there was a finding of no wrongdoing. Under section 21, obviously, there would have been notification of an investigation, so closing it off would require notification under section 27.

M. de Jong: If I heard the Attorney correctly earlier in our exchange, I think he referred to there having been one disclosure regarding the Office of the Ombudsperson. If I’m incorrect, that will be the end of this line of questioning.

A couple of things. That’s interesting insofar as I think one of the sets of amendments we’re dealing with in the bill relates to that very circumstance and creating a mechanism where an investigation can go forward. But why don’t I start with that? Did I understand the Attorney correctly that one of the 22 disclosures that he referred to related to the actual Office of the Ombudsperson — someone alleging a wrongful act in the office or by the Office of the Ombudsperson, and has that led to an investigation? If so, has that been frustrated by the absence of the provisions that we are eventually going to deal with in this bill?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right. There are some amendments in the bill meant to clarify processes around complaints related to the Ombudsperson’s Office and who would investigate those, which is the Office of the Auditor General. This is an authority that was contained in the original act, but there are some refinements around the process that would be followed.

[4:40 p.m.]

There were no disclosures of any investigations by the Office of the Auditor General. The member can draw from that, as do I, that to the best of our knowledge there was no investigation of the Ombudsperson’s office by the Auditor General’s office for the reporting period of December 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020.

The member did hear me correctly that there was one disclosure being investigated. It’s possible I misspoke in a way that caused confusion. So the one disclosure being investigated….

There was not an indication in the Ombudsperson’s annual report of which agency or ministry was being investigated following a disclosure under the act. The only indication in the report was that the disclosure was being investigated and that it was carrying forward into the next fiscal period — likely, I assume, to be reported on in the coming weeks with the annual report from the Ombuds­person’s office.

M. de Jong: To the Attorney, I suppose an obvious question with the helpful information he’s brought to the committee…. In the situation I think he mentioned, there were 11 of what he termed “carry-forwards,” so disclosures that are being assessed, I think — for assessment.

Does the Attorney General’s staff…? Are they able to assist him in providing an indication to the committee about the average length of time — I realize it’s early days for the life of the legislation, but I suppose it is a valid question to ask — between the time a discloser provides their disclosure and is informed as to whether or not it will lead to an investigation? What, in these early days, is the average with respect to that turnaround?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that staff within the ministry are working on a rough assumption of matters, where there’s a substantive disclosure that requires some level of review and investigation by the Ombudsperson, of a timeline of about six months to a year to complete a full process. But that is mostly speculative, because as I advised earlier, the Ombudsperson’s office is not providing regular updates to us on number of disclosures, investigations completed, timelines and so on.

This will be an annual reporting process of the Om­budsperson’s office. In short, it’s hard for us to know be­cause we’re not actually doing the investigations. So we’ll see in the Ombudsperson’s annual report some information about that.

M. de Jong: This is undoubtedly my fault, not the Attorney’s. I have the impression that there are two stages to this, or maybe three stages: the disclosure by the discloser; then some kind of an assessment that takes place at that point; and then if it matures, if a decision is arrived at that the threshold has been met for a more fulsome investigation, the engagement with the Ombudsperson.

I think the part about this that I was interested in is the first — or maybe it’s the second stage — where the disclosure has been made and there is an assessment being made about whether or not it warrants a full investigation. In the same way, maybe for the Attorney’s…. Maybe it’s analogous to think about a Law Society complaint, where there is an initial review about whether it should go to a full investigation. If I’m thinking about that incorrectly, please, the Attorney can tell me.

It’s that first initial assessment and whether or not he’s in a position to offer any advice to the committee about how long that has tended to take.

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: For timelines in terms of summary dismissal of complaints, again, our information is limited in the sense that the Ombudsperson’s office is leading these investigations. What they disclose through the annual report will be disclosed in terms of timelines. I wish I could be more specific, but I cannot. That is the way this thing has been structured, and deliberately so.

The relevant section the member is asking about is section 22, which talks about summary dismissal of disclosures received. Sub 22(1) has mandatory reasons to dismiss a disclosure, and sub 22(2) has discretionary reasons.

In sub (1), examples of mandatory reasons why a matter should not proceed to a full investigation — must not — is if it’s a matter of a dispute between employee and employer in relation to a matter of employment. Obviously, there are employment law–related processes that are already set up. Another example is if it’s relation to the prosecution of an offence, because we don’t want to tread into prosecutorial discretion. Those are examples on the mandatory side.

On the discretionary side: were there adequate particulars to be able to ground an investigation? In other words: was there enough detail for the investigator to have a place to start, and, reasonably, was there an issue here? Was it frivolous or vexatious or made in bad faith? All items the member will be familiar with in terms of courts, as well — exercising discretion to dismiss matters before they’re heard. This aims to ensure that the Ombudsperson’s resources aren’t taxed pursuing matters that are inadequately detailed or inappropriate for the Ombudsperson to oversee.

One matter that relates to the bill in front of the House is issues related to an adjudicative function of court or other statutory decision-maker in terms of the actual decision. We can cross that bridge when we come to it in terms of the discussion. But an important function to ensure the judicious use of limited resources at the Ombudsperson’s office.

M. de Jong: I think the last question on this point. Is the Attorney or his staff aware of any — again, in these early days — complaints having been registered by a discloser around the length of time that it has taken to render a decision about an investigation?

Hon. D. Eby: We just don’t know the answer to that question. It’s information of the Ombudsperson’s office.

M. de Jong: So 57 matters in total and 17 requests for advice. That’s relevant, because a lot of the amendments we are dealing with relate to that reinforcing the ability to seek advice.

[4:50 p.m.]

This is another general question. I don’t know if the Attorney or the staff or the team that helped compile the legislation had any preconceived notions. I think, during the debate on the original bill, there was reference made to consultations with other jurisdictions. Did the number of submissions — 57 matters and maybe, more particularly, the 22 disclosures — come as a surprise to the Attorney? Was that about in the range of what they were expecting? Does that compare favourably to other jurisdictions, or are we seeing far more or far less than exist in other jurisdictions?

Hon. D. Eby: Broadly, our act is modelled on Manitoba’s, so they’re the most logical comparator. The scope of the application of the acts is relevant to the numbers. Manitoba currently includes Crowns and universities, for example, whereas we don’t. We’re in a phased process and expanding the act as we learn lessons and move forward. As we get closer to a larger scope like Manitoba’s, I imagine our numbers would start to appear more similar.

I can advise the member that in a ten-year report compiled in 2018 on the first ten years of Manitoba’s whistleblower protection law, the province’s Ombudsperson’s office received 155 disclosures, an average of just over 15 a year. Some 24 of those triggered an investigation by the Ombudsperson’s office, and there were three findings of wrongdoing. They have a broader scope than ours.

There’s also Quebec, which has whistleblower legislation now. It’s important to note that Quebec allows members of the public to make complaints under that process. So their numbers are completely different than ours, in the sense that the reporting numbers are quite large coming from members of the public, as the member might appreciate, making it hard to compare.

Those are the relevant comparators that I can share information on. I’m advised by staff that this is roughly in line with what they were expecting to see from the initial phase of our implementation.

M. de Jong: That, too, is helpful. Is it fair to say that — given the processes that are captured, created by and authorized by the act — the public’s awareness of an investigation would not occur until it has been concluded and reported upon, except if the discloser chose otherwise?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Just a clarification. The discloser, having made the disclosure and the Ombudsperson initiating the investigation…. The discloser doesn’t determine the public release by the Ombudsperson. That is a decision made by the Ombudsperson around the public-interest test or the specific-person test in subsection 40(4) in terms of an early report or to hold it to the annual report in terms of reporting out about the wrongdoing and corrective action, if any, taken under subsection 38(2).

I would imagine the Ombudsperson would take into account, if there was a particular perspective of the discloser about a harm they might realize, if it was released early or released in a different way, or that it needed to be released early or whatever. But ultimately, that decision would be made by the Ombudsperson, not by the discloser or by government, although government does have a chance to respond to a special report issued under subclause 40(4).

The second piece is that the act really emphasizes that the investigation should be complete before the details are reported on. The goal, of course, is to avoid a set of allegations being publicly reported, that ultimately end up to be unfounded and cause grief for a significant number of members of the public service along the way, when in fact they haven’t done anything wrong. The goal is that only actual wrongdoing is reported out in detail under the act and only once the investigation is complete.

M. de Jong: Thanks to the Attorney for the clarification. I undoubtedly asked the question clumsily, and I take no issue with any of what the Attorney has described.

Is there anything to preclude a discloser who chose to make public their disclosure from doing so? Is there a sanction? I understand, in most cases, the motivation would be the opposite. But the Ombudsperson could not be held to account for a discloser who chose at some point, prematurely or prior to the final report — making public the fact that they had made a disclosure under the act. Is that correct?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There is a very, I’ll say, circumscribed way for a public official to make an urgent public disclosure and still retain the protections of the act. It’s under section 16. Where a public employee has a perception of an imminent, substantial and specific risk to either a member of the public or to the environment, they are allowed to make a public disclosure but only if they follow the steps of consulting a relevant protection officer.

It’s related to the subject matter. So if it’s about the environment, emergency management B.C. If it’s about some legal issue, the police. Or if it’s a health issue, the public health officer. And they have to follow the advice of that protection officer. Our expectation would be that, typically, these protection officials would say: “Thanks for letting us know. We’re going to use our authorities to investigate this and address the issue that you’ve brought to our attention. You don’t need to take any further steps.” But they could say, “Yes, go ahead. You can publicly release that information,” if, in their opinion, it was necessary for it to be publicly released.

The goal here is that intuitively, if a person believed there was an imminent criminal or environmental or health threat, from the information that they came across, and they needed to get it out quickly, they would call the police, call public health or call emergency management and say: “Hey, there’s going to be a spill. There’s going to be a crime. There’s going to be a public health threat.” They would follow that intuitive process.

If they do that, they need to immediately let either their designated officer within their ministry or agency know or let the Ombudsperson know that they have taken those steps to publicly release that information that would otherwise be confidential. And they would still have the benefit of the protection of the act.

Now, given the sort of potential complexity — despite the intuitive idea that if you know of a crime that’s going to put someone at risk, you call police — it’s certainly reasonable to believe that someone might be a bit cautious about using that approach. So in these amendments that are in front of the House, section 16, we try to make it really clear that the designated officer or the Ombudsperson, if they believe that there’s an imminent risk, can also immediately go to protection officials — whether police, EMBC or the public health officer — to report that information and get them to take action under their respective authorities.

If a public servant who was concerned went to the Ombudsperson, the Ombudsperson could make that call to release that information publicly to a relevant agency.

M. de Jong: We’ll get to section 16. I actually have a question about that, because given the way it’s drafted, I wondered about the inclusion of the word “may” in circumstances where perhaps “must” is more appropriate. But we can talk about that when we get to section 16.

The last couple of general things. Again, the Attorney has referred to the important role played by the designated officers. Are they all in place? Has there been any…? It’s probably not the most sought-after role within the public service to be the designated officer for the purposes of this act, but have they all been appointed? Does every employee covered by the existing provisions and application of the act now have a designated officer? And have the Attorney and his staff received any feedback from those designated officers about the process thus far?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that every ministry has not one, but two sets of designated officers. There’s a ministry-designated officer that has the ability to receive and pro­vide advice to employees around disclosures, and there’s the agency-designated officer that has the ability to conduct investigations in relation to disclosures. Political staff also have designated officers.

These agency-designated officers received five disclosures from public servants under the process. So it is working, to the extent that people are feeling comfortable to bring those disclosures forward. There was no outcome reported for any of those five disclosures, whether investigations were initiated, concluded or carried over, for the last fiscal year report. The new report should be due out in the coming weeks. We’ll have updates on that.

M. de Jong: Within the ministries, was there a particular level of official? Was it generally an ADM that was ap­pointed as the designated officer, or some other level within the bureaucracy?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that typically the person in this role is either an ADM or a deputy minister. They are also typically people who previously held the designation and still do hold the designation of “ministry ethics advisor.” It’s a person that people are accustomed to understanding as the person to go to if they have an ethical concern in relation to their employment. So there’s overlap between the various public safety ethics safeguards — conflict of interest, as well as these types of disclosures.

M. de Jong: I’m going to ask the Attorney now a question about something that he has mentioned previously in the earlier stages of the debate.

I know, by the way, just by way of warning, that it is a matter that also engages the interest of my colleague the Leader of the Third Party. I’ll ask the general question and then…. We’re not necessarily in close proximity, but hopefully she’ll take that as a hint, as an indication, that thereafter I’ll ask the Chair to recognize her, because I think it is an area that she, from her second reading remarks, wished to explore. My sense is this might be the time in the committee stage debate to do it.

My general question, of course, relates to the government’s stated intention and the Attorney’s stated intention to expand the application of the act. We don’t see specific provisions in the amending legislation before us to do that.

[5:10 p.m.]

The general question will be to invite the Attorney to fill in the gaps, to the extent he is able or willing to today, about the progression and the timelines around which that expansion of the act’s application will take place, which we are told has necessitated and led to many of the amendments before the House today.

Hon. D. Eby: So a couple of pieces. The primary goals that government has around the expansion of PIDA relate to schools, universities, Crown corporations and health, including health authorities. These have been our goals around the future phases of rollout of PIDA from the time of implementation of the act.

The reason why we are implementing in phases is that when we looked at best practices around the world, including other Canadian jurisdictions with public interest disclosure legislation, best practice was a phased implementation that allowed for any issues in the system to be worked out before rolling it out more broadly and ensuring that as it rolls out, it’s more effective and has the confidence of the public sector.

It allows the time to address the unique needs of different employee groups, as well, as we roll out to a health authority versus a Crown corporation, for example, or schools. You know, they’re all quite different, and the needs are quite different, and the contacts and the designated officers will be quite different, and the training delivery will be quite different, so we need to do that work.

Now, obviously, when you look at the list of our primary targets for expansion — health authorities, health, Crown corporations, universities and schools — these are also, unfortunately, a number of the agencies that have been particularly hard hit by COVID, in terms of needing to respond quite quickly and change business practices in order to be able to respond and still deliver services.

[5:15 p.m.]

What has been happening is that staff have been reaching out to these agencies to confirm the timelines and when we’ll be able to deploy this effectively in their organizations, because the priority remains delivering education, for example, as well as delivering health care during the pandemic. We do know that this is an additional requirement beyond core business.

On the competing side of that, we do have the In Plain Sight report from Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond about systemic racism within the health sector and the desire to really activate that speak-up culture within health care. So there is some understanding of the urgency in health, as well — not just within the ministry but within the health authorities and those who are delivering health care in the province — about the need for systems to be in place.

The short answer is that we are committed to apply PIDA in the broader sector between now and 2024, which is a very broad timeline. But I can advise the member that the reason for that is there is a five-year review process that starts in 2024. Obviously, we hope to be implementing sooner than that, but that is the guarantee that I can offer today. I think it’s a shared interest of mine, and I imagine all members in this place, that people be able to bring forward concerns that they have and not face retaliation and that they have very clear legislated protections and third parties to go to. We’ll be delivering that as quickly as we can.

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the member for Abbotsford West for the lengthy preface. Good to always get an alert that time is coming up.

I want to start with my line of questions related to the statistics that the Attorney General gave about the ten-year Manitoba report. He mentioned that there were 155 disclosures and 24 investigations, which resulted in three findings of wrongdoing. Does he have a breakdown of the sectors of those 155 disclosures?

Hon. D. Eby: I don’t have that breakdown, but I can provide the member with a reference. There was a ten-year review of Manitoba’s Public Interest Disclosure Act, called the Whistleblower Protection Act, released by Charlene Paquin. That was released in 2018. It’s where those statistics are from. I’m afraid I don’t have more specifics for her, but that is the reference.

S. Furstenau: Further to the comments that the Attorney General just made about the expectation around incorporating other sectors into this whistleblower protection, and in particular in light of the 2020 report from Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond…. That report came out almost a year ago. It really indicated how clearly it was to generate a speak-up culture, as the minister noted, in the health care sector.

Here we are, 11 months after that report has come out. There have been multiple reports from journalists and others about health care workers reaching out to talk about things that they want to have on the public record, yet they are not protected for whistleblower activities. In fact, the opposite currently exists.

My question is really around why there wasn’t more of a sense of urgency — in light of both Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond’s report and the pandemic — to bring that protection to health care workers with this legislation or other legislation, to incorporate them under the whistleblower protection at a time when, I think we can all agree, we want to ensure that health care workers can speak up, not only about issues of systemic racism but other issues related to the pandemic.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: So it’s a couple pieces. One is that I will endeavour to get the Ministry of Health’s response and responses to the In Plain Sight report. Our ministry is not leading that response, and I don’t want to speak for that ministry without having some basis for it.

With respect to additional requirements on health authorities and hospitals, other public health institutions in the province of identifying and training designated officers and so on, and working with us to ensure that we are setting up systems that are going to work for them, the priority without doubt has been the COVID response for the resources that are available. I don’t believe that that has meant that no action has been taken on the In Plain Sight report. We’ll get the information from the Ministry of Health for the member to assist her on that.

Also, there are processes within health authorities for reporting and bringing information forward. Again, not an area that I have particular expertise in, other than that it is our goal to provide this additional layer of support for folks in the health authorities that have information that they want to bring forward to the Ombudsperson.

Just to the member’s concern, anything that’s happening now or would have happened over the course of the pandemic or otherwise could be the subject of a PIDA-related complaint or disclosure to the Ombudsperson’s office by a public sector employee. The Ombudsperson could still investigate it on the schedule that we have for implementation.

S. Furstenau: There is a June 23, 2020, news report from CTV in which the Minister of Health is quoted saying that he thinks there will “certainly” be protection for whistleblowers following the investigation from Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, so he did give an indication at the time that he thought that that protection would be forthcoming.

I just want to turn back to the minister’s comments about why schools, Crown corporations, health authorities, universities were not included in the original legislation and are intended to be included. He noted that the plan is to follow best practices and to look at issues in other jurisdictions and see where the systems needed to be worked out.

Couldn’t that have also applied to taking lessons learned from other jurisdictions, countries, provinces that have whistleblower protection and being able to actually speed up the implementation of that here in B.C.? Would that not have been an approach to make the implementation of this more efficient, in fact?

Hon. D. Eby: That’s exactly what we did. We looked at models from other jurisdictions and implemented what we believed to be best practices here in British Columbia, one of which is phased implementation.

Just to clarify an earlier answer that the member was paraphrasing back, I just want to be totally clear that the goal of phased implementation was to learn lessons from our own implementation within core government before expanding to Crown corporations and schools and universities and so on.

[5:25 p.m.]

That’s what has led to this bill being in front of the House. We had implementation in core government. Lessons were learned. We received feedback from the Om­budsperson’s office about what was working and what needed clarity and what needed fixing. That resulted in a statutory drafting process and multiple engagements with the Ombudsperson about whether we were hitting the mark or not or identifying areas where we might disagree. That has resulted in the bill that’s in front of the House.

We have taken lessons from phase 1. There are refinements in this bill that’s in front of the House. When those are in place, then we’ll be in a position to do the expansion work that I know the member is interested in, and certainly I am as well.

S. Furstenau: Would the minister be able to be any more specific, perhaps, about what order he would expect to see the rest of these areas brought into the whistleblower protection? Is there a schedule or a plan? So far, I think what I’ve heard is that the plan is to have everything in place by 2024. I’m just wondering, particularly given the Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond report and the pandemic, if health workers and health authorities are at the top of the list for implementation.

Hon. D. Eby: The best I can advise the member is that we’re working with these various entities and organizations around an implementation schedule and the lead time necessary to implement this effectively, given the impacts of COVID. I wish I could be more specific for the member at this point, but I can’t.

S. Furstenau: This can be my final question. Was there a delay at moving forward with implementation because of the election last fall?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised by staff that the delay was exclusively, and continues to be exclusively, a pandemic-related delay around implementation, not the election.

M. de Jong: I wonder now if we could just turn our at­tention to the actual provisions of clause 1 and some of the definitions, changes to the definitions, that are contained therein.

I am guided by the words of the Attorney. He has said it again, just moments ago — that the bill is the product of lessons learned in the initial phases of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. The officials we met with made the point that the addition of the defined term “advice” is there to bring clarity where there apparently was some confusion. I’m mindful of the fact that section 11 of the act specifically authorizes the seeking of advice.

[5:30 p.m.]

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

What gave rise…? Was it a specific example? Was it a group of examples? What gave rise to the perceived need to go further and create the defined term and then inject it into the act as frequently as these amendments do?

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment is linked to another amendment in the definitions, which is the definition of “disclosure.” Previously, without a definition of “advice,” the definition of disclosure was intended to provide clarity through other parts of the act through this section, “unless the context otherwise requires.”

There are a number of areas where disclosure is mentioned, and it gets a bit technical. But that phrase “unless the context otherwise requires” understandably created some confusion about the application of protections or whether we were talking about advice or what.

[5:35 p.m.]

The idea is to clarify that now the “disclosure” definition has been amended to remove that phrase that caused the confusion, and a definition for “advice” has been provided to include two different components, just to be clear about when people are seeking advice and when they’re protected by the act. It means advice that may be requested in respect of making a disclosure itself, or it means “advice that may be requested in respect of making a…complaint about a reprisal” under the act.

I’ll take another stab at it, because it’s not a super-intuitive process. I might have to try to explain a couple times because staff had to explain a couple times to me, and I’m still not totally sure I’m explaining it properly.

Disclosure currently includes the phrase “unless the context requires,” and that has been interpreted as suggesting that disclosure could mean “request for advice.” Or disclosure could mean “complaint about a reprisal,” if the context requires that. That is what is meant to be clarified here. It’s that advice is advice, and disclosure is just that. It’s a disclosure of wrongdoing made by a discloser in accordance with the act.

M. de Jong: Just to be clear, to the Attorney, I don’t think the halls of justice are going to fall on the strength of our discussion here today, and I was grateful for the staff trying to explain their perceived need for the change.

It occurred to me, though, that insofar as there was apparently this lack of clarity…. I’m going to say this, and I don’t mean it disrespectfully to anyone involved. In the time that I have spent in this place in various roles, I have discovered that there is sometimes lack of clarity that is a lack of clarity on the part of people using the tool — in this case, the employees — and then there’s also a lack of clarity on the part of people who craft the tools. One doesn’t necessarily equate with the other.

What I found curious is that in trying to address that lack of clarity around the ability to seek advice — and the Attorney mentioned it — the definition of “discloser” was changed so that — and this is in subclause 1(c) of the bill before us — you’re now deemed to be a discloser if all you want to do is get advice.

I wonder if that might create a different kind of confusion for the person who says: “Well, I don’t want to effect a disclosure. I don’t want to be a discloser. I just want to get a little advice first.” I’m wondering if there’s any concern that by trying to address that other confusion or lack of clarity that I’m still not entirely sure I understand, we’re not in jeopardy of creating a different kind of confusion.

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Staff were able to crystalize this, in my mind, by referring me to section 3 of the bill, which amends section 4 of the act.

In section 4 of the act, it talks about obligations on chief executives of — let’s talk about expansion — a Crown corporation or a health authority and their obligations under the act. They have to make certain information available to their employees. It sets out that information in a list, (a), (b) and (c): information about the act, any other prescribed information. But the relevant one is subsection (b), which talks about the old version of the act: “information about how to make a disclosure under this Act.”

The proposed new version is information about “how to request advice or make a disclosure or a complaint about a reprisal” under this act. Spelling that out really clearly and separating out advice from disclosure and complaints about reprisal — those three different pieces of information that an employee would need to know — makes it crystal-clear to these chief executives that this is the information they’re going to have to provide to their employees so that their obligations aren’t confusing under the old version.

If they flip back to the definitions section — “Okay, I have to provide employees information about how to make a disclosure” — “disclosure” means “a disclosure of wrongdoing made by a discloser…unless the context otherwise requires.” What does that mean — unless the context otherwise requires? “Does that mean I have to provide more information or what?”

Now, with the new amendment, what does “advice” mean? Well, advice means “advice that may be requested in respect of making a disclosure or complaint about reprisal….” So it’s very clear about what information has to be provided.

Now, with respect to defining someone as a “discloser” in the act, that is for ease of reference throughout the legislation. It’s very common in complaint-related bills and legislation to refer to someone as a “complainant” as well. This is roughly analogous to this. The goal here is clarity about what the person’s rights are. It’s a term of convenience.

I accept the member’s suggestion that someone might be a bit put off if they were described as a discloser in the act and all they wanted was advice, but most folks will simply be receiving information that you’re able to get advice about this from the designated official in your health authority or from the Ombudsperson, and here’s the information about how to do that, because we have to provide that to you.

M. de Jong: Okay, thanks. I’m not going to belabour the point. I expect at some point — or it’s probably already happened — there’s a form or an online form that someone would be referred to. There may be some wisdom in, if not in the legal context of the drafting, then in the form, using the term “discloser” or “person seeking advice” so that that is clear in that context.

Just a couple more questions about these definitions as they operate through the act vis-à-vis one another. Can the same designated officer that provides advice — and advice now becomes a defined term — also investigate?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that in practice in the public service, there are two categories. There’s the ministry-designated officer that can provide advice and receive a disclosure, but they don’t do investigations. Then there’s the agency-designated officer that can do those two functions but also do investigations. So they can be separated within the public service, but there’s nothing within the legislation that requires those to be separated roles.

[5:45 p.m.]

You could have the same person providing advice about a process and then also doing that investigation. If a public servant felt uncomfortable about that, if the advice that they received from the designated officer was: “Oh, it’s not a big deal. Leave it alone….” That is why we established the Ombudsperson’s office as also being able to provide this advice and receive disclosures.

M. de Jong: I take it, then, from the Attorney’s response and remarks that he doesn’t anticipate any difficulties and believes that the incorporation of the role of the Ombudsperson is sufficient to alleviate any concerns a discloser, an ultimate discloser, might have that the person with whom she or he discussed the matter and perhaps revealed some thoughts on the matter is now charged with the task of examining it further.

Hon. D. Eby: Two pieces to the member’s question. One is that yes, by providing a mechanism — an investigatory mechanism, an advice mechanism — entirely separate and apart from the public service and an oversight body for that Ombudsperson’s office through the Auditor General’s office, I believe we have put in safeguards. If someone received initial advice that the person essentially had already determined that any investigation was a sort of foregone conclusion or was otherwise dismissive or concerning, the person could go or could skip the whole process and go directly to the Ombudsperson in the first place.

There was an element to the member’s question that perhaps raised concerns about how the designated officer might use information that was received if someone came and requested advice on a disclosure. Perhaps I’m reading into it, and it’ll just be generally useful in that event, but there are safeguards with respect to someone coming for advice or to discuss a potential disclosure in section 6 of the act — that the Ombudsperson’s office or the designated officer cannot use that information or disclose it except as provided in the act, as far as the person’s identity or the fact that the conversation had been had, and so on.

M. de Jong: An excellent segue to my next question, which incorporates section 1 and perhaps section 6.

Can information disclosed in the course of seeking advice…? Can that become the basis for a disclosure, as defined by the act, without the consent of the person seeking the advice?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There may be a distinction without a difference here for the member, but I’ll endeavour to do my best.

With respect to PIDA itself, the Public Interest Disclosure Act, it’s very hard to inadvertently provide a disclosure. There is a form. You’ve got to fill it out. You have to indicate that you are making a Public Interest Disclosure Act complaint. So there wouldn’t be a PIDA investigation unless a formal disclosure were made.

However, there are a couple of scenarios where information may come to the attention of an agency-designated officer, for example, who might be a deputy minister or an ADM, in the course of giving advice, or to the Ombudsperson, in the course of doing an investigation.

Taking, first, the situation of there has been a formal disclosure under PIDA, the Ombudsperson is investigating that and discovers a whole different issue that the complainant never intended to draw to the attention of the Ombudsperson through their PIDA complaint. The Ombudsperson is able to, on their own initiative, investigate that new matter as well. They don’t have to ignore it and say this was not…. Nor is it a protected matter, because it wasn’t raised by the original discloser.

The second scenario is one in which a person comes forward to an agency-designated officer and in the course of seeking advice maybe discloses wrongdoing to the agency-designated officer that may be happening. There is a positive obligation on public servants under the standards of conduct to report wrongdoing.

As an aside, making a PIDA disclosure satisfies the requirement of reporting wrongdoing, so you don’t have to do two separate disclosures. But that’s just an aside.

It may be that information that is disclosed in the course of seeking advice could qualify as reporting wrongdoing under the standards of conduct, as well, for a public servant and satisfy that requirement and also, potentially, lead to, say, an ADM or a deputy minister taking further steps outside of PIDA. But there is no ability for the designated officer to use the person’s identifying information or disclose their identity in doing that. They’d have to be extremely careful if that’s what they were doing because the person is protected in coming forward, seeking that advice.

The Chair: Before I recognize the member for Abbotsford West, I had to do a little checking.

According to Sessional Order 14, it’s up to the Speaker to determine whether or not members are actually seated during the debate. Walking for health purposes, while laudable, in my opinion, is not seated during the debate.

[5:55 p.m.]

Please, if you are going to go for a walk, turn off your camcorders and then turn them back on once you are seated and ready to participate in the debate. Thank you very much.

M. de Jong: Well, this debate is no walk in the park. I can assure you of that.

All of that is very helpful. I was going to ask a follow-up, but the Attorney very helpfully offered one example that is perhaps worthy of one follow-up question. It’s the scenario in which the employee arrives seeking advice from the designated officer and discloses, in the course of seeking that advice, wrongdoing which triggers some other obligations pursuant to some other provisions on the part of the designated officer.

In that case, is it fair to say, then, that the employee needs to be aware that in the course of seeking advice — maybe it’s easier to do this, rather than the abstract, with an example — about the conduct of a fellow employee…? The person seeking that advice is far from certain that they wish to pursue the matter with a disclosure but may inadvertently begin a chain of events by seeking that advice. If that is so — and I’m not being judgmental about that; I’m just exploring — at a practical level, would it be wise to alert the employee to that possibility in advance?

Hon. D. Eby: A public servant who’s aware of…. Let’s say there’s a fraud ongoing, and they’re deciding what to do about it. It’s something that they’re aware of. They have two routes. At a minimum, they have a standards of conduct obligation to report it up. There may also be legislated requirements for them to report it, above and beyond the standards of conduct obligation.

PIDA provides them with an avenue to make the report and satisfy those requirements without disclosing their identity, but it doesn’t modify the obligation to report. So an employee who approaches a senior manager with details of a fraud that they are aware of would reasonably, and is trained to, anticipate that that would result in some type of action, because that is the point. We’re trying to surface wrongdoing.

[6:00 p.m.]

The goal here is to provide an avenue by which the individual could bring the information forward confidentially and to eliminate a potential barrier that might cause them to otherwise be tempted to not pursue it, despite other obligations they may have — to make it easier to surface the wrongdoing.

To the member’s question, there is extensive training of public servants about the need to surface wrongdoing: their obligations to do so, that it is an employment requirement, and so on. The goal here is not to surprise someone who may or may not want to disclose the wrongdoing with: “Oh, you asked for advice. Now we’ve got you, and we’ve got the information.” In fact, there is protection from reprisal from even just going to ask for advice.

The goal here is to lower the barrier for reporting wrongdoing by allowing an individual to keep their identity, in reporting it, secret, and also providing an avenue outside of the ministry, department or agency itself to bring forward this information and still have their identity protected.

The Chair: Abbotsford West, then we’ll note the hour.

M. de Jong: Right. I am going to leave it at that, on section 1, and then we can pick it up in the future, on the remaining sections.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:02 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.

Mr. Speaker: Members, pursuant to the sessional order, a deferred division will take place shortly on the motion for second reading of Bill 5, InBC Investment Corp. Act.

The House recessed from 6:04 p.m. to 6:13 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, I call the House back to order. The division will proceed in five minutes.

[6:15 p.m.]

Members, we will now proceed with the deferred division. The question is second reading of Bill 5, InBC Investment Corp. Act.

[6:20 p.m. - 6:25 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — InBC INVESTMENT CORP. ACT

(continued)

Second reading of Bill 5 approved on the following division:

Point of Order

F. Donnelly: The Minister of State for Lands and Natural Resources is in the vote. His camera is on; however, he couldn’t be heard. He has written to the Clerk. He was present for the vote. I ask you to confirm and include if he is present for the vote. I believe he is wanting to indicate he is in favour of the motion.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Member, we will connect with the minister, and we will confirm his vote.

[6:30 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly: Those voting aye: 56. Those voting nay: 28.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is carried.

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

Bill 5, InBC Investment Corp. Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:32 p.m.