British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, October 8, 2015

20151008pm-Hansard-v29n7

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281 (P rint) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Thursday, October 8, 2015 Afternoon Sitting Volume 29, Number 7

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Fourth Session, 40th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ......................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Norm Letnick Minister of Children and Family Development .......................................................................................................Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and Minister Responsible for TransLink ................ Hon. Peter Fassbender Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Mike Bernier Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review .....................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ..........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Thomson Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacific Strategy and Multiculturalism ...........................................................................................Hon.

T eresa W at Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon. Suzanne Anton Minister of Small Business and Red T ape Reduction and Minister Responsible for the Liquor Distribution Branch ........................................................................................................Hon.

Coralee Oakes Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation..............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................................ Hon. Amrik Virk Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon.

Todd Stone Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness ....................................................................................................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition ...................................................................................................................................................John Horgan Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................. Richard T.

Lee Assistant Deputy Speaker ............................................................................................................................................................... Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ............................................................................................................................................ Pat Pimm Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ...................................................................................................................................................

Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees ................................................................................................................................. Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ...................................................................................................................................................Roderick MacArthur, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Anton, Hon. Suzanne (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Fraserview Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal).....................................................................Penticton Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bennett, Hon.

Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Bernier, Hon. Mike (BC Liberal) ......................................... Peace River South Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ...........................Prince George–Valemount Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ................................Surrey-Cloverdale Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ........................................................... Burnaby-Edmonds Clark, Hon.

Christy (BC Liberal) ........................................ Westside-Kelowna Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) ...........................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (BC Liberal) ............................................. Maple Ridge–Mission Darcy, Judy (NDP) ..................................................................New Westminster de Jong, Hon. Michael, QC (BC Liberal) ..............................

Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP)............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Eby, David (NDP) ..........................................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fassbender, Hon. Peter (BC Liberal) ...................................

Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacific Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ............................................. Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Wm. Scott (BC Liberal) .................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) ....................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Heyman, George (NDP) .................................................... Vancouver-Fairview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Holman, Gary (NDP) .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Horgan, John (NDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) ............................................................. Nanaimo Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr.

Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Thompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Hon. Norm (BC Liberal) ..............................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Don (BC Liberal) ............................................................

Comox Valley Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon. Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Pat (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River North Plecas, Dr. Darryl (BC Liberal) .............................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon.

Mary (BC Liberal) ..............................................................Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................

Port Moody–Coquitlam Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ........................................................................North Coast Robinson, Selina (NDP) .............................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, Hon. John (BC Liberal) ................................................

Nechako Lakes Shin, Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) ...............................................Burnaby-Lougheed Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Shane (NDP) .....................................................Vancouver-Hastings Stilwell, Hon. Michelle (BC Liberal)............................... Parksville-Qualicum Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara Stone, Hon. Todd (BC Liberal) .........................

Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal) ..................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal) ...........................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ..................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ............................................................Fraser-Nicola Thomson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Hon. Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon.

Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston Vacant .....................................................................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Vacant ...................................................................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Dr.

Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacific Rim .......................................................................... Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ...................................................................

Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ..........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .............................................................Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North .............................................................................. Richard T. Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon.

Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ......................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Throness Columbia River–Revelstoke .................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley.....................................................................................Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain ....................................................................Vacant Coquitlam-Maillardville...........................................................

Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................ Bill Routley Delta North .........................................................................Wm. Scott Hamilton Delta South...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon.

Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola.................................................................................... Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Thompson ............................................ Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Kamloops–South Thompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ..................................................... Hon. Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon.

Steve Thomson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon. Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ...........................................................................

Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan ......................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon. John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ...............................................................................

Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ..................................................Jane Thornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .......................................................Hon.

Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................ Pat Pimm Peace River South ..................................................................Hon. Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................ Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast .................................................

Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ............................................................. Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon. Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands ....................................................

Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................ Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon.

Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon. Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers ..................................................................Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon.

Amrik Virk Surrey-Whalley.............................................................................. Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview ..................................................................George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek ...................................................................Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview ......................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr.

Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant ......................................................................Vacant Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill .......................................................................Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.........................................................................Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................. Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..........................................................Jordan Sturdy Westside-Kelowna ................................................................

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 48; New Democratic 33; Independent 2; Vacant 2

CONTENTS Thursday, October 8, 2015 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Standing Order 35 (Speaker’s Ruling) .................................................................................................................................. 9543 Request to debate a matter of urgent public importance — government response to public safety issues in Surrey Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 9543 Bill 39 — Provincial Immigration Programs Act (continued) D.

Plecas H. Bains M. Morris S. Simpson Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right) ............................................................................................................................. 9550 A. Dix Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 9550 Bill 39 — Provincial Immigration Programs Act (continued) D. Barnett D. Eby M. Dalton S. Hammell J. Thornthwaite Hon. S. Bond Bill 37 — Miscellaneous StatutesAmendment Act (No. 2), 2015 Hon. S. Anton L. Krog A.

Weaver Hon. S. Anton Committee of the Whole House ............................................................................................................................................ 9562 Bill 38 — Franchises Act J. Shin Hon. C. Oakes A. Dix B. Ralston

THURSDAY , OCTOBER 8, 2015 The House met at 1:33 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Standing Order 35 (Speaker’s Ruling) REQUEST TO DEBATE A MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE — GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES IN SURREY Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the member for Surrey-Whalley rose in the House on October 8 re - questing, pursuant to Standing Order 35, that the House do adjourn to discuss the disturbing trend of gang-relat- ed crime in Surrey. Comments were provided on the mo- tion by the hon. Minister of Finance. The Chair deferred.

Pursuant to the standing order, the matter must be of urgent public importance. While the Chair is indeed con- cerned with the level of violence as outlined by the mem- ber, the Chair must follow precedents of this House. Two leading decisions are those of Speaker Barnes on July 11, 1995, and Speaker Shantz on March 6, 1961. Both Speakers stated that, in effect, it is not the urgency and importance of the issue being raised but the urgency of the debate. There are many other Speaker decisions which speak to the essential criteria that have been consistently ap - plied to Standing Order 35 applications.

In the instant case, it can be fairly said that crime has been on the in - crease in this area for some time — some considerable time, not just in the immediate past — and has been and continues to be a topic of debate in this House in this session. Therefore, the application by the member fails to meet the test under Standing Order 35. Orders of the Day Hon. B. Bennett: Continuing second reading debate on Bill 39, Provincial Immigration Programs Act, 2015. Second Reading of Bills BILL 39 — PROVINCIAL IMMIGRATION PROGRAMS ACT (continued) D.

Plecas: It gives me great pleasure on behalf of my constituents in Abbotsford South to rise today to speak in favour of Bill 39, the Provincial Immigration Programs Act. [1335] [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Last month, we heard the news that for the very first time there are now more Canadians 65 and over than there are under the age of 15. This directly filters down to the workforce, as fewer younger people are entering the workforce than older people are leaving the workforce. We have reached a tipping point. British Columbia is in an enviable position.

We need workers to fill the jobs that come with a growing econ - omy. While our priority is to always have B.C. workers first in line for the job opportunities that come with a di- verse and growing economy, we know that if every single British Columbian was trained, we would still not have enough workers to fill all of the openings. Economic immigration plays a role in driving B.C. ’s economic growth and in attracting the best and the brightest. The Provincial Immigration Programs Act sup- ports B.C. ’s continued role as a leader in economic im- migration programs.

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

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

This program has been so popular that effective September 1 of this year, new applications are no longer being accepted for the majority of the skills, immigration and express entry categories. The quota of PNP nomina- tions for British Columbia is set by the federal govern - ment. For 2015, this allocation was 5,500 people. We continue to work with the federal government to receive more PNP allocations. Since January, the program has issued more nomina - tions than any other province, under express entry B.C.

Every year, this province achieves 100 percent of its nom- ination quota, and we are well on track to use the full al- location again this year. Recent changes to the federal immigration programs have increased the number of ap- plications to this program. Of the total immigrants that came to B.C. in 2014, 80 percent came through federal 9543

British Columbia Debates9544 Thursday, October 8, 2015 immigration streams. Only 20 percent of B.C. ’s total im- migrant population came through the provincial nom - inee program. This legislation has three main objectives. First, we are increasing transparency in the administration of im- migration programs, and we are doing this by assigning decision-making authority to a director of immigration programs. As well, we are implementing a process for re- viewing applications that are refused. Second, we are protecting the integrity of immigration programs.

We are improving collection, use and disclo - sure of applicant information with the federal govern - ment. We are identifying and stopping fraud by allowing the province to cancel applications where fraud is dis - covered. We are also banning those found to be making fraudulent applications from applying to the provincial program for two years. As well, we are conducting in - spections to monitor compliance with program require- ments. Third, we are respecting the taxpayer by clearly out - lining the province’s authority to collect and set fee amounts for applying to provincial programs.

This en - sures that program costs are recovered. [1340] B.C. was an early adopter of the federal express entry priority system. Express entry is a new on-line applica - tion management system introduced by Citizenship and Immigration Canada. We are also the first province to introduce a new provincial nominee program stream to align with the federal express entry priority system. This allows the provincial nominee program to use the ex - press entry system to meet B.C. ’s specific labour needs. Economic immigration will continue to play an im - portant role in driving B.C. ’s economic growth.

We have introduced this bill to ensure we have a strong legislative foundation for the provincial nominee program. This is why we have made targeted changes to the program, so that it’s better aligned with B.C. ’s current labour market and economic development priorities. H. Bains: It is a pleasure to stand and speak on this bill. Bill 39, I would say, is an important one, because over the past number of months and years, I think, a number of issues were identified and brought before this House just to deal with the difficulties for those people who came to British Columbia through this program.

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

When you look at the histories and the difficulties that the new immigrants went through, history is full of inci- dences where we, today — today’s population — would loudly say: “What were they thinking? How could they treat fellow individuals in such a bad manner?” We have come a long ways, with so much work done by so many people before us. It’s not only outside of this House, but many people who came to this House made our lives better, worked towards changing for the better. As a result, we are a better society. We are a better country.

That’s why we should learn lessons from history, that our actions today…. Will they stand the test of time? When our children, their children, will be looking back at decisions that we make here in this House, we want to make those decisions so that they will feel proud that we made the right decisions — that even 50, 60 years down the road, they will pass the test. I think I want to give this to the minister. From all min- isters, I think this minister does understand the issues that are faced and brought to her in her ministry, and she generally tried to fix them.

But I think I must say it seems sometimes that between her good intentions and the ideological way of doing business by the Liberal party, there’s a big, thick wall. That is the issue that we always have to come here and remind people out there that there are some good people out there trying to do a good job, and they should let them do that.

This bill here, when we are talking about Bill 39, touches on a few things, but it still has left many issues that were brought to the attention of this minister and this government — not only here, but many by ac - tivists and the workers and their representatives outside. [1345] The reason I brought the history here, of Canada, is that we built this country through permanent immi - grants. But the shift now, going back a few years, has turned to more of a temporary type of immigration than permanent immigration. If you look at the sheer numbers, in Canada today there are 500,000 temporary foreign workers.

B.C. takes a larger portion of temporary foreign workers, with about 50,000 arriving in 2012. Today we have like 74,000 tem- porary foreign workers in British Columbia. And if you go back, through this program, about 20,000 were ad - mitted on a permanent basis. So 20,000 on a permanent basis admitted since 2001, and 74,000 temporary foreign workers are here today. Now, I must say that the temporary foreign workers idea was a right idea at one time, if it was applied for the right reasons. It was to recruit, temporarily, skilled labour that we did not have here — on a temporary basis.

We bring them here, and then in the meantime, we will train our own and make sure that our work continues on and we do not harm our economy because we did not have the skills that we needed at that particular time. But now we’ve seen more non-skilled workers on a temporary for- eign visa than skilled.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, October 8, 2015 9545 What happens when that is allowed? Under the watch of this government, they come in — and we have example after example brought to this government — and they are exploited, abused. There’s always a reluctance, and they’re afraid to raise any voice if they feel that the rules are not applied to them. The minister that you have heard here previously, and other members of the government, has said this: “Well, the Employment Standards Act of British Columbia applies to them. ” Y es, it does. But without enforcement, none of the act or the regulations matter.

Without resources to enforce, none of them matter. And that is exactly the situation here. When you look at some of the other jurisdictions — Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick — these provinces took this issue seriously, based on Canadian values that we believe in — that no one should be exploited in this day and age, regardless of the cir - cumstances, and that everyone must be treated equally and within the law. They put regulations and enforce - ment tools in place, where they require these employers to register if they have temporary foreign workers, and they are given permits.

The employment standards of - ficers then would be able to go and to have spot checks — check the records, speak to employees, speak to em - ployers. That’s how they enforce it. Well, we don’t have that, and this bill does not cover that either. Here was an opportunity. The government again squandered that opportunity to have that one part attached to Bill 39. It’s not there. How does this whole system affect Canadians? I believe that our immigration system should be to improve our economy, to help our employers by bringing in perma - nent immigrants, or bring them and then give them a pathway to immigration.

This system should not be al - lowed to use, to exploit, their workers, nor should it be to bypass our Canadian workers. We have seen both here. [1350] We have seen the cases where Canadian workers who were available for that work were being bypassed in fa - vour of temporary foreign workers. We have seen cases on the other side of temporary foreign workers exploited and abused. There is no enforcement, or hardly any en - forcement, unless someone speaks up. And that’s the last complaint they will have. Y ou know what happens after that; they will no longer be employed. I have seen those cases.

They came to my office. Then again, also, the components of this program…. Y ou are given a work permit, and it’s employer-specific. If that employer treats you not within the law, and you complain and lose that job, there’s no other place for you, the worker, to go. They cannot go to the next employer who may need their skills. There are so many areas that this bill could have ad - dressed, and the government neglected that opportunity again. This is not right. Why isn’t there, in this bill…?

A piece that is missing is to have a component that would address the needs of British Columbian employers and, at the same time, look after the needs of those immigrants or the workers. Why aren’t there built-in safeguards to prevent abuse, and also, in the event that happens, a mechanism to deal with it? Why isn’t this bill giving authority to the Employment Standards Act, or the director — giving the director powers to have all those employers register with the em- ployment standards branch? And then give them the re- sources to enforce the rules and regulations under which these workers are employed.

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

Then, you wonder: “What is the purpose behind this bill?” All of those necessary and really essential ingredi - ents that were needed to fix the problems that were brought to the minister’s attention for the last six months to a year or even longer — if those issues are not ad - dressed, what’s the purpose? Now, this bill talks about…. There will be a director appointed by the government. Sure.

If it was done by any other government, they would stand up and say: “There’s another red tape being added. ” I think there are some good components in the bill, but the real issues that needed to be addressed aren’t be- ing addressed. I think the catchy name to any program that sounds like they’re actually helping someone, an em- ployer or the potential worker, is just that. In fact, when you read them, they do sound like they’re there to fix the problem. But they’re not.

They are even making it more difficult for the employer and the potential worker to work through the system. [1355] When you look at your immigration system, Canada, by and large, in recent history, was developed and built through reunification of families. That is essentially al - most shut down now. What it’s being replaced by is the so-called super visa. It sounds pretty good: super visa, right? It sounds pretty good, but it is just a visitor visa, under which you can bring your parents here, on a visitor visa, for up to ten years. But you’re responsible for their health care.

Y ou’re responsible for every cost they might incur when they’re here. Fair enough, but real immigration, through which parents immigrated here and your siblings came with them…. Those are the younger-generation folks who come here, go through our school system, understand the Canadian system, go through our Canadian educa - tion, become very productive members of our society

British Columbia Debates9546 Thursday, October 8, 2015 and contribute towards building our economy, creating jobs. We’ve seen example after example. Those are probably some of the most industrious entre- preneur folks that you could find — creating jobs. That is essentially shut down, because it takes about eight or ten years for that kind of application to be processed. In the meantime, if you’re 70 years old, ten years later it’s not very good, because many times you don’t get to util- ize it. That’s not how the Canadian immigration system should work.

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

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

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

We have a shortage of doctors. Our member for New Westminster, our Health critic, will tell you how many families are with- out a family physician here in B.C. Is it 15,000 families? Interjection. H. Bains: More than that. Interjection. H. Bains: A quarter of a million? Wow. [1400] We have doctors who are qualified and with proper education. They end up doing drywall or driving taxis. It’s not that anything is wrong with those professions, but be- cause those credentials aren’t recognized here, they end up doing whatever they can find. What have we got?

We have a population, a big num- ber of people, who don’t have a family physician. But on the other hand, we have people with those qualifications that are not able to practise and utilize their skills to the maximum of their potential. So we’re both losing. They’re losing, and we as a society and as a province are losing. That goes in other skill categories as well, whether you’re an engineer, a nurse, a teacher or a lawyer. All of that is the area that the government needs to pay atten - tion to.

I think they could have included some of that in Bill 39, the Provincial Immigration Programs Act, which actually talks about…. So you could have included sec - tions of that in here, but no. I think it’s disappointing that we have so many issues with PNP . We have so many issues that emanate from the PNP program, such as temporary foreign workers and the abuse that existed around that area and that those people are subjected to, but there’s no solution, no rem- edy available, even in this bill. The government had an opportunity, and they chose not to act on it.

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

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

M. Morris: One of the other things I’ve noticed so far about the discussions from members opposite, as well, is that they’re focusing a lot on the temporary for - eign worker program, which has nothing to do with our provincial nominee program and nothing to do with this bill before the House. That’s a totally federally regulated

British Columbia DebatesThursday, October 8, 2015 9547 program that is being looked after by the federal govern- ment, and the province has no authority to enter into that program at all. [1405] We’re looking at the provincial immigration program to augment the economic development that we’re seeing in British Columbia. We are going to be leading Canada with the number of jobs that we have. The policy of this provincial government is to make sure that British Columbians have access to the jobs.

But we’re going to have many more jobs than we do people available in the province here, so we are going to be looking at having to bring in folks that have the skills and the abilities to do some of the jobs that we have. The argument that’s being presented from the mem - bers across the way, like I said, pertaining to the tempor- ary foreign worker program…. Basically, what they’re saying, recommending, is that we put some clauses in this bill that’s before the House right now that will authorize enforcement of existing legislation.

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

With this bill, the priority is for us to ensure that British Columbian workers are first in line for these op - portunities. We know that even if each eligible British Columbian was trained to fill these positions, we still wouldn’t have enough workers available. That’s why eco- nomic immigration is going to play a critical role in mov- ing B.C. ’s economy forward. The existing Ministry of International Business Immigration Act gives the province the authority to de - velop and implement provincial immigration programs, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.

This new Provincial Immigration Programs Act is intended to complement this existing act by dealing specifically with the adminis- tration and the integrity of provincial immigration pro - grams. The new act will ensure our immigration programs help us attract the best and brightest to British Columbia. Here are the steps that we’re taking to ensure that this act will be supported in B.C. We’ve made targeted changes to the provincial nominee program, so it aligns better with our province’s current labour market and eco- nomic development priorities.

B.C. ’s quota of provincial nominee program nominations is set by the federal gov- ernment. For this year, that allocation is 5,500. B.C. con- tinues to work with the federal government to receive more provincial nominee program allocations. Since the 2001 inception of the program, more than 28,000 workers and entrepreneurs have been attracted to the province through the provincial nominee program. B.C. was an early adopter of the federal express entry priority system and the first province to introduce new provincial nominee programs streamed to align with the federal express entry priority system.

Since January, the provincial nominee program has issued more nominations than any other province under express entry B.C. Every year the province has achieved 100 percent of its nomination quota and is on track to use the full allocation again in 2015. In addition, we’re protecting the integrity of immi - gration programs. We’re improving collection, use and disclosure of applicant information with the federal government.

We’re identifying and stopping fraud by al- lowing the province to cancel applications where fraud is discovered and banning those found to be making fraudulent applications from applying to provincial pro- grams for two years. We’re conducting inspections to monitor compliance with program requirements. As well, we’re respecting taxpayers by clearly outlining the province’s authority to collect fees and set fee amounts for applying to immi - gration programs, ensuring program costs are recovered.

The new Provincial Immigration Programs Act is the next step in putting the province in a position to continue to attract those high-paying jobs that we’re going to be providing to all the workers coming into B.C. This bill is a step in the right direction. British Columbia is going to see and experience a phenomenal amount of economic growth over the next period of time, over the next few years. We’re going to need every avail- able worker in the province, including temporary foreign workers, to fill the void. [1410] One of the problems that I see up in my area of the province….

Northeast B.C. is a good example, where we have a lot of high-paying jobs out in the gas fields there, in exploration and the drilling and the work surround - ing that. It’s attracting just about every available worker up there. There’s nobody left in the service industry to work in the hotels and the restaurants and those kinds of things. That’s where the temporary foreign workers have been attracted — into jobs like that. We can’t seem….

I know lots of the employers from up in that neck of the woods that have come down to the Lower Mainland, come down to the populated areas in the province, put on job fairs, trying to attract the truck drivers and the types of workers that they need up there. Nobody wants to move from the area, from down in the Lower Mainland here. They’ve got no choice but to go and look for, perhaps, temporary foreign workers or somebody that’s willing to hold these jobs down in order to provide that level of service for the folks in the more rural areas of the prov - ince here.

British Columbia Debates9548 Thursday, October 8, 2015 I’m fully supportive of this bill. I think it’s going to do great things for British Columbia, and I look forward to some more discussion from the members opposite on this. S. Simpson: I’m happy to get a chance to speak to Bill 39, the Provincial Immigration Programs Act. I’ d like to start with the comments of the member for Prince George–Mackenzie and what I would suggest was a fairly cheap innuendo that the member for Vancouver- Kensington in some way was suggesting that race was an issue here. I’ d say to that member and every member here….

I’ve known the member for Vancouver-Kensington for dec - ades. I don’t think there’s anybody in this House who has committed their worklife to the protection of vulner - able workers, and particularly vulnerable foreign work - ers who come here and are exploited…. That member for Vancouver-Kensington certainly has nothing to apologize for. Maybe the member for Prince George–Mackenzie might want to learn something before he spouts off. This bill — Bill 39, the Provincial Immigration Programs Act — has a number of key components, and they are components that improve and add some value.

It creates a director of immigration programs. It’s prob- ably a good thing. We need somebody to be in charge of these programs. It does strengthen timelines and processes for the ap - plication review. That’s important as well. There’s so much uncertainty from people who are applying. It changes the roles around information collection. That generally can be a good thing, but we’re going to have to be careful about the protection of privacy here. Fraud protection is enhanced, including the ability to cancel applications if fraudulent information or activ - ity has gone on. That, again, is a positive step.

There are some improvements in compliance, and authority is set around collecting fees. All of this, as has been said by members opposite in that, is linked to the provincial nominee program, which essentially was a program created to allow British Columbia to make choices on 5,500 or so people com - ing here, generally intended for high-skilled workers and people who can come in through that program who can make the case. The problem with this…. Generally, as I said, the stuff the program does is good.

The problem is that it does tweak those things and improve them, but we know that the problem that the PNP program has had in the last while relates directly to the temporary foreign worker question. We’ll know that when the government found the need to suspend applications, that happened because of people who were in the TFW program, who were looking to make applications to be heard under PNP . We know that when that occurred, it created a chaotic situation, to say the least.

I would thank the Minister of Jobs for arranging a briefing from her senior staff for me, around that ques - tion, when the short-term suspension of the program was announced. So I had the opportunity to talk to some sen- ior officials and better understand that and know that it was a significant issue that needs to be addressed. [1415] What I’m not sure of is that this program, or this bill, addresses a number of other matters, but I don’t think it gets at that question. I think part of the challenge will be — as we know, it continues to be — whether, until the TFW program is amended, corrected….

Until there’s ac- tion there, we will continue to face the kinds of challenges that I think have been in front of us all along. The problem, of course, that we’ve seen around the temporary foreign worker program, which is part of that, is that we’ve made significant use of that program. As has been pointed out, we’ve got about 70,000 workers or so under the program working in British Columbia now. They work across the country and in a whole array of areas. But in B.C., we have taken an inordinate number.

Where we have 12 percent or 13 percent of the popula - tion, about 22 percent of the temporary foreign workers are here. That, obviously, is significantly higher than our average around population. The other thing we know is that when you look back at who those jobs…. In the temporary foreign worker pos - itions, I think, initially, you had workers who were work- ing in the agricultural fields. They had historically come for harvest time. They have come primarily from Mexico, but from elsewhere. That’s been a long-standing program. You’ve always had the issue about where there are skills shortages.

We know that we’ve had skills shortages because of challenges in the skills training area that the government has been looking to address. But we know that problem continues to exist because of timing, if nothing else. We also know that there has been a significant and dra- matic increase in the number of workers who are being brought in, TFWs, for what are low-skilled jobs. In 2012, about 28,000 labour market opinions were approved.

A labour market opinion is a matter, of course, where there’s an assessment of a need around the labour market, there’s an approval there, and that’s an important step in generating approvals around temporary foreign workers. Of those labour market opinions in 2012, 25 percent of them were for low-skilled jobs. Now, to contrast that, in 2005, less than 3 percent of the approved labour mar- ket opinions were for low-skilled jobs. So we have seen a significant shift in who those temporary foreign workers are — a shift from what was less than 3 percent in low- skilled jobs to 25 percent in low-skilled jobs.

As we see that, we see a different dynamic. That’s why…. We’ve talked about this issue, and we’ve talked about the temporary foreign workers question, which I don’t think you can separate from this legislation entirely,

British Columbia DebatesThursday, October 8, 2015 9549 by any means. It drives many of the challenges with PNP . We have not got a handle on that program. The federal government has careened around a little bit. They’ve made some changes. We know the federal government. When Minister Kenney decided to enforce the expiration dates for people’s time here, that’s what triggered a whole lot of the move to people making ap - plications under PNP .

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

That’s to have a more proactive role around the tem - porary foreign workers, whether it’s around registrations, whether it’s around making the case for some joint man- agement of programs or whether it’s the case around en- suring that employment standards levels, as members have spoken of earlier, are enhanced so those workers who are here are protected and have the protections that they are not afforded under the conditions of a tempor - ary foreign worker program. That means that employment standards has to step up.

While employment standards uses the self-help model for people in this province, a model that is flawed, to say the least, it’s particularly problematic for people who have no rights and who are basically at the whim of their employer and can be essentially exited from the country by their employer. [1420] They are at more risk than a low-wage Canadian worker, who at least has some rights under employment standards that it’s hard to say exist much for temporary foreign workers. That’s part of the challenge here. That’s why I think that while this piece of legislation is going to take some important steps….

I think a director is a good idea. I think that the ability to deal with fraud makes sense. Everybody wants to deal with that, but it has to go further, as a legislative package or be seen as a legislative package. Maybe the minister will tell us when we get to committee stage that it’s part of an ongoing package, and there’ll be more to come. We’ll see what the minister has to say when we get to committee stage.

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

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

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

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

We’ll have a conversation about how privacy is protected and how the interests of people are protected. I think what we have to do here is see the legislation for what it is — a piece that takes one bite out of this com - plicated pie, but does not address the more fundamental issues that we face in this province around foreign work- ers, particularly, wanting to come and either come to just work or come to make British Columbia their home, and how we accommodate that in ways that are better for those workers and for British Columbia. Until we solve that problem, or at least get our heads around it….

It probably means strong advocacy with the federal government, who obviously has primary respon- sibility around immigration and will maintain that. But this is British Columbia. This is our province. This is our place. Other provinces have taken steps to take more con- trol of the situation or partner in the control of the situa- tion. I think that’s a good thing to do. It’s where we should be going as a province. While this legislation deals with some other matters that are certainly important, it does not get at that issue.

That’s the issue that’s a more funda- mental one, I think, for us in the long term and one that we need to deal with. [1425] I look forward to committee stage and to hearing from the minister her views on how we begin to address a number of these issues that stand in front of us.

British Columbia Debates9550 Thursday, October 8, 2015 Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right) A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, I want to reserve my right and on behalf of the member for Vancouver-Kensington the right for a question of privilege with respect to the com- ments of the member for Prince George–Mackenzie. Debate Continued D. Barnett: British Columbia is on the verge of a work- force transition. In 2016, fewer young people will enter the workforce than older workers will leave it. It puts B.C. in an inevitable position. Our province needs workers to fill those jobs that come with our growing economy.

Bill 39, the Provincial Immigration Programs Act, sup- ports B.C. ’s role as a leader in economic immigration pro- grams. We always prefer to have British Columbians fill the job openings that arise in our diverse and growing economy, but we know that even if every eligible British Columbian was trained and qualified, we would still come up short of workers to fill all of the job openings. Economic immigration will play an important role in driving B.C. ’s economic growth. This act will make sure our immigration programs allow us to attract the best and the brightest.

This act ensures we have a strong legis- lative foundation for the B.C. provincial nominee pro - gram and any other immigration programs the province designs. That is why we have made specific targeted chan- ges to the provincial nominee program — so it is better aligned with B.C. ’s current labour market and economic development priorities. The PNP is an economic immigration program de - signed to help B.C. meet its labour market and economic development priorities. The program allows B.C. to select foreign workers and international graduates who have the skills and experience to contribute to B.C. ’s economy.

The PNP also selects entrepreneurs who are ready to in- vest in our economy and create jobs for Canadian citizens and permanent residents. Operated by the province of B.C. in partnership with the federal government through Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the PNP assesses applications and nominates candidates for permanent residence. Citizenship and Immigration Canada makes the final de- cision on each application and issues permanent resident visas to successful applicants. B.C. ’s quota of PNP nominations is set by the federal government. In 2015, that allocation is 5,500.

However, we are working with the federal government to receive more PNP allocations. In fact, the number of people who want to bring their skills to B.C. exceeds the number of PNP allocations we receive from the federal government. People want to come here, and we want them to come here. In my riding of the Cariboo-Chilcotin, there have been quite a few immigrants apply to our PNP program. Some are family of others who have immigrated to Canada and become successful business people in the Cariboo. Others came to the Cariboo-Chilcotin and fell in love with our beautiful province.

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

The Provincial Immigration Programs Act will help B.C. meet its economic development priorities by pro - viding a legislative framework to select newcomers under the existing provincial nominee program as well as any future immigration agreements with the federal govern- ment. The primary authority for immigration lies with the federal government.

The Canada-B.C. immigration agreement sets out the terms for federal and provincial cooperation on immigration matters, including the prov- incial nominee program. [1430] This new act will provide a transparent framework to strengthen the administration of immigration programs in B.C.

The legislation has three main objectives: to in - crease transparency in the administration of immigra - tion programs; to protect the integrity of immigration programs; and to clearly outline the province’s authority to collect and set fee amounts for applying to immigra - tion programs, ensuring program costs are recovered and the taxpayer is respected. Our province’s diverse and growing economy means many people want to come to B.C. to work, live and raise a family. We recognize that welcoming newcomers to B.C. will be an important part of supporting the significant economic opportunities in our province.

We have re - designed our provincial nominee program to make sure we are aligning our nominations for permanent residents with our labour market priorities. The new Provincial Immigration Programs Act is the next step in putting our province in a position to con - tinue to attract high-demand skilled workers and invest- ment-ready entrepreneurs to grow our economy. D. Eby: I just want to begin my remarks, in light of the detestable comments made by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie earlier, to recognize the context in which this bill is presented and the opposition’s comments.

The member for Vancouver-Kensington spent a sig - nificant portion of her adult life fighting for the rights of temporary foreign workers. She’s done incredibly proud work that I think makes all of our caucus proud of her efforts. She’s not unique in our caucus. Certainly, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds has done incredible work on behalf of farmworkers, vulner-

British Columbia DebatesThursday, October 8, 2015 9551 able farmworkers, making sure their rights are protected. Many, many members of our caucus have fought for the rights of these very vulnerable workers. That is the con - text of the comments that you’re hearing from our caucus, concerned about those rights, concerned about protec - tions for workers. His misrepresentation of that, frankly, is unacceptable. Now, I’m very glad to see that the government has moved to amend and formalize the process for the prov- incial nominee program in British Columbia.

This is a very important program for our province which can and will shape the future of British Columbia. Immigration is incredibly important to the future of our province. We have a huge province with a low popu- lation density and incredible opportunity for people who come here. By opening our doors to the best and the brightest in the world, whether they’re students or scientists or engineers or doctors or entrepreneurs, we’ll ensure a prosperous future for our children. By open - ing our doors to the vulnerable, we’ll teach our children about the value of compassion and the importance of helping others.

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

South Asian Canadians, a very proud history — in my own community of Kitsilano, the first Sikh temple in British Columbia. The importance of that immigrant community to the economic life of Vancouver and British Columbia cannot be overstated. My own family benefited directly from immigration policy in Canada and British Columbia. My son’s grand- father — my wife’s father — was a Scottish immigrant with his family.

His parents brought him from life over- seas in Scotland to life in Vancouver, where they built a family home in Kitsilano and helped build British Columbia, as they love to remember, through hard labour — and if I could say it with a Scottish accent, I would. It was a life-changing event for their family and certainly for me, as I married into that clan. The legislation before us will hopefully present the opportunity for the province to ask the difficult ques - tions that we need to ask about how we allocate just 5,500 spaces from our federal government for the nom - inee program.

How can we use these very limited spaces to best promote the interests of all British Columbians? [1435] Now, there’s no question but that the highest and best use of these spaces is not simply to replicate the federal program, requiring new British Columbians to pay fees twice, first to the provincial government and then to the federal government as well. Our nominees spaces should address a gap in the federal program, a chance for us to say British Columbia needs a particular type of person to ensure the success of our province into the future.

Too often the requirements of our program have sim- ply replicated the federal program. This legislation, I hope, will bring in a director who will review that dupli- cation and eliminate it so that these limited spaces are used as constructively as possible. In addition, with a very limited number of spaces, we have to ensure that the manner in which these spaces are allocated is transparent and fair. Demand for immigra - tion to B.C. far exceeds the number of spaces provided by the federal government to this provincial nominee program, by the thousands.

New British Columbians should learn from their first contact with our province that we prize, that we value, fairness, accountability and transparency. Now, the federal immigration program posts on line their policy manuals for staff so that everybody knows the process by which applications are adjudicated. Our provincial nominee program does not post these staff manuals. It’s my hope that the new director of this pro- gram will address this gap between our two programs immediately upon commencing work.

There should be no secret about how these highly sought-after placements are evaluated and administered in British Columbia. Now, most importantly, I think, this new legislation is long overdue on the part of people who come to British Columbia and are frustrated with requirements and pro- grams that change, seemingly overnight, as a result of a posting on a website, without the discipline, as well as the accountability — both of which are, quite frankly, limited in this process — of the provincial regulation- making process.

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

He did the job that he wouldn’t have otherwise taken, and then the program was cancelled without notice or oppor- tunity for him to complete his permanent residence ap - plication. It’s still not clear to him whether he will be able to be a permanent resident in British Columbia, after in- vesting nine months in a low-skilled job in B.C. for pos- sibly no reason. These kinds of arbitrary and sudden policy changes can destroy a family’s plans and waste precious time for people who don’t have that kind of time. They want to

British Columbia Debates9552 Thursday, October 8, 2015 be here in B.C. to help build our province, and they’re investing the time to do it. It’s my hope that this legislation and the new direc - tor and the discipline of the regulation-making process — rather than simply changing a posting on a website — will reinforce for government the significance of policy changing and the impact that it has on real families and real people in our province. What’s notably missing from this act is any mention of penalties for those who abuse this program. Presumably, the provincial Offence Act will apply.

We need to think about the importance of penalties and the significance of those penalties for those who abuse this program. What good are the director’s new powers of inspection, if he or she cannot impose significant penalties on those who would seek to break the rules for their own financial ad- vantage? I hope the government considers this obvious omission, and I imagine it will be canvassed during the committee stage. Deputy Speaker: Member, just a second. Is the minister seeking leave to make an introduction? Hon. J. Rustad: Y es, if I could seek leave. Leave granted. Introductions by Members Hon. J.

Rustad: My apologies to the member from Point Grey, but thank you very much for ceding the floor. It is a very great pleasure here today to make a couple of brief introductions. I had a great opportunity to meet with Chief Coreen Child and Norman Champagne from the Kwakiutl First Nation. We had a very productive dis- cussion, and I would just ask the Legislature to please make them welcome. Debate Continued D. Eby: My welcome, as well, to the Chief. Finally, I cannot help but note that the wait-lists for the entrepreneur immigration program are unacceptably long.

Now the people who applied under the entrepre - neurial stream in British Columbia in April of 2015 are told on B.C. ’s website that it may be as long as three years before their application is adjudicated by the province. [1440] Now, this delay in the application process surely jeop- ardizes the intent of this program. The idea is that if you have money to invest in B.C. and there’s a B.C. business that needs your investment, this program connects those people.

But three years is, obviously, completely out of sync with the business cycle in British Columbia today, leading to the obvious question of whether the program is fulfilling its intent. There are serious questions that arise from this delay. I hope that the new director will address these questions of delay and this unacceptably long wait time. British Columbia is one of the best places in the world to live. We’re a province with a strong history and pres- ence of First Nations governance, culture and commun- ity shaping our past, our present and our future.

We’re a province that has a strong history of immigrants shaping our past and our present and our future. It’s my hope that this bill helps inform our processes so that our immigration program, from the day it passes and well into the future, continues to strengthen our province. Our diversity, in welcoming of people from around the world, is our strength. It’s my hope that this bill will help us continue the best of our province’s history in that regard. M. Dalton: It’s a pleasure to support Bill 39, the Provincial Immigration Programs Act.

Canada’s population is about 4 percent aboriginal, which means about 96 percent of Canadians are immi - grants, or our fathers immigrated here. I will say that even of the 4 percent aboriginal, about one-third of those are Métis, with native wives and French, Scottish, Irish men. It’s virtually most everyone except for First Nations. [R. Lee in the chair.] About 20 percent of the population that currently lives in Canada is born abroad, which is over seven mil - lion people from all over the world.

There are 33 ethnic groups of over 100,000 people from which Canadians trace their ancestry, of which ten have over one million people. Canada is one of the most multicultural nations on earth, and one of the most open to immigrants. Over a quarter of a million immigrate to Canada every year, of which over 40,000 come to British Columbia. Canada has been a magnet for immigrants, for eco - nomic well-being, for quality of life, for a place of refuge from war and from strife.

But over the centuries, effort has been made to attract immigrants to help our econ - omy and to make our land more prosperous and viable Jean Talon — this is a history lesson — was the first intendant of New France and took over from governor Frontenac, of Château Frontenac fame. He was appointed by King Louis XIV . Talon attempted to change the eco- nomic base of the colony from fur trading to agriculture but found that this could not happen without a larger population. He arranged for settlers to come from France, including over 800 women known as the filles du roi , the King’s Daughters.

These were young orphans that came to New France to marry men here. He encouraged popula- tion growth through marriage grants and baby bonuses, which was a financial compensation. I don’t know how many of you have had an opportun- ity to look through ancestry.ca. I did a few years back and traced a lot of my French-Canadian roots through my

British Columbia DebatesThursday, October 8, 2015 9553 mom to this period. My grandmother was 16 years old when she got married, and she had 18 children. I have a great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother that was alive at that time. She was 12 years old, and, I think, one of the filles du roi , and the youngest ever re - corded to have been married. I’m not advocating this, but this was an interesting historical personal piece. Another political figure that comes to mind, during immigration, is Lord Selkirk.

In the early 1800s, he was a driving force in bringing settlers to what would become the Red River Colony, in what is now Manitoba. He was from Scotland. He was concerned about the plight of his fellow Scots, who were in a distressing economic situa - tion, and helped develop the colony, which later became the province. Another political figure that comes to mind is the Minister of the Interior, Clifford Sifton, in the late 1800s, early 1900s.

He was instrumental for the government of Canada to attract millions of European settlers to set up farms, particularly in the Prairies. [1445] They were looking for hardy Northern Europeans at that time — Ukrainians, Russian Doukhobors, German Mennonites — who, they thought, were used to the cold climate and knew how to farm. That was primar - ily on the Prairies, but hundreds of thousands of British Columbians also trace their roots to this period. Immigration has been very important for British Columbia and for all of Canada. It’s obvious by looking at our demographics.

It’s the most multicultural province of one of the most multicultural nations in the entire world. We are in a position where B.C. needs workers to fill all the jobs that come from a growing economy. We have the strongest growth in Canada, and that comes with a diversified economy. Last night I met with representatives of the Coalition of B.C. Businesses. They represent 50,000 B.C. employ - ers across the province, including associations like the B.C.

Hotel Association, the Building Supply Industry Association, the Canadian Home Builders Association, the restaurants association, Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters and others. Just in discussions with different representatives, I know one of the concerns that they have is, basically, labourers — people to come. There are jobs throughout the province, and they need people to fill them — people that are qualified, but basically people to help in these in- dustries. That’s for our own economic well-being.

While our priority is to have B.C. workers first in line for job opportunities that come from a diverse and growing economy, we know that if every eligible British Columbian was trained, we would still not have enough workers to fill all these openings. We have a program in B.C. that is designed to help meet our labour market and economic development pri- orities. The provincial nominee program is an econom - ic immigration program. In fact, it’s the province’s only direct economic immigration tool for bringing in new British Columbians.

The program allows B.C. to select foreign workers and international graduates who have the skills and experience to contribute to B.C. ’s econ - omy and create jobs for Canadian citizens and perma - nent residents. The program is operated by the province in partner - ship with the federal government through Citizenship and Immigration Canada. The provincial nominee pro - gram assesses applications and nominates candidates for permanent residency. Citizenship and Immigration Canada makes the final decision on each application and issues permanent resident visas to the successful applicants.

The federal government sets B.C. ’s quota of PNP nom- inations. For 2015, that allocation is 5,500. Every year, the province has achieved 100 percent of its nomination quota since the early 2000s and is on track again to meet its full allocation. We are working with the federal government to receive more PNP allocations. It’s important for our province. Last year, 80 percent of B.C. ’s total immigrants came to B.C. through the federal immigration streams. Only 20 percent of B.C. ’s total immigrants came through the PNP .

This act supports B.C. ’s continued role as a leader in economic immigration programs, maintaining strong economic outcomes and protecting integrity. It pro - vides a legislative framework to select newcomers to B.C. under the provincial nomination program. The new act will provide a transparent framework to strengthen the administration of immigration programs in B.C. These targeted changes to the PNP make it better aligned with B.C. ’s current labour market and economic development priorities. We are increasing transparency by assigning decision- making authority to a director of immigration programs.

As well, we are implementing a process for reviewing applications that are refused. We are protecting the in - tegrity of immigration programs by improving the collec- tion, use and disclosure of application information with the federal government. As well, we are identifying and stopping fraud by allowing the province to cancel appli- cations where fraud is discovered. We are also respecting the taxpayer by clearly outlining the province’s authority to collect and set fee amounts for applying to immigration programs.

This ensures that program costs are recovered and the taxpayer is re - spected. [1450] British Columbia is an excellent place to live, work and raise a family. This is why we have more people who want to come to B.C. than we have PNP allocations from the federal government. Economic immigration continues to play an important role in driving B.C. ’s economic growth,

British Columbia Debates9554 Thursday, October 8, 2015 as it has in the past, and this program allows us to attract the best and brightest. S. Hammell: I am pleased to rise and take my place in debating Bill 39, the Provincial Immigration Programs Act. I’m particularly delighted to join the debate because I’m familiar with the program as it was originally es - tablished in the late 1990s. God forbid — right? — that something that was established in the 1990s is still here, existing, flourishing and being supported by both sides of the House.

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

So it is delightful to see that we are moving this pro - cess along, that we are now taking this — what was ori - ginally just a program within a ministry — and actually lifting it up in terms of enshrining it in a bill, Bill 39, and providing many things around what was a program and often less regularized or less transparent than it would be or could be under a law. Here’s the other sort of ironic thing about this moment in time: we are creating more regulations.

Now, I think there was a bill that was here about getting rid of regu - lations or celebrating the lack of regulations or red tape, but here we are, creating regulations and laws around a program, which I think is quite wise. Because when we are actually talking about selecting the people who come to this province…. As most of the members of the House would know, immigration is, in fact — can be — a shared jurisdiction with the federal government. Both the province and the federal can draw down immigration in terms of the con- stitution. And it is then….

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

The bill provides the legislative framework to select newcomers under the existing provincial nominee pro - gram, as well as any future agreements. So it does fore - shadow the possibility of other agreements and drawing down more action in terms of immigration. The bill is designed to create or to increase the trans - parency of program administration. If you are creating a program, and you are enshrining it in law, then it be - comes very important that you do it consistently and clearly and transparently. I think that’s all good.

I mean, when you are using a vehicle through which a person can join or engage, and the consequence of those actions is citizenship, again, I do think it’s important to be transparent. [1455] Of course there is not anyone here that would argue that we should not have…. Certainly, with a program that ends up in citizenship, it should be very, very fraud- proof. We should have very, very strong anti-fraud pro- visions and ensure that when someone comes to British Columbia under regulations that are created by the prov- incial government, those regulations are not subject to any criminal activity.

When you put this into the con - struct of a law and bring it into the House, you are en - shrining that principle and the actions that allow you to execute that principle, and you put that into law. And of course, what else would you absolutely want to do? That is to be able to change and charge, or charge differently, application fees. So this is a good bill. This is something that has evolved. It has arrived here over a length of time. It’s here in the House now as kind of the maturing of a pro- cess that began a long time ago.

When you start to look at some of the powers, then you do understand why it is incredibly important to have a bill surround the activity. The bill creates a director of provincial immigration programs, appointed by the minister. The director is given power to review and approve or deny immigration program applications such as the PNP . Now, that is a lot of power.

If you are going to exercise that kind of power, it’s like life or death over people in the sense that they can come to Canada and participate in a country that welcomes immigrants and encourages economic activ - ity and tries, in some form or other, to be equitable and fair in terms of economic return. Y ou want to ensure that anyone exercising the power that says “Y ou can come” or “Y ou can’t come” does it enshrined in law. Now the director of provincial immi - gration programs is appointed by the minister through this law.

The act, as probably has been mentioned, also provides the ability to enter into information-sharing agreements with the federal government. The bill provides further accountability and oversight of the PNP program and other programs. However, the PNP program in this bill is focused on high-skill work - ers and will not impact anything outside of the PNP program. We all know we do have temporary foreign workers, and there has been a principle of a path to citizenship, as people have worked in this country and contributed to

British Columbia DebatesThursday, October 8, 2015 9555 the country. This doesn’t reach out and embrace those people, but it certainly does give the regulations and the tightening up of this program and presents it, in fact, in front of us as a bill for us to pass or not pass. In closing, I would just like to say that I am pleased to join all of those in the House who are supporting this bill. I think it is important that the PNP program, hav - ing reached some length of maturity, now comes into this House and becomes enshrined in a bill that then gives it a lot more credibility and more transparency.

It gives me pleasure to have joined this debate. [1500] J. Thornthwaite: On behalf of my constituents of North Vancouver–Seymour, I rise in the House to speak in fa - vour of Bill 39, the Provincial Immigration Programs Act. Last month we heard the news that for the first time ever, there are now more Canadian citizens 65 and over than under the age of 15. This directly filters down to the workforce, as there are fewer younger people entering the workforce, and people that are older are leaving the workforce. As our minister said earlier, we’ve reached a tipping point. British Columbia is in an enviable position.

We need workers to fill the jobs that come with a growing econ - omy. While our priority is always to have B.C. workers first in line for the job opportunities that come with a di- verse and growing economy, we know that even if every single British Columbian was trained, we would still not have enough workers to fill all the openings. Economic immigration plays a role in driving B.C. ’s economic growth and in attracting the best and the brightest. The Provincial Immigration Programs Act supports B.C. ’s continued role as a leader in economic immigration programs.

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

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

This program has been so popular that effective September 1, new applications are no longer being accepted for the majority of the skills im- migration and express entry categories. The quota of PNP nominations for British Columbia is set by the federal government. For 2015, that allocation is 5,500, but we continue to work with the federal govern - ment to receive more PNP allocations. Since January, the PNP has issued more nominations than any other prov- ince, under express entry B.C.

Every year, the province achieves 100 percent of its nomination quota, and we are well on track to use the full allocation this year. Recent changes to federal immigration programs have increased the number of applications to PNP . Of the total immigrants that came to B.C. in 2014, 80 percent came through federal immigration streams. Only 20 percent of B.C. ’s total immigrants came through the provincial nominee program. This legislation has three objectives. First, we are increasing transparency in the administration of im - migration programs.

We are doing this by assigning decision-making authority to a director of immigration programs. As well, we are implementing a process for re- viewing applications that are refused. Second, we are protecting the integrity of immigra - tion programs. We are improving collection, use and disclosure of applicant information with the federal government. And we are identifying and stopping fraud by allowing the province to cancel applications where fraud is discovered. We are also banning those found to be making fraudulent applications from applying to provincial programs for two years.

As well, we are con - ducting inspections to monitor compliance with pro - gram requirements. Third, we are respecting the taxpayers by clearly out - lining the province’s authority to collect and set fee amounts for applying to provincial programs. This en - sures program costs are recovered. B.C. was an early adopter of the federal express entry priority system, and express entry is a new on-line ap - plication management system introduced by Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

We’re also the first province to introduce a new prov- incial nominee program stream to align with the feder - al express entry priority system. This allows provincial nominee programs to use the express entry system to meet B.C. ’s specific labour needs. [1505] Economic immigration will continue to play an im - portant role in driving B.C. ’s economic growth. We have introduced this bill to ensure we have a strong legislative foundation for the provincial nominee program.

This is why we have made very targeted changes to the program so that it is better aligned with B.C. ’s current labour mar- ket and economic development priorities. Deputy Speaker: The minister closes the debate.

British Columbia Debates9556 Thursday, October 8, 2015 Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the opportunity to make some closing comments, despite the threat by one of my friends opposite that he planned to speak for two hours. Thus, my hesitation to leap to my feet. Mr. Speaker, you can tell by the discussion that we’ve had here in the Legislature this afternoon that this is an important issue for members on both sides of the House.

Part of that comes from the fact that we are very proud of the place that we live in — British Columbia — and the fact that, as Canadians, we recognize that there are many, many people who want to come and to work and live and raise their families here in our province. The point of the act…. I know that we’ll get a chance throughout the course of committee to have a discussion about some of these issues.

But I do want to just be sure that we understand that what this bill attempts to do is to take the very small area of jurisdiction that the provincial government has over the provincial nominee program and ensure that it is transparent, that it has an appropri- ate legal framework for the decisions that are being made.

I think that’s incredibly important, because while we might want to add a whole bunch of things and think about all of the other things we may want to change, the primary responsibility for immigration, for the tempor - ary foreign worker program, for other like-related pro - grams rests with the federal government. The point of having the bill that we have in front of us is to say: how do we best administer those very, very im- portant 5,500 nominations that British Columbia gets to make?

I think that this bill reflects our desire to be trans- parent, to be fair, to make sure that by having a designat- ed person manage this process, these decisions are made outside of the realm of political discretion, because that is critical when we look at the issue of immigration. There will be lots of time, I’m sure, during committee to talk about the importance of that.

We should be clear that while there has been discus - sion about the number of nominations that are in line and a variety of other things, the primary changes that have resulted in seeing a larger number of people than we can accommodate with our allocation are a result of changes to the temporary foreign worker program and other changes made by the federal government. There are things that we can actually look at in law and things that are beyond our purview. Some of the discus- sion today was outside of the realm of what we could in- clude in provincial jurisdiction.

But I think there have been some very thoughtful comments, and obviously, there have been some passionate ones. This is an incred- ibly important topic to all of us. In closing, I think we have to recognize that we have the responsibility to ensure that with the critical needs that we have moving forward, we need to be very, very careful and strategic about the use of our 5,500 nominations. That’s why we led the country in saying: “We’ve got to take a look at this program. ” We have to make sure it’s focused on our economic and social interests and the impacts that that has. How do we find that balance?

It’s even more complicated, because we have a whole lot more people that want to come than we can accommodate in our 5,500 nominations. We have led the country. We led the country when we argued that British Columbia’s share of the provin - cial nominee program was too small. As a result of that, we saw an increase. We are going to continue to actively pursue a higher allocation of PNP nominations, as I said post-election.

This is about ensuring that we have a program that maintains the integrity and cost-effectiveness of immi - gration programs, remembering that B.C. only has a very small jurisdictional role to play in what is largely a federal government jurisdiction. [1510] With those comments, I will move second reading. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] [1515] Madame Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 39, Provincial Immigration Programs Act. Madam Clerk. Deputy Clerk: Nemine contradicente. Second reading of Bill 39 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.] Hon. S.

Bond: We always like hearing the Clerk say those words. That’s fantastic. I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 39, Provincial Immigration Programs Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. T. Stone: I now call second reading of Bill 37, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2015. BILL 37 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2015 Hon. S.

Anton: I move that the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2015, now be read a second time. This bill amends a variety of statutes as part of our routine statute revision and housekeeping corrections process. Statutes from 11 ministries are amended, all of which amendments are minor, technical corrections and adjustments. Sometimes these kinds of amendments are brought forward by regulation of the executive branch of govern-

British Columbia DebatesThursday, October 8, 2015 9557 ment under the Statute Revision Act, which regulations then have to be validated by this House in legislation, or, if the House is sitting and there is an opportunity to do so, we can make the corrections efficiently and directly in legislation brought before the House itself. [1520] [R. Lee in the chair.] This is the kind of act where people like to have a little bit of fun with it, because it’s periods and commas and other minor changes.

But there is an important principle behind it, which I would like to observe, which is that you don’t want people going into acts and making chan- ges to them. It does need to be done with the authority of the Legislature. As our very skilled legislative counsel work through legislation, as people use legislation — sometimes people in the community use legislation — these little mistakes are turned up. They are gathered together and, from time to time, brought forward routinely by the government of the day, which is what is going on here.

As I said the other day, our office of legislative coun - sel applies extreme analysis and care and rigour to what they do when these mistakes are turned up. They do like to correct them. The goal is to keep our statute books orderly, correct and in fine shape, and that’s what these housekeeping amendments will do. L. Krog: I’m so pleased to rise and speak to Bill 37, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2015.

Before someone steals the line, I do want to give credit to a legislative assistant working in the New Democratic Party caucus who wisely and cleverly said today that per- haps we should propose an amendment to this bill with respect to the title. Instead of calling it the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), we would call it the comma-sensical act, 2015. I know that the government has…. Interjection. L. Krog: To the member for Vancouver-Kingsway: well, the young man did insist that I give him attribu - tion.

I don’t think any opportunity to recognize the tal- ent who work in the NDP caucus should go unnoticed or unpraised in a public forum. Having said that, I feel like a character in what I re - ferred to a few weeks ago. We were maybe even talking about movies — talkies and silent films. I feel like making out like one of those characters in one of those dreadful talkies that were so disrespectful to women, where they showed a woman swooning back on a couch, overcome with the excitement.

In this case, I’m trying to develop that kind of excitement when I’m talking about this bill, which might cause me to actually swoon here in the Legislature. I’m cognizant of the fact that in my 15th year in this chamber…. I’ve had the opportunity to review many pieces of legislation, the opportunity to give consideration to some pieces of legislation that were somewhat more sub- stantive and weightier and more important and, certainly, that would draw more public interest to what we do here.

We have so far in this legislative session dealt with the incredible importance of picking a day with a half-page piece of legislation. We had the great pleasure of debating a two-and-a-half page piece of legislation the other day. Interjections. L. Krog: For two days, yes. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and the member for Powell River– Sunshine Coast point that out. I’m always…. Interjection. L. Krog: They’re all good at arithmetic.

I very much ap- preciate the opportunity to receive the support of my col- leagues here on the opposition benches as we discuss, at length, this important step forward in British Columbia’s legislative history. That aside, one really has to ask why we are debating a separate bill for matters which…. Even I can say at the outset, having given it cool consideration…. I can assure the House that the opposition, to the last woman and man, will no doubt be voting in favour of this particular piece of legislation.

I’m only hearing excitement from the opposition benches as we stroll down this lengthy lane of linguistic purity. [1525] Now, I’m really quite excited. The explanatory notes, I think, give one a small hint of the depth of this legislation, when it says simply: “Sections 1 to 22: ‘Various statutes’ make housekeeping amendments. ” Usually the explanatory notes are somewhat more sub- stantive. They represent the brilliance of legislative coun- sel, who labour so hard in places unknown and unseen by the public, often going without the gratitude of legis- lators or the public of British Columbia.

But here, today, they are demonstrating, through the Attorney General — how shall I say? — a consistency, simplicity and brev - ity that is virtually breathtaking: various statutes make housekeeping amendments. It’s no better reflected than in the important change which is

section 1 of the act. There are many changes contained in the course of this statute — or bill before the House, I should say in fairness, because I want to try and be perfectly correct today in everything I say. After all, this is a bill about corrections and mistakes, and one never wants to belabour too long things that might lead you to say something you’ d regret. We are making an incredibly important change. We are changing that singular error in

section 45(1)(a)(

i) of

British Columbia Debates9558 Thursday, October 8, 2015 the Chartered Professional Accountants Act by changing the period incorrectly inserted between

section 44(1), (4) and (5) to a comma — very important. I can’t begin to describe the excitement I feel when we get to

section 2, where we are changing the Livestock Identification Act, which obviously has something to do with cattle-rustling, I suppose. It says: “by striking out ‘section 9.1;’ and substituting ‘section 9.1, or’ . ” A. Weaver: That’s important. L. Krog: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, I know, is so anxious to take his place in the debate, but I assure the hon. member that I don’t intend to speak until six o’ clock. If he’ll simply hold his excitement, I’ll give him full opportunity to fill this chamber with his wisdom. May it be filled with commas and more per - iods, if possible. In the meantime, I simply want to say that we are now going to make that change to a very important

section of the act, where it says under offences, 9(1), that a person must not do any of the following: “(

b) unlawfully possess livestock branded with (

i) an unregistered brand, (ii) an identification brand not authorized by an organization designated by an order under

section 9.1;” — changing it to “section 9.1, or” — “(iii) a brand other than the live- stock owner’s brand. ” Here in this change, we have a monument to the long history of the raising of cattle in British Columbia. I’m always reminded by the beauty of those lovely murals in the outside dome of the four great founding industries, if you will, or occupations of British Columbians — for - estry, mining, fishing and agriculture. Here we have today something that is certainly going to be of importance to the farmers of British Columbia.

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

part 2 of the agriculture amendment in the Livestock Identification Act. That is followed by the even more exciting

section 3 of the act, where we’re “striking out ‘under 202.1, ’ and sub- stituting ‘under

section 202.1, ’” — as if anyone would have any doubt that it was a

section of the statute to which we were actually referring during the course of the statute. That’s covered further — this seeming inability to distinguish between periods and commas — by the Environmental Management Act. This is

section 5: “Section 139 (1) of the Environmental Management Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 53, is amended by striking out ‘a director, ’ and substituting ‘a director’ . ” Interjection. [1530] L. Krog: The member for Cowichan Valley says: “This isn’t red tape?” No, I have no doubt this is the elimination of red tape that was promised by the passage and intro - duction of the red tape reduction act. We are moving down this path with such incredible swiftness that we make the runner from the Plain of Marathon announcing victory over the Persians look like a nobody.

His name will come to me, unless any of the other Latin or Greek scholars present in the chamber can fill my mind again. The name seems to have eluded me. Interjection. L. Krog: Pheidippides, yes. The member for Surrey- Whalley, a well-read classical scholar of English training, has been able to fill in the name Pheidippides to complete my remarks on this important section. That’s followed by a very important change to the Integrated Pest Management Act —

section 6 of Bill 37: “Section 13 (2) of the Integrated Pest Management Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 58 is amended by striking out ‘the com - mittee, ’ and substituting ‘the committee. ’” Now, I have no idea where this is going to end, but we’re certainly getting a lot of periods instead of commas. I want, in fairness…. It would ill behoove me to comment on this, but I do notice that through the rest of the act, there are occasions…. I miss the opportunity to hear the dulcet tones of some of the members opposite who would want to rise and comment.

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

I’m not saying they rushed legislation through. I’m not saying the fact that they didn’t bother to fund the official opposition of two, which wasn’t given status…. I’m not saying that that had anything to with the fact that legislation was jammed through, leaving these substantive errors in the legisla - tive record for all these years, which we’re only now final- ly getting around to correcting. I’m not saying anything about that. It’s not like me to say that. Then we have the most interesting…. This is sec - tion 8 of the bill: “Section 84 (

d) of the Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, S.B.C. 2015, c. 8, is amended by striking out ‘subsection 2’” without any brackets “in both

British Columbia DebatesThursday, October 8, 2015 9559 places and substituting ‘subsection (2)’” with brackets. That is important. Y ou can see now, as I try and take the members through some of this bill, why it was so necessary, so absolutely necessary, for us to put this in a separate piece of legisla- tion, to highlight the devotion to governance which the B.C. Liberals demonstrate every day in this chamber by bringing forth the best legislation their brilliant minds on that side of the House can possibly create and put be- fore the people of British Columbia, showing tremen - dous leadership.

I just want to bring up the name of Pierre Berton, one of my favourite Canadian historians. Now, I know there are many…. Interjection. L. Krog: Y es, Oak Bay High, 1937, the member reports. But he’s really a Yukon boy, as the member well knows, and he was very proud of that. I want to bring up his name because it’s just too bad he’s not here, not here to be recognized in the way he de- serves. Y ou know, there was the man who popularized the history of the War of 1812. That was a Canadian who brought us the full knowledge and depth of the Canadian victory over the Americans when they invaded.

It’s an interesting part of Canadian history, and we have been fighting with the Americans, on and off, over many important issues, for a long time since. But there was nothing so unconscionable, setting aside the invasion of Canada, as the creeping nature of the destruction of Canadian spelling. [1535] Oh, shame, shame, that Pierre Berton is not here to witness that finally this government has risen up off its haunches and defended Canadian spelling in the kind of way that it merits and Canadian nationalism would suggest. In

section 10 of the bill: “Section 22 (4) of the Tobacco Tax Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 452, is amended by striking out ‘willful’ and substituting ‘wilful’ . ” So there’s a victory for Canadian nationalism and Canadian spelling. My goodness, maybe we should go down and burn the White House for a second time just to remind them that we’re still in charge of our language and spelling. Now the next one. Honestly, I’ve looked at it very carefully, and I’m not sure I can see the difference. But I know that the minister, during the course of committee stage, in

section 11, is going to explain to me the differ - ence between “striking out ‘Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada), ’ and…‘Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada), ’ . ” It’s with a period beyond the quotation mark. I’ve heard of distinctions without a difference and dif- ferences without distinction, but I’m looking forward. I know that mentally — and perhaps it’s my eyes — I can’t make out the actual difference here. One may, over time, be able to explain that, but I think that the term “redundancy” does perhaps apply here. If the minister can lead us to the truth in the importance of

section 11, in which I see no difference between what is proposed and what has been the law in British Columbia for a time, I look forward to that. Then

section 12, again dealing with the Tobacco Tax Act. I was going to say: “Obviously,

an act that was not passed with a great deal of thoughtfulness, ” or perhaps everyone was smoking some other prohibited weed at the time, because there are no less than four separate sec- tions dealing with amendments to the Tobacco Tax Act. B. Routley: What were they smoking? L. Krog: Exactly. The member for Cowichan Valley says: “What were they smoking?” Again, striking out on behalf of Canadian nationalism and Canadian spelling, we’re substituting “wilfully” with one “l” for “willfully” with two.

It warms the cockles of my heart to know that, not - withstanding the important issues that face the province of British Columbia, when we have important matters to discuss in this Legislature, somewhere there are people beavering away to ensure that we spell “wilfully” correctly in the Tobacco Tax Act. Now, there are several other sections. Y ou know, we’re adding in the odd period in the Land Survey Act and the Land Title Act. We’re correcting one that I find really an- noying and that, I must say, offends me greatly. That is

section 16 of the bill, where we’re now going to strike out in the Land Title Act

section 231(2) “mortgagor’ interest” and substitute “mortgagor’s interest” — apostrophe “s. ” I am sure that there were many lawyers in British Columbia who didn’t and couldn’t possibly think of read- ing an “s” into that and figuring out exactly what

section 231 meant, but now that problem has been solved by this legislative amendment. That problem has been solved. We are going to move forward. Interjection. L. Krog: Now, I know the professor is anxious to get his words in, but I really wish he would stop interrupting the flow of this important dissertation on the value of commas and periods and apostrophes to the people of British Columbia, who I know are riveted by the discus- sion here today. There is one that’s really quite offensive, and that is under

Part 7. It’s the health amendment. The minister will want to listen to this one. “Section 17 of the Health Care Costs Recovery Act” — oh yes, that would be under the B.C. Liberals — “c. 27, is amended by striking out ‘heath’ and substituting ‘health’ . ” [1540]

British Columbia Debates9560 Thursday, October 8, 2015 How did that slip by the B.C. Liberals? Where in health care recovery could you ever think that one would have to include or make the mistake of not realizing that heath and health may, in fact, be different? It’s shocking. By the way, just to correct the record — I’m sorry — this is

section 18, for those members who are following carefully everything I have to say today. So we’re mov - ing from heath to health now. There’s a progressive step forward. We won’t be lost in the heath anymore; we’ll be moving into perfect health, no doubt. Then this one is really quite shocking. Election Act, sec- tion 20 of the bill, striking out “British Columbia Statistics Act. ” How did everyone make an error this substantive? And this is substantive. This is not a comma. This is not a period. This is not a colon or even a semicolon.

Striking out “British Columbia Statistics Act” and substituting “Statistics Act (British Columbia). ” How did that slip by? How possibly have we managed to run the affairs of the people of British Columbia, lo these many years, with that mistake there in the statutes of British Columbia? Interjection. L. Krog:

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20151008pm-Hansard-v29n7
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20151008pm Hansard v29n7
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	59ca16804b79c1ae4845ab6a0476934e97134cd1

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).