Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, April 29, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 241

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

Motorcycle awareness

G. Kyllo

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill 8 — Employment Standards Amendment Act,

Hon. H. Bains

Bill 31 — Police Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. D. Eby

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Artificial intelligence and technology

sector

R. Glumac

Day of Mourning for workers

J. Martin

Shipyards district on North Shore

B. Ma

Semiahmoo powwow

T. Redies

Transgender rights and support services

D. Routley

War veterans John Augustyn and Jim

Ashworth

D. Clovechok

Oral Questions

Action on gas prices

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

S. Bond

B.C. Tech Association programs and support for

technology industry

A. Weaver

Hon. B. Ralston

Massey Tunnel replacement project

I. Paton

Hon. C. Trevena

J. Johal

Hon. J. Horgan

T. Stone

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, service plan, 2019-20–2021-22

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

Committee of Supply to sit in three

sections

Hon. M. Farnworth

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 29 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

Hon. R. Fleming

Hon. D. Eby

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Medicare Protection Amendment Act,

Second Reading of Bills

Bill M209 — Business Corporations Amendment Act

(No. 2), 2019

A. Weaver

Hon. B. Ralston

M. Lee

Hon. C. James

S. Chandra Herbert

A. Weaver

Bill 18 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act,

Hon. H. Bains

J. Martin

A. Weaver

S. Malcolmson

S. Gibson

B. Stewart

Hon. C. James

Bill 28 — Zero-Emission Vehicles Act

Hon. M. Mungall

P. Milobar

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 25 — Coastal Ferry Amendment Act,

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 28 — Zero-Emission Vehicles Act

(continued)

S. Malcolmson

L. Throness

Point of Privilege (Reservation of

Right)

Hon. D. Eby

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 20 — Medicare Protection Amendment Act,

N. Letnick

Hon. A. Dix

Bill 25 — Coastal Ferry Amendment Act,

J. Sturdy

Hon. C. Trevena

A. Olsen

R. Sultan

Bill 4 — Witness Security Act

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. Morris

R. Coleman

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy (continued)

T. Stone

Hon. G. Heyman

D. Clovechok

J. Tegart

P. Milobar

Estimates: Ministry of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation

Hon. S. Fraser

D. Ashton

J. Rustad

E. Ross

MONDAY, APRIL 29, 2019

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

S. Bond: I’m delighted to introduce a number of guests in the gallery today on

behalf of my colleagues from Prince George–Mackenzie and

Parksville-Qualicum. I’ll explain the connection in a moment. It’s not

geographic, obviously.

We’re delighted to have representatives from Spinal Cord Injury B.C.

here today, Chris McBride and Jocelyn Maffin. Jocelyn is a wheelchair

basketball player. I know that the member for Parksville-Qualicum is as

well, and she wanted to be sure that that was recognized.

Then, of course, are Nancy Harris and Pat Harris. Nancy and Pat live

in Prince George. They are part of the process called Access B.C., doing an

incredible job creating more accessible opportunities for families. They

presented to our caucus today and did an outstanding job. I do want to

recognize that Pat and Nancy are community builders. In fact, they were

recognized for their tireless advocacy by being named Citizens of the Year

in 2018 in Prince George.

Pat Harris is a well-known wheelchair basketball player and coach. Pat

and Nancy are awaiting the arrival of their grandbaby. I’ve very happy that

they’re here, but they’re going to be driving home to await the arrival of

their grandbaby.

Thank you for presenting. Thank you for your great work. We’re very

proud of the work that’s being done.

Please, I’d ask my colleagues to help me welcome them to the

Legislature today.

R. Chouhan: It’s my pleasure to welcome some special guests to our Legislature

this afternoon. We are honoured to have visiting us today a delegation from

the Parliament of Western Australia and from the New Zealand House of

Representatives. The delegations had the opportunity to participate in

meetings this morning and met with officials and Members of the Legislative

Assembly at lunch.

Joining us in the gallery from the Parliament of Western Australia are

Hon. Martin Aldridge, Member of the Legislative Council; Hon. Diane Evers,

Member of the Legislative Council; Shane Love, Member of the Legislative

Assembly. Accompanying the members from the Parliament of Western Australia

are Scott Nalder, Deputy Clerk, Legislative Assembly; and Christine Kain,

Clerk Assistant of committees and Legislative Council.

From the New Zealand House of Representatives, I’m pleased to welcome

the following Members of Parliament: Jan Logie, Ginny Andersen, Denise Lee,

Tim van de Molen and Hamish Walker. They are accompanied by Winton Holmes,

interparliamentary officer, Office of the Clerk; and Amy Tisdall, delegation

secretary, deputy high commissioner, New Zealand High Commission in

Ottawa.

I ask the members to join me to welcome our delegations.

S. Sullivan: I have a very special guest from Vancouver, Leslie McDonnell, who is

with Re/Max Select Properties, a very active and engaged citizen. Many of

her fans are hoping she might consider elected office one day, so we’re

giving her a sense of what it’s about. Please welcome her.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: In the House today we have Laird Cronk, the president of the B.C.

Federation of Labour, and Sussanne Skidmore, the secretary-treasurer of the

B.C. Federation of Labour. Please help me give them a warm, warm

welcome.

Also joining us in the House are Natalie Drolet, the executive

director of the Migrant Workers Centre; Rona Fernandez, a member of the

board of directors of the Migrant Workers Centre; Helesia Luke,

communications and development coordinator of First Call: B.C. Child and

Youth Advocacy; Tia Semple; Stephen Portman, longtime employment standards

advocate; Pamela Sharon, coordinator at Retail Action Network. These folks

represent many of the organizations that have been strong advocates for

workers. Would the House please join with me in giving them a warm, warm

welcome.

J. Yap: I have ten people in the gallery to welcome. These are members of the

most successful, vibrant neighbourhood association in Richmond that have

done a great job in mobilizing the neighbourhood to be a Block Watch

neighbourhood. They’ve received accolades from the Richmond RCMP and the

city of Richmond. With us today are the president of the Broadmoor

Neighbourhood Association, David Zhao, and Qiang Du, Jian Hua Dai, Chengming

He, Ai Qiong He, Evan Jiang, Zhi Jun Zhang, Hongbin Zheng, Ting Ying

Du.

Also, my constituency assistant, Po-wah Ng, is here.

Would the House please give a warm welcome to these

visitors.

Hon. D. Eby: Joining us in the House today are the B.C. Real Estate Association

president, Michael Trites, and CEO Darlene Hyde, representing the 11 real

estate boards and nearly 23,000 realtors across British Columbia. They,

along with other delegates in attendance, are here as part of their annual

Government Liaison Days event. Will the House please join me making them

feel very welcome.

M. Bernier: It’s an honour, actually, for myself — an introduction I don’t get to

do very often. My wife of almost 30 years has made the long trek from Dawson

Creek. Valerie has come down. I hope it’s mutual that she’s as excited to be

down here with me as I am excited to have her here. She would also probably

agree with me that she’s holding one of the most important people in our

life. Our oldest grandson, Crozzley, is with us, who made the trek from

Dawson Creek as well. Will the House please make them both

welcome.

Hon. S. Robinson: We have an honoured guest here today joining us. Katherine McParland

from Kamloops is here. She’s the executive director from A Way Home

Kamloops, which is a collective of community leaders working together to end

youth homelessness. She’s an amazing young leader in her own right, and she

is now a member of the B.C. Housing board of commissioners. She’s here to

take in question period, and I hope everyone will make her feel very welcome

here.

D. Barnett: Today I have some wonderful guests here from my riding. I’ve known

this couple for I don’t want to say how long, because that’ll age us. I’d

like the House to help me welcome Pat and Juanita Corbett here today. With

Pat and Juanita is a special guest, but I’m going to let one of my

colleagues do the introduction. Please welcome Pat and Juanita here

today.

Hon. L. Beare: I want to join my colleague from Prince George–Valemount today in

introducing a number of key stakeholders in my file as well, in the tourism

sector, for accessible tourism. From Spinal Cord Injury B.C. and Access B.C.

we have Chris McBride, Jocelyn Maffin, Nancy Harris and Pat Harris. I’m sure

we’re going to see them again during Tourism Week, which also coincides with

AccessAbility Week. Will the House please join me in making them feel very

welcome.

R. Leonard: I have the pleasure to introduce an august group of citizens, not from

my constituency but organized by one person who attended a fundraiser for

some folks who have been flooded out of their affordable homes.

Dan Olson is from Maple Ridge. He’s a self-described human rights

advocate as well as a labour advocate and is now working towards being a

mentor to bring more people into the fold.

[1:45 p.m.]

He brings with him, from Maple Ridge–Mission and Maple Ridge–Pitt

Meadows, Chris Bossley, who is a resident of Maple Ridge. She’s a highly

respected resident advocate for the street population.

Heather McCain is from Vancouver–West End. She’s a volunteer executive

director of Citizens for Accessible Neighbourhoods, CAN, which she founded

over 13 years ago. It’s grown into a very respected and established

provincewide resource, not just Vancouver-based. From the Mid Island–Pacific

Rim, we have Karen Lloyd-St. Pierre from Port Alberni. She’s a labour

advocate for worker rights and particularly for women workers.

I hope that you will join the members from those constituencies and

welcome these folks to the House today.

E. Ross: Today the member for Chilcotin introduced Pat Corbett and Juanita

Corbett. I just wanted to let the House know that today the matriarch of

that family is here as well, Adrienne Corbett. She’s sitting up in the

gallery just off to my right here. She’s from Surrey, and she’s got a very

strange bucket list. One of her bucket list items was to meet me. I’ve told

her that she needs a better bucket list. I had lunch with her — a very

interesting lady, a very smart lady and a very thoughtful conversation we

had.

I’d like the House to make her feel welcome but, more importantly,

wish her happy birthday, because today is her 95th birthday. Would the House

please wish her happy birthday.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I haven’t had many opportunities to do this, but as of Saturday night,

I get to do it in this House. On Saturday night, my youngest brother became

a grandpa for the first time as his eldest daughter, Ashley Paine, and

husband, Brian Paine, became proud parents of a 7-pound-12-ounce baby boy,

the first grandson in our family. I’d like the House to please welcome one

of British Columbia’s newest residents, Charlie Robert Paine.

D. Routley: I’m super excited. I would have said über-excited, but I don’t want to

start an argument. So I’m super excited to introduce these people. I have

seven guests. The first I would introduce is David Brown, a former public

servant, and his wife, Linda Brown. They’re two people who I’ve known for

almost 15 years. They’ve worked on campaigns with me. We worked together in

theatre, actually. They’re fantastic people, and I’ve known them a long

time. That’ll come into my next introduction.

Along with Linda and David Brown is wee David Brown, five-year-old

David Brown, who’s dressed in a lovely suit. He’s here to join us, and I’m

sure we’ll all treat him to the most spectacular display of democracy in

action.

I also would like to introduce my partner, Leanne Finlayson, who’s up

above us here — the love of my life. I’m going to steal from the member for

Powell River–Sunshine Coast. The best day of my life was May 1, 1974. I

didn’t know, but that was the day my sweetheart was born. That’s completely

stolen from Nick.

I’m also very excited to introduce one of our dearest friends, the

wonderful Cherie Boyle, who is an MRI specialist, and her son, Eli Boyle,

and his girlfriend, Ohannah Green. I emphasize pronouns for a specific

reason that will become clear very shortly. I’m very happy to welcome them

to the B.C. Legislature.

S. Furstenau: I have two sets of introductions to make. First, I’d like to just

introduce Diane Evers, a member of state parliament for Western Australia,

and Jan Loji, Member of Parliament from New Zealand. Diane and Jan and I met

last night and, over the course of about three hours, discovered that being

green actually has a lot that makes us have a lot in common. I’m happy to

say I have two new friends.

Secondly, I’d like to introduce my stepdaughter, Mireta

Strandberg-Salmon, who’s in the gallery today. Mireta won’t remember this,

but she was introduced in this chamber on July 7, 1999, by the member for

Burnaby-Willingdon, who introduced her parents Cora Strandberg and Blaise

Salmon. At the time, the member, Ms. Sawicki, said: “She’s three weeks old,

and she’s already had a picture taken with her MLA and with the

Premier.”

[1:50 p.m.]

I am most fortunate to be the stepmother of Mireta, who is a

remarkable young woman. She has continued to have an exceptional track

record right from that first three weeks. She’s an accomplished musician, a

handball player and an academic whirlwind, having always maintained an

average somewhere north of 98 percent. She’s of unceasingly good humour. As

her dad observed yesterday, she even laughs at the jokes that aren’t all

that funny. We love having Mireta in the house, and we love hearing her

laugh.

She just completed her second year at Simon Fraser University, where

she’s studying environmental resource management — imagine that — and

looking forward to her co-op placement with Environment Canada. For her

relentless efforts to ban bottled water at Simon Fraser, Mireta has been

named the environmental woman of the year.

We are so proud of all that she has accomplished in the first 20 years

since she was introduced here, and we can’t wait for the next 20.

Love you, Mireta.

Hon. K. Conroy: Today I had the pleasure of hosting some guests who, unfortunately,

had to leave. I said I would still introduce them, because their daughter

was quite thrilled with the idea that she would be in

Hansard .

Here today was my sister, Sana Marsh, from Whistler, her husband,

Jerry, and their daughter, Mandy Marsh. With them were Jack and Deb Marsh

from Quesnel, and Jody and Tom Marsh from Salmon Arm. Would you please make

them welcome. They’re going to go on line and look and see, so please join

me.

M. Elmore: I’m going to ask for the indulgence of the House. I’m going to

introduce some guests who are here, and I know the very capable Minister of

Labour gave a warm introduction to members from the Migrant Workers Centre —

Rona Fernandez, on the board of directors for Migrant Workers

Centre.

A special introduction I wanted to make is the very talented, gifted,

skilled, accomplished, capable staff lawyer, executive director of the

Migrant Workers Centre — and also my partner, to make it an official

recognition. Please make them very welcome.

Statements

MOTORCYCLE AWARENESS

G. Kyllo: Today was a very important day here at the Legislature, the 27th

annual MLA Ride. It a great opportunity to bring awareness to motorcycle

safety in our province.

I want to give a special thanks to Bill Wellburn at Island BMW. He

was kind enough to loan a couple of bikes again this year to my

colleague from Penticton and myself. We were also joined today by our

leader, our MLA for Vancouver-Quilchena. So a great day.

I just want to remind people that when you’re on the roads, to

watch out for motorcyclists. Obviously, we’re seeing an increasing

number of motorcyclists on the road. A very challenging year last year —

we actually had double the average annual fatalities on our roads for

motorcyclists.

Please, I want to let everybody know to pay special attention as

we start to see more motorcyclists on our roads over the spring and

summer months.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. H. Bains presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Employment Standards Amendment Act,

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 8, the Employment Standards

Amendment Act, 2019. This bill makes a number of priority amendments to

the Employment Standards Act. It supports our government’s commitment to

update employment standards and ensure that they are applied evenly and

enforced.

The changes in this bill focus on four important areas of reform:

protecting child workers by having laws that comply with the

international standards for child labour; modernizing the employment

standards system with a more effective compliance and enforcement

program; establishing new, unpaid, job-protected leave for employees

experiencing domestic violence and for employees who need to care for a

critically ill child or adult family member; and strengthening wage

recovery for workers.

These amendments will modernize B.C.’s employment standards and

bring our laws to protect workers in line with other

jurisdictions.

[1:55 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 8, Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2019, introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 31 — POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Police Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 31, the Police Amendment Act, 2019.

The bill proposes amendments to the Police Act related to the

independent investigations office, also known as the IIO.

The amendments address concerns raised by the IIO related to

recruitment of investigators by the chief civilian director — from

appointing investigators who have been a member of a police force in

B.C. within the last five years.

The amendments will also raise the IIO’s referral standard to

Crown counsel to be consistent with the referral standard used by the

police and avoid referring files unnecessarily to the independent

prosecution service.

Both amendments were requested by the IIO.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 31, Police Amendment Act, 2019, introduced, read a first time

and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

AND TECHNOLOGY

SECTOR

R. Glumac: The tech sector is diverse. One area that’s flourishing right now

is artificial intelligence. It’s estimated that 62 percent of businesses

are using AI in some form. This sector is projected to grow from $8

billion in 2016 to more than $125 billion worldwide by 2025.

B.C. is emerging as a strong market for AI. In fact, 22 percent of

AI companies in Canada are located in Vancouver. This includes companies

like Cloudburst, Mobify and Kindred. It’s not a surprise, then, when

international AI companies are also looking to B.C., companies like

Fujitsu, who have recently chosen to establish their new artificial

intelligence headquarters in Vancouver.

B.C. offers a highly skilled talent base, a well-developed tech

ecosystem, top-quality educational institutions, competitive business

costs and better connections to Seattle, Silicon Valley and the Pacific

Rim than anywhere else in the country. Our government is committed to

growing B.C.’s tech economy. We’re investing in 2,900 new tech seats and

building tech-focused infrastructure at our universities such as the

sustainable energy engineering building that recently opened in

Surrey.

Our government has gone on many trade missions to Asia, and we’ve

been hearing a lot about the optimism, about the tech opportunities in

B.C. We are proud to have Fujitsu and many other tech leaders choose

B.C. as their home. We look forward to continued growth in AI and all

tech sectors here in B.C.

DAY OF MOURNING FOR WORKERS

J. Martin: No one goes to work expecting to suffer a serious or a fatal

injury. Unfortunately, far too many British Columbians do lose their

lives every year at the workplace due to injuries, and to

illness.

Yesterday, April 28, marked the National Day of Mourning for those

killed or injured in the workplace. This is an opportunity for all of us

to honour those who have lost their lives, along with the families and

loved ones that are heartbreakingly left behind.

No words, no actions can bring back those lost, but we can work

diligently in this House and across the province to implement

preventative and educational policies, making B.C. an even better place

to live, to work and to play.

We also have a duty and a responsibility to ensure that vulnerable

workers such as teenagers, young adults and recent immigrants are made

aware of their employment rights and what the provincial workplace

safety standards are.

[2:00 p.m.]

Everyone — absolutely everyone — has a right to a safe and

supportive work environment, and everyone should be able to return home

safely from work at the end of the day, every day.

Together let us remember those who have been lost and support

those who have been injured and make every effort to eliminate

preventable deaths and injuries in workplaces across British

Columbia.

SHIPYARDS DISTRICT ON NORTH SHORE

B. Ma: While North Shore residents are keenly aware, many others from

other places in B.C. might be surprised to learn that North Vancouver’s

lower Lonsdale community is not at all today what they might remember it

to be. The city of North Vancouver and the Lower Lonsdale Business

Association have been busy at work, turning the newly branded shipyards

district of lower Lonsdale into the place to be.

Lower Lonsdale is North Vancouver’s oldest neighbourhood, steeped

in history and bursting with vibrant shops, restaurants, cafés, pubs,

boutiques, specialty food shops, a plethora of personal services and

galleries — yes, plural, galleries — like the Polygon Gallery, the

under-construction museum, North Van Arts, just to name a

few.

In the summertime, children play in the new water feature against

incredible views of the Vancouver skyline and North Shore Mountains or

at the big, grassy Waterfront Park next door.

Soon they’ll also have another water feature to play with over at

Victory Ship Way, which becomes an outdoor skating rink in the winters

and sits underneath the North Shore’s brand-new Capilano University

lower Lonsdale spinoff campus, which will open in the fall of this

year.

That campus will be right next to the 700-foot-long Burrard Dry

Dock Pier and the historic shipyard site, which hosts concerts,

community events, festivals and even a night market every Friday night

from May through September. By the way, the city of North Vancouver just

approved a new brewery district in the area as well, so there’s really

no excuse not to come visit.

This and so much more is available in a walkable area, well served

by public transit, that is only about four by four city blocks

large.

If you’ve got a free afternoon or a weekend and you’re looking for

a spot to hang out with friends, spend time with family or just seek out

your next favourite joint, skip the hustle and bustle of downtown

Vancouver and opt for a more charming pace at the shipyards district,

just a SeaBus ride away.

SEMIAHMOO POWWOW

T. Redies: It’s my pleasure to speak today about the annual powwow event

hosted by the Semiahmoo First Nation and Earl Marriott Secondary School

in my riding of Surrey–​White Rock. Earl Marriott has been hosting

this annual event since 1996 to showcase a remarkable culture that needs

to be celebrated.

As described by the performers, powwow is a celebration of life, a

celebration of livelihood — livelihood which is loaned to us. The

dances, songs and native crafts seen during the powwow event provide an

avenue to truly appreciate the history and traditions of the Indigenous

peoples.

It was wonderful to see and meet many Indigenous dancers and

singers from across the province and even as far away as Manitoba. At

one point, all of us were dancing together, following the lead dancer in

celebration. It was also very heartwarming to see the number of young

dancers engaging in their culture and sharing it for the benefit of all

of us.

Powwows are important because they serve as a reminder of what was

almost lost. In 1884, powwow celebrations were forbidden under the

Indian Act. It was not until 1952 that powwows were once again

celebrated within Canada.

This is an event that many in our community from all cultural

backgrounds look forward to, with hundreds attending the weekend event.

I know everyone enjoyed the festivities and the performances, and I

particularly enjoyed speaking to a number of the talented artists

showcasing their wares at the event.

I would like to thank elected leader Harley Chappell, the

Semiahmoo First Nation, principal Claudine Davies and teacher Michael

MacKay-Dunn of Earl Marriott Secondary for putting on another successful

powwow in our community.

TRANSGENDER RIGHTS

AND SUPPORT

SERVICES

D. Routley: This is a statement in the voice of Eli Boyle.

As a queer transgendered individual, I would like to address the

gaps in care that myself and those in my trans community experience in

our current system. Two minutes is not nearly enough time to begin

discussing the obvious issues, but the most crucial place to start is to

first acknowledge that trans rights and issues are not something that we

can just politely disagree upon. Disagreeing with the validity of

someone’s existence and the rights and services they deserve is

discrimination, not disagreement.

[2:05 p.m.]

Quiet complacency with homophobic and transphobic ideologies is

far more harmful than those who spout hate from a place of ignorance.

Trans people who are not accepted by those around them are 44 percent

more likely to attempt suicide, while that percentage drops to 4 percent

when they are acknowledged and accepted. Just acknowledging trans people

as valid is suicide prevention. Many Canadian youth are currently at

risk because of people who are uneducated and/or complacent with their

homophobic and transphobic views.

It is unbelievably complicated being a trans person and trying to

navigate and access physical and mental health care in our current

system. But the gaping holes in trans care are even more huge and

damaging for trans people who are not neurotypical or disabled or live

in isolated areas or for those who fall outside the gender

binary.

It is far too easy for these individuals to fall into your blind

spots of biases and complacency. It is simpler for you to help those who

are more able to help themselves, but no one should go forgotten. Your

system, our system, is not successful until it is accessible to everyone

who needs it.

I urge each and every one of you to check yourself for your own

biases, to hold yourself and your colleagues accountable and to make

conscious effort to include trans people in your decisions. We make up

your constituents, and we are not and should not have to be comfortable

expecting any less from you than our cisgendered counterparts

do.

Thank you, Eli.

I would say this: it takes a little courage to do something

unusual like wear something ridiculous in the B.C. Legislature — no

kidding, right? — but imagine the courage it takes to be Eli

Boyle.

WAR VETERANS JOHN AUGUSTYN

AND JIM

ASHWORTH

D. Clovechok: I rise today to recognize 200 years of life in my riding — two

gentlemen that are both celebrating their 100th birthdays, and both have

been warriors: John Augustyn, who lives in Revelstoke, and Jim Ashworth,

who lives in Invermere.

John was born in Poland, and as a young man, he was captured by

the Russians and forced to march over 700 miles through artillery fire.

Unlike so many others, he survived the march. He had a distinguished

military career that included service with the British Army. He was

stationed in Iraq, Palestine, Jerusalem and Egypt. While crossing the

Mediterranean, his ship was hit with a torpedo, and then he was rescued

by a destroyer. He survived again.

For his distinguished service, he received many medals, including

the Cross of Monte Cassino, the British and Italian stars and the

Defence and War medals. After the war, he moved to Canada and eventually

Revelstoke, where he worked in the logging industry for 33 years and

where he and his wife, Emily, raised two daughters. They also have three

grandsons and one granddaughter. He is a true Revel­stoke hero and

is loved so much in his community.

Jim Ashworth was born in Cranbrook and grew up in Invermere. He

enlisted in the RCF in 1941 and flew Hawker Hurricane planes, an

aircraft built for war and loved by pilots. Jim’s act of service started

on the south coast of India, close to the Burmese border. His job was to

support the 14th army by taking out targets in the thick jungle or

destroying tanks, gun emplacements, vehicles and ships. It wasn’t easy

being a pilot, Jim pointed out, saying: “We took off and landed on the

beach. They laid down chain link fence on the sand to stabilize it, and

it worked.”

He eventually retired from the RCF after 25 years of service. He

moved to the Columbia Valley and ended up operating the Hoodoos Resort

in partnership with his family. Jim still lives in Invermere. He can

still fly the plane if you ask him to. He ended up, as I say, operating

the Hoodoos. He is a true Invermere hero.

Happy 100th birthday, John and Jim. Thank you for all you’ve done

for your country and your communities. You’re both true heroes, and

here’s to the next 100.

Oral Questions

ACTION ON GAS PRICES

A. Wilkinson: In the two weeks that this Legislature has been in recess, we have

seen all-time high gasoline prices in British Columbia. In Vancouver, we

see the spectacle of empty gas stations at full price and a rush on gas

stations with even a few cents discount. Overnight we see queues at 11

p.m., when people spot a deal. Word travels quickly, and people rush out

to buy gasoline.

The response from the Premier has been a series of ineffectual and

often non-credible answers, ranging from conspiracies to federal

jurisdiction to, “Let’s have a refinery in the Lower Mainland,” which

obviously raises the question: how would the fuel get there without a

pipeline?

[2:10 p.m.]

What we’re left with is a retail disaster for small businesses.

They are simply running out of cash flow. Their margins are disappearing

as they pour it out into the gas pump.

In response to this, this government has done absolutely nothing.

That’s what governments are for — to try and make peoples’ lives better

and to take action when their livelihoods are at risk.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Wilkinson: Here’s what the Premier had to say on March 21, 2018: “We are

monitoring gas prices, and we will take steps if necessary. We have

talked about a range of options….”

The question, obviously, goes to the Premier. People are hurting

out there. This has been going on for weeks. All of the options put

forward by this government are empty promises, ten-year plans or simply

implausible.

To the Premier: in the next 30 days, what are you going to do to

bring down the price at the pumps?

Hon. J. Horgan: It’s nice to know, as we start another few weeks in this

Legislature, that we can start question period where the Leader of the

Opposition and I agree. Gas prices are ridiculously high in the Lower

Mainland. Where we tend to diverge is to figure out just how that

happened. I know the member would be aware….

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, we got into — what? — six seconds there before a heckle. The

new approach of the Leader of the Opposition.

The member will know that over the past three or four months, the

price of gasoline in the Lower Mainland has gone up in the range of 40

cents a litre. He will also know that during that time, government

policy has led to a one-cent-a-litre increase. Instead of being

concerned about the one cent a litre, we should all be concerned about

the 39.

A good chunk of the answer comes from the refining margins in the

Lower Mainland versus the refining margins in other parts of Canada. The

average refining margin in Canada is 20.8 cents; in British Columbia,

it’s 42.7. That’s a problem not created by government but created by the

market. We need to work together to fix it.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, the members of the media are having none of this. Let’s look

at some of the reviews of the Premier’s performance in the last ten

days.

Keith Baldrey of Global TV: “Outright desperation. This issue is

getting away from him.” Mike Smyth of the Vancouver Province :

“He’s flip-flopping around on it. The pointing finger starts to look

desperate when you scratch the surface of some of his pretzel logic.”

Vaughn Palmer of the Vancouver Sun repeatedly, consistently

pointing out: “Any day now he’ll be blaming the United

Nations.”

The Premier’s dancing around this has done nothing for people at

the gas stations. It has done nothing for millions of British Columbians

who just can’t handle this level of gas pricing.

The obvious question that comes to mind for this government — who

are supposed to be primarily, fundamentally, as a top priority worried

about affordability for the middle class: what are you going to

do?

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: For those who missed that, that applause was for the sentiment. It

wasn’t for the Leader of the Opposition. The sentiment is that we do

want to do everything we can to bring costs down for citizens, but I

think the fundamental difference between this side of the House and that

side of the House was evident in the member’s question. It’s all about

performance. It’s about: how did you do in the performance today? Did

you perform well? Did you flip this way, or did you flip that

way?

[2:15 p.m.]

Citizens are concerned that there’s a 22-cent difference in the

average refining margin and the real refining margin in British

Columbia. I didn’t make that. The Leader of the Opposition didn’t make

that. The industry made that. So when we propose solutions to help the

industry find a better way…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …to bring a product into the Lower Mainland, we get ridicule from

the other side. Instead, their solution is to cap the price and then

start giving taxes back. Well, that is an invitation to companies to

take more, not an invitation for them to drop prices.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, it’s no comfort to motorists in this province to hear the

Premier’s theories about petroleum economics, because he has

demonstrated he has done nothing to solve their problem.

Premier, let’s get down to business. There are two immediate

things you can do. There is nothing standing in your way as a

government. You can deal with the 35 cents a litre of gasoline tax that

people are fed up with paying when they’re paying all-time high prices,

and you can get on a plane to Alberta and make peace with Jason Kenney

so that we have a reliable supply of fuel.

Hon. J. Horgan: I think it was just two weeks ago the Leader of the Opposition was

saying I should be going to war with our friends in Washington, and now

we should be going to make peace in other parts of the country. I’m good

with that. But to suggest, as the Leader of the Opposition has, that

somehow his economics on this question are sound and mine are not…. I do

have to…. Well, the Opposition House Leader doth clap too soon, I

think.

Werner Antweiler, a professor of business at Sauder business

school of the University of British Columbia, a pre-eminent business

school in the country, with respect to the opposition’s plans on gas

prices: “I’m quite astonished by the proposal, because it defies any

economic logic. It wouldn’t really change the prices, but it would boost

the profits for the oil companies, and it would do absolutely nothing

for consumers.”

I’ll be forgiven, I think, if I take my advice from those who are

looking at the industry rather than those who are worried about their

performance.

S. Bond: Well, here is something that defies all economic logic. This is

the Premier that currently presides over the highest gasoline prices and

gas taxes in North America, and he stands here and refuses to do a

single thing about it.

Let’s look at someone else who analyzes the situation related to

gas taxes. Let’s look at Dan McTeague: “The ‘inconvenient truth’ for the

NDP in B.C. is that the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline would

allow a greater supply of gasoline into the province.” The Premier

absolutely knows all about that, because his very own documents show

that he knows that is true.

There is one thing this Premier can do immediately. He can stand

up, stop blocking the pipeline and start to mitigate British Columbians’

pain at the pumps.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her question. I’ll just kind of shape some

of those facts into closer-to-real facts.

First of all, there is no magic endless supply of refined gasoline

products in Alberta or Washington state or, for that matter, anywhere

else in an area that would allow us to see more refined product come

here. When we talk about more refining capacity, not in the Lower

Mainland but somewhere in North America — perhaps to the south of us,

where there already are five refineries, or into Alberta….

[2:20 p.m.]

There is no plan currently in the twinning of the Trans Mountain

pipeline to move refined product to British Columbia. To say otherwise

is distorting reality.

S. Bond: Every day this Premier decides he’s going to duck, he’s going to

dodge, he’s going to weave, and he is going to point his finger at

everybody else.

Interjections.

S. Bond: That’s right — this finger.

This Premier — it’s time he stood up and he looked at himself in

the mirror. This is what else….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Bond: While it might be a laughing matter to the members on the other

side of House, British Columbians are tired of this Premier’s inaction.

It’s time he stood up and looked in the mirror.

Here’s what else Dan McTeague had to say, and again, the Premier

has obviously dismissed everything he said in the previous comment.

“He’s painted his province into a corner. He’s harming consumers, and he

has no one to blame but himself. If he can’t understand these very

simple concepts — doing damage to consumers and to ordinary people —

then perhaps he should consider another job.”

A year ago this Premier said he would monitor the prices and

consider doing something. He said that weeks ago. The time is here now.

The Premier needs to look in the mirror, stop calling everyone else out

for their comments and take action to mitigate the pain at the

pumps.

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, again, the flipping and the flopping seems to be largely on

that side of the House. It wasn’t that long ago that the Leader of the

Opposition was saying that he was satisfied that markets would find

their way. But now, all of a sudden, the former free enterprise party

wants everybody to interfere in the market.

They always forget, and I’m grateful that we on this side of the

House don’t let them forget it, that of the 16 cents in gas tax

increases that have happened since 2003, 14 cents of them came from that

side of the House. So the party that increased the taxes the most says

that taxes are too high. The party that says we shouldn’t intervene in

the market should have probably taken their own advice.

Again, I go back to the Sauder School of Business, which said:

“It’s a completely ineffective proposition. It makes no economic

sense.”

B.C. TECH ASSOCIATION PROGRAMS AND

SUPPORT FOR

TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY

A. Weaver: Hon. Speaker, if you or other members in the gallery thought they

were participating in an episode of The Twilight Zone , I share

their concerns. Here we have the official opposition and their leader

arguing for Marxist policy to bring in a price cap, and we have the

leader of the socialist party arguing for free market economics. What

has B.C. politics come to?

We now have a new level of standard for research by the official

opposition — oil apologist gasbuddy.com, providing the official

opposition official research on their efforts. I cannot wait till the

next episode comes forward.

Two weeks ago I asked the minister if he was committed to ensuring

that programs and services provided by the B.C. Tech Association at The

Cube and the Hub were able to continue. In his response, the minister

spoke about how The Cube had provided many opportunities and shown

leadership in the sector.

However, since that time, The Cube has now announced it is closing

its doors in May because it was unable to secure either provincial or

federal funding. This closure sends a wrong signal, the exact wrong

signal, as to where we should be headed.

My question is to the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology. How

can the minister reconcile his stated support for the tech sector with

the fact that the B.C. Tech Association is being forced to close the

doors of The Cube facility?

Hon. B. Ralston: I would like to thank the Leader of the Third Party for his

question and for his continuing support for the tech sector. It’s a

growing, vibrant sector here in our province.

[2:25 p.m.]

We spoke last time about The Cube. The Cube’s source of funding

came from the federal government, from the western diversification fund.

They decided to discontinue that funding. As part of the transition, our

government gave them $500,000 to point themselves in a new direction.

That did not result in their ability to continue it.

At the same time, in the same sector — the virtual reality,

augmented reality sector — just on Tuesday, April 16…. I was there.

Actually, Ms. Tipping, the head of the Technology Improvement

Association, was there at the launch of a new incubator, the Launch

Academy, in the very same sector, the VR-AR sector — very successful, a

couple hundred companies there.

This is the biggest AR-VR sector in the world — perhaps maybe

second, although one would be permitted, as an advocate, a little bit of

boasting, I think. That sector is world leading. We are doing

well.

The vibe at that place was really good. I spoke with Alex Chuang,

co-founder of Shape Immersive. They are very enthusiastic about the

possibilities.

This is a sector where there is change. Things change. The Cube

didn’t work out. This sector is taking over. I’m very confident about

that sector and its future here in British Columbia — indeed, its future

globally.

Mr. Speaker: Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: Well, I, too, am excited about the prospects for tech in British

Columbia. I’m profoundly concerned that B.C. is not stepping up to draw

the federal dollars that are available that jurisdictions like Ontario

have done. In fact, the same week that the Cube was being closed, the

federal government announced, in partnership with Ontario, a $90 million

investment in innovation in Ontario.

Both B.C. and Ontario have burgeoning innovation sectors that

drive economic growth and create high-paying, good-quality jobs. The

sectors in both provinces have huge potential for growth, and our sector

has some of the best potential of all. It will help us transform our

economy and drive prosperity for British Columbians from north to south

and east to west.

The only difference is that in Ontario, they’re at the table and

willing to invest substantially in this new, up-and-coming sector,

whereas B.C. appears to be absent. We’ll be left in the dust behind

other jurisdictions if it doesn’t back up its words with actions to

ensure that we’re there, able to leverage those federal moneys to ensure

that we get the innovation centres in B.C. that are so instrumental to

the development of the new economy.

My question is again to the minister. Why is the Ontario tech

sector getting $90 million as an investment the same week as the B.C.

tech sector is being forced to close a facility for innovation in

B.C.?

Hon. B. Ralston: I appreciate that the member is particularly enamoured of the

initiatives taken by the Ford government in Ontario. But the reality

here in British Columbia is that we are investing a huge amount in the

tech sector here.

Let’s begin with 2,900 new tech spaces in institutions across the

province. We are investing $110 million in innovative research in B.C.’s

leading post-secondary institutions through the B.C. Knowledge

Development Fund. We are investing $12 million in graduate scholarships

for students, including science- and tech-related disciplines, as well

as $500,000 for women-in-tech scholarships.

We are making the commitments. Those commitments are going to be

renewed through a new Innovate B.C., which has a fresh mandate, a new

CEO who comes from Accelerate Okanagan. I’m very optimistic about the

future of the tech sector and the investments that come not only from

the start-up environment here, which is booming from global companies

which are choosing to locate here. Fujitsu was mentioned in the

two-minute statements, and there are many others.

People want to be and tech companies want to be in British

Columbia. They are coming here, and they will continue to come here

because of what we have to offer.

MASSEY TUNNEL REPLACEMENT PROJECT

I. Paton: It seems that everyone in local government circles has come on

board just recently with respect to the tunnel replacement, including

the mayor of Delta and the mayor of Vancouver. The NDP are the only

holdout to getting a Massey replacement built now.

Residents are demanding a replacement. Any replacement in the year

2030 doesn’t quite cut it with anyone south of the Fraser. All the

mayors and First Nations say the NDP timeline is totally

unacceptable.

[2:30 p.m.]

The Premier has no excuse to stall any longer. When will

construction start?

Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate the question. It’s been a long while since the member

has asked a question about this very important subject. People are

frustrated. I know people are frustrated. They want to get to their

families. They want to get to work. But they didn’t want a megaproject,

a tolled megaproject that they would be paying for every single time

they crossed the bridge.

Our government commissioned a report which showed that it was the

wrong project for the region. It was the wrong project. It was too big.

It was causing division, and for everyone who did cross it — day in, day

out — they would’ve been paying for it.

We removed tolls, and we’re getting consensus on a solution for

the Massey project.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Delta South on a supplemental.

I. Paton: Well, commuters waiting for this have been on side from the

beginning. It is the number one issue that I’ve heard on the doorsteps

in Delta. Rehashing three years of environmental, agricultural and

engineering assessments is senseless and redundant. This thing has been

studied to death — three rounds of consultation, 4,000 participants and

14,000 pages of studies.

If he hadn’t cancelled it, a replacement would be halfway complete

by now. The people of Delta don’t trust this Premier to deliver anything

anytime soon.

Commuters and commercial truckers stuck in traffic want to know.

When is this new crossing going to be built?

Hon. C. Trevena: As I say, I do understand people’s frustration. They are stuck in

traffic. If the opposition, when they were government, had approached

this in a way to try and get consensus instead of….

Interjections.

Hon. C. Trevena: We would not be in this position — a $3½ billion project that they

kept pushing forward when they were in government.

We now have a consensus from the mayors in the region, which I

think is really good to start moving on. We are working through Metro

Vancouver. We are working. We are listening to local governments. We’re

listening to the needs of local government in a way that the opposition

never did when they wanted to put a massive tolled bridge across the

Fraser.

J. Johal: Now, if the NDP weren’t so interested in punishing voters who

didn’t support them, a replacement would already be halfway built,

meaning relief would have been there not only for commuters in Delta and

Richmond but also for travellers from Tsawwassen — ferry users, of

course — and of course thousands of truck drivers who work Canada’s

busiest port. Instead, 90,000 vehicles a day sit idle, burning the most

expensive gas in North America, at the George Massey Tunnel.

Question to the minister: when will construction start on the

replacement?

Hon. J. Horgan: It’s rare that I get an opportunity to rebut the comments from the

member for Richmond-Queensborough, but I don’t know about punishing

people in non-government ridings. I mean, say that to the hospital

people in Fort St. James. Say that to the hospital people in Terrace.

Say that to the hospital people in Dawson Creek.

I lift my hands to the member for Penticton, who has an

understanding of the importance of delivering good projects to people

regardless of how they vote. That’s exactly what we’re doing on this

side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a

supplemental.

J. Johal: Clearly the Premier couldn’t answer the question. We’re talking

about the George Massey Tunnel.

We’ve had 14,000 pages of consultation done over five years under

the previous government and 145 scientific and technical reports done.

Then there’s the issue of safety. In 2016, there were, on average, 24

ambulance trips through the tunnel. Six of them were code 3, meaning

lights and sirens.

[2:35 p.m.]

Now, London Drugs — which is also a major employer in my riding,

has a distribution centre in my riding — is threatening to move its head

office to Alberta because of that fumbling, bumbling minister over

there.

After two years, there can be no more excuses for not getting on

with the Massey Tunnel project. If the Premier doesn’t commit to this

timeline, what timeline will he commit to?

Hon. J. Horgan: Here, after my brief list of hospital projects, I forgot to

mention the hospital in Richmond. That was the one that was announced

every year for 16 years, with no money attached to it — that hospital.

To have the official opposition stand and applaud the fact that there’s

consensus on a solution to congestion in Massey defies logic, similar to

the lack of economic logic by the Leader of the Opposition. How can you

stand up in this place and name-call to someone on the other side

because we’ve got agreement on how best to proceed? Four years of them

saying, “Our way or not at all,” four years of: “We’re going to add

tolls.”

I was in Langley on Friday announcing a highway expansion in

Langley, and what the federal minister said to me was: “Maybe we can now

help you at Massey because you’re not going to toll the

project.”

T. Stone: Six-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway in Langley; the lower-lane

corridor, Highway 1; widening an interchange project in North Vancouver;

four-laning and intersection improvements on Highway 7 between Pitt

Meadows, Maple Ridge and Mission; interchange upgrades along the SFPR

corridor; and a cut-the-congestion plan for the Alex Fraser Bridge.

These are all projects which were funded and announced by the former

B.C. Liberal government.

In addition to that…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the question. Thank

you.

T. Stone: …these projects have all been delayed by two years by the NDP

government, only to recently — each and every one of them — be

reannounced by the NDP government.

When it comes to the largest bottleneck in British Columbia, the

George Massey Tunnel, the NDP have pushed out implementing a replacement

for this bridge by nine years. That is unacceptable to the thousands of

residents in Delta and those south of the Fraser. These are residents

who are demanding a solution now, and they want a date.

So the question, again to the Premier, is this. Mr. Premier,

what’s the bridge replacement date?

Hon. J. Horgan: I was just looking at a list of projects that wouldn’t have been

able to be funded if the Leader of the Opposition had given back gas

taxes. The six-laning of Highway 97 in Kelowna, the improvements in

Prince George — all a result of what used to be sound policy. I’m

grateful that the member for Kamloops–South Thompson did a Steel Wheels

Tour — his greatest hits, from issuing press releases when he sat on

this side of the House. It’s a shame he didn’t mention the ride-hailing

option that they worked so hard on as well.

I am delighted — this is directly to the member for Delta South —

that the Mayors Council has come together with a focus on a plan. They

just did it last week. Let’s give ourselves some time to sit down with

them and to work out the details, shall we?

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report intituled

Service Plan 2019-20–2021-22 from the Office of the Auditor

General of British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: Before I proceed to orders of the day, I do ask leave to make a quick

introduction.

Leave granted.

[2:40 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Farnworth: I was remiss earlier in not introducing a longtime Port Coquitlam

councillor and a friend of mine for many, many years. That’s Port Coquitlam

councillor Darrell Penner and his wife, Brenda, who are over here visiting.

He does amazing work in our community and has done for a very long time. I

would ask the House to make him most welcome.

Motions Without Notice

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

TO SIT IN THREE

SECTIONS

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move, by leave, now:

[That further to the motion adopted on February 28, 2019, that this

House hereby authorizes the Committee of Supply for this session to sit

in an additional third

section designated

Section C which will sit in

the Birch Committee Room as may be appointed from time to time. All

rules and provisions of the motion related to Committee of Supply,

Section A shall apply to

Section C. The Members of Committee of Supply,

Section C shall be identical to the composition of Committee of Supply,

Section A.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 29, Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act, 2019. In

Section A, Committee A, the Douglas Fir

Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 20, the Medicare Protection

Act. And in Committee C, the Birch Room, I call continued debate on the

estimates for the Ministry of Environment. When those are completed, it

will be the estimates of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation to

follow.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 29 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be read now a second time.

This is the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2019.

[Applause.]

I thank the Minister of Trade and Technology for the thunderous

round of applause.

The Ministry of Attorney General has the responsibility of

assembling minor amendments to different statutes within government and

putting them forward in miscellaneous statutes acts. This is one of

those acts.

Within this bill, there are several different sections related to

different ministries. I can advise members that ministers and their

staff responsible for each of these sections will be handling those

questions that they may have in committee stage on this bill, as we work

our way through in committee stage.

I guess, in short, what I’m saying is that credit for this

remarkable bill belongs with several different members of this place and

would be wrongly placed exclusively on the Ministry of Attorney

General.

[2:45 p.m.]

First of all, this bill repeals the Christ College of Canada

Society Act and the World Trade University Canada Establishment Act.

Both of these acts were put in place by the Legislature in order to

establish private post-secondary institutions, and it’s the

understanding that we have within the ministry and the Ministry of

Advanced Education that these institutions are no longer, or perhaps

never were, actually in operation.

One of the pieces of work that staff do within the Ministry of

Advanced Education and the Ministry of Attorney General is review

legislation to ensure that it is compliant with what’s happening out

there in the world. It’s our hope that the repeal of these bills will

ensure that when people see that these are laws within British Columbia,

they won’t see laws establishing universities that do not, or perhaps

never did, exist.

It’s the hope, certainly, of staff and of the members on the

government side that these repeals will maintain the integrity of

British Columbia’s post-secondary system and protect students who may

rely on the existence of legislation as an indication of quality and

provincial endorsement where none may exist.

Secondly, there are a number of amendments pertaining to the

Integrated Pest Management Act. These amendments fall into two

categories.

The first is the collection of information and ensuring

consistency in terminology. With respect to the collection of

information, members will be fascinated to hear that the Integrated Pest

Management Act will allow inspectors to collect information and records

about future pest management activities that might be planned but may

not be underway. This means that site visits can be better organized and

that compliance audits during pesticide application will be more

proficient, a value that I’m sure all members in this place share.

Currently inspectors have no authority to ask for information about

future scheduling of pest management activities.

Regarding terminology, with respect to the Integrated Pest

Management Act and pest management activities, the amendments are

intended to clear up inconsistencies within the act and provide clarity

of understanding for members of the public and for those designated to

do inspections and to enforce the act. The amendments are in the

section

of the act regarding administrative penalties, for those members who

wish to look up the original act to reconcile the amendments.

The Personal Property Security Act is also proposed to be amended

by this bill. That act allows lenders, sellers and other secured parties

to obtain security interests in a debtor’s personal property in order to

secure payment of the debt and to establish a priority position in the

property used as collateral. The purpose of the amendments is to make

changes, clarifications and corrections which promote harmonization of

personal property security law. These changes are intended to address

changes in business practices and the growing importance of

interjurisdictional financing transactions, and these were recommended

by proposals ratified at the 2017 meeting of the Canadian Conference on

Personal Property Security Law.

It’s my understanding, and certainly it will be the experience of

members in this place, that we often look to conferences or

organizations that monitor the law in British Columbia related to

various specialties, including personal property security law, for

example, to recommend changes to government to ensure that the law

responds to commercial realities in British Columbia. That is what

happened here, and it is our hope that these amendments will improve the

law, and business practice as a whole, in the province.

The most significant change among these changes is to correct and

bring into force new rules for determining which jurisdiction’s law

applies to security interests in movable property. These were enacted in

the Finance Statutes Amendment Act of 2010. Saskatchewan and Ontario

have corrected their new rules, and we’re catching up with them to some

extent here in that respect. The minor changes made by these amendments

include a change to the procedure for removing a registration from the

personal property registry to eliminate an out-of-date exception which

requires a court order.

I can also advise members that there are amendments in this bill

to the Motor Vehicle Act and Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2018. The

intention here is to clarify the review framework for administrative

driving prohibitions and make other minor changes.

Members in this place may be familiar with the administrative

driving prohibitions which can take place at roadside and be issued by a

police officer when an individual is believed to be impaired while

driving at a level of .05 or higher.

[2:50 p.m.]

When a person is served one of these driving prohibitions — that’s

in relation to alcohol, obviously; it applies in relation to cannabis

now, and other impairing drugs — they can apply for a review of that

prohibition to the superintendent of motor vehicles on limited

grounds.

In an effort to clarify the review grounds, the amendments in the

bill will explicitly state that an individual may apply for a review on

the grounds that they did not actually operate the motor vehicle. It

seems strange that this should be necessary. But in fact, it has been

observed by staff within the ministry that this would clarify and ensure

people understand, when they’re looking at areas allowable for review,

that if they were not actually operating the vehicle and they received a

driving prohibition, that would be an appropriate area to request review

by the superintendent.

These amendments make the review framework for administrative

driving prohibitions consistent with other alcohol- and drug-affected

driving prohibitions under the Motor Vehicle Act, more

broadly.

As you can see, it’s an array of amendments to various acts of a

more minor variety assembled into a single statute by the Ministry of

Attorney General for the members here. As I advised members, multiple

ministers and their staffs will be coming in to provide support

throughout the committee stage of this, to assist the House in

understanding the implications of these amendments and the proposed

amendments under the act.

I think I’ll conclude my remarks there, and I look forward to

hearing what other members have to say in response to the bill in this

second reading debate.

M. Lee: I rise to speak generally in favour of what’s been proposed under

this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2019, Bill 29.

Generally speaking, of course, members of this House are

supportive of the need to continue to clarify and update B.C.’s laws so

that they reflect the current realities in our province and also take

advantage of the continued nature of improving and taking into account

best practices, in terms of drafting, learnt through experience and also

from other jurisdictions.

It is certainly an important task of legislatures, including this

one, to look at, across the country, the importance of harmonization of

various regulatory frameworks, as is done with the Personal Property

Security Act, for example.

However, this is the sixth miscellaneous statutes amendment bill

that this government has introduced in their first two years of

government. It’s a bill that continues to put forward amendments on top

of amendments. We’re seeing that, given the nature of the legislative

agenda for this government, they’re going back and forth on various

provisions of various acts that they’ve put forward. There’s a

tremendous use of resources and time here. I think that this is

something that we’ll be reviewing in the committee stage as

well.

The changes to the Integrated Pest Management Act certainly

provide for additional compliance requirements on reporting and specific

details around when an area will be applied with various pesticides.

That’s important, certainly, for more high-risk zones and sites,

including where there are water bodies involved. As I heard only a few

hours ago in the briefing that I was provided, this will enable

inspectors and other ministry personnel to be on site to ensure that the

buffer zones are met from the application of various pesticides in a

sensitive area, in particular.

It does, of course, invite questions around how this new tool of

reporting will be managed, the resources that’ll be employed, the nature

of the recordkeeping that will be necessary under these provisions and

the kind of enforcement personnel that the ministry would have available

to itself.

[2:55 p.m.]

As I mentioned, the amendments that are being proposed to the

Personal Property Security Act, certainly as we understand, are well

recognized in terms of the importance of the harmonization across the

country and the timing of those provisions. There are some technical

amendments, as well, that we’ll be looking at in the committee stage

relating to priority, not just perfection. That’s something, certainly,

that many — and some in this chamber — study in law school in terms of

the basic principles around PPSA registrations.

If I go forward and look at what’s going to be required in terms

of the Motor Vehicle Act, certainly in terms of the administrative

driving prohibitions and what’s required to have clarity of the

individual that might be going through those prohibitions, to ensure

that that person is a person who is actually driving the motor vehicle

and the time of evaluation being the evaluation at the time this test is

being conducted….

I think there’s certainly a level of clarity that’s necessary

there. As I understand it, these amendments are being made to the Motor

Vehicle Amendment Act, 2018, which this government has brought forward,

and there are regulations that are still to be brought in connection

with that amendment act that require these amendments to be made in this

miscellaneous statutes amendment bill.

So there’s a piling up of amendments that are to come here in the

face of what is a very important security concern for the public here in

this province — that is, those individuals who may be driving under the

influence. Certainly, whether it’s alcohol or drugs, this is an

important area that this government needs to be addressing and,

hopefully, is doing it in a more thorough way at this time and in the

face of these amendments being brought forward.

With that in mind, those are the kinds of issues that we’ll be

looking to have more review of at the committee stage, and I may be

joined by other colleagues of mine on this side of the House.

Hon. R. Fleming: I’m pleased to be able to speak to this miscellaneous bill this

afternoon, because it does have a number of important housekeeping

functions in it, amending, as it does, four different

statutes.

One in particular that I’ll speak to is particularly important to

me as somebody who oversaw providing some scrutiny on advanced education

in this House for a number of years, where we warned the government of

the day that it was committing a mistake, that it hadn’t done its due

diligence. In fact, they went ahead and created a law allowing an entity

that never actually came into being for a number of financial reasons

and otherwise, including the fraudulent representations of the proponent

at the time.

I would take issue with the member for Vancouver-Langara, who

notes that this is the sixth miscellaneous bill that the government has

introduced. I would make two points in response to that.

It’s no secret that our government has a number of areas where it

has to clean up messes left by the previous government — a number of

areas. In some cases, these are Crown corporations, entire programs, and

in some cases, it has to deal with flawed legislation that the

government was warned at the time was flawed but proceeded to pass

anyway.

Where I may agree with the member for Vancouver-Langara about the

potential abuses of a miscellaneous bill is if government is tucking in

amendments that are substantive and significant, as opposed to what this

government has done, which is to transparently advise that — rather

than, for example, splitting this into four bills and wasting valuable

legislative time that I’m sure that the opposition wants to manage as

closely and prioritize as much as the government does — we put it in a

miscellaneous bill so that debate can happen simultaneously on things

that could be considered by some, perhaps, to be insignificant but

nevertheless are substantive enough that they deserve amendment and

attention. That’s what a miscellaneous bill is intended for.

So the member for Vancouver-Langara may want to actually qualify

rather than just do a drive-by on an allegation that we’re using a

miscellaneous statutes amendment bill wrongfully — to acknowledge, in

fact, that our government has been absolutely transparent and fair in

providing debate time in the use of a miscellaneous statutes amendment

bill. If only his government had treated the opposition the way that we

treat them — in the same fair-minded way.

[3:00 p.m.]

Let me speak to the area that’s of particular interest to me in

this bill, and that is a bit of housekeeping, if I can put it mildly,

around the World Trade University Act that was passed ignominiously by

this Legislature in 2006 — against the advice of various post-secondary

educators’ organizations and faculty associations in the province of

British Columbia; against the advice, undoubtedly, of ministry staff at

the time who had probably checked out the credentials of the proponent

and found it wanting; against the warnings, certainly, from the

opposition at the time; and many, many others.

This entity was promised free land at the former CFB Chilliwack

site. They were promised all kinds of tax concessions by local

government. They were lauded by the B.C. Liberal government of the day

as some kind of heroic senior executive management school that would be

absolutely free to the taxpayer, even though it was layered with all

kinds of tax concessions. They promised us that nobody would be able to

operate in British Columbia using the word “university,” which is

sacredly guarded, without their quality and reputation being

checked.

Guess what. They didn’t do the work. In fact, the proponent of

this so-called university was reprimanded — this was public knowledge at

the time, as the government was putting its bill through the House — for

illegally using and claiming a connection to the United Nations, with

which it had no such connection. It was reprimanded for illegally

claiming and representing that it had a connection to the World Trade

Organization, the WTO, with which it had absolutely no

connection.

Guess what they were doing. They were shopping around for

investors, many of whom could have been bilked out of their potential

investments, using the reputation that Canada and British Columbia have

built up over decades for high-quality post-secondary education, using

that as a way to suggest that they had been scrutinized and that they

were the real deal.

That’s the shame of the bill that we’re repealing today — that

this happened in plain sight, with the government’s knowledge at the

time and that Mr. Chowdhury, who was the proponent, was somebody who

was, shall we say, being chased by the law on several continents and was

invited to do business here with all kinds of free tax goodies and

incentives in British Columbia. He did not have the authority to offer

MBAs and advanced management degrees by the United Nations. He did not

have a curriculum that was aligned with any of the international trade

organizations to which he claimed affinity.

The reason why that act needs to be repealed here and today is

because British Columbia suffered significant damage, reputationally.

The United Kingdom higher education supplement wrote all about the

debacles in British Columbia and how unusual it was for a Canadian

jurisdiction to get it so wrong. The Vancouver Sun wrote an

interesting

summary of the whole World Trade University fiasco, which

went on for several years, and said that in the end, this university

only served up “degrees of embarrassment.” It never got off the ground.

It cost the taxpayers a lot of money. It could have done even further

reputational damage than perhaps it did do in the end.

That brings me to the point which the Attorney General should be

thanked for this afternoon: that government needs to clean up a lot of

messes from the previous government. To have this statute on the books

would invite, potentially, further abuse than we’ve suffered already. It

could allow a third party to claim that it would act within the law if

this were allowed to stay on the statute books. So it needs to be

repealed. In fact, the government had the opportunity to listen for

years and years to CUFABC, to the Federation of Post-Secondary

Educators, to various university presidents — who would say, both

privately and publicly, that what is being done today should have been

done a long time ago.

I would hate to see somebody come into this province and examine

that — a law that is flawed and that refers to a failed entity, which

could somehow be picked up and marketed again to international students.

We’ve seen, in the past under the previous government, way too many

students lose valuable savings, getting ripped off and not having

adequate consumer protection in British Columbia.

We’ve worked quickly as a government to change that and to make

sure that international students here don’t have horrific nightmare

stories where they’re being ripped off by unsavoury fly-by-night

operations. As a jurisdiction connected to other Commonwealth countries

that have, over the years, protected who can legally use the right to

the word “university,” we must protect that. The amendment bill that’s

before us today does exactly that.

[3:05 p.m.]

The Attorney General has obviously considered opinions that the

previous government wrongly rejected — those of senior academics, those

in the business community, those from the entities that were erroneously

linked to the very name of this so-called, fake, university. For

cleaning up that mess, among many others, I think the House should thank

the Attorney General this afternoon. He’s properly using the

parliamentary procedure around what a miscellaneous statutes bill should

be. I would say it’s an exemplary example here this afternoon, and I

will enthusiastically vote for this bill.

Hon. D. Eby: Just a couple of quick remarks in relation to the speeches on this

bill before I move second reading. First of all, I wanted to thank the

Minister of Education, because when he was the critic for Advanced

Education, he raised this issue that he spoke about — about this

university. He explained to the government in several different ways why

that bill should not go ahead. So he speaks with some knowledge about

that. I want to thank him for his service to British Columbians —

drawing it to the attention, at that time, that it wasn’t a great idea —

and for giving us a little bit of history about that bill.

I also wanted to respond a little bit to the comments of the

member for Vancouver-Langara in relation to the miscellaneous statutes

bill and what the government is doing. The member can expect, and should

expect, multiple miscellaneous statutes bills. We are doing a lot of

work within the ministry and within government — to borrow a phrase

again from the Minister of Education — to clean up a lot of problems

that were left for us by the previous administration.

Some of them are small, as miscellaneous statutes — all bills

introduced that needed clean-up, that people were suggesting changes to,

to make things run more smoothly. We’re listening to those, we’re making

those changes, and we are prioritizing those changes. We’re very proud

to do that. I don’t quite understand the criticism; we’re doing what we

were sent here to do. In any event, that’s his position, and that’s

mine.

With that, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 29, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2019, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 20 — MEDICARE PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 20, Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2019, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Eby: In the big House here, I call second reading of Bill M209, the

Business Corporations Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019. In

Section A, in the

Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 25, the Coastal

Ferry Amendment Act, 2019.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL M209 — BUSINESS CORPORATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 2), 2019

A. Weaver: I move that Bill M209 be now read a second time.

[3:10 p.m.]

It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak at second reading to

Bill M209, Business Corporations Amendment Act. I will outline my speech

in four different sections. I’ll start by giving a brief introduction as

to the purpose and the intent of the bill — what it does — moving on to

the process by which it was created, and finishing with a conclusion and

the type of economy it’s trying to encourage and build.

This is a bill that my office has been working on for quite some

months, since May of last year, and I’m thrilled that we’ve been given

the opportunity to debate it today. I’m, frankly, grateful to government

for providing us and members of the opposition access to legislative

drafters to allow us to bring this bill in the form that we know has

gone through the formal legislative drafting process.

I’ve talked a lot about the emerging economy and the fact that the

government needs to be prepared and resilient amidst the rapid shifts

that are occurring in our society and our economy. These include, but

are not limited to, things like climate change, environmental

degradation, changes to the nature of work, rapid technological advance,

the whole increasing disparity between those who have and those who

don’t have, income security and so forth. I believe that, frankly,

business must play a central role in helping us tackle these enormous

challenges and find solutions. It is not only up to government to find

the solutions. It is also up to business.

That’s why we created this legislation to create benefit companies

in British Columbia. The idea for this legislation was brought to us

from the business community, from both small and large companies that

are already using their business to do good and wanted a clearer legal

framework under which to operate. I think government, frankly, needs to

do more to encourage and support these types of businesses that have

chosen to go beyond the pursuit of profit to also pursue critical social

and environmental values.

What does the bill do? I want to start by highlighting some of the

key elements of the bill. One, it adds a new part to the Business

Corporations Act, enabling companies to incorporate as benefit

companies. It would provide a legal framework for companies that are

committed to pursuing a triple bottom line to embedding social

responsibility and environmental sustainability into their companies’

DNA. These companies could take on expanded purpose, accountability and

transparency.

The bill would require companies to change their articles to

enshrine a commitment to act in a responsible and sustainable manner.

This means they must — that’s important, the word “must” — take into

account the well-being of persons affected by their conduct and

endeavour to use a fair and proportionate share of available

environmental, social and economic resources and capacities. They must,

again, also pursue one or more specific public benefits of a positive

effect on society or the environment.

Another key component of the legislation is that it creates new

duties for directors of benefit companies. They must — again I use the

word “must” — balance their duty to act in the best interests of the

company with the new duties to act with a view to operating their

business responsibly and sustainably, as well as to promote specific

public benefits. I want to come to highlight this a little bit more

because I think this is an important element, a key element, that we

need to highlight.

Right now it’s clear. Our case law already makes it very clear

that directors may — it’s a very important word “may,” as opposed to

“must” — consider broader stakeholders as they consider their duty to

act in the best interests of the corporation. The federal government

recognized this and is now codifying this into the

Canada Business

Corporations Act. That’s a very welcome move, frankly, that the federal

government is doing in making it clear that all directors have the

ability to consider broader stakeholders in their decision-making — that

they may consider. That’s based on the case law that arose from the very

famous BCE case that enshrined at the Supreme Court level that directors

may in fact go broader than just fiduciary responsibility.

We also know that considering broader stakeholders in their

decision-making is one thing but also that Canadian directors are not

bound by a shareholder primacy rule. This bill does something different.

It does something very different. It goes further. It creates a duty for

directors of benefit companies to act responsibly and sustainably to

promote public benefits. More than this, it requires directors of

benefit companies to balance their existing duty to act in the best

interests of the company with these new duties to act responsibly and

sustainably and promote public benefits.

Again, I come back to this. This was an issue brought to us by

small and large business looking for certainty, looking to do a reduced

risk as they move forward in these directions.

[3:15 p.m.]

It’s important to note that nothing in this legislation precludes

the directors of an ordinary company from also considering other

interests, like employees or the environment, when acting in the best

interest of the company. This does not preclude any existing company

from doing that. But benefit companies must also report their

performance against an independent third-party standard which must be

developed by a person or entity that is unrelated to the benefit

company.

The reporting must be done annually and must be available to the

public. This element is important to ensure transparency for suppliers,

purchasers and customers that the company is indeed living up to its

stated goals. I hope that this requirement will spur innovation in B.C.

and that strong local standards will emerge for benefit companies to

use, as put forward and adjudicated by strong, B.C.-based, third-party

verifiers.

The legislation creates clear expectations about the nature and

mandate of the company and provides protections for directors who choose

to prioritize public benefits and not only profit.

This legislation would help mission-driven companies stay true to

their mission as they grow and protect the vision of the founders of

benefit companies by embedding the environmental and social benefits

into the companies’ actual mandate.

It would provide more certainty for impact investors, another

critical aspect of this bill. The impact investors are looking to invest

in mission-aligned companies of the nature and the mandate of a company,

but what’s critical to them is that they not have an asset lock that

existed in very fine enabling legislation for the creation of what are

called C3s in the province of British Columbia, put forward by the B.C.

Liberals in the last session. That doesn’t affect that at

all.

But what it does here…. The asset lock associated with those C3s

precluded impact investors from actually moving forward, because you

invest and you can’t get your investment back out. This would allow

impact investors to actually know that the company is triple bottom line

and is one focused on a much broader mandate than just fiscal benefit

for the shareholders.

The act would provide more certainty for impact investors looking

to invest in mission-aligned companies, as I said. Moreover, this

legislation would provide a simple framework for companies to adhere to

that is legally and commercially recognized.

The choice to become a benefit company is completely voluntary.

There’s no requirement. There’s no impact on existing corporations and

no tax implications at all, although the government down the road may

view some kind of change in the way it incorporates tax to benefit

companies versus other companies, if a government moving forward sees

that this is something they wish to encourage. But that is up to

government and not something that we’ll be bringing or discussing in a

private member’s bill.

I also believe that the benefit company legislation would be

complementary to existing structures in place. I want to recognize again

— come back to this — the leadership and initiative put forward by the

previous government in creating the so-called C3, or community

contribution companies, that I spoke about. I see C3s and benefit

companies as different ways, on a spectrum, for government to support

socially and environmentally responsible business forums.

Now, I’ve heard, and we’ve consulted extensively, from many

businesses that the C3 structure is simply too restrictive for many

for-profit businesses, since they would need to fundamentally change

their corporate structure and reduce their ability to attract

investment. We can and should, frankly, provide another option to

support sustainable and responsible businesses in B.C.

The C3 structure works wonderfully if a not-for-profit is looking

to create a business arm that is permanently associated with the

not-for-profit because the asset lock of the company associated with a

not-for-profit is the not-for-profit. So any profits must be flowed back

to the not-for-profit. That works well in that case. It does not work

well for a for-profit business venture which is seeking to do more than

just fiscal bottom line.

I’d fully support any efforts to continue the work started by the

previous administration to support C3s. Steps in this direction could

include, for example, doing more to promote the C3 brand, enhancing

public awareness of C3s and providing tax incentives and benefits for

investments in C3s.

This, again, is not something that we believe competes with C3s.

It’s something that we believe is very complementary to C3s. But it

gives certain classes of companies, those that are looking to the triple

bottom line and not have to worry about the asset lock associated with

the C3, to actually incorporate and move forward in that

manner….

I’d like to take a few minutes on

section 3 here to discuss the

process that led to the position we’re in now. As many, obviously, who

are aware, I first introduced this bill for debate last May with the

purpose of starting a conversation of that Legislature. We had a

discussion and a debate and passed second reading, and over the

following months, we worked as a caucus very hard to consult

stakeholders and experts from across Canada, frankly, and elsewhere to

make sure that we got the details right.

[3:20 p.m.]

We met with many, many business leaders, as well as leaders in

social enterprise and owners of C3s, about their goals for a sustainable

economy and how this legislation would fit in or what we needed to do to

ensure that we were able to build support. We also undertook an

extensive consultation with the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar

Association to get insight from them as to the various legal questions

that might arise from this.

Throughout this process, we worked closely with the legislative

drafter, the one that we’ve assigned to this project, to craft this

amendment in order to ensure that it is legally enforceable and that it

works well and is consistent with existing B.C. laws. And, of course, we

consulted with government through the confidence and supply agreement

secretariat.

In conclusion, I’m very proud of this piece of legislation, and

I’m very glad to see that we’re debating it at second reading today. I’m

grateful to government for bringing this forward on the order paper to

actually allow us to have this debate. I think it bodes well for working

across party lines to see private members’ bills discussed in this

fashion. I hope we’re able to move forward both with opposition bills as

well as other bills from others in this chamber.

We will have a rather interesting and novel process in committee

stage. I look forward to articulating that as we move towards that. This

hasn’t been done before in this Legislature, as far as we can tell,

where an opposition member is in committee stage. That will be a unique

experience. I think we might point to some revisions in the standing

orders that we might want to discuss collectively as we move forward, as

we move to this committee phase, an odd committee phase that it is, in

the B.C. Legislature, compared to other jurisdictions.

I believe that, frankly, becoming the first jurisdiction in Canada

to champion benefit companies is a huge opportunity. We know that Quebec

is right behind us here and likely going to follow through shortly

thereafter. But we’re leaders here in B.C. We don’t follow others. I

think British Columbians enjoy being leaders, and that’s why I’m excited

that government has continued to support this effort moving

forward.

B.C. is already, like Quebec…. We’re sort of a mirror of Quebec in

that regard. We are home to many, many socially responsible companies.

It’s part of our, frankly, stellar brand as one of the greenest places

in the world. “Super, natural British Columbia” and “Beautiful British

Columbia” are monikers on our licence plates, for years have been

focusing on our natural beauty and what brings people to our lovely

province.

We’ve been seeing, also, shifts in consumer patterns and

behaviour, particularly among younger demographics sensitive to social

and environmental impacts. We know, again, from our extensive

consultation, that the millennial group — the category, however you want

to call them — millennials in this area, are very concerned about social

enterprises. They’re very supportive of and look, actually, to buy from

and invest in social enterprises or triple-bottom-line companies.

Benefit companies allow those companies, from small to large, to

actually demonstrate, distinguish and be publicly transparent about

their overall mission in a triple-bottom-line sense.

Frankly, we’re struggling as a society to adjust and respond to

massive technological, social and environmental shifts that we’re facing

— whether it be, as I said earlier, from climate change to automation.

We need, frankly, I think, to think differently in order to turn our

challenges into opportunities. This is one of the things this bill does

here.

We need the partnership and to engage with the business community

to help us deal with these challenges. Not to prescribe solutions to

business but to work with business to allow the innovative ideas in

business to flow through in an environment that seeds and nurtures this

innovation. That’s how we’ll be successful.

Government and the non-profit sector cannot, by themselves,

respond to the challenges that we face before us; frankly, nor should

they. Businesses play an incredible and a huge role in our society, and

they must be part of any solution to any problem that we see emerging.

Companies that pursue a triple bottom line, frankly, are on the cutting

edge of rethinking the role of business in the 21st century.

Now, some are doing so voluntarily. Others wish to do so, and they

wish to be protected. This legislation gives them protection and gives

them the ability to follow a suite of rules that are set out to ensure

that what they do is enshrined in their articles and protected moving

forward.

Businesses know that acting in the best interests of people and

the planet is the best way to build a thriving economy for the long

term. If B.C. had this legislation on the books and if companies were

able to incorporate as benefit companies, with an explicit social or

environmental benefit baked into that purpose, it would send a very

strong signal to the market that the government supports this approach

to business and that British Columbia is a home and wants to seek and

attract new business in this area.

[3:25 p.m.]

We look forward and encourage more companies to incorporate social

and environmental values into their own businesses, empowering them to

create change in our province and to help us solve many of the

challenges that face us all.

I look forward to listening to the other comments and the

deliberations at committee phase.

Hon. B. Ralston: I’m pleased to stand in the House today and support Bill M209,

amendments to the Business Corporations Act, tabled by the Leader of the

Third Party.

Indeed, this is, as he has mentioned, an exceptional example of

how the Legislature works best when all sides of the House can come

together to work for British Columbians. The values of collaboration,

partnership and public good are fundamental to this minority government

and to the confidence and supply agreement between our two parties.

We’ve worked closely, as the last speaker pointed out, with our partners

towards today’s amendments, which will give B.C. businesses a new option

to create a corporate structure which furthers the companies’ social,

environmental and business goals.

Certainly, there is some tradition of legal

interpretation and, I

think, public discussion that suggests that a company has to advance

only, solely, the interests of shareholders. It’s sometimes called

shareholder value. Or the other focus would be exclusively on maximizing

profit. Sometimes it’s expressed that way.

Now, that is a matter of legal dispute, whether that is the sole

requirement. This sometimes comes up in debates on pension fund

administration, where the trustees may wish to invest in a company for

reasons other than their ability to maximize profits. There has been

some litigation and consideration of that obligation.

What this bill does, and the language of this bill, is make very

clear and explicit that the purpose of…. These amendments would allow

for incorporation of a legal entity that is a benefit company, where the

purpose of the company is expressly set out in its articles of

association.

A benefit company is defined as a for-profit company that is

legally required to consider its stakeholders — such as the environment,

the local community or future generations — in addition to its

shareholders. It bypasses that debate and makes it very explicit that

the company isn’t legally required…. It’s, in fact, obligated — it’s not

an option — if the company chooses to head in this direction, to

consider the shareholders or the stakeholders in specific

areas.

The new legal framework described in these amendments would

require a company to state that it is a benefit company in its notice of

articles and to state the public benefit it wishes to promote. So rather

than subject to the changes of the board of directors or the whim of the

CEO or changing directions in public sentiment, this would anchor that

company to those articles, and it would be required to report what its

public benefit is.

The company will define for itself what it is. For example, it may

state expressly that its interests are climate change, cultural

diversity or scientific advances. Each company, then, a benefit company,

would report on how it has conducted its business in a responsible and

sustainable manner and promoted its stated public benefit.

Many B.C. companies and B.C. businesses are already leaders in

building sustainable and socially responsible practices into their

enterprise. The Leader of the Third Party certainly pointed that out. In

fact, one might argue that in order to be a successful company, in order

to attract and retain particularly millennials who are looking for

meaningful and purposeful work…. One of the advantages of having a

company with a social purpose is its attractiveness to its employees and

also its attractiveness to potential consumers of its services or of its

goods. Certainly, that’s very evident in the corporate advertising

strategies of many companies these days.

[3:30 p.m.]

I think this legislation is reinforcing a direction which is

already emerging as a trend, particularly here in British Columbia.

Businesses will have a new way to build public responsibility right into

their legal framework. People certainly want more choices that reflect

their values when building their businesses, and British Columbians, as

I said, want to choose businesses that share the same goals. This bill

puts forward changes that will help to build a strong, sustainable

economy that works for people in British Columbia and helps build a

sustainable economy.

As the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology, I’m happy to

support this bill, Bill M209, and to provide businesses with a new

corporate structure by which they can show their commitment to the

public good.

That concludes my brief remarks.

M. Lee: It’s a pleasure to speak to this private member’s bill introduced

by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

In reaction to my last comments by other members in the House

about a miscellaneous statutes amendment bill, the sixth one, let me

just say that it’s indicative of the kind of dialogue we have this in

this House. Clearly, a miscellaneous statutes amendment act is there for

housekeeping.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The concern that was raised regarding the prolonged nature of

these exercises and how we keep turning over various amendments and the

fact that there’s a sixth one that has come forward in the

less-than-two-year span of this government is a concern. That was the

concern I made. The fact that there was some language utilized about

cleaning up messes…. I think that that is something that was clearly

beyond the scope of the miscellaneous statutes, as these statements

might be the concern.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

M. Lee: Let me say, with the changeover here…. I should say, of course,

that there have been 26 private members’ bills introduced by members of

this House — not by members of the NDP government or from the Green

Party but by members from the B.C. Liberal caucus. In some cases, those

bills have been tabled twice — the Safe Care Act, for example; the Equal

Pay Reporting Act; the Welfare Payment System Reflection Act; the

Vulnerable Adolescents Protection from E-Cigarettes Act.

These are just a few of the various private members’ bills that

have been tabled in this House and have not had this opportunity that we

are about to have in this conversation around this particular bill. As

the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head just noted, he would wish and hope

that there’d be an opportunity for those other bills that have been

raised by members of the B.C. Liberal caucus to also see the floor of

this House.

I certainly stand here, along with my other colleagues, to urge

this government to enable that. Because there are other pressing matters

as well, good initiatives where private members put in time and effort

to go out to do the various stakeholder-type conversations that the

member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has done in order to bring forward a

private member’s bill. Again, I would say, on behalf of the other

members of the B.C. Liberal caucus, that we certainly would urge this

government to give the opportunity for members of this House to consider

the 26 private members’ bills that have been introduced over the last

two years in this House.

Having said that, it’s very clear that the record in this House

has been that we need to continue to support the development of a

corporate model that allows for companies and entrepreneurs to pursue a

social purpose in addition to their business interests. We see that the

corporate world continues to evolve in terms of good governance and that

it’s important for all stakeholders — including employees, shareholders

and other potential investors — to consider the aims of a company and

whether they align not just with the notion of dollars but the notion of

public good.

[3:35 p.m.]

This legislation certainly would provide a further choice for

entrepreneurs, business owners and risk-takers to work forward on a

different structural entity. This does, however, follow, as noted by the

member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the previous initiative, which at the

time was the first legislation of its kind in Canada. This was back in

2012-2013, when the B.C. Liberal government established the community

contribution companies act, 3Cs, in terms of the initiatives that were

brought forward for amendments to the Finance Statutes Amendment Act and

also the Business Corporations Act.

This was to ensure that entrepreneurs could pursue social goods

through their businesses while allowing them to generate a profit and

provide investment opportunities to like-minded investors. The

legislation, as it was originally considered, was designed to bridge the

gap between for-profit businesses and not-for-profit

enterprises.

As I mentioned, this innovative business model was the first of

its kind in Canada, and the 3C status certainly signalled that a company

has a legal obligation to conduct business for social purposes and not

purely for money gain. The establishment of the structure was built to

facilitate companies pursuing social goods and to help them build earned

income to secure long-term growth.

One or more primary purposes of a 3C, a community contribution

company, must be community purposes, and these purposes were to be set

out in the articles. This obligation was in the hope to attract capital

that is not readily accessible to the social enterprise sector by

appealing to philanthropic investors who still expect some financial

return from their investment.

There are a lot of good measures of this particular bill, which we

will come back to. But I wanted to also acknowledge what the member for

Oak Bay–Gordon Head said, which is that for the 3C framing, it’s going

to be important that we continue as a province to support that option —

that we publicize and encourage and support that so that more

organizations can take advantage of what has been a B.C. Liberal caucus

initiative in the past.

In terms of the ability of a benefit company to come forward,

there are some elements of the bill that we will have to walk through in

discussion at committee stage. That will be how we would be working with

third parties responsible for managing the standards of benefit

corporations — who will do that, how that process will work, whether or

not domestic standards will be developed. Additionally, we’ll want to

seek to examine in greater detail how this legislation fits into how

Canadian corporate law already works. I will make some comments later on

in my remarks about that. It certainly will be something that we’ll want

to consider in terms of the protection that was there.

The so-called asset lock was really to ensure that those who might

invest funds in a 3C weren’t going to find themselves with those assets

or those funds being moved to another purpose. If there was a

dissolution of a 3C enterprise, those funds would need to find their way

into another similar enterprise that had a similar objective or aim in

mind. That is an example of how we will be looking, at the committee

stage, as to this particular private member’s bill about benefit

corporations and what protections there are for investors in these

enterprises.

Certainly, there is increased level of transparency in terms of

the reporting of benefits on a regular basis that’s contemplated here,

as was the case with 3Cs. But in terms of the actual spelling out in the

articles of the purposes of, in that case, a 3C or benefit corporation,

that’s going to need to be clearly set out.

One thing I would add here to members of the House is that it’s

useful, of course, to keep in mind that the evolution of good governance

of corporations in Canada has certainly gone beyond ensuring that the

interests of stakeholders and shareholders are kept front and

foremost.

[3:40 p.m.]

As my colleague on the other side just mentioned in terms of

shareholder return, that has been the traditional way of looking at how

companies might operate. But we have seen that with greater transparency

requirements, disclosure around governance structures, annual report

expectations, companies of course that want to ensure that they have the

support from local communities, from governments of the day, from their

investors, from their employees, operate with the best interests of not

just the shareholders in mind, but of all stakeholders. That includes

employees, creditors, consumers, the environment — those who are

concerned about the impact that a resource company may have on a local

community and where people live — and, of course, relationship with

Indigenous peoples.

These are the kinds of contexts in which companies must operate

and for which there is expectation by shareholders that companies can

demonstrate that they’re operating in accordance with best governance

principles.

Of course, it doesn’t take the laws of the day, whether it’s

through the courts or through government, to tell companies to do that.

The dialogue that’s here in this province and this chamber oftentimes is

that there’s a separation between the corporate interest versus

individual British Columbians. I think that a bill like this…. We need

to be careful about the bill, in the sense that we need to recognize

that companies today need to operate in the best interests of all

stakeholders. That’s in the case of decisions that we’ve seen at the

Supreme Court level, whether it’s in Peoples Department Stores v.

Wise or the BCE decision.

I know that when I worked in business law, advising many companies

about their duties, directors and management teams, those boards of

directors and management teams took the responsibility seriously. The

laws of the day certainly have provided for greater expectations around

transparency, as I mentioned, and also greater requirements around how

companies operate. So it’s important, as we look at this bill, that it’s

done within the context to understand that benefit corporations will

give one further option. But it should not, for some investors who see

impact investing vehicles as having a necessary structure, to enable

that….

Benefit corporations in the United States certainly have been a

movement of sorts. We will see how they adapt and work within the

Canadian context. But Canadian corporate governance laws are much

different from U.S. corporate governance laws. We are far more

progressive and far more accountable, let’s say, in the way that

corporations operate. I think it’s important that members of this House

continue to recognize that, and recognize, as we consider this benefit

legislation, that it is one piece in a spectrum of what’s important as

to how we continue to support and work with business owners, management

teams and their boards and their stakeholders in terms of ensuring that

companies are part of building a better future here in this

province.

Hon. C. James: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill M209. Before I go

into talking about the substance of the bill, I just want to take a

couple of minutes to talk a little bit about the process of how the bill

was developed.

I understand that the Leader of the Third Party talked a little

bit about that, but because it’s often contrary to what people believe

happens in this place, often contrary to what people imagine is always

the cut and thrust of debate and discussion in this Legislature, I think

it is important to just take a few minutes to talk about the process of

developing this bill.

From my perspective, it really underscores what I believe most of

the public expects us to do in this place. It underscores the value of

collaboration. It underscores the value of partnership, of public good —

all the foundations of our confidence and supply agreement that we have

in place in the minority government. But I really believe these are the

principles that most of the public expects of their elected officials to

come to this Legislature and bring to this Legislature. They certainly,

I believe, were the values and are the values that helped bring this

private member’s bill forward.

[3:45 p.m.]

As we all know in this House, this is not a government bill. When

this bill was first tabled, our government felt it was an idea worth

exploring. We noted, certainly, that the Business Corporations Act is a

very large bill. It’s a very technical foundational piece of finance

legislation. It was critical to make sure that any legislation that came

forward was drafted in a way that worked with the principles of the bill

that were there.

Our government…. The public may not be aware of this, but we have

a new policy that ensures that all members of the Legislature — not

simply members of the Green caucus but, in fact, all members of the

Legislature — and their staff can access the legislative drafter to

ensure that as they bring legislation forward, it meets the intent of

the existing legislation and that it works. Because ultimately, if we

want to make sure that we bring something forward, we want it to work in

the Legislature.

I know that the Third Party caucus worked very closely with their

drafter to make sure that they drafted the bill in a way that, as I

said, made it possible for it to be brought forward. I also know that

the members welcomed the feedback from Finance staff. I’ll say thank you

to my Finance staff as well. They provided technical advice to make sure

the amendments that were coming forward fit within the existing

framework of the Business Corporations Act.

There were meetings. There were reviews of the draft legislation.

As I said, the work certainly was very much in the spirit of

collaboration that was set out. I think, again, that the agreement that

we’re seeing today and the debate on a private member’s bill, certainly

from my perspective, show that the Legislature works best when all MLAs

can bring forward good ideas and when MLAs can come together to actually

support those ideas that will advance the public good. That’s really

what you’re seeing today in the legislation.

As I said, I highlight it because I think it’s so contrary to the

adversarial process that people associate with politics and associate

with the Legislature. I think it’s important, as I turn to the substance

of the bill, to make sure that we’ve reminded people that in this place,

it is possible. It is possible in this Legislature for us to come

together. It is possible for opposite sides to collaborate, to bring

forward good legislation and to be able to have that debate and

discussion in this place.

I’m just going to take a few minutes to look at the substance of

this bill. The Business Corporations Act, in itself, is a facilitative

statute. It allows British Columbians to create legal entities to help

further their business and their social goals. The amendments that are

coming forward create a new legal entity, as you’ve heard in the

discussion — a benefit company — and give British Columbians a new

option when choosing a corporate structure for their

business.

A benefit company is a for-profit company with the legal

requirement to consider other stakeholders and other issues and areas

such as the environment, the local community or future generations in

addition to its shareholders. In particular, the directors of the

benefit company must exercise their powers in a manner that balances

their duty to act in the best interests of the company and their new

duty to act in a responsible and sustainable manner and promote the

company’s stated public benefits.

Benefit companies are a relatively recent creation in corporate

law, first introduced in 2010 in the United States. Since then, we’ve

seen significant growth in jurisdictions, with benefit companies now

possible under corporate law in 35 of the U.S. states as well as Italy

and Colombia.

In line with the facilitative nature of the Business Corporations

Act, this bill will enable companies to state the public benefit that

they wish to promote. As a safeguard — because, I think, accountability

and transparency are critical in making sure that this legislation works

and that these amendments work — the benefit company must explicitly

state its public benefit goals in its articles of incorporation, which

allows investors to determine if the stated public benefit aligns with

their investment and their social goals. To measure these goals, every

year a benefit company must prepare a benefit report describing how it’s

conducted its business in a responsible and sustainable manner and

promoted the public benefit specified in its articles.

[3:50 p.m.]

This assessment — I know the member of the opposition will be

asking questions in committee — will be performed through the use of a

third-party standard that will measure the benefit company’s success in

achieving its stated public benefit. A third-party standard is a

standard developed by a person or entity unrelated to the benefit

company — again, providing that accountability. State clearly up front

what the benefit is, report out on that benefit, and have a third party

be able to assess whether they have reached the success.

The benefit report must also be presented to the shareholders of

the company at the annual general meeting. It must be kept in the

company’s corporate records, where it can be inspected by the members of

the public, and be posted on the company’s publicly accessible website,

if one exists. Again, that’s accountability: ensuring that the public

and the shareholders are aware of what the benefits are of this

company.

Again, to fit the facilitated purpose of the Business Corporations

Act, the benefit company selects the third-party standard through which

it will measure its performance in achieving its public benefits

commitments. The annual benefit report must specify which third-party

standard was chosen and the process and the rationale for its selection

or replacement. Another safeguard built in: the bill gives the

government the power to specify, by regulation, minimum requirements of

a third-party standard.

These amendments allow an existing company to become a benefit

company by altering its notices of articles to include a benefit

statement and setting out the nature of the company. This has to be done

through a special resolution, which generally means about two-thirds of

the shareholder votes in favour. Similarly, going the other way, a

benefit company can cease to be one by removing the benefit statement

through a special resolution.

Lastly, as a conversion to or from a benefit company, there’s a

fundamental change to a company. Minority shareholders who disagree are

given a right to dissent. This protects their interests by requiring the

company to repurchase any shares of a dissenting shareholder for fair

market value upon conversion to or from a benefit company — again,

providing that support for the shareholders to ensure that they have all

the information they need to make that judgment, to make that decision

and then an ability, as I said, to have their shares repurchased for

fair market value.

I’m pleased to speak in support of this bill to provide British

Columbians with a new corporate structure with goals to benefit the

public through which they can conduct their business. And in response to

the opposition speaker, I would certainly hope that this is just the

first of many opportunities to see the kind of cooperation and shared

goals on behalf of the public interests that we see come forward in this

Legislature.

S. Chandra Herbert: I hadn’t planned to speak on this bill, but I just wanted to,

certainly, thank the Leader of the Third Party, the member for Oak

Bay–Gordon Head, for bringing it forward and to congratulate the

government on working with him to see this legislation brought

forward.

As members will know, I have long brought forward private members’

bills myself in this House. Under the former government, we never had a

chance of having any of them debated or brought up for discussion, so it

makes me happy to see that a bill like this has come forward in this

way. I know the member has worked very hard to prove the case for it, to

make the arguments, to ensure everyone understood why legislation to

support these benefit corporations should support a different form of

business with a social and an environmental conscience.

Congratulations to all for working together to do this. I’m happy