Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, October 29, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 171

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

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill 54 — Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Eby

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Anne Balding

D. Routley

Shooting at synagogue in Pittsburgh

M. Lee

Nancy Sinclair

A. Kang

Sage Transition House

J. Thornthwaite

Stephanie Dunlop

M. Dean

Nina Graham

J. Yap

Ministerial Statements

Shooting at synagogue in Pittsburgh

Hon. J. Horgan

A. Wilkinson

A. Weaver

Oral Questions

Referendum on electoral reform

S. Bond

Hon. M. Mark

Hon. D. Eby

M. Polak

Hon. J. Horgan

Old-growth protection and forest industry jobs on

Vancouver Island

S. Furstenau

Hon. J. Horgan

Referendum on electoral reform

J. Johal

Hon. D. Eby

M. de Jong

Hon. R. Fleming

Hon. J. Horgan

J. Thornthwaite

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 46 — South Coast British Columbia

Transportation Authority Amendment Act (No. 2), 2018

Hon. S. Robinson

T. Stone

A. Olsen

Hon. S. Robinson

Bill 48 — Temporary Foreign Worker Protection

Act

Hon. H. Bains

J. Martin

A. Weaver

M. Elmore

S. Thomson

L. Throness

B. Stewart

N. Letnick

Hon. H. Bains

Bill 44 — Budget Measures Implementation (Employer

Health Tax) Act, 2018 (continued)

M. Morris

D. Barnett

Hon. J. Sims

N. Letnick

M. Bernier

R. Sultan

J. Rustad

J. Thornthwaite

S. Thomson

G. Kyllo

T. Redies

Hon. C. James

MONDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2018

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

L. Reid: I am delighted to welcome to the gallery today a very special woman.

Coral Bowman has joined us. I would ask the House to please make her very,

very welcome.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m going to introduce someone here today that a number of members

will recognize. Tom Perry was a member of this place. He was a member of the

cabinet under Mike Harcourt. He’s a hard-working doctor with the

therapeutics initiative at UBC, doing work on pharmaceutical safety. Will

the House please join me in making this former member welcome.

I have two more introductions. Bev Ramey is here. She is a constituent

of mine, representing B.C. Nature. Tori Ball is also here, representing the

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. She’s from the member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant’s neighbourhood.

Would the House please make all of these guests feel

welcome.

Hon. M. Mark: It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to give a warm welcome to

the Alliance of B.C. Students, the B.C. Federation of Students, the UBC Alma

Mater Society and the Simon Fraser Student Society. These organizations

collectively represent 253,000 students in 19 colleges and universities

across British Columbia.

Students studying in our colleges, universities and institutes are

passionate advocates. They are here to meet with members of these chambers

advocacy. They are truly champions for change. Will the House please join me

in welcoming our members.

Hon. J. Horgan: As I scan the precinct, I see two former members of this place. One,

of course, is the mayor of Quesnel, Bob Simpson, former member for Cariboo

North, who I think might well get a second introduction. It’s good to see

Bob back in the chamber, with his hawk eye looking down on the

proceedings.

Here on the floor is an old colleague of mine, someone who I was very

excited to see sworn in here not that long ago. The then member for

Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, Jodie Wickens, is here. Any time Jodie is in the

House is a good day.

Would the House please make both of them very welcome.

J. Rustad: It’s a great pleasure this afternoon to be meeting with a number of

people that I know are here in the Legislature. Some have already been

introduced, but I want to add my welcome, as well, to Al Martin, who is the

director of strategic initiatives with the B.C. Wildlife Federation; Dr. Tom

Perry, of course, a former MLA; Ken Farquharson, who is a retired engineer;

Bev Ramey; Mark Worthing; Joe Foy; Tori Ball; and Mr. Kim Reeves, from the

Outdoor Recreation Council. They’re here to meet and discuss a number of

topics, and I look forward to meeting with them this afternoon. Would the

House please make them welcome.

C. Oakes: I have two separate guests that I’d like to introduce today. First is

the mayor of Quesnel — I’m delighted that you’re here talking about the

importance of forestry in our community — and former MLA for Cariboo North.

Welcome, Bob. Thank you very much for coming down and bringing the concerns

of our region.

Dave and Donna Campbell are here. They’re from Kersley, British

Columbia — amazing volunteers, brought all sorts of wonderful baked goodies

and just the loveliest people, incredible volunteers in our community, eight

children, 17 grandchildren. Every Wednesday Donna gets up at 5 a.m. to cook

muffins for the teachers in her school. These are the wonderful people that

they are, and they do so much for the community.

Would the House please welcome all our guests.

Hon. L. Beare: I’d like to introduce Mr. Kim Reeves, who is the vice-chair of the

Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C. He’s from my community. Would the House

please make him feel welcome.

Hon. J. Darcy: It’s not often that I get visitors from New Westminster. He’s not

actually here to meet me. He’s here to meet the Minister of Environment and

the Minister of Forests. I’d like to also take this opportunity to welcome

Joe Foy, who is with the Western Canada Wilderness Committee. He was a

longtime volunteer and then the first full-time campaigner. We don’t see a

lot of him in New Westminster because he’s busy campaigning for the

wilderness and our environment everywhere across the province, but I would

ask the House to give him a very warm welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I would like the House to welcome two constituents of mine. Brenda

McNair and Bill Burr are in the gallery. They are very active in the

constituency association in the North Island. In fact, I would say they’re

quite central to it. Brenda is the secretary, and Bill is the

treasurer.

They are also real political animals who want to make sure that we

have a democracy that works. They’re extremely excited to see an NDP

government. This, however, is the first time they’ve been to the

Legislature. They asked me a few questions about question period, but I said

that they had to really witness it themselves to get the full experience

about true politics in British Columbia. I hope everyone in the House will

make them very welcome.

Hon. L. Popham: Like many of us, I watched with great interest on October 20 as

municipal elections were held throughout our province, and I am pleased to

report that we have a very special guest joining us in the gallery today.

Saanich mayor elect Dr. Fred Haynes is here. Dr. Haynes has been, among

other things, a professional publisher, an entrepreneur, an educator, a

Commonwealth scholar, an incredibly active community volunteer, an eighth

dan shihan and Shioda aikido and Saanich councillor, and now he can add

mayor of Saanich to that list. Please give him a very warm

welcome.

N. Simons: On a similar theme, Matt McLean was re­cent­ly elected to

the Sechelt council. He is the former executive director of the Sechelt

Downtown Business Association and the Coast Car Co-op. He’s here as a

representative of the Capilano Students Union. It’s nice to see new people

on the council, and I hope he enjoys his visit here to the House.

M. Dean: I’m very pleased to introduce a guest from my community of Metchosin,

coming to share his knowledge and discuss important ecological matters with

ministers from our government. Would everyone please welcome Ken

Farquharson.

A. Kang: I have two sets of introductions today. I have a group of friends who

I’ve befriended here in Victoria. They are Mei Lee, Renee Lai, Jolynn Chiu,

Coco Chiang, Mia Tsao, Rose Lee, Amy Sun, Kuei Hsiang Chi. As well, from my

constituency, a very active community member and a passionate member of the

auxiliary RCMP is my friend Michael Wu. He’s here with his wife, Joanna Liu,

and his two children, Kayden Wu and Ariana Wu. Would the House please make

them feel very welcome today.

S. Furstenau: I have a couple of introductions as well. It gives me great pleasure

to introduce Mark Worthing, from Sierra Club B.C. Mark has been involved for

many years in campaigns that work to protect the important ecosystems and

places of wonder in our province.

Also, there are two classes from École Mount Prevost here today. They

are coming in for question period. Mme. Sandrine Goble’s and Mme. Wanda

Younge’s 57 grade 5 students and over 20 parents are here today. I’ve met

with both the groups. They’re excited and keen young learners.

Would the House please make them feel most welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 54 — LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act,

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

now.

I’m pleased to introduce the Lobbyists Registration

Amend­ment Act, 2018. The bill makes significant amendments to

strengthen the Lobbyists Registration Act, builds on the two-year

cooling-off period introduced last year for former public officeholders

and closes a loophole in the cooling-off period.

The major changes being proposed include introducing monthly

reporting of actual lobbying activity; eliminating the 100-hour

registration threshold for in-house lobbyists and harmonizing other

requirements for in-house and consultant lobbyists; increased reporting

of the ultimate client and known beneficiaries of lobbying; new

gift-giving rules, with reporting of gifts and of reportable Election

Act contributions to those being lobbied; new requirements to report

contingency fee arrangements and whether a lobbyist is governed by a

relevant code of conduct; expanding the administrative penalty regime to

include a registrar’s ban on lobbying for up to two years; and mandatory

periodic review of the act.

[1:45 p.m.]

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

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 54, Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2018, 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)

ANNE BALDING

D. Routley: I’d ask you, Mr. Speaker: how could you sum up the life of a

volunteer in two minutes? You don’t have to answer. It’s a rhetorical

question. It’s not question period yet.

I’d like to describe my friend Anne Balding, who moved from

Ontario to the Cowichan Valley about the same time I was first elected

in 2005. This is an incredibly dedicated person. I could read a laundry

list of her accomplishments, but that wouldn’t tell you what I need to

tell you about her.

She’s a fantastic person who introduced herself to our community

by volunteering, as so many do when they come to new communities,

targeting housing and homelessness challenges in the community — a very

prescient and visionary person. She organized webinars. She organized

public forums. We together waged a campaign of empathy in order to

convince the community that it was in all of our interests to take care

of each other. That’s not a hard thing to do, to convince a community of

that, when you are absent of fear.

She’s a human resource manager in a way, but you really don’t know

you’re being managed. She’s a human asset manager, but you don’t really

know you’re an asset until you realize you’re a resource in one of her

plans. This a very complex person who tackles vexing, complex problems

with goodwill and a spirit of unity. I have so much respect for

her.

She’s a force of nature. She came to our community to meet folks,

to lend a hand, to help the most vulnerable in our community. She came

to be a friend, who has come now to be Volunteer of the Year in Duncan.

That’s Anne Balding.

This job gives us a platform, and I’d like to use the pulpit of

that platform to speak on behalf of 55,000 voters and say to Anne

Balding, on behalf of all of us and even people who don’t know how much

they benefit from her service: “Thank you, Anne Balding.”

SHOOTING AT SYNAGOGUE

PITTSBURGH

M. Lee: This past Saturday an armed man entered a Pittsburgh synagogue and

opened fire on the congregants, killing 11, wounding many. This was a

brazen act of domestic terrorism and murder and a blatant act of hate

towards the Jewish community. Yesterday afternoon I joined with other

members of our Legislative Assembly to attend a truly moving service

with close to 1,000 people at the Jewish Community Centre in my

riding.

Today in this House, we stand in solidarity with Pittsburgh’s

community and the Jewish community in our province, our country and

around the world. We offer our help in any way possible to those reeling

after what was the third mass shooting in a house of worship over the

last three years in the United States.

Bigotry, violence and hatred directed toward religious groups has

no place in a modern, civilized world. Yet members of the Tree of Life

Congregation came face to face with the ugly embodiment of

anti-Semitism, bringing with it a torrent of memories of oppression,

hatred and violence. Their greatest fear came to pass, and it breaks my

heart.

This is something no community — ethnic, religious or otherwise —

should have to fear. When tragedies such as this occur, we must remind

ourselves of our responsibility in this world not just to condemn hatred

and violence but to actively promote peace and justice. Together we have

to build a world we aspire to live in, because as events like this

remind us, there is still so much more work to be done.

[1:50 p.m.]

Please join me today in sending our love to Pittsburgh, in

standing up to anti-Semitism and condemning the violence and hatred, and

in pledging, as elected representatives, all of us, to stand for good

and peace and to always offer a helping hand. That’s my

commitment.

NANCY SINCLAIR

A. Kang: This weekend was the weekend before Halloween. In the mall and

along the streets, I saw so many children dressed in costume. Many were

in superhero costumes, such as Captain America, Black Panther and Wonder

Woman. But those are not the only superheroes we have in Burnaby. Many

of the heroes in our community are not dressed in fancy

costumes.

As the MLA for Burnaby–Deer Lake, I would like to take this

opportunity to recognize a very special teacher in my riding for her

contributions to her school community. Nancy Sinclair is a teacher at

Lakeview Elementary School. Ms. Sinclair has been a teacher in Burnaby

for more than 30 years. Her school community describes her as kind,

patient, loving, talented, generous and the best teacher

ever.

She coaches the intermediate cross-country team, primary skipping

club, stitchery and knitting club, runs lunch-hour intramurals, oversees

the recycling club and helps to raise funds for camps and field trips.

Whether these clubs were before school, during school or after school,

Ms. Sinclair was there. Ms. Sinclair is magical. She doesn’t just touch

the lives of the students in her class. Over the course of the school

year, with all the extracurricular activities she volunteers in, she

would have touched the lives of all the students in the

school.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the parents,

staff, students, teachers, principal and all Lakeview community members

who took the time and initiative to put together Nancy’s nomination this

year. Your submission efforts are also a form of community involvement

and community celebration.

Thank you, Nancy, for your volunteerism and your passion, because

that is what makes Burnaby schools special. Your love for the community,

your selflessness, makes B.C. special. Thank you, Nancy.

SAGE TRANSITION HOUSE

J. Thornthwaite: On September 14, I attended a fund­raiser for Sage

Transition House in North Vancouver. Sage Transition House started as a

small room in Chesterfield House in North Vancouver, offering emergency

accommodation for women and children fleeing abuse. That was way back in

1977, when a handful of dedicated and fierce feminists — including my

good friend Rosalie Grills, who has earned an honorary doctorate at

Capilano University because of her work — got together and realized

there were women and children in our own community that needed to escape

domestic violence in their own homes.

Fast-forward to today. Sage Transition House is an 18-bed

transition house that provides safety and support to women and their

children fleeing abusive situations. They provide shelter; food;

clothing; personal items; referrals; outreach, including multicultural;

homeless prevention programs; advocacy; individual and group support;

and adolescence and child empowerment programs. They even accept

pets.

This September fundraiser was organized by my good friend Leona

Acaster. She’s the owner of Shoppers Drug Mart in Parkgate in North

Vancouver. I was happy to see my own daughter and her friends at the

event, and it was really fun to see many, many generations helping other

generations that need our help in the community.

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank Rosalie Grills and her

friends for having the vision to help abused women four decades ago. And

to Leona Acaster and her family, for choosing Sage Transition House for

this year’s fundraiser…. They raised almost $6,500. Congratulations to

them.

If you would like to help Sage Transition House, this is what you

could do. You could donate on the North Shore Crisis Services Society

website at nscss.net. You could volunteer at the crisis society at the

many fundraisers they hold around town. Or you could donate clothing,

toys or other items to their Good Stuff Connection store on 3rd Street

in the city of North Van.

My hat goes off to Rosalie and Leona for helping vulnerable women

and children in North Vancouver.

STEPHANIE DUNLOP

M. Dean: Metchosin’s fire chief receives her 20-year fire service award

this year. Stephanie Dunlop is one of only a small number of women fire

chiefs in B.C. She started volunteering with a fire department in

Peachland in 1998 and continued volunteering in Metchosin after moving

here.

[1:55 p.m.]

In 2008, she was appointed part-time fire chief, and this became

full-time in 2010. She now oversees a department of 36 members,

comprised of volunteers and professional firefighters. While women make

up less than 4 percent of firefighters in Canada, Stephanie wants young

women to know that they can pursue a career in firefighting. It isn’t

just about strength. It’s about training, knowing the equipment,

technique and teamwork. She believes that being a woman also has

advantages, and she is always ready to step up.

During the wildfire seasons of 2017 and ’18, she answered calls

from northern B.C. for help, including leading a command post in Fort

St. James. Other community service roles have included secretary of

Firefighters Without Borders, Canada, with two deployments in Peru to

provide training and assistance to local firefighters; board member of

the Transportation Emergency Rescue Committee; and president of the B.C.

Extrication Society.

Her commitment to our community is truly immeasurable. As she

says: “I truly love this community and the emergency services. So I have

the perfect job. Not many people can go to work each day loving what

they do. I’m very lucky to be serving this community.”

Stephanie, thank you. We’re very lucky to have you.

NINA GRAHAM

J. Yap: I rise today with great pleasure to pay tribute and congratulate

Richmond’s Nina Graham, who was last month awarded the Governor

General’s Sovereign’s Medal for Volunteers. This award honours the

exceptional volunteer achievements of Canadians across the country, and

Nina is one exceptional person. She has been a dedicated volunteer in

Richmond for nearly three decades, helping out with donor clinics for

Canadian Blood Services and assisting travellers at YVR, Vancouver

International Airport, in her capacity as a Green Coat

ambassador.

She is, perhaps, most well known for her role as a fitness

instructor at the YMCA. Did I mention she will soon turn 90 years of

age? Yes, you heard that right. Nina is almost 90 years, but that’s just

a number, and it’s not slowing her down. She became interested in

fitness later in life, in her 40s. So there’s still time for the rest of

us. She hasn’t stopped ever since. In fact, she works out just about

every day.

A few years ago the YMCA teamed up with UBC

re­search­ers to test out an active seniors program. Nina

signed up as a participant and was trained to teach fitness to others.

She now leads a class for adults 55-plus in Richmond. The seniors who

take her classes report that they are healthier and happier, thanks to

her great example.

I ask all members in this House to join me in congratulating Nina

Graham on her latest accolades and thanking her for inspiring all of us

to a healthier lifestyle. It is truly never too late.

Ministerial Statements

SHOOTING AT SYNAGOGUE

PITTSBURGH

Hon. J. Horgan: I rise to make a ministerial statement. I want to join with the

member for Vancouver-Langara in saying that all of our hearts were

broken this past weekend with the news of the tragic shootings at the

Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, where 11 people lost their lives

and six others were wounded. It’s not just the tragedy and the horrific

events in the synagogue that captured our attention, but it’s the

recurring theme of people in places of worship being at risk and

worshipping in fear.

It was not that long ago…. Members will remember the tragic death

of 26 Christians in the church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, and the

deaths of six Muslims here in Canada in Quebec City just last year.

Muslims, Christians and Jews — all affected by violence in their places

of worship. Absolutely unacceptable to the people of this House and to

the people of this province.

I want all members to stand with me — and I know they will — as

well as with the member for Vancouver-Langara, to express our profound

disappointment that violence, hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism continue

to exist and thrive, certainly here in North America and, indeed, around

the world. All of us, as political leaders, have a responsibility and an

obligation to stand up and say no when we see intolerance, to stand up

and speak with one voice, regardless of our partisan stripe — with one

voice — about the fact that we in British Columbia are proud of our

inclusion. We’re proud of our diversity.

[2:00 p.m.]

It’s the multi-faith dynamic in this Legislature and in this

province that makes this an extraordinary place to be and to worship,

regardless of your faith.

To the Jewish community in British Columbia particularly, I want

to say how profoundly sad I am for the fact that we can no longer, with

confidence, go into a place of worship without fear. It’s certainly a

reminder of what happened this past weekend in Pittsburgh; or a reminder

of what happened in Quebec City, in the mosque there; or in the church

in Texas, just a year ago.

All Canadians and all British Columbians stand against

intolerance, stand against bigotry, stand against hate. I would think it

would be a grand gesture if all of us in this place today — and I know

others will speak to this ministerial statement — put our voices to

paper and sent a loud signal to Pittsburgh and to Quebec and to

Sutherland Springs that here in British Columbia we will not tolerate

intolerance.

A. Wilkinson: We all thank the Premier for his remarks, which were very

insightful.

The Pittsburgh news on the weekend was depressing, disillusioning

and truly shocking. In 2017, there was a 57 percent spike in hate crimes

against Jewish people in the United States. That’s the largest annual

increase on record, since records began. That same year saw bomb threats

against synagogues and Jewish community centres. No person, no matter

what their religion, should feel unsafe in their place of

worship.

This climate of fear and anger continues to propagate,

particularly in the United States. We must remain resilient, as

Canadians. Anti-Semitism and hate spread quickly, and we know the toxic

of viciousness in our society. We must stand together, in this chamber,

with the people in Pittsburgh, with all of the people in our world who

are affected by these things, particularly the Jewish community here in

Canada.

Here in Canada, we’ve seen episodes of vicious graffiti on

synagogues in eastern Canada. This is only a reminder that the Jewish

community itself embraces the concept of Tikkun Olam — the

commitment to have a better society, to behave constructively and to be

acting beneficially for all. Truly something worth standing for and

something worth fighting for, because anti-Semitism truly has shown it

knows no borders. We have a responsibility to ensure the safety and

security of our own population and to make sure that these things are

not tolerated in our society and are simply unacceptable.

This phenomenon is not going away. We have to do every­thing

we can as a society, as a chamber, as the government of the day to make

sure that this is not, in any way, deemed to be acceptable or tolerable

in this society. We must stand together as a community, including our

Jewish members, and commit to ensuring that this kind of hatred and fear

is not allowed to take root here. As someone whose closest family

members are Jewish, I feel this very deeply. All of us must stand

together against hate.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the Premier and to the Leader of the Official

Opposition for your thoughtful words moments ago.

News of the Tree of Life Synagogue massacre, the deadliest attack

on the Jewish community in U.S. history, prompted condemnation from

around the world. Today we add our voices to that chorus. I stand with

my colleagues from all sides of the House in solemn solidarity against

hatred, intolerance, racism, anti-Semitism and violence.

The victims of this horrific attack were cherished community

members, respected elders, dear friends and beloved family members.

Reading about their lives this morning, I was humbled by their devotion

to serving others, their kindness, generosity, compassion and love for

those around them.

To echo our Premier, we know that the rise of intolerance isn’t

just in the United States. It’s here in Canada too. We know that the

words of elected representatives can fan the flames of

hatred.

[2:05 p.m.]

In memory of those lost, we renew our devotion to serving others

and commit to embodying the compassionate values of Bernice and Sylvan

Simon, David and Cecil Rosenthal, Melvin Wax, Jerry Rabinowitz, Joyce

Fienberg, Daniel Stein, Rose Mallinger, Richard Gottfried and Irving

Younger.

I’ll also add 69-year-old Maurice Stallard and 67-year-old Vickie

Lee Jones to the list of people murdered in hate crimes this week. A

shooter attempted to enter the Jeffersontown, Kentucky, First Baptist

Church, which has a predominantly African-American membership, before

turning to a nearby grocery store and racially targeting victims.

Maurice was shopping with his grandson, helping him get a poster for a

school project. He died shielding the 12-year-old during the attack.

Vickie was shot walking to her car.

We must be vigilant in our communities and fight against the

hatred that can fester and rot into violence. We stand with the

government of British Columbia, the official opposition and all British

Columbians, united in love and compassion. Our thoughts today are with

the loved ones of those targeted.

Oral Questions

REFERENDUM ON ELECTORAL REFORM

S. Bond: Somehow the transition to question period seems so much more

difficult today, after the very touching and personal comments that

we’ve heard from our leaders. But we begin.

As we speak, British Columbians are receiving voter packages in

their mailboxes and being asked to vote on the critical issue of

electoral reform.

I am very confident that every member of this House has heard

concerns from their constituents about the challenge they face

understanding the options that are on the ballot. On the weekend, we

learned that they are not the only ones that face that challenge.

Despite having a degree in political science, as she quickly pointed out

to reporters, the Minister of Advanced Education admitted that she

couldn’t describe the systems that she is urging British Columbians to

adopt.

Details matter. Perhaps, today, the Minister of Advanced Education

can provide some of the specific details that voters need and deserve

before they vote.

Hon. M. Mark: Over the weekend, I took the opportunity to connect with my

constituents of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

I am a proud member of this Legislative Assembly. I take my duties

seriously. I think that voters…. I believe with all of my heart that

voters take their vote seriously, their right to vote seriously. Right

now we have a system, first-past-the-post, where you can have 40 percent

of the vote and 100 percent of the power. We are asking British

Columbians whether or not they want the status quo or if they want a

different system, a system that might be better, where their vote might

be more reflected in these chambers.

I am very proud of our government’s approach to bringing forward

this referendum to British Columbians and that they will have their say

on November 30 about whether or not we keep the status quo or we vote

for something that is more proportional in terms of representation in

these chambers.

Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.

S. Bond: Of course voters in British Columbia take their right to vote

seriously, but apparently, this government and this minister

don’t.

The decision to change an electoral system is one of the most

significant decisions that British Columbians can be asked to make, but

apparently, the minister and the government believe that citizens should

make that choice without all the necessary details.

We are told that the ballot question was approved by cabinet,

despite the promise that the Premier made that it would be an

independent process.

[2:10 p.m.]

I’m assuming, as are British Columbians, that this minister sat at

the cabinet table and was part of that decision-making

process.

Can the minister stand in this House today and provide even the

most basic details about any one of those models? Let’s start with this.

How many MLAs will have seats in the chamber, how many ridings will

there be, and how big will those ridings end up?

Hon. D. Eby: We engaged British Columbians across the province — the biggest

engagement in the province’s history — to ask them how they wanted this

referendum process to roll out. This is a process where the questions on

the ballot have been approved by Elections B.C. It’s a referendum where

the process has been the subject of a B.C. Supreme Court challenge where

a party is attempting to stop British Columbians from being able to vote

on their preferred system.

Here’s what the court had to say about the process in responding

to the arguments put forward: “There is no evidence to support their

assertions that the referendum process is intended to produce a

particular result which the government favours or that it is a rushed

process or that the provincial respondents in the application delayed

the hearing of the petition.”

“There is no evidence,” not “there is some evidence” or “it could

be argued.” “There is no evidence.”

Elections B.C. is providing information to British Columbians that

is non-partisan, third-party. Any British Columbian can find this

information on line. It was mailed to their homes. I hope they take

advantage of the opportunity to vote on how we send people to this

place.

Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a second supplemental.

S. Bond: It’s ironic that the supposedly neutral arbiter, the Attorney

General, stood up to answer that question.

Let’s be clear. The Attorney General stands in this House and

claims credit for engaging British Columbians. It’s miraculous, then,

that two of the options that the minister can’t describe actually were

not included in the engagement with British Columbians and miraculously

showed up as two of three on the ballot. Zero consultation with British

Columbians about those models.

This flawed referendum was not designed, as it should have been,

by a citizens’ assembly. Instead, the questions were decided behind

closed doors by a Minister of Advanced Education and her cabinet

colleagues. Yet when asked for even basic information, not one detail

about the specific models was provided. British Columbians deserve

answers — specific, detailed answers — on systems like the rural-urban

model.

Here is another one for the minister. I represent a large,

dispersed riding. Can she or anyone tell my constituents today whether

the communities in Prince George–​Valemount will be considered

urban, semi-urban or rural? My constituents deserve to know before they

mark their ballots.

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question. She has a bunch of questions.

First of all, she asks: how did all those systems get on the ballot? We

asked British Columbians about what values they wanted to see in systems

that were put forward on the ballots. Actually, it was the members of

the opposition who repeatedly raised the issue of rural representation

that resulted in a number of these models being put forward. These are

models that emphasized rural representation.

The member says: how will my constituents’ interests be

represented in this process? Well, in fact, the member, in rising and

speaking on this, ensured that there were models put forward on the

ballot that will ensure rural representation if British Columbians

choose to move in that direction.

It’s not a mystery how they ended up there. There was a forum at

SFU. There was a lot of discussion about different models and the

different values. It was one of many submissions that came forward to my

office, including speeches from the opposition and including submissions

from everyone from the Fraser Institute to the No B.C. Proportional

Representation Society. They were all incorporated in the models that

went forward.

The information is available to British Columbians on the

Elections B.C. website. It was also literally mailed to their

doors.

M. Polak: The member can’t have it both ways. He can’t stand in the House

and tell us here’s a system that is going to protect rural

representation and then refuse to divulge the information that the

previous member asked for.

[2:15 p.m.]

If you can’t answer the question, “Is her riding urban, rural,

semi-urban?” then you cannot, at the same time, stand in this House and

say that that particular method of PR is going to protect rural

representation.

What I fear is happening here is not that the Attorney or that

other members of cabinet who’ve been involved in these discussions don’t

know the answers. Clearly, the Minister of Advanced Education didn’t

know. But I think, overall, they do know the answers. The really

disturbing

part is that they’re not providing them to British Columbians

before they vote.

Here’s another easy one, or it should be, for members who are

purporting to provide to us the option to save democracy in B.C. for

every fair vote. That would be…. We have a by-election happening in

Nanaimo under our current system. I wonder if any of the members on the

other side could explain, under proportional representation, how a seat

would be filled in a by-election.

Hon. D. Eby: It’s a pretty straightforward thing. This is a vote that’s going

forward to British Columbians. There are three specific systems that are

being considered for proportional representation. If they feel they have

enough information to vote in favour or against a PR system, then

they’re going to do that. If they feel there’s not enough information,

then they’ll vote to keep the existing system. It’s a referendum. It’s a

vote. British Columbians will make the decision.

Now, I understand that the members on the other side want to have

it both ways as well. They want to say that my office has made all the

decisions in secret, and they also want to say that no decisions have

been made and there aren’t enough details. It can’t be both.

The information is available to British Columbians. They’ll look

at the information. If they have enough information, they will vote to

perhaps change the system, perhaps keep the existing system. If they

feel they don’t have enough information about the new systems, then

they’ll vote to keep the existing system. It’s a referendum.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

M. Polak: I think what we heard right there was an admission that this is a

gamble for British Columbians. It’s a gamble. Roll the dice, and see

what kind of system you end up with. The Attorney is happy to just say:

“Look, I’m sorry if you don’t feel you have enough information. If you

feel you do, you might want to support it. If you don’t, that’s okay.”

That’s not good enough. People not only have a right to vote in a

referendum; they have a right to the information before they

vote.

Take my constituents, for example. Langley is a commu­nity

much smaller than Surrey. In all likelihood, though, based on the scant

information that is available about proportional representation systems

around the world, there is a possibility that Langley gets lumped in

together with a large riding, including Surrey.

This is really important information, because it could potentially

mean that candidates running to represent a riding that includes Surrey

and Langley together would be campaigning in the urban centre. The

concerns of my current riding would probably be forgotten or, at least,

minimized.

For a riding like mine, Langley, will the member tell them if they

will be put together in a riding with Surrey, only to have their issues

ignored?

Hon. J. Horgan: I continue to be surprised at the lack of faith the people on that

side of the House have in the people of British Columbia to use their

good judgment. This will be the third referendum on proportional

representation held in British Columbia since 2005. If any jurisdiction

in Canada is well versed in first-past-the-post versus other models, it

would be this place right here.

Elections B.C. has put out a very comprehensive guide. I encourage

the members on that side of the House to take a slide through. They’ll

determine that every member elected to this place under any of the

systems — whether it’s mixed-member, dual-member or rural-urban — will

be elected by the people who were voting in their community.

Now, when I was first elected to this place, I represented

Malahat–Juan de Fuca. Then I represented Juan de Fuca. Now I represent

Langford–Juan de Fuca. Every time I remain the same. The voters remain

the same. The boundaries were different. The members know that. The

members understand that things change over time.

[2:20 p.m.]

What I think really gets them…. This was provided to me by the

Twitter box today from a gentleman named Jordan Bateman. I think he

might be familiar to some on that side of the House. He is

communications guru for the ICBA, currently in court trying to stop the

referendum. In response to the Conservative Party of British Columbia

having a leadership contest, he urged them to hold off. He said…. I’m

glad the school kids have left. I don’t want to affect their

sensibilities. He tweeted: “Hell, if pro rep passes, half the B.C.

Liberal caucus may split off.” That’s the real issue on that side of the

House. They don’t know whether they’re Conservative or

Liberal.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Members.

House Leader, Third Party. [Applause.]

OLD-GROWTH PROTECTION AND FOREST

INDUSTRY JOBS ON

VANCOUVER ISLAND

S. Furstenau: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It’s a very grateful crowd in here

today.

A new Sierra Club review of government data and satellite images

has found that logging of old-growth forests on Vancouver Island is

increasing. It was more than 10 percent higher in 2016 than the annual

average in the ten-year period between 2005 and 2015. The amount of old

growth on Vancouver Island logged in 2016 alone was the equivalent of

more than 26 Stanley Parks.

In its 2017 election platform, this government committed to

modernizing land use planning to effectively and sustainably manage

B.C.’s forests and old growth. This government committed to “an

evidence-based scientific approach that uses the ecosystem-based

management of the Great Bear Rainforest as a model.” The intent of

ecosystem-based management is to have a fully functional and intact

ecosystem while maintaining the ability of residents to work and make a

living in the area, but old-growth forests are a finite resource that

will not provide long-term, sustainable jobs.

To the Premier, what is the government’s vision for the future of

old-growth forests on Vancouver Island?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank my Vancouver Island colleague for the question. We

certainly do support protecting biodiversity in our old-growth forests,

not just here on Vancouver Island but on the coast, as well, and in the

Interior. I recall a significant stand of old-growth forest just outside

of Prince George that was protected not that long ago. All of us in this

place have an obligation to ensure that we are doing our level best to

protect these natural resources, this abundance that belongs to all

British Columbians for all time.

The member will know…. She and I were together in Pacheedaht

territory, working on an agreement between the cooperative forest

licence at Lake Cowichan in her constituency and the Pacheedaht First

Nation in my constituency, whereby we could manage and rationalize the

development of old-growth forests and continue to have jobs on the land

base. That’s why the Minister of Forests is working on a coastal

revitalization program that will take into consideration new land use

planning strategies.

Keep in mind, hon. Member, that 500,000 hectares on Vancouver

Island are already protected from development. We want to make sure that

that grows over the next number of years, and that’s our commitment as a

government.

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

S. Furstenau: I thank the Premier for pointing out that we want to see

old-growth forests grow on Vancouver Island, or the protection of them

grow. The problem is that once they are cut down, they’re gone

forever.

As we log our old growth, we have also watched our

for­es­try industry suffer. Over the past two decades, the

number of people directly employed by the forestry industry fell by over

25,000. When adjusted for inflation, forest revenue fell by over $650

million. We have also been exporting more and more raw logs. In 2016,

nearly one in three trees logged on the coast left B.C. in raw log form.

Raw logs are the lowest value of all tree-derived products, yet our

export of them has grown. Meanwhile many mills, mills that provide

long-term, well-paying jobs and create higher value-added products, have

closed or cut production.

To the Premier, calls for improvement in forest management,

especially for protection of old-growth forests and caribou habitat,

have only grown more urgent over the past year. What steps exactly is

the Premier taking to achieve the vision of forestry that he is speaking

to?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I thank my colleague from Vancouver Island for the

question. We have been working diligently over the last 15 months to try

and repair some of the damage that was done by changes to the Forest Act

back in 2003. At that time, appurtenancy, which, for those who don’t

understand what that means, is the connection of logs to communities,

disappeared.

It had been in place for 50 years of forest practices in British

Columbia, and it disappeared on the watch of the previous government.

The consequence of that is that about 23 percent of the logs taken from

our forests on Vancouver Island are now exported without any added value

whatsoever.

Members in Cowichan, Port Alberni and Powell River will know that

Catalyst Paper is in the process of selling to Paper Excellence. One of

the challenges wasn’t just the costs put upon that industry, the pulp

and paper sector on Vancouver Island, by U.S. tariffs that were seen to

be unnecessary and were removed by a U.S. tribunal. It was also access

to fibre. The big challenge for getting fibre to our pulp sector is that

we don’t have any sawmills anymore.

Those sawmills were closed on the watch of that side of the House,

and we need to rebuild that integrated system so that every bit, every

scrap in our forest is used for job creation and vital economic activity

on Vancouver Island. That’s our commitment. We’ll continue to work with

the member and anyone on that side of the House who wants to see a vital

forest sector here on the coast.

REFERENDUM ON ELECTORAL REFORM

J. Johal: The Premier promised a simple yes-or-no question when it comes to

electoral reform. Residents in Richmond and Delta, like all British

Columbians, have said they want a system that’s easy to

understand.

Can the minister, or the Premier, tell the House how many directly

elected MLAs Richmond and Delta will have under prop rep?

Hon. D. Eby: I think the member knows that there will be an electoral

boundaries commission after the referendum if, in fact, British

Columbians choose to move to a different electoral system. That is a

process by which districts will be determined, and MLA representation.

But the important piece, one of the principles that was set forward that

was adopted by cabinet, is that no area will see less representation

under the old system than they would under a new system.

Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.

J. Johal: That’s the challenge here. At the end of the day, British

Columbians want transparency and clarity. In fact, there are 29 items to

be decided after the prop rep vote. That’s the challenge here. Voters

deserve to know what type of representation they’ll get under prop

rep.

Surrey currently has nine MLAs to represent a growing city. This

government has hidden so many aspects of PR that we don’t know how many

ridings we’ll have in Surrey and how large those ridings will be as

well.

Can the minister tell the people of Surrey how many directly

elected MLAs would represent their city under prop rep?

Hon. D. Eby: One of the principles that the members on the other side

emphasized in many of their speeches was the importance of local

representation, of maintaining rural representation.

That’s why one of the principles that came out of the consultation

process that was in the document that was adopted by cabinet was that no

area would see less local representation than they do now under any new

system. I hope that answers the member’s question.

M. de Jong: Have you seen the ad for the Q-Ray bracelet? Apparently, you put

on this miraculous piece of ionized metal. Every ailment known will be

cured, and you’ll feel 20 years younger. That’s the claim.

There’s this great testimonial on the infomercial — it’s a great

testimonial — where this older fellow looks into the camera and

earnestly said this. This is what he says: “I don’t know what it does,

but it sure works.”

That is precisely the scam that the NDP and the Green Party are

purporting to pull on British Columbians. This K-tel coalition doesn’t

actually want British Columbians to have the details of how proportional

representation would work in British Columbia.

My question to the spokesperson for the K-tel coalition is….

People in Abbotsford, fifth largest city in British Columbia, presently

directly elect three MLAs. They’d like to know, under any of the systems

of proportional representation: how many fewer MLAs would they elect,

and how big will the constituencies be?

[2:30 p.m.]

As they say in the commercial: “Answer now. Constituents are

standing by.”

Mr. Speaker: Member, may you direct your question to a specific person, please,

rather than the K-tel group you referred to.

Hon. R. Fleming: As a former K-tel record subscriber who doesn’t get enough

questions in the House, I’m happy to take this one, Mr.

Speaker.

The Opposition House Leader mentioned earlier, in the same line of

questioning as we’ve just heard from this member, accusing the

government of wanting to have it both ways…. I have to ask the

opposition the same question: both ways?

This is a government that held two referendums on voting reform

during their term in office, and when our government holds a referendum

on a new voting system, they scream blue murder. On the opposite side is

an old government that as recently as June 2017…. Guess what they did.

They promised to hold a referendum, in their fake throne speech, on

proportional referendum. That was 15 months ago. But when our government

goes ahead and gives the people of British Columbia a voting choice on

what the future of their democracy looks like in British Columbia,

somehow it’s wrong.

We don’t know what the position will be day to day from the

opposition. It’s interesting where they are at now, supporting court

injunctions, casting aspersions on the independence of the Chief

Electoral Officer. All kinds of nonsense is being thrown into a debate

that British Columbians deserve to have as an informed process, and

that’s sad. It’s sad that they’ve stooped to that low.

What we’re proud of is that we made a promise to British

Columbians to give them a say. We’re giving them that say. The ballots

are in the mail. British Columbians get that choice. They can be

returned by November 30. We believe in the independence of the Electoral

Boundaries Commission, and we believe in the process that we committed

to.

M. de Jong: Has the minister ever taken so long to say so little?

Look, I don’t want to disparage K-tel — and apparently, the member

is familiar with the now-defunct company — but when I bought my patty

stacker, at least I knew how it worked and what it was supposed to

do.

You know, the Education Minister had his crack at it. He didn’t

offer any answers. Maybe the Premier can do better.

British Columbians don’t want slogans. They don’t want flim-flam.

They actually want facts, and the Premier and his government’s refusal

to provide facts to people who are being asked to make an important

choice speaks volumes for how this government and its Premier feel about

British Columbians themselves.

Again, on behalf of the people of Abbotsford, how many

constituencies, what size constituencies, rural or urban? The key

features that would determine the workability of proportional

representation.

Will the Premier, the Attorney General, the Minister of Education,

the Advanced Education Minister — any one of them — offer British

Columbians some useful information upon when they can make their

selection?

Hon. J. Horgan: Now, we’ve determined that the real anxiety on that side of the

House is that the Liberals will have to decide whether they’re Liberals

or Conservatives under a first-past-the-post system.

Their extra-parliamentary wing, the ICBA, is diligently trying to

stop allowing citizens to have a voice. We’re trying to give people a

voice. I would have thought that after all the referenda hysteria over

ensuring that people voted on building transit that the people on that

side of the House actually liked referenda, but apparently, they

don’t.

[2:35 p.m.]

To the member, one of the senior members of this place, he knows

full well that from time to time electoral boun­daries commissions

come together. They redraw maps, and it changes and transforms who we

represent and how we do that.

At the end of the day, proportional representation means every

vote matters. If you get 40 percent of the votes, you get 40 percent of

the seats. I don’t know how that’s so hard for the member. He should

know way better after 24 years in this place.

J. Thornthwaite: Here’s what I’m hearing from constituents on the North Shore.

Currently there are four ridings on the North Shore. How big will the

North Shore ridings be after proportional representation — North Van,

West Van, Sea to Sky, all combined? How big will the ridings be, how

many MLAs will represent the North Shore, how many MLAs will actually be

elected by North Shore residents, and how many will be appointed off of

party lists?

My question is to anybody that wants to stand up and answer. We

know that the government knows these answers; they’re just not telling

us. Why is the government hiding this information from the North

Shore?

Hon. D. Eby: A number of commitments were made by government when they adopted

the recommendations that were based on the consultation and that came

from speeches like the member opposite who just asked the question. No

area of the province will see less local representation than they do

under the existing system. If we move to a new system, it doesn’t matter

which of the three they choose.

The second piece is that there will be an electoral boundaries

commission that draws the boundaries. The members know what that process

looks like. They’ve been through that process many times. People provide

submissions. It’s an extensive process. It’s independent of

government.

I don’t know why the member would suggest it has been

predetermined when electoral boundaries commissions, by definition, are

independent. They take submissions from all sides of the House, and they

would this time if people do in fact choose to change how we send

members to this place.

I thank the member for the question.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 46, South Coast British

Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 46 — SOUTH COAST BRITISH

COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 2),

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 46, the South Coast British Columbia

Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2018, be now read a second

time.

I’m pleased to introduce this legislation, which will help meet

our commitment to support regional funding efforts to improve transit

and transportation services in Metro Vancouver. This bill will allow

TransLink to set a rate of parking rights tax up to a maximum of 24

percent of the purchase price for off-street parking.

The amendments directly support TransLink’s ability to invest in

and expand the regional transportation system. In June of this year, the

Mayors Council approved its phase 2 investment plan. That plan includes

major transportation and transit investments in TransLink’s service

area, which includes major bus and rapid transit

improvements.

[2:40 p.m.]

In order to meet its regional revenue requirements to fund phase 2

of the Mayors Council 10-Year Vision, Trans­Link included a 3

percent increase in parking rights tax in its investment plan. Parking

rights tax is a sales tax paid on the purchase price of off-street

parking in TransLink’s service area. The existing legislation caps the

tax at 21 per­cent. This bill will enable TransLink, by bylaw, to

set a parking rights tax of up to 24 percent. That 3 percent increase

would mean, for example, an additional 15 cents on $5 of off-street

parking.

Along with other measures, this modest increase will fund

increased bus and handyDART services, better and more SkyTrain service

and rapid transit options and better roads, bridges and other

infrastructure for residents, for transit users, for drivers and for

businesses. TransLink consulted with Metro Vancouver residents on the

proposed increase during its phase 2 investment plan consultations. The

increase is scheduled for July 2019, and TransLink calculates that it

will raise an additional $10 million a year for these

investments.

As a government, we are doing things differently. That is why we

committed to fund 40 percent of the capital costs of every phase of the

Mayors Council 10-Year Vision. We also committed to work with the mayors

and support regional funding efforts to improve the transit and

transportation services that people need.

Our government is making life more affordable, delivering the

services that people can count on and building a strong, sustainable and

prosperous economy that delivers benefits for everyone. Working together

with communities and the federal government, we are investing in transit

and transportation infrastructure to get people and goods moving more

quickly, more safely and more affordably.

The investments in the Mayors Council 10-Year Vision are essential

for people throughout the region, especially as Metro Vancouver is

expected to grow by over a million more residents in the next 25 years.

This legislation provides TransLink with the ability to raise revenue

for phase 2, which is making investments in transit and transportation

infrastructure to help people spend less time stuck in traffic and more

time with their family and with their friends.

It’s important that we get moving on phase 2, which is why we have

worked with TransLink and with the mayors to give them the ability to

increase the parking rights tax rate. This bill also includes some

housekeeping amendments to remove obsolete references to the Social

Service Tax Act.

Prior to 2010, the parking rights tax was administered by the

province as part of PST. References to the Social Service Tax Act were

added to the legislation in 2010 as part of the transition of the

parking rights tax to TransLink. The Social Service Tax Act was then

repealed in 2013, and the replacement provincial legislation, the

Provincial Sales Tax Act, does not contain provisions pertaining to

parking rights tax.

These housekeeping sections only remove the obsolete language.

They do not alter the administration of the parking rights tax in any

way. With this legislation, we are supporting TransLink’s ability to

invest in Metro Vancouver’s transportation system. I hope that everyone

here joins me in support of Bill 46.

With that, I move second reading.

T. Stone: I rise today to speak to second reading of Bill 46. We all agree

that working with the Mayors Council in Metro Vancouver and funding

their ten-year plan is to be applauded.

In fact, I’m proud of what a strong record of transit investments,

in Metro Vancouver and across B.C., we were able to make in our former

government, which I was a part of. Our former government was the first

in Canada to sign a bilateral agreement with the federal government to

pave the way for the most significant injection of federal investment in

transit infrastructure and in transit service in British Columbia’s

history.

I was fortunate to be the minister responsible at that time when

we got that deal done. We were able to work with the Mayors Council to

assist them in the development of a very good plan. The mayors put some

exceptional work on the table, and they came up with a plan for transit

investment across the Lower Mainland. Phase 1 was fully funded, as per

all the partner contributions.

[2:45 p.m.]

The service improvements that have flowed from those investments

have been significant. We’ve seen an increase in handyDART service

across the region, enhanced SkyTrain service, more B-lines, dozens of

new SkyTrain cars and upgraded stations.

Of course, prior to these investments, we also know that the

Canada Line, the Evergreen Line and other significant investments

represented important investments, though more is needed to address and

deal with the growth that Metro Vancouver is experiencing. In fact, we

all know that about one million more people are expected to come to and

live in Metro Vancouver over the next 25 years.

I’m very proud of the work that we did when we were in government

and very supportive of the work that is being done by the Mayors Council

in working with TransLink. Again, that has culminated in what is a very

good ten-year plan. That all being said, as we saw last week, those

transit plans can change dramatically.

We do know that this Bill 46, while there is a partial

housekeeping portion to it, as the minister previously noted, does bring

yet another additional cost that will hit British Columbians in their

bottom line. That’s this increase in parking fees. On top of increased

property taxes and, of course, ever-increasing development cost charges,

community amenity fees, and so forth, folks in Metro Vancouver must now

get ready to pay more for parking.

We are told that what this bill enables, which is to provide

TransLink with the authority to increase the parking tax from 21 percent

to 24 percent…. We are told that this provides TransLink with the

revenues that it will need to, in part, fund the major investments that

are planned for the region, including LRT in Surrey.

Well, we know that the new mayor of Surrey, seemingly backed by

the new mayor of Vancouver, has been very clear that he plans to revoke

his council’s support and his city’s support for the use of LRT, in

favour of a SkyTrain extension instead. That revocation of support

within the city of Surrey could take place literally any day. Now, I

know that the government and the Premier, in particular, have been asked

about this rapidly unfolding reality, but they’ve waved it off so far.

However, in the context of this Bill 46, it seems that we should explore

this a little bit further.

The government has often touted the claim that they will work with

the mayors. I would suggest that dismissing the claims of the new mayor

of Surrey — less than a few weeks after he was elected on a signature

campaign platform promise to replace LRT in favour of SkyTrain in Surrey

— is not working with mayors. Dismissing the new mayor’s intentions —

and, indeed, the tens of thousands of Surrey residents who voted for him

— certainly doesn’t represent a collaborative approach.

This government needs to listen to their concerns, as Surrey is

the fastest-growing community in British Columbia. The voters there

deserve to know whether this government will fund Surrey’s transit

expansions utilizing SkyTrain technology. Of course, this is assuming

that the city of Surrey goes through with its stated intention to revoke

their previously granted approval for LRT technology.

We also see that the government is continuing to fail to

collaborate with Delta with respect to the Massey bridge tunnel

replacement project. Of course, I think everyone in this House knows

that this is the largest bottleneck in the province and that it needs to

be fixed now. Yet we continue to see — and, of course, the commuters and

the residents in the Delta region continue to face — unbelievable

gridlock and congestion each and every day, as this government continues

to dither on moving forward.

We know that a report is sitting on the Minister of

Transportation’s desk. In fact, she had it last summer. She has opted

not to make the contents of that report public, let alone act upon its

recommendations. The new mayor of Delta is making it his number one

priority to get a new crossing built, and this government hasn’t even

released that report that they received last summer.

Back to Bill 46, which increases the parking tax. This increase

comes on the heels of similar increases in the fuel tax earlier this

year, which has resulted in the Lower Mainland having amongst the

highest fuel taxes in North America. That’s not

affordability.

[2:50 p.m.]

Frankly, so much for making life more affordable. It’s

in­creas­ingly hard for folks in the Lower Mainland to not

feel like they’re under siege. This parking tax is yet another attack on

those taxpayers. In fact, it’s an attack on drivers across Metro

Vancouver.

The government says: “Don’t worry. It’s only 15 cents per hour on

$5 of parking.” In reality, it’s expected to raise $10 million of

additional revenue per year. That’s $10 million per year that will be

extracted out of the pockets of Metro Vancouver’s drivers.

I’m very concerned about where the level of those charges actually

are today and where they may go in the years ahead. We know that this

parking tax has increased in the past from 7 percent to 21 percent, and

now the ob­jective of this legislation is to authorize TransLink

to increase it again to 24 percent.

We know how this government is fond of increasing taxes. I don’t

see this government standing up to TransLink in the years ahead and

saying to TransLink: “No. You know what? We’re not going to authorize

additional increases in fees and charges like the parking tax.” I just

don’t see that happening. I certainly hope that I’m wrong.

The other context here is the overall cost of the projects in the

mayors’ ten-year plan, which remains…. I would suggest the word “fluid”

is probably an apropos description at this point. I’m worried about

TransLink’s appetite for revenue. I’m paying close attention and the

opposition is paying close attention to how the costs are escalating,

particularly with respect to the major rapid transit

projects.

It wasn’t that long ago that the total cost of the three major

rapid transit lines was $6.3 billion. It was only about four years ago

that that number was the estimated or the projected cost of these major

projects. Just months ago, the TransLink CEO, Kevin Desmond, released

further details of these transit investments. As part of that, he

indicated that the total cost of these rapid transit projects has

actually ballooned from $6.3 billion to $7.3 billion.

The Broadway line cost has escalated to $3 billion. That’s up 20

percent since the cost projection in 2015. The Surrey L-line is now

estimated to cost $1.65 billion. That’s up considerably. The proposed

rapid transit line to Langley is now estimated to cost $2.83

billion.

Where it gets really worrisome is when you hear a comment like the

one that was made publicly by the TransLink CEO, who, I will say for the

record again…. I have said this many times. I do have tremendous respect

for him. I think he’s doing a very good job for the organization. It’s

certainly not an easy job, but he’s doing a good job.

He was asked: “What’s your level of confidence with these costs,

considering they’ve gone up $1 billion in the last cou­ple of

years?” Mr. Desmond’s exact response, his answer to that question, was:

“By the time we go through the procurement process, the numbers could

change again.” I’ll say that again: “By the time we go through the

procurement process, the numbers could change again.” I would suggest

that they’re probably going to change again and again, certainly

following on the significant change coming out of Surrey during the

recent municipal election.

What’s going to happen if the costs of these projects continue to

escalate? Is TransLink simply going to come back to the well again? We

all know that when we refer to the well, we’re talking to the taxpayer.

TransLink will be provided, through this legislation, an increase in

parking tax revenue to raise the revenue that they need. Is this where

it ends? Is this as high as this parking tax is going to go? Again, it’s

$10 million of additional revenue per year that this measure alone will

enable. Is this it? I think that we should be asking that question. We

should be worried about further increases that might be in the offing in

the years ahead.

How will this increase in the parking tax impact job creators?

During Small Business Week, of all weeks, the government introduced

legislation that did absolutely nothing to provide relief to small

businesses via potential changes to class 5 and class 6

assessments.

[2:55 p.m.]

In fact, I moved an amendment to legislation that would have

required the government to appoint a task force to look at how

accommodation could be made for class 5 and class 6 assessments,

particularly in the context of the Lower Mainland, where assessed values

have skyrocketed 200 to 300 percent in the West End just in a couple of

years, as one example. Of course, this has resulted in small businesses

having to lay off employees and/or close due to dramatically increasing

property tax bills.

Beyond that…. I mean, the government voted against that last week.

They opted not to provide that relief to small businesses. But then, to

add insult to injury, or perhaps in their way of showing further

appreciation for small business, a week later, this government follows

up by introducing this legislation — Bill 46 — which, frankly, is just

another slap in the face of small businesses across the Lower

Mainland.

By increasing the parking tax to 24 percent, downtown Vancouver

businesses are concerned that the increased cost of parking will simply

make it too expensive for people to visit. That’s a concern that I hear

in Port Coquitlam. It’s a concern that I have heard in Surrey, as well,

and other communities across Metro Vancouver.

As Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association CEO Charles

Gauthier expressed: “What we’re sensitive to is whether it’s going to

impact people’s discretionary visits to downtown.”

I think he has reason to be concerned. According to a recent

survey, 40 percent of people said that the cost of parking certainly

impacts their choice of whether they will go downtown in Vancouver. It’s

just another example of how B.C. is losing its competitive edge and how

many small business owners are worried for their future under this

government.

Of course, this all comes as the government brings in a new MSP

replacement tax, which hits small businesses very, very hard. Operating

in a world of tight margins, the average small business owner will be on

the hook for more than $15,000 under the employer health tax.

Now the government is hitting them and their customers with higher

parking fees as well. That’s in addition to all of the new and increased

fees and taxes that this government has brought in, including increases

to the fuel tax; the gas tax; the Airbnb tax; the luxury vehicle tax; an

increase in the property transfer tax; their phony speculation tax;

their reintroduction of photo radar — I call it photo radar 2.0, coming

to a community near you; increases to the carbon tax; of course, the

removal of the carbon tax’s revenue neutrality; income tax increases;

increases to the corporate tax; and many, many others.

Many small businesses have expressed a deep concern about the slew

of taxes that this government is hitting them with — again, particularly

the employer health tax and increases to the carbon tax, both of which

will seriously impact their bottom lines.

Of course, by driving away customers through increased parking

costs — thanks to this government — this piece of legislation will also

impact a small business’s bottom line as well. You’re going to pay more

to see your doctor in downtown Vancouver. You’re going to pay more to

park at the hospital, whether it’s Surrey Memorial, Jim Pattison

Outpatient Care and Surgery Centre, Langley Memorial, Royal Columbian,

Burnaby, Eagle Ridge, Peace Arch, Lions Gate, Richmond Hospital, and on

and on the list goes.

Parking costs….

Interjection.

T. Stone: The minister is doing a lot of chirping, so we’ve obviously

touched a nerve here on this issue of taxes, taxes, taxes. The NDP have

not met a tax that they don’t like. That’s what British Columbians are

worried about. They’ve seen $8 billion worth of increased taxes since

this government took power.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

T. Stone: This represents another attempt by the government to reach deep

into the taxpayer’s pocket and extract even more out of them, and $10

million per year is no laughing matter. Parking costs for students and

staff at schools and universities will go up. We already know that many

students live close to the line. This is one more example of how the

government is squeezing British Columbians for every penny. This bill

will make life just a bit more unaffordable for British

Columbians.

On top of that, we don’t have any certainty at this point whether

the projects that TransLink has mapped out in their ten-year plan, in

light of the very significant changes that have taken place in the

recent municipal elections and the change of direction that seems to be

flowing from a number of the mayors of the largest communities that

represent or make up the Mayors Council…. We don’t know if these

signature projects and priorities will remain intact.

Therefore, out of respect for taxpayers, out of respect for

drivers, out of respect for small businesses, the official opposition

will not be supporting Bill 46.

[3:00 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Thank you for this opportunity to speak to Bill 46, the South

Coast B.C. Transportation Authority Amendment Act, and just to provide

my comments, our comments, on behalf of the B.C. Green

caucus.

After hearing the member of the official opposition speak to this

bill, it really does kind of make your…. It’s quite shocking, frankly,

to hear the perspective that was put forward, this perspective that we

are going to be one of the only metropolitan areas in the world that’s

going to be fighting for parking and not taking the money that we need

to be and investing it in transit and moving people around metropolitan

areas like Metro Vancouver in a more efficient and effective

way.

To the member’s comments, “How are we going to support small

business?” or “How does government support small business?” well, it

provides proper transit and transportation infrastructure in this

province, something which hasn’t happened over the years. Part of the

reason why we’re facing congestion in getting into the areas of Surrey

and Delta is because there isn’t a proper long-term transportation plan

in this province that was inherited by this government just a few, 15 or

so, months ago.

To hear this ridiculous argument that was made just a few minutes

ago about how the impact on job creators…. You know, the impact on job

creators has been tremendous — the fact that there hasn’t been enough

investment in the Lower Mainland. Frankly, the former government forced

the people into a referendum just because they simply could not bear to

have a discussion about raising the money that was needed to be raised

in order to make the investments that needed to be made to support the

families and the people — frankly, my generation — and those that need

the transit and the transportation networks. Those investments weren’t

made.

It was really difficult to stand up here and speak to Bill 46 and

not get dragged into the swamp and have to make some of these comments

in direct response to, frankly, the ridiculous arguments, the absurd

arguments that were made about Delta and about Surrey — dragging me into

issues around the Mayors Council and what a new mayor of Surrey’s

campaign was about, ignoring the fact, of course, that that new mayor of

Surrey has got a council.

They’ve got to work through those issues. Then that mayor has got

to go and have the conversation at the Mayors Council with all the other

mayors. The Mayors Council actually has a job to do, and we here in this

place, or at least this member from this seat and maybe even

representing the two other seats to my left here, respect the fact that

the Mayors Council has a job that it will do.

It will sit down, and it will take a look at what the Mayors

Council ten-year plan will be. It will maybe revise some of those

things. Maybe it won’t. Maybe it will come forward and say: “Look, we

still stand on this plan that we’ve got.” I expect that for the most

part, we’re going to hear that the vast majority of that Mayors Council

plan is going to be moved forward. There might be some amendments, and

that’s the job they have to do.

To have members opposite here stand up and speak on behalf of the

Mayors Council, like has been going on in the last few days, to me is,

frankly, completely inappropriate. It should be called out for that. The

mayor of Surrey will stand up and speak on behalf of what he heard

during the election and speak on behalf of his constituents. But

frankly, he’s got a very important job ahead as he and his new council

sit down.

Unless things have changed since I got from the council table just

a few short years ago, the mayor has to also reflect the will of his

council. As well, the Mayors Council, which is the broader group in

Metro…. The chair of that Mayors Council will have to reflect the will

of the council in its entirety.

It’s really critical here that we’re not standing up in this place

and inappropriately reflecting views that I think have yet to be

formulated, frankly. I find that very problematic.

[3:05 p.m.]

To the point of increasing the cost on parking, the reality is

that the world is changing. The former member who spoke was the former

Minister of Transportation. The fact that during his time in this place

as the Minister of Transportation…. That we don’t have ride-hailing, to

me, is absolutely ridiculous.

The fact that that was allowed to just continue to go on the way

it was, that we’re not providing people in our society, people in the

Lower Mainland, the answers to the transportation questions that they

have, the needs that they have…. Then you can stand in this place and

talk about what the cost of this is going to be.

What’s the cost of congestion for those families? What’s the cost

of congestion for a father or a mother, my peer group, who are sitting

in their car because they couldn’t get access to the right kind of

transportation infrastructure because the former government wouldn’t

make those investments in improving the transit system? They’re sitting

in their car while the dance class is going on or while the soccer

practice is going on.

We hear a lot of bluster about it, but the fact of the matter is

that there’s an incredible cost to congestion. While we’re here fighting

for more parking, we’re not making the investments and the decisions

that are needed to generate the revenue to invest right back into the

community in transportation and transit.

We look across North America, and we see other metro areas that

have been able to do this in a responsible, respectful way, been able to

generate the revenue that’s necessary to invest back in. This is what

Bill 46 starts to do. It starts to recognize that we are actually in a

changing world.

I know that some members opposite don’t like to admit that the

world is changing. They’d like to just see the world remain in the

status quo, the same way that it’s always been for the last 16 years or

whatever it was, to just stay right where it was.

The fact of the matter is that the world is changing. We have got

to get on with being a part of that world that’s changing and not dig

our heels in and still fight for the same old things that we’ve been

fighting for, like the dinosaur world. We need to actually start to

embrace the change that’s here. This is one part of it. Transit will be

a major part of the changes ahead.

I’m going to sit down. I think that, from my comments, you might

sense that I and my colleagues will be supporting this bill. Thank you

for the opportunity to speak to it.

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

debate.

Hon. S. Robinson: I really appreciated hearing the various perspectives in this

House. I just want to take two minutes to close off here.

I really want to express appreciation for the member for Saanich

North and the Islands, who asked a very good question. The question is:

what’s the cost of congestion? It has a real cost. When he said that and

he talked about the mother and the father and the car and missing the

dance class…. There are nods, certainly, on this side of the House,

because I think it’s exactly what people have experienced. They

experience it today.

I can remember that cost when my children were in daycare —

working in Kerrisdale and having to get right across into Coquitlam

because there were no transit options. Congestion was pretty

significant. The promise of investments in the Port Mann Bridge promised

me that there would be no more congestion. Well, that certainly didn’t

happen. There was significant congestion.

It cost a dollar a minute that I was late, so it had some real,

tangible costs when I was trapped in congestion and couldn’t get to my

children. It wasn’t just missing a dance class or missing a soccer

practice. It also cost me dearly in the times that I was trapped in

congestion.

We’ve committed to working together with the Mayors Council and

with TransLink to deliver on significant transit infrastructure that has

been missing for years. We’re about a decade behind in terms of where we

should be at.

The opposition member talked about businesses. Well, businesses

and their customers will benefit greatly from the investments in transit

and transportation projects that are going to be funded with this new

parking rights tax revenue. We also need to remember that the Mayors

Council and TransLink went out and did a significant consultation. They

talked with businesses. This is their plan that they put forward in

order to raise the kind of revenue that we need in order to invest in

transportation.

[3:10 p.m.]

This is an investment. It’s an investment so that we don’t all

suffer the costs of congestion. It matches quite well what we’ve done

around also making sure that we remove bridge tolls, which were

essentially a tax for people south of the Fraser, and in line with

getting rid of MSP, which was another tax that we eliminated.

We’re working hard to make sure that British Columbians have the

opportunities to get home to be with their families in a timely way.

That’s what this is about at the end of the day.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 46.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be referred to a Com­mittee of the

Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 46, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority

Amendment Act (No. 2), 2018, read a second time and referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after

today.

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

Protection Act.

BILL 48 — TEMPORARY FOREIGN WORKER

PROTECTION

ACT

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

As Minister of Labour, it is my job to ensure that the B.C.

employment standards and the worker safety laws are understood, followed

and enforced, to ensure that the workers are treated fairly and with

respect. This includes workers that come here from outside of

Canada.

B.C.’s workforce is bolstered by international workers. Our

economy and our province are stronger and more diverse because of these

workers. But temporary foreign workers can be vulnerable to abuse. The

people that come to us as tem­porary foreign workers come seeking

opportunities that don’t exist at home. They apply or are recruited to

fill jobs that would otherwise go empty, jobs that without workers would

shut down businesses, scale down businesses in orchards, restaurants,

retail, service sectors, construction, hotels and live-in care

facilities.

I remember how I felt as a newcomer to this country. You have

challenges with the language. You have challenges with the system. You

have no clue who to turn to, what laws protect you, because you are

still thinking about your old country and how those types of situations

are handled there. In many countries, the workers’ voices are not

heard.

I clearly understand that. Temporary foreign workers face even

greater challenges, different than many who come to Canada for a better

life, because the work permits are tied to one single employer. They

know that if they lose their job, the next thing is deportation. The

thousands of dollars that they paid to come here for that job — and

their family depended on that — would be forever lost.

These temporary foreign workers often pay recruiters illegal fees

for the promise of a job, and they arrive here with­out a safety

net. Once here, they are sometimes underpaid or not paid at all,

sometimes working or living in conditions that are unfit and unsafe,

sometimes bullied or intimidated by employers that threaten to deport

them if they don’t comply with their demands. Sometimes passports are

illegally taken so people feel trapped.

If you have paid thousands to get here for a promised job, if you

and your family’s financial well-being depend on it, if you don’t know

that our laws extend to all workers regardless of your immigration

status, or if you don’t have the language skills to ask for help or are

afraid of the repercussions if you do, you remain in these situations

that should never exist in the first place.

[3:15 p.m.]

This is unacceptable. For far too long, their unique situation and

vulnerability to abuse have been overlooked. As a government, we are

stepping up to increase provincial oversight that will help prevent

these situations of abuse. That’s what the Temporary Foreign Worker

Protection Act will enable us to do — to better protect vulnerable

workers in B.C.

Yes, the temporary foreign worker program is federal. Yes, the

issues can span multiple ministries, including Health, Housing and,

within the Ministry of Labour, employment standards and occupational

health and safety. But the province has an important role to play, one

that has been overlooked for far too long and at the expense of far too

many.

As a host province, we need to ensure that those coming here feel

equally protected as any other worker would. This legislation is needed

because foreign workers who come to work in our province under the

temporary foreign worker program have a work permit that does not let

them leave their employer and work elsewhere. This has led to situations

of foreign workers feeling they must endure violations of the law in

order to stay working in B.C. That is not acceptable.

The Ministry of Labour is where we can make a change with direct

impact, where we can address many of the issues of injustices — first,

by requiring foreign worker recruiters to be licensed. Licensing will

require recruiters to be responsible for all work entrusted to their

employees, partners, affiliates and agents, including those based in

other countries. The far-reaching nature of this licensing requirement

in legislation is unique in Canada, and it will help to ensure the

recruitment process complies with B.C. laws from start to

finish.

For a licensed recruiter, you will not only need to comply with

the law, but you will need to act with integrity and honesty. Licensed

recruiters will be made public, on line, so that employers and workers

will know which recruiters will meet the standards.

Second, we are requiring employers who hire temporary foreign

workers to be registered with our province. That means that if you are

an employer who wants to hire a foreign worker, you must be registered

with the province before moving ahead with a labour market impact

assessment with the federal government.

Right now, because responsibility for the well-being of foreign

workers is spread throughout many agencies and jurisdictions, it can be

difficult to get the needed information to hold exploitive or abusive

employers accountable. This registry will allow us to allow which

employers are hiring foreign workers. It will also provide the tools to

allow us to gain new information that will help to prevent abuse and

provide practical and meaningful solutions.

For example, if we learn of temporary foreign workers housed in

unsafe living conditions, the registry can serve as a hub to alert other

ministries and agencies like Health and WorkSafeBC. On top of that, this

legislation allows us to proactively monitor, audit and investigate

workplaces to ensure compliance with the law. Because, as I have said,

we have all heard the stories about recruiters and employers who take

advantage of vulnerable people trying to make a better life in our

province.

When I go back into my constituency office…. I’m sure those in the

Lower Mainland and other places, all MLAs from both sides, have heard

these stories — how temporary foreign workers, first, have paid tens of

thousands of dollars in their home country to a recruiter. Then when

they come here, they pay additional tens of thousands of dollars to a

recruiter here, and that money then is shared with the potential

employer.

Many times you’ve heard stories that the jobs that they are

promised, with tens of thousands of dollars, don’t even exist. If they

do, they’re not paid according to what they were promised in that

contract, if at all.

In 2018, in British Columbia, in Canada, that should never have

been allowed to happen. But it happened under the watch of the previous

government. This was brought to them time and again by their advocates,

by the workers themselves, by the opposition, by the public, but those

pleas for help were ignored.

[3:20 p.m.]

Why, you have to ask yourself, in British Columbia, in this day

and age, did you allow some kind of slavery under your watch? We said no

to this. We will not allow that anymore. That’s why we’re bringing in a

temporary foreign worker act.

How will this work? Recruiters and employers expressly will be

prohibited from charging foreign workers fees for recruitment services

and for employment — as I said, what they have been doing now —

misrepresenting employment opportunities, taking possession of a

person’s passport or other official documents, threatening deportation

and mistreating workers for filing a complaint or participating in an

investigation under the act.

Through licensing and registration, recruiters and

em­ployers will need to meet new requirements, including written

contracts for recruitment services, including details on the services

provided and fees charged. Foreign worker recruiters — to ensure that

their partners, affiliates or agents, including those located outside of

B.C., comply with the act, we will hold them accountable here in British

Columbia so that they comply with the act.

Recruiters and employers are to retain records related to foreign

workers for four years. When recruiters or employers are found to be in

violation of the law, this legislation will put enforcement tools in

place to deliver swift and severe consequences.

If you are a bad recruiter and are charging illegal fees to

workers to obtain a job, you could be stripped of your licence to

recruit in B.C. You could also pay a monetary penalty for your breach of

the law, and you will be made to repay the worker for those illegal

fees. If you are an employer who doesn’t maintain a safe workplace and

doesn’t comply with B.C. labour laws, you could be banned from hiring

foreign workers. On top of this, if you are convicted of an offence as a

recruiter or employer, you could even face up to a year in

jail.

For far too long, unscrupulous recruiters and employers have

gotten away with abusing foreign workers. This legislation allows us to

deliver penalties that match the seriousness of these offences.

Responsibility for administering the act — including licensing and

registration, maintaining the registries, investigation and enforcement

— will rest with the director of employment standards.

We know that most employers are good, fair and law-abiding in

their business practices. Most treat their workers with dignity and

respect. The same can be said about most recruiters. But the few that

don’t follow the rules garner an unfair competitive advantage over those

who do.

This act, the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, also puts

us on the side of good employers, because those bad apples — the bad

actors, a few of those employers and a few of those recruiters — take

unfair competitive advan­tage over good employers. We are creating

a level playing field to be on the side of good employers by holding

those bad apples accountable for their actions.

The temporary foreign worker act establishes greater authority to

address the issue unique to this particular workforce. It goes beyond

the requirement that currently exists within the Employment Standards

Act and other provincial legislation.

Once the legislation receives royal assent, the Minister of Labour

will take the next steps to establish the foreign worker recruiter and

employer registry. We are allowing time for implementing these new

registries to ensure this is a seamless transition. It is important to

me — and we have heard from various employers and advocacy groups that

it is important to them — that this registration be cost-free and

simple.

Good, law-abiding businesses are critical to our economy. They

drive our industries that contribute to our growth and competitiveness.

Our government is committed to helping them to succeed.

[3:25 p.m.]

With this legislation, we can both support our vital business

community and combat the illegal and abusive practices that have so

negatively impacted some of the temporary foreign workers who have come

to B.C. to help us grow our economy.

I look forward to the debate on this bill, Mr. Speaker. Thank you

very much for listening, but I must stress the point that in British

Columbia, regardless of your immigration status, every worker deserves

to have the same rights and protection. This legislation will help us do

that.

Too many stories of vulnerable workers have surfaced. Too many

complaints on how they’re mistreated at workplaces. You have heard

stories — a number of them crammed into one bedroom, forced to live in

there. You have stories that they weren’t paid according to what they

were promised or they weren’t paid at all. You have heard stories that

the Employment Standards Act wasn’t followed. You have heard stories

that they borrowed against their land, against their houses for a better

life, to pay illegally to those recruiters in their home country. They

paid illegally here in Canada to the recruiter and to the

employer.

I must say again…. I want to repeat that most employers and

recruiters are law-abiding citizens. They obey the law. They treat their

workers with respect and dignity. They pay fair wages. They take care of

their health and safety. But for those few who don’t, our message is

very clear: we’re watching. You can no longer get away with breaking our

laws. You can no longer get away with treating workers in British

Columbia with disrespect and jeopardizing their health and safety. You

can no longer get away with taking unfair advantage over good employers

by cheating your employees and breaking the law.

This legislation will move us in that direction. It’s about time

we provided these very, very vulnerable workers in British Columbia with

the protection that they’ve deserved for a long time, the protection

that they need. It’s our responsibility to make sure that we make some

responsible decisions here today so that moving forward, it will be

known that we did not ignore injustice here in British Columbia towards

our vulnerable workers.

J. Martin: Thank you to the minister for that. Happy to follow the minister

to speak to Bill 48, the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection

Act.

Clearly, every one of us in this House, on both sides, to the

front and to the back of this chamber, all thoroughly agree that it’s

every British Columbian’s right to come home safe and sound at the end

of the workday, regardless of what the jobsite may entail. It’s why,

when we were on the government side of the House, we worked very

diligently to reform WCB to ensure the safety of workers’ lives. I’m

very happy to see that the new government is following that initiative

and looking to further enhance the protection of workers.

Each and every one of us here believes that the right to come home

safe at the end of the day, though, extends to each and every single

person working in British Columbia, whether they are a citizen, a

permanent resident, belong to a union, don’t belong to a union, whether

they’re here on a work permit, whether they’re here on a temporary

foreign worker agreement or any other format whatsoever. That’s why,

generally speaking, I’m supportive of the bill, but there are questions

that do need to be explored during the committee stage, and there are

some issues that will be raised by my colleagues during the

debate.

First off, I’m very happy to see that the government sees the

value of temporary foreign workers. There were many occasions in the

previous term, the previous parliament, where we got the impression from

the then opposition that temporary foreign workers were not welcome in

British Columbia. It’s nice to see that there has been a change of heart

on that from the government since they’ve taken office. I’m glad to see

that they do now see the value of temporary foreign workers.

[3:30 p.m.]

We take this bill as a recognition of just how important the

program is to British Columbia families and to the economy of this great

province, and that we need to have a flexible immigration stream such as

the temporary foreign worker program, one of many programs.

This program tackles labour and skills shortages and can help keep

British Columbians employed because the employers can find the staff

that they need. Last year 47,620 work permits were issued for foreign

nationals aiming to come to British Columbia. A full 35 percent of

those, the exact number being 16,865, were under the temporary foreign

worker program.

Those individuals coming here tend to be heavily concentrated in

the Lower Mainland. A full 83 percent of those temporary foreign workers

went to the Lower Mainland. About 5 percent went to the

Thompson-Okanagan, and another 4 percent to Vancouver Island and the

coast.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

We can see that to one extent or another, every region in the

province is served by the temporary foreign worker program. Clearly

there are going to be ebbs and flows, depending on the time of year and

what type of projects are underway in different

jurisdictions.

Of those coming to Canada on temporary foreign worker permits,

many of them were students — young people from other countries coming to

explore this great province, seek out opportunities and get a little bit

of internationalization in their resumé and their work

history.

Among these students, some were already highly skilled workers,

such as those at Microsoft. They came from literally all around the

globe to train and to eventually move to company offices in different

countries. Some of those here on temporary foreign worker permits

decided they like what they do and they like what they see, and they

would enter into the immigration stream to maybe one day have the luxury

of being able to call British Columbia home.

It is critical that at all points in time, we take every effort to

protect these people, whether they’re here temporarily or they’re here

on a path to permanency. First and foremost, we all believe in the right

to a safe workplace.

It’s also important to ensure that those temporary foreign workers

have the best experience possible, because when they do return home, in

effect, they’re actually ambassadors, pseudo-ambassadors, for our

province and this country. The better the experience they have here, the

more enhanced our reputation will continue to grow around the

world.

The licensing, the penalties and the registries envisioned by this

bill have the potential to strengthen that and to further ensure it.

That is why — as I’ve already alluded to — generally, I do support the

legislation, the bill before us., but there are some specific questions

and specific answers that we do need to address to see that this’ll be

effective. Those will be explored further on in committee, and some of

them will be raised in this House this afternoon.

For one thing, for example, we need to make sure that the registry

and the rules about the registry result in real protection for those

with a temporary foreign worker permit and that these aren’t just

regulations and rules for the sake of having more regulations and rules.

We want to be able to ensure that they’re going to do what they’re set

out to do. We have to make sure that the rules work for the temporary

foreign workers and for the employers and that this doesn’t just simply

become another layer of red tape in a regulatory regime that requires

more regulators and expenses.

We also need to explore the impact of the legislation on hiring

practices, especially for industries such as food services and

construction, which rely on the temporary foreign worker program to

access the skills and talent they need to keep their operations going.

Even more critically, we need to know that this will be done to spread

the word of these changes so that should this bill become law, the

impact of it, the effect of it and the changes of the environment will

be known to all. This is one of the issues that we’ll need to explore,

because many of those coming here under the temporary foreign worker

Susanna Quail of the Migrant Workers Centre has already expressed

a concern that vulnerable migrants need to be educated as to their

rights. It’s not enough just to have those rights on paper. There has to

be a process of educating those that those rights are designed to

protect. Otherwise, they will not have an opportunity to exercise them,

and some of the stories that we’ve heard that do speak to abuse and

exploitative conditions in the workplace could possibly be allowed to

continue.

[3:35 p.m.]

It’s critical that there be a process to communicate these rights

to the vulnerable migrants and that we’re able to clamp down on

workplaces that do not have a favourable track record in this regard.

may find it difficult to be aware of the protections that do exist for

them. This is extremely crucial.

When the government announced this bill with a news release, it

was translated to Punjabi, and the Chinese translation came a day later.

Should this bill become law, it would be nice to see more done in that

particular regard. This may extend to the on-line version of these

protections. Are they going to be accessible in Filipino? Are they going

to be accessible to people in different parts of the world in their

languages?

I’ve got a great deal of time for the regulatory regime that goes

into being a temporary foreign worker. I was one myself in Japan for

eight months. I benefited enormously from that experience, and I was

treated wonderfully there. I would expect that we would want all

temporary foreign workers coming into this country to have as favourable

and memorable an experience as I was so fortunate to undertake a number

of years ago.

Along with my colleagues, I look forward to reviewing this

legislation in more detail. I look forward to sitting across the aisle

from the minister in committee and going through it a little more

thoroughly. Together, on both sides of this House, I’m sure we all agree

that we want this bill to be the very best that it can be.

We want to help everyone to ensure that they get home safely at

the end of the day and that these recruiters and employers that are

unscrupulous, that do take advantage of vulnerable workers, that do not

follow best practices — or, in some cases, even minimal practices — that

we have a way to shut them down.

I thank the minister for bringing this forward. Thank you for the

opportunity to have my contribution to the debate.

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in second reading debate on Bill 48,

Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act,

an act that’s been introduced

by the minister to ensure protection for temporary foreign

workers.

I rise to speak in support of this bill. Like the member for

Chilliwack, we, too, raised a number of questions and concerns that I

hope to see or be explored further in committee stage. Overall, I think

this is good legislation and takes us generally in the right

direction.

Temporary foreign workers play a critical role in our economy and

our society, whether they’re working in the agriculture sector or as

home care aides, or whether they’re filling seasonal employment. For

example, recently, many of us attended the Union of B.C. Municipalities

meeting in Whistler. The hotel I was staying at largely employed

temporary foreign workers from New Zealand and Australia, who clearly

were coming to British Columbia to gain some experience and gain some

expertise in skiing.

I had a great deal in common with them. When I was their age, I

was a temporary foreign worker in Australia. I was there for a year,

getting the better of the surf and the sand and the Aussie rules

football. It was a very rewarding experience for me back in 1988, as I’m

sure it was for those young people in Whistler today.

Temporary foreign workers play many critical roles in such trades

with seasonal employment. For many, actually, we find that it’s a

pathway for eventual citizenship. Canada, as a nation built on the hard

work of immigrants, welcomes new Canadians on an ongoing basis. In fact,

just this morning, a young boy in grade 5 at a school that was visiting

this Legislature, from Glenlyon, in my riding, just literally became a

Canadian citizen. This was a very big deal for him — that today he

became Canadian.

[3:40 p.m.]

Temporary foreign workers come to B.C. through multiple programs,

including the temporary foreign worker program, the seasonal

agricultural worker program and the international mobility program. As

the member for Chilliwack pointed out, in 2017 alone, the federal

government issued over 47,000 work permits for foreign nationals

destined for B.C., and 17,000 of these were for temporary foreign

workers.

We’re second only to Ontario in terms of the total number of

temporary foreign work permits that have been issued. Industries like

agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunt­ing account for nearly

half of the temporary foreign workers in British Columbia — like 9,000

workers. Eighty-three percent of those permits are located in the Lower

Mainland, 5 percent in Thompson-Okanagan and 4 percent on Vancouver

Island.

Again, as somebody…. When I was at the University of Victoria and

my wife was also faculty there, and we had young children, we too took

advantage of the temporary foreign worker program and were able to bring

to Canada a now Canadian, somebody who was working in Hong Kong as a

nanny. She was able to come to British Columbia on such a caregiver

program and spend three years with us before becoming a Canadian

citizen. Now she’s married here. She’s contributing to the Canadian

economy. Her husband is here as well.

We benefited greatly, as a family, from being able to bring a

temporary foreign worker here. I’m sure other members in this chamber

have similar stories about the importance of temporary foreign

workers.

One of my son’s friends had very serious health issues and

required 24-hour care — his father did, rather — in the home. Again,

that care was provided by live-in, temporary foreign workers, 24 hours a

day. Again, it was simply not possible to find Canadians who would be

able or willing to serve in such a capacity. Again, in this case, we had

a loving home. Temporary foreign workers come, spend a few years and are

now Canadian, contributing to our economy and bringing their rich,

diverse cultures to Victoria, in this case, but British Columbia and

Canada in general.

However, not everyone has the kind of employer that provides a

nurturing, safe environment. Temporary foreign workers can be amongst

some of the most vulnerable in our society. In a new country, many will

face a language barrier. They may be unfamiliar with their rights and

our laws, and they are at risk for exploitation and abuse.

For this reason, the legislation before us is important to

support, because it addresses this particular aspect. It begins to put

in place a means and a mechanism to actually ensure that temporary

foreign workers are not exploited. The legislation will improve

protection for workers and the accountability of recruiters and

employers.

For example, it will do a couple of things. It’ll create two

registries, one for foreign worker recruiters and one for foreign worker

employers, via a cost-free — that’s important — on-line process. It’ll

also allow government to recover and return to workers illegal fees

charged by recruiters. In particular, government could impose tougher

penalties for noncompliance, including a loss of licence or

registration, financial penalties — $50,000 for an individual, $100,000

for a corporation; that’s an awful lot of money — and up to one year

imprisonment.

The legislation will improve government information about

temporary foreign workers, and recruiters and em­ployers will also

be required to disclose their relationships with recruiter organizations

in various companies.

These are important, some of these changes. We know of, or we’ve

heard stories of, examples where recruiters collect a fee from temporary

foreign workers. They end up working here. There are examples. We’ve

heard stories of where passports are held from temporary foreign

workers, and exploitation sets in.

Much of this bill, obviously, is modelled after the employer

standards act, and it follows the lead of other jurisdictions, like

Manitoba and Saskatchewan, which already have temporary foreign worker

registries in place. Last week one of our press gallery, Les Leyne,

reported out that B.C. is considered to be well behind the pack in

upholding standards and pursuing complaints. This was reported out in

one of his articles he wrote. It is important to note that this

legislation does actually deal with bringing us in line with some of the

other jurisdictions.

[3:45 p.m.]

In 2018, the B.C. budget for the Minister of Labour received a $3

million increase in funding over three years to support initiatives for

compliance and enforcement, improve protections for vulnerable workers

and support fair and balanced treatment of workers and employers in B.C.

Within that context, we know that the legislation coming before us is

legislation that has got moneys associated with it to ensure that it’s

delivered in a manner that will actually meet the objectives it’s being

put together to address.

Most recruiters and employers will seek to do their best for

employees. We know that. But this legislation is targeting those who try

to skirt the rules a little bit to ensure that unsafe working and living

conditions, for example, are dealt with and that temporary foreign

workers cannot be treated inappropriately for fear that by complaining

about their jobs, they might lose their jobs, might be sent home in

debt. There’s a whole bunch of issues that are being dealt with here for

which this bill is trying to ensure safe conditions exist.

This bill will require registration of recruiters and employers

who seek out and hire temporary foreign workers. It will require them to

register. By doing so, the government will be able to identify and

respond to bad operators for the benefit of all stakeholders involved.

In essence, this levels the playing field for both employers and

recruiters by addressing the few bad operators out there who take

advantage of temporary foreign workers and, hence, reap the

benefit.

When this first came in, I feared that this bill to establish the

temporary foreign worker registry would have created an unfair burden

for employers — not so much the bigger employers but the small

employers, perhaps a spouse who’s looking for help, a caregiver, for

their ailing partner or a family who’s looking for a caregiver for their

child.

Small business. I was initially concerned that this might be

regulatory red tape and oversight and cost. I was reassured after

receiving a briefing from the ministry that this is indeed not the case.

The fact that it’s free is not a financial burden. And the fact is that

it’s looking like it’ll be an on-line process that’ll take 15 minutes or

so to fill out, in terms of the registry. It seems to me that that’s not

onerous in light of the fact that, as an employer of a temporary foreign

worker in a caregiver capacity, you already have to register for a GIC

number. You have to register with CPP and EI deductions, etc. So this is

relatively pale in comparison to what already exists.

Overall, I am pleased with this legislation. Again, creating a

safer environment and a safer experience for temporary foreign workers

will have a net positive impact on B.C. I will also agree with the

member for Chilliwack who spoke about some of the work that was done by

the previous government in this area.

I remember very fondly working with the then Minister of Jobs, I

guess it was, now the member for Prince George–​Valemount.

Together and collectively, we were able to introduce legislative change

to no longer make it allowable for an employer in British Columbia to

require an employee to wear high heels or footwear otherwise deemed to

be unsafe.

In fact, I can tell you that if you go to bars around this area,

you’ll find that most people are no longer wearing high heels. Very

often people come up and are very pleased by that legislation.

Government listened, government responded, and now you’ve got soft flats

happening in bars across British Columbia. That’s actually an important

health and safety achievement that we’ve got here.

Finally, I’ll say that I do commend the minister for looking out

for workers. But I hope the minister can also recognize that we have to

look out for not only temporary foreign workers but our own workers here

in British Columbia. The fact is that British Columbia is dragging its

heels in terms of introducing legislation or introducing, now,

orders-in-council to actually address the presumptive clause for mental

illness in a number of professions. Frankly, we could follow the lead of

some provinces and actually assume a presumptive clause for all mental

illness for all workers covered under the workmen’s compensation

board.

[3:50 p.m.]

The reason is, of course, that if you have exposure to a mental

illness, having to recant and retell your stories time and time again in

order to prove that it is your workforce that actually caused that

mental illness can be very onerous and, frankly, can be detrimental to

the overall well-being and subsequent recovery of workers in

B.C.

I look forward to further efforts that the Minister of Labour will

have in this regard in the weeks and months ahead and thank him for this

initial legislation to protect temporary foreign workers.

With that, I’ll take my place.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and speak in favour of Bill 48, the

Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act. It’s been a long time

coming.

This act, basically, will deal with enforcing employment standards

that we have in place and that do cover all workers. But because of the

marginalized and the vulnerable status of many temporary foreign

workers, it’s often very difficult for them to assert their rights and

for them to be protected here in British Columbia.

We’ve heard from a number of speakers. I just want to talk about

the context. British Columbia, our province…. The temporary foreign

worker program is a federal program under the federal government. The

federal government sets the parameters, and they enforce the immigration

side. But in British Columbia, we are tasked with ensuring that our

employment standards are upheld. That is putting in place means to

ensure that those laws and regulations are enforced.

For many years, temporary foreign workers and other workers have

been falling through the cracks and not able to leave exploitive

situations. We really have a situation now where there’s just a culture

of immunity for those few employers. The majority of employers respect

workers and treat them respectfully, but it is those few that don’t want

to abide by the rules, and for many years, they haven’t had

to.

I’ve heard cases of just across-the-board, terrible, terrible

stories of exploitation of temporary foreign workers that many members

of the House have talked about. Globally, we have a global situation

where we see the increasing commodification of labour and an increasing

shift towards a temporary force of workers. Certainly in Canada, we’ve

seen that increase over the last 15 years.

In British Columbia, the pattern has been predominantly workers

and folks coming to Canada and to our province as permanent residents.

Certainly, that’s our history of immigration here in Canada. But we’ve

seen a shift in the last 15 years in British Columbia. We see the rise

in the use of temporary foreign workers, characterized by

marginalization, characterized by restricted access to permanent

residency. This characterized the key vulnerabilities, which I’m pleased

Bill 48 addresses — the key factors that contribute to the

vulnerability.

The special vulnerability of these workers is that their

immigration status is tied to their employer. Their work permits are

tied to their employer. If they have a problem with a bad employer, it’s

difficult for them to leave, because often the employers can say: “Well,

if you’re going to complain, we’re going to have you deported.” So it’s

a real deterrent in terms of stepping forward.

That’s one problem, and also the restriction in terms of gaining

permanent residency. Those are two key structural problems that

contribute to the precarious nature of temporary foreign workers. Bill

48, I think, can be characterized as the strongest step forward to

ensure that all workers in British Columbia have their full rights under

employment standards and that we bring an end and we enforce our labour

standards and ensure that there are penalties in place as a deterrent

against these employers and recruiters who would exploit these workers.

So I’m pleased about that.

I’ve been familiar with care