Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, May 19, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 75

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

B.C. Family Doctor Day

S. Chandra Herbert

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Tamil genocide remembrance

M. Elmore

Cardiovascular health and Ride for Heart event

S. Bond

Political studies class at Brookswood Secondary School

A. Mercier

Child care providers

K. Kirkpatrick

Surrey Food Bank

G. Begg

Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue

G. Kyllo

Oral Questions

Government transparency and application of freedom-of-information legislation

S. Bond

Hon. J. Horgan

Hon. R. Kahlon

T. Stone

P. Milobar

International Energy Agency report and status of LNG industry

S. Furstenau

Hon. B. Ralston

COVID-19 response for tourism attractions and community events

C. Oakes

Hon. M. Mark

M. Lee

Hon. J. Horgan

T. Halford

Hon. R. Kahlon

T. Wat

L. Doerkson

Tabling Documents

Office of the superintendent of professional governance, annual report, 2020-21

B.C. Utilities Commission, annual report, 2019-20

WorkSafeBC, annual report, 2020, and service plan, 2021–2023

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 13 — Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021 (continued)

G. Kyllo

Hon. H. Bains

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 5 — InBC Investment Corp. Act (continued)

T. Stone

Hon. R. Kahlon

S. Furstenau

Reporting of Bills

Bill 5 — InBC Investment Corp. Act

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — InBC Investment Corp. Act

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. D. Eby

C. Oakes

M. de Jong

S. Furstenau

B. Bailey

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 13 — Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021 (continued)

Hon. H. Bains

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — InBC Investment Corp. Act (continued)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education

Hon. J. Whiteside

J. Tegart

S. Bond

S. Cadieux

R. Merrifield

D. Ashton

L. Doerkson

T. Stone

P. Milobar

K. Kirkpatrick

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation (continued)

T. Shypitka

Hon. B. Ralston

S. Bond

A. Olsen

WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2021

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. S. Malcolmson.

Introductions by Members

A. Singh: I rise with great pride as I introduce to this House a proud resident

of Richmond and a constituent in the area that I represent, Arjan Bhullar.

He’s wrestled for Canada in the Olympic, Commonwealth and Pan American

Games. But Richmond’s Arjan Bhullar is celebrating his greatest win

yet.

On Saturday, the B.C.-born fighter was crowned ONE Championship’s

Mixed Martial Arts World Champion, after defeating reigning heavyweight king

Brandon Vera at the second-round TKO. He’s made Richmond, B.C. and, indeed,

Canada proud. Please join me in congratulating Arjan.

Statements

B.C. FAMILY DOCTOR DAY

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, today is B.C. Family Doctor Day. I just wanted to thank all

of our family doctors across B.C. for keeping us so safe and well. Many

of them are watching today, if they’re not too busy. As we know, they’re

very busy these days.

Please join me in giving thanks to them for what they do for so

many of us in our communities. Happy Family Doctor Day.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

TAMIL GENOCIDE REMEMBRANCE

M. Elmore: On May 18, Tamils around the world came together to commemorate

Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day. In Canada, the National Council of

Canadian Tamils, along with other organizations, will be holding events

during the month of May to bring awareness to the genocide. Yesterday

there was an event at the Vancouver Art Gallery. The Tamil community in

Canada is one of the largest concentrations of Tamils outside of

Southeast Asia.

Genocide by the Sri Lankan state was perpetrated against the

Tamils during a civil war from 1983 to 2009. At least 150,000 Tamils

lost their lives, and over one million Tamils left their country. This

year marks 12 years since the height of the Tamil genocide that took

place in Mullivaikkal, Sri Lanka. The United Nations estimates that at

that location, 75,000 innocent civilians were murdered.

Genocide is the deliberate and organized killing of a group or a

group of people, with the intention of destroying their identity as an

ethnic, cultural or religious group. Despite the end of the conflict in

2009 in Sri Lanka, the human rights environment continues to deteriorate

in a climate of impunity due to the lack of an independent judiciary and

ongoing human rights abuses.

By recognizing the Tamil genocide, we affirm our collective desire

to maintain awareness of this genocide and other genocides that have

occurred in world history, in order to prevent such crimes against

humanity from happening again. Until such time that these crimes are

investigated and prosecuted and there is accountability for these

wartime atrocities, there will not be justice.

I ask all members of the House to stand in solidarity with the

Tamil people for long-term peace, justice, ac­countability and

reconciliation on the island of Sri Lanka.

CARDIOVASCULAR HEALTH

AND RIDE FOR HEART

EVENT

S. Bond: Did you know that every five minutes someone in Canada dies from

heart disease, stroke or vascular cognitive impairment? Here in B.C. and

across the country, Heart and Stroke is leading the fight to ensure that

people have the information and support they need so that fewer people

lose their lives or their quality of life as a result of heart disease

or stroke.

[1:40 p.m.]

Now, I’m sure that many members in this House have actually

participated in the original Big Bike Ride to raise funds for heart and

stroke. But like most things in our lives, as a result of COVID-19, this

year’s Manulife Heart and Stroke Ride for Heart on June 6 will be very

different. Teams are being asked to ride, walk or run a heart-shaped

route and to be sure to do it safely. There’s even a Ride for Heart

mobile app to help enhance your virtual experience. You can earn

achievement badges and rewards and even create your own virtual heart

map for event day. Everyone who participates becomes a partner by

raising funds to support world-class research that will save lives right

across Canada.

Team Bond will be doing their part again this year. We are very

grateful for team captain Shawn Rice and his wife, Lisa, who are

passionate about the ride because their son has had two open-heart

surgeries. Our family has received a great deal of support from Heart

and Stroke, and we will be participating again this year to show our

gratitude for the care we received on Bill’s journey, with both heart

and stroke. I am very proud of the dedicated team members who have

ridden with us for many years. They are truly

difference-makers.

I want to encourage all MLAs to consider getting in­volved

in the virtual Ride for Heart. It is a chance to share your heart with

thousands of other Canadians. It’s not too late to plan your own

heart-shaped route and run, walk or ride to help beat heart disease and

stroke.

POLITICAL STUDIES CLASS AT

BROOKSWOOD SECONDARY

SCHOOL

A. Mercier: Recently I had the opportunity to attend Katie Glover’s political

studies class at Brookswood Secondary School in my constituency of

Langley and speak to grade 11 and 12 students about politics and about

government.

It’s the second time I’ve been to Ms. Glover’s class. The

first was during the election, when she hosted an all-candidates forum

for myself and my fellow candidates for the students ahead of the

students’ vote. I remember thinking at that time, during the election,

that the questions that were asked at that all-candidates forum were

some of the best and most insightful questions that were put to me

during the campaign.

This last visit lived up to that standard. I was asked great

questions by a group of incredible students — Aarne, Jessie, Logan,

Kaydence, Jorri, Emma, Bob and, of course, my friend from Twitter,

River.

They asked, I think, questions that are on every young person’s

mind. If you think back to being a student, the main preoccupation of

most students is moving out of their parents’ house. They were concerned

about housing affordability, the cost of rent, making sure there’s

student housing, tuition. They were concerned, as young drivers, about

gas prices. We had a great conversation about all of those things. They

also asked me a question I get asked everywhere I go in Langley — and

no, it’s not about my hair, although one student, Bob, did have some

questions — about SkyTrain and how excited they are about the SkyTrain

to Langley.

They also asked a host of insightful questions about what it means

to be a public representative and the ma­chinery of government. I

think that is a testament to the leadership of Katie Glover and the work

she is doing at Brookswood Secondary with those students. She is an

example of civic leadership and community engagement for, I think, all

of us.

I’d like to thank them for the invitation. It was nice of them to

extend an invitation to a proud LSS grad, and I’m hoping they’ll invite

me back.

CHILD CARE PROVIDERS

K. Kirkpatrick: May is Child Care Month, and tomorrow, May 20, is Child Care

Provider Appreciation Day in British Columbia. Children are an integral

part of society, and those who look after them are also an integral part

of society. Child care providers, daycare operators, early childhood

educators and other daycare workers play a crucial role in our

children’s development. They help lay the foundation for education and

discovery for the rest of a child’s life.

[1:45 p.m.]

I’m going to borrow parts of a poem I found by Steph­anie

Staples called “A Tribute to Early Childhood

Educa­tors.”

Dear child care worker, forgive me. I’ve been very

neglect.

You see, I’m wrapped up in my own world, and it’s a bit of

a wreck.

Forgive me for grabbing my child and not stopping to

say

how many things I should thank you for each day.

For taking

my child, leaving me guilt-free,

for instilling the values that are

important to me.

For cleaning up spills and wiping up

messes,

for cleaning the boo-boos and bearing my stresses.

For

putting up with the sneezes, the dribbles and cries,

for staying

here late when I get stuck in traffic.

I know your job is quite

undervalued,

quite underappreciated and quite undersalaried.

only guess is you do what you do

for the love of the kids who also

love you.

Thank you for being my daily right arm

and keeping my

children away from all harm.

For caring and loving and sharing and

more.

For all that you do, I thank you some more.

So the poem is light, but the job is not. Investing in a system

that values and supports its child care providers is critical to high

quality and accessible child care systems. Caring for children can be

exhausting as well as rewarding. But with many caring professions, we

sometimes rely too heavily on a person’s altruistic commitment to their

job.

I’d like to thank all of the dedicated people of British Columbia

who are committed to the care and safety of our young people.

SURREY FOOD BANK

G. Begg: “We pride ourselves in supplying nutritious food in a respectful

and dignified environment. In addition, we believe it is our

responsibility to connect our clients to other community services as a

means of helping them become self-sufficient. We take pride that we

invite, inform, involve and inspire our community.”

That’s part of the vision statement of the Surrey Food Bank, which

last week held their annual Breakfast with the Bank. It was an amazing

success, with over $57,000 and counting raised. I, along with other

supporters, joined virtually to celebrate, donate and to support this

vital community organization that has served Surrey and North Delta for

38 years.

In June 1983, the Surrey Food Bank Society was formed and opened

in a dilapidated building on what was then the King George Highway. The

location and the society itself were seen as temporary measures that

would only be required until the economy turned around and people could

get back on their feet.

That temporary solution to a temporary problem has now grown to a

23,000-square-foot facility in Newton, three community depots, a fleet

of five vehicles, three lift trucks, more than 200 active volunteers and

a core staff of 15. The Surrey Food Bank currently distributes food to

approximately 1,200 families each week and has expanded its reach by

providing food and household items to the schools, shelters, missions

and transition houses that are serving the vulnerable

population.

This type of growth doesn’t happen overnight and certainly doesn’t

happen without the support of a community that truly cares about its

residents. It is clear that there is a crucial need for the Surrey Food

Bank services, especially in these uncertain times. But it’s also clear

that those who drive the organization, namely donors, staff and

volunteers, are all committed to meeting this need. For that, I applaud

and thank them.

Pope Francis said it best: “You pray for the hungry. Then you feed

them. That’s the way prayer works.”

I know that every member in this House will join with me in

acknowledging and celebrating the Surrey Food Bank for providing

nourishing food for thriving communities free of poverty.

ROYAL CANADIAN MARINE

SEARCH AND

RESCUE

G. Kyllo: We all hope that we’ll never need to rely on them for their

services, but we are sure glad that they’re there when we head out onto

the water and an emergency arises. I’m talking, of course, about the

Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue, RCMSAR.

On Shuswap Lake, RCMSAR 106, based out of my hometown of Sicamous,

has been providing around-the-clock rescue services for nearly a decade.

Since 2012, they have undertaken over 300 missions totalling over 851

hours, 731 training exercises and 299 classroom training sessions. In

all, nearly 1,500 activities have been undertaken by RCMSAR volunteers,

representing over 4,200 hours of selfless contribution to the

region.

Station 106’s commitment to the Shuswap region also includes

hosting school programs, boating safety displays and inspections,

stocking life ring stations and manning the Shuswap’s Kids Don’t Float

kiosks, which loan personal floatation devices to tourists and

residents.

[1:50 p.m.]

Out of all of these statistics, I think that the most

im­pressive number by far is the 26,731 person-hours that station

106 volunteers have contributed to the Shuswap, exemplifying the amazing

work and protective services our marine search and rescue operations

offer to our region.

For those of us who do manage to get out onto the water this

summer, please don’t forget that the water can be a dangerous and

unpredictable place. Take the appropriate precautions, ensure you have

the appropriate PFDs and safety equipment for all occupants, and

practise good, safe boating sense at all times.

While I hope that I never require the assistance of the

professional team of RCMSAR volunteers, it gives me great comfort to

know that station 106 is always ready to search out and provide

assistance to those in need, both those who are out on the water and to

those many waterfront residences and communities around Shuswap

Lake.

Please join me in thanking station leader Rob Sutherland and his

incredible team at RCMSAR station 106 for their incredible work that

they have done and continue to do each and every day.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY

AND APPLICATION OF

FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION LEGISLATION

S. Bond: The Premier and his government have a transparency problem. There

was a buried report on long-term-care failures — COVID data that was

hidden until it was leaked. The Premier has refused to provide a full

public accounting for the delay in declaring COVID-19 outbreaks in

long-term care.

Now we learn that his government is attempting to shroud a

half-billion-dollar investment fund in secrecy. Yesterday the Jobs

Minister refused to commit to subjecting the InBC Crown corporation to

FOI legislation, so the pattern continues.

Will the Premier fix this obvious blunder, and direct his minister

to include InBC in

schedule 2 of the FOIPPA act?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her question. Just before

we give the field to the minister responsible, of course, this is a bill

that’s before the House, normally not the subject of question period.

But that’s fine.

I want to correct a couple of the points that the hon. member

made. First and foremost, she talked about hiding reports. No such thing

happened. A report was commissioned by the Ministry of Health, and when

it was received by the minister, it was made public.

Secondly, when it comes to the issues of outbreaks in

long-term-care facilities, I think the member has to re­member

that at that time…. As with all times over the past 15 months, we have

been working with the public, working with families, working with public

health officials, working with independent officers of the Legislature,

working with people like Isobel Mackenzie to try and find that balance

between compassion for those in long-term care who are looking at the

latter days of their life, and their families who want to spend time

with them.

At the very moment we were trying to put in place restrictions to

protect and keep people well in long-term care, others were saying we

needed to open up the doors so that families can spend quality time

together. I agree with that. Everyone in this House would agree with

that. But public health has to make those tough decisions. These were

not decisions made by the minister. They were not decisions made by me.

They were made by public health in the best interests of protecting our

seniors and making sure that we kept the transmission of COVID-19

suppressed.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: Thank you for the Premier for getting up. But the fact of the

matter is he carefully skipped over the fact that the report on

long-term-care failures was actually buried, until the media pressured

the minister to release it.

When it comes to decisions, a policy decision was made, and 192

people, after that decision was made, lost their lives. This government

promised a review, and it’s up to the Premier to deliver so that those

families have some degree of comfort.

I’m sure that the Premier is aware that the Information and

Privacy Commissioner today not just wrote a letter but, in fact, did a

media release about this government’s latest lack of transparency. It’s

related directly to the minister’s refusal to make InBC subject to FOI

legislation. So let’s be clear.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

S. Bond: The questions today are about a news release that was actually —

and an unprecedented one….

Mr. Speaker: Member, we can only ask these kinds of questions in a general way.

We can canvass it, but not in detail. We can’t have debate on the issue,

which is already in front of the House.

I just advise you to be careful.

[1:55 p.m.]

S. Bond: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Let me refer directly, then, to the media release that my question

relates to. In fact, the B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioner is

urging the provincial government to do something very specific. In fact,

it’s so that the minister responsible could actually do it this

afternoon. It’s within her regulation-making authority.

Mr. Speaker: Again, Member….

I will caution members again that we’re getting into the details

of the issue, which may be in the House later on. Okay?

S. Bond: Mr. Speaker, the question relates to a news release issued

today.

The question goes to the Premier. Will the Premier commit to

responding to the recommendation in the news release issued today, made

by the Information and Privacy Commissioner?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member may be aware, because she was in the House when they

created the B.C. Immigrant Investment Fund. In fact, when they created

the Im­migrant Investment Fund, they decided not to put it under

FOI regime. The member will also know that fund has about $180 million.

Kensington Capital, in fact, notified the government at the time that

this would have a chilling effect. The possibility of sensitive

information being made public could have a chilling effect.

The government at the time decided that they were not going to put

it under FOI, so the legislation in front of the House is a continuation

of the immigration fund, to make it into the InBC corporation. The

members can explain why, at that time, they chose not to include it in

FOI. What we have done is we’ve engaged with the ministry….

Mr. Speaker: Let’s not go into details of the issue, Minister.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Okay.

T. Stone: Well, the questions that we are trying to canvass here relate to a

very strong statement that was put out by the freedom-of-information and

protection-of-privacy commissioner earlier today. He didn’t just write

and release a public letter, but he actually put out a news release on

this topic.

The reality of what we’re asking for here is: will the government

ensure that, in the best interest of the taxpayers of British Columbia,

the minister responsible for the Freedom of Information and Protection

of Privacy Act uses her regulatory powers to add InBC to

schedule 2 of

the act? That’s the question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

T. Stone: In the commissioner’s letter, in reference to statements that have

been made by the Minister of Jobs and the minister responsible for

FOIPPA, the commissioner says: “It would be no answer to say that FIPPA

coverage is unnecessary because InBC will be required to release annual

reports and will be subject to external reviews. Its annual reports are

to be in a form and manner specified by the minister, and external

reviews will occur only every five years.”

This is the important part. “These accountability

me­chanisms fall far short of what is needed and lack the ongoing

transparency afforded through the access to information

regime.”

The question to the Premier is: will he direct the minister

responsible for the Freedom of Information Act to in­clude InBC in

the coverage that is afforded by the important transparency measures

that are afforded through the Freedom of Information and Protection of

Privacy Act?

Mr. Speaker: Again, Members, the Chair would like to caution that any

discussion regarding the proposed amendment — the best place is at the

committee stage, not in the question period. If ministers still wish to

answer, be it.

P. Milobar: Mr. Speaker, with respect, we are asking the minister responsible

for freedom of information about her regulatory powers.

Hon. J. Horgan: Rare is it that I take advice from the minister responsible for

the triple-delete scandal on freedom of information and privacy, but I

will say this. We take this very seriously on this side of the House. I

am not aware of the comments from the freedom-of-information and privacy

commissioner. I will take it up after question period.

I invite the Leader of the Opposition to sit down with me. We can

have a full discussion about this issue while the bill that is in

question is before the House.

[2:00 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a

supplemental.

T. Stone: The government has a plan to risk half a billion dollars of

taxpayers’ money through InBC. The B.C. Investment Management Corp.,

which manages hundreds of billions of dollars of assets, is covered

under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy

Act.

The commissioner actually references that in his letter and his

news release that he put out only hours ago today. He says, in closing:

“I therefore urge the government to support the minister responsible in

adding InBC as a public body under

schedule 2 of FIPPA, using her

regulation-making powers.”

Again to the Premier, will he commit today to the peo­ple of

British Columbia that he will ensure that the transparency that they’re

entitled to — not that the government feels may or may not be necessary

but that the public is entitled to…? Will he direct the minister

responsible to include InBC under the coverage of the Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Act and do so

immediately?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I don’t know. I’ve not seen the document that’s being

referred to. If the member is reading it all, not just every third word,

then maybe there’s something to be said about it.

The challenge we have here, hon, Speaker, as you know full

well….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s have some order, please.

Hon. J. Horgan: The challenge we have is that there is a bill before the House.

That is a fact. It’s undeniable. The debate can take place, I believe,

shortly after question period is terminated. That would be an ideal

opportunity for the members to raise this question.

I have committed to the Leader of the Opposition to re­view

the material from an independent officer of the Legislature and sit down

with her and have a discussion about how best to manage the issue. If

that’s going to wreck the question period for the Liberals today, I

apologize for that. This is an issue that’s just come up. It’s before

the House. I’m happy to talk about it after question period.

INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY REPORT

AND STATUS OF LNG

INDUSTRY

S. Furstenau: Yesterday the International Energy Agen­cy released a report

laying out the world’s energy road map to achieve net zero by 2050. This

landmark report shows a clear decline in the North American natural gas

industry. It says that private finance will now need to recognize that

these heavily subsidized megaprojects are at risk of becoming stranded

assets. Energy commentators are talking about the systemic risks,

including stranded asset risk, of over-investment in gas.

We already knew that this government’s plan to give billions of

dollars in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry is bad for the climate.

The IEA report shows that it’s bad for our economy too. It is reckless

for this government to invest billions in LNG, which clearly represents

a serious climate and financial risk.

My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon

Innovation. How does the minister justify spending billions of taxpayer

dollars on LNG, which in­creasingly looks like it will become a

stranded asset?

Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for her

question.

The study came out, the International Energy Agency report, just

yesterday. We will be reviewing how its key findings apply here in

British Columbia. The report is focused on the global energy market, and

it will take a little while to decide and analyze it as to how it

applies in British Columbia.

We are committed, as a government, to strong climate action

through CleanBC, which includes actions across sectors to reduce

emissions and build a clean economy for everyone. We have ambitious

targets, including an interim target and sectoral targets, and leading

policies to help us make progress towards our goals to cut pollution and

support people.

We are currently developing a road map to meet our greenhouse gas

emission targets and put us on a path to meeting net zero by 2050, which

will be released later this year. Emissions from LNG Canada’s first

phase in B.C.’s natural gas production forecast is already accounted for

in the greenhouse gas modelling for CleanBC.

[2:05 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: I’m increasingly feeling like we’re in an Orwellian universe here,

where strong climate action from this government includes the largest

point source of greenhouse gas emissions and a massive uptick in methane

emissions from fracking in northeast B.C. Meanwhile, the rest of the

world seems to be getting on board with net zero. We are going in the

opposite direction.

The International Energy Agency is the most authoritative energy

body in the world. This isn’t a report from an environmental group. This

is not the Green Party that is saying this. IEA scenarios drive global

investment strategies and government policy. They’re warning that there

will be a deep decline in global demand for oil and gas and that we do

not need any new LNG projects, including those that are already in

construction.

They have killed the idea of LNG as a transition fuel, saying that

countries must transition directly to clean energy. Yet against this

backdrop, this NDP government is doubling down on fracking and LNG and

pouring billions of dollars of taxpayer money into this

folly.

My question, again, is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low

Carbon Innovation. What will it take for this government to admit that

they made the wrong gamble on LNG and to walk away from this

environmentally and economically disastrous project?

Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you very much for the question. The report, which is a very

comprehensive one, which is being digested globally, came as a bit of a

surprise, I think, to many observers. Certainly, that’s the view in many

of the financial papers around the world as they analyze this

report.

We have a strong climate action plan, and we are pursuing it. Any

decision to make further investments in the LNG sector is largely a

private sector decision. The one project that’s proceeding, the LNG

Canada project, is already accounted for in the greenhouse gas modelling

for CleanBC.

That’s where the situation is in British Columbia. The private

sector will make its own decisions and its own evaluation of that

report. But here in British Columbia, any future LNG project that’s

proposed must meet our four conditions. One of those conditions is

fitting within our climate commitments.

COVID-19 RESPONSE FOR TOURISM

ATTRACTIONS AND COMMUNITY

EVENTS

C. Oakes: Well, after 15 months of waiting, the Premier has bungled it

again. Another flashy announcement and more confusion. After 15 months

of begging for help from the sector, the Premier promised to save major

attractions.

But the fact is that it’s simply not enough — not enough to save

attractions like the PNE, and no support for festivals, events and

locations that don’t operate year-round, like Billy Barker Days or the

Quesnel Rodeo. Regional factors that didn’t matter when it came to

pandemic restrictions, now do matter for pandemic supports.

Why did the Premier draw an arbitrary line that says: “You are

treated differently and only eligible for half the support simply based

on your geography”?

Hon. M. Mark: I appreciate the question from the member opposite. Yesterday the

Premier and I did res­pond with a significant investment, $50

million. It’s a grant. It’s not a loan. It’s not repayable. It’s a call

to action from the sector.

The sector has told us that they can’t have large groups of

people, large groups of visitors, going through their turnstiles to

gather. This is has been a call to action from the sector. I mentioned

it in my budget debates last week, that an announcement was coming this

week.

[2:10 p.m.]

This is good news. It’s a call to action. It’s being responsive to

the needs, to help. Some in urban areas receive up to $1 million, half a

million dollars in rural communities and up to half a million dollars

for tour operators to help visitors to get to these destinations of

choice.

I believe it’s a good-news announcement. The Premier and I stand

behind this announcement, because it was a call to action from the

sector who has told us what they need to sustain their tourist

attractions once we get out of this pandemic.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo North on a supplemental.

C. Oakes: Let’s take, for example, one of the most iconic anchor properties

in British Columbia. Barkerville attracts 70,000 visitors and represents

$25 million in tourism activity. They face a nearly $700,000 shortfall

but can’t access the full support simply because of where they are

located. If Barkerville, Fort Steele or the B.C. Northern Exhibition

were located in the Premier’s riding, they would be eligible for twice

the support, not deemed second-class attractions under the Premier’s

two-tier system of supports.

Why isn’t the Premier providing support based on what these

attractions need to survive, instead of an arbitrary criteria and lines

on a map?

Hon. M. Mark: I don’t really appreciate the member opposite’s innuendo around

this being partisan. We’ve worked with the tourism industry. We’ve

sought counsel on how to support the sector. We work closely with the

sector. I know the members opposite kind of laugh at this idea of

listening to the sector, but we’re listening and responding. Yesterday

was the $50 million announcement to support sectors.

Now urban communities and urban attractions are go­ing to

have a higher threshold of visitors. In rural communities, they’re going

to have a lower threshold. The urban is 75,000; the rural is 15,000.

There is a consideration to acknowledge that all the money can’t go to

the city, because then the members opposite would be complaining that

this is all about the city.

We are taking a whole-of-government approach. We are supporting

the provincial tourism ecosystem. I welcome the member opposite to

encourage folks to apply. This is a grant. It’s not a loan. It’s to

support these really vitally important attractions so that they’re there

to welcome visitors when it’s safe to do so.

M. Lee: It took 15 months for this Premier to get his act together, but

it’s not enough to make ends meet. The Premier has failed to meet the

call to action and has clearly bungled it again. The PNE has been closed

for two years. They lost $46 million in 2020 and will lose $40 million

this year. The PNE urgently needs $8 million just to survive.

We’ve been asking this government to save the PNE for more than a

year. Just last week in estimates, the Tourism Minister said she knew

that the PNE had been deeply hit. But yesterday the Premier claimed he

needed to “have a better understanding of the challenges that they

face.”

Everyone knows the challenges they face. Will the Premier step up

to provide the $8 million or not?

Hon. M. Mark: I appreciate the member opposite raising the question, considering

that I know that he grew up in East Vancouver. I know how important the

PNE has been to me and my family. I know how important it is to British

Columbians. Yesterday we made an announcement to allow people like the

PNE, organizations like the PNE, to apply for a million-dollar grant.

This is to help provide relief.

I want to go back to the member opposite’s statements around the

city of Vancouver. It is owned by the city. We are working with the

city. We are working with the federal government. I’ve raised the issue

numerous times with Minister Joly. The federal government’s budget

announced relief for festivals. We just announced relief yesterday about

supporting organizations like the PNE.

We’ve got to work together on this. Governments must come together

to support the PNE. That is how government works. I appreciate that this

is an iconic institution, the first job for many young people. It’s

going to be there for generations to come, as long as we continue

working together. But for right now, I would encourage the PNE to apply.

This is the signal to them — when I met with the PNE last

Friday.

[2:15 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Langara on a supplemental.

M. Lee: This government just can’t get it right. Even the mayor of

Vancouver was shocked at how the NDP has bungled relief funding. This is

what the mayor said: “I’m pretty gob-smacked about getting shafted over

this…. The province decided to renege on the federal

agreement.”

Now the mayor is saying the Premier has left the PNE “critically

short of the funding they need to continue operating as we’ve known and

loved for over a century.”

Will the Premier reconsider and provide urgent aid

re­quired, or will this beloved provincial institution in East Van

have to close forever?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m glad that the member from Vancouver did figure out that the

ownership of the PNE re­sides in the city of Vancouver. They have

a responsibility to work with other orders of government, the province

and the federal government, to come up with a solution for the PNE, and

that is in process.

We announced yesterday that our part as a first step is $1 million

in grants. I’ve worked with the Prime Minister on other tourism-related

issues in British Columbia. The city of Vancouver is going to have to

step up a little bit here. The three orders of government will figure it

out.

I have to say we’re going to figure it out with no help from the

member on the other side, because he’s too focused on running for the

leadership of a moribund political party.

T. Halford: Since the Premier is quick to get on his feet, maybe he can help

us with this one. The Premier and this government does not consider

major festivals like the Vaisakhi to be anchor attractions. Vaisakhi has

been cancelled twice now. We all agree that we need to ensure that it

comes back stronger than ever after this pandemic.

We have seen enormous support for this community. They’ve raised

money. They’ve driven food banks. But now they need us. This government

has again, as of yesterday, come up short.

My question to the Premier: why aren’t major events like Vaisakhi

considered as anchor attractions?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate that they have a line of questioning today. I’ll

encourage the member to maybe visit one of the gurdwaras, and he’ll

learn that the Nagar Kirtan is not an event in that forum. It’s not a

business operation. It’s not trying to make money. This is a religious….

I suggest they do their homework. I appreciate now they don’t have any

members from the South Asian community in their caucus any more, so

perhaps they don’t have that contact in the community.

But they should take an opportunity and learn about the religious

significance of this event. They’ll find that the temples do this as a

service to the community, not to make money, not to run a profitable

business. Those temples will continue to do that important

work.

I appreciate the question, but I think he needs to do a little

more homework before he asks it.

T. Wat: The NDP MLA from Richmond continues to fail to advocate for the

Richmond Night Market. I have repeatedly asked the Minister of Tourism

about what supports anchor attractions like the Richmond Night Market

could get. They are on the hook for over $585,000 in leases since they

asked for help.

The minister kept on telling me to “stay tuned for an

announcement.” Due to this Premier’s incompetence, he excluded festivals

and events like the Night Market from the major anchor attractions

program.

I hope the Premier can get up and respond to my following

question. Why is the Premier denying support to festivals and

events?

Hon. M. Mark: Yesterday we made a significant an­nouncement: $50 million

in grants — not loans — targeted to anchor attractions. In urban

communities, in rural communities and for tour bus operators. This is a

significant investment to support our tourism ecosystem.

[2:20 p.m.]

There is relief through the tourism grant, the small and medium

business grant that is available. It was a call to action from the

Tourism Task Force for organizations to apply.

I’ve suggested to the member to encourage the night market to

apply for the grant. That is what it’s available for. Yesterday’s

targeted funds are to support those anchor attractions that rely on

large groups of people and a turnstile to gather. I encourage our

organizations to apply. That is what the announcement’s about. It’s

about investing in the critically important tourism

ecosystem.

I want to reiterate that the federal government announced, just

one day before our budget, $200 million that is going to events and

festivals, $200 million to community festivals. Those are investments

that we’ve advocated for, and we’re going to do our level best —

relentlessly, as advocates — to make sure that that money comes to

British Columbia.

L. Doerkson: The Williams Lake Stampede listened intently to that announcement

yesterday and felt that they don’t qualify, or at the very least, they

were very confused.

In March, the Williams Lake Stampede announced that they would be

cancelling their event for the second year in a row. This year would

have marked 95 years for the world-famous Williams Lake Stampede. They

contribute more than $3 million to the local community and to the

economy of the Cariboo-Chilcotin. But apparently, unlike the PNE,

they’re not able to get a single dollar from the major attractions

program because they’re an event.

To the Premier, why are events like the Williams Lake Stampede

left out of these funding opportunities?

Hon. M. Mark: Yesterday’s announcement was to invest in major anchor

attractions. It’s a grant. It’s not a loan. We are going to continue

doing our advocacy with the federal government to ensure that B.C. gets

its fair share for events.

But I would encourage the member to work with his constituents to

apply for this grant. We will do our level best on our side to ensure

that we support these important institutions across the province. That

is what our ministry’s mandate is to do.

We’re here to help. Work with me, Member. Knock on my door, and I

will do my level best to support a lot of these institutions that are

important to our ecosystem.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Eby: I have the honour to present the annual report for the office of the

superintendent of professional governance for 2020-21 and the British

Columbia Utilities Commission annual report for ’19-20.

Mr. Speaker: Attorney General will continue. You have another report?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did them both in one very compact and

efficient announcement there.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I rise to table a report. I have the honour to present the 2020 annual

report for WorkSafeBC.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued committee debate on Bill 13, Employment

Standards Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call Ministry of Education

estimates.

In the Birch Room, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry

of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 13 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 2), 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 13;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:25 p.m.

On clause 2 (continued) .

G. Kyllo: It is good to be back and to continue committee stage debate on

Bill 13.

There’s a reference in

section 2 that identifies under “a

prescribed circumstance.” I just wonder if the minister can provide some

clarity. I looked in the

definitions of the Employment Standards Act,

and the term “prescribed circumstance” does not seem to appear in the

definition table at the front.

I’m just wondering if the minister could share with this House

what the term “prescribed circumstance” references and how anyone would

be able to determine what, specifically, a prescribed circumstance would

be.

Hon. H. Bains: I think the member may remember that we passed a similar bill that

deals with a vaccination leave of up to three hours.

[2:30 p.m.]

What this means is calculating an employee’s wages. I think if you

look at…. In that same section, it talks about how to calculate an

employee’s wages so they reflect the money that person would lose when

they take that day off.

Now, we tried to capture every possibility that is there in order

to ensure that every worker will receive the wages that they are

entitled to for the day that they take. But there may be

circumstances….

It is in other parts of the legislation or the employment

standards that I mentioned earlier. In the event that we missed out any

real situation where an employee, based on the formula, may not receive

the full wages and there is a dispute, then the regulations can be

drafted to address that issue — for example, employees whose earnings

fluctuate daily, weekly or monthly, such as a commissioned salesperson.

A regulation could be considered that provides a formula that calculates

an average day’s pay over a longer period of time.

It’s just to come up with a formula through regulation if the

situation isn’t captured under our current situation. Then we could draw

up a regulation to ensure that the worker doesn’t lose my

money.

G. Kyllo: Specifically, the clause reads: “An employer must pay an employee

in a prescribed circumstance who takes leave under subsection (1) (

a) an

amount in money equal to at least the amount calculated in accordance

with the regulations.”

The term specifically, prescribed circumstance, is not included in

the

definitions under the current Employment Standards Act. Prescribed

circumstance — I have no idea what that specifically references. The

importance of a new piece of legislation, or bills before this House, is

to provide certainty and specificity.

One more time to the minister: can the minister please provide

some form of rationale or definition on what specifically a prescribed

circumstance is or is not?

Hon. H. Bains: Let me try that one more time. I tried to make it

clear.

First of all, this exact language exists elsewhere, in situations

that are not contemplated at this time, in order to calculate someone’s

salary to be paid in those circumstances. Now, the legal meaning behind

it, I’m advised, is to be set up through regulations. So it is enabling

language that in the event that specific regulations may not be

contemplated at this time….

This enabling language will give the employment standards branch

authority to come up with a formula to reflect the true salary or the

wages of the person that we’re talking about in this bill for that

particular day.

[2:35 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Well, that provides absolutely no clarity whatsoever. There is no

clarity with respect to

section 2, with respect to the number of days of

sick pay that workers may be eligible for when the permanent sick pay

legislation comes into place, which we have identified. The

self-identified date for implementation, as imposed by this government,

is January 1, 2022.

So there is no certainty around the number of days. There is no

certainty — and certainly no certainty for businesses — with respect to

the amount of pay that would be required to be paid. There is no

indication whatsoever with respect to whether the full costs will be

straight onto the backs of already struggling B.C. employers, or if

government will provide any assistance with a sick-pay policy that is

yet to be developed.

Now, when it comes to the terminology with respect to how

government is going to determine what that pay rate is, yet again, there

is no clarity with respect to this legislation.

Mr. Chair, with all due respect to the minister, I, and I think,

many businesses across the province are increasingly concerned of the

lack of information that is actually pertaining within

section

It’s certainly not lost on myself or employers around the province

that even five days of paid sick leave is the equivalent of about 2

percent pay. We all, I think, recognize that holiday pay in this

province at 4 percent equals two weeks — the average employee in the

province works about 50 weeks. So 4 percent of 50 is 2. Two weeks — 4

percent. There is certainly the potential…. And I know that the minister

has indicated: “Hey, trust us. We’re going to go out and consult with

the business community and just leave it to the Premier and the cabinet

to make the determination on what businesses will actually have to pay

and what the cost burden that will be transferred onto employers will be

down the road some time.”

Mr. Chair, businesses require certainty. Many business

organizations around the province have indicated, especially in light of

COVID: “Do no further harm.” Do no more harm. But nothing could be

further from the truth. Even the temporary paid sick leave provisions

under this legislation will put considerable cost burden on the backs of

B.C. businesses.

The minister has actually agreed with that comment. Any employer

that’s paying an employee over the $200 a day of the additional cost of

paid sick leave will be borne by the employer. I tried two days ago to

ask specific questions of this minister with respect to additional cost

burden that will be transferred through this legislation onto the backs

of already struggling B.C. businesses — if those costs will be

reimbursed, or any portion of, for a business that already has a partial

paid sick leave program? And the minister refused to answer.

The specific example I gave was a small clothing shop that has had

their revenues decline by over 45 percent. They have consumed all of

their life savings to try and keep the business afloat. They have a paid

sick leave program available for full-time, year-round employees. They

do not have a program that currently provides sick pay for their

part-time employees. But this particular business that I referenced a

few short days ago, where they have two permanent full-time employees

and seven part-time employees, the additional cost burden by that

business for those additional seven employees could equate to as many as

21 days, even under the temporary provisions of this program.

When I asked the minister if he could provide some clarity, some

certainty for B.C. businesses that are already struggling — if the

reimbursement program would pro­vide extended coverage to

businesses for the additional cost burden that these businesses will now

incur on account of this new legislation — the minister refused to

answer that.

It is absolutely paramount that in this chamber, in this House,

when government has the opportunity to provide clarity and confirmation

to businesses with the specificity with respect to what they’re

proposing…. But clause 2 gives government free rein to do whatever they

choose. Whatever they choose. That is scary.

[2:40 p.m.]

There are specific provisions that do not allow government to set

tax policy through regulation. If government chose to increase the

provincial sales tax by 1 percent, they are forced and obligated to come

to this chamber, which allows the scrutiny of this House, allows

opposition members the opportunity, in the people’s House, to ask

specific questions about the true impact — what data has been derived,

what the potential costs may be.

But when it comes to the opportunity for government to put upwards

of $2 billion to $4 billion of additional tax burden on the backs of

B.C. employers, they choose to throw their hands up in the air and say:

“Hey, it’s all good. Don’t worry. We’re going to consult the Premier and

his cabinet. We’ll sit around a cabinet table and make our own

determination about the success or failure of many businesses, going

forward.”

It has been shared in this House that 8,000 B.C. businesses have

closed and shuttered their doors on account of COVID. There are an

additional 25,000 businesses, representing 300,000 workers, that are at

risk of closure. In a time of a pandemic, when businesses are struggling

and businesses look to their government for support, direction and

clarity with respect to cost impositions that government is giving

consideration to, this is the way this government responds? “Nothing to

see here, folks. We’ll figure it out.”

Businesses don’t know how many days. They don’t know the

percentage of costs that they will bear. There’s no certainty for those

businesses. In my view, that is ab­solutely offensive.

This piece of legislation, the minister has indicated, has been in

the works for 15 months — 15 months. As recently as last May, when

WorkSafeBC came out with clear direction to businesses around a COVID

safety plan, government was fully aware that there was a need to provide

interim protection for workers. The minister has said repeatedly how

workers should not have to choose between a paycheque or potentially

going to work sick. And for 15 months, what did this government do?

Zero. Nada. Nothing. Not a thing. They knew there was a problem. They

had the financial ability to act, and they did nothing, absolutely

nothing.

I know it’s not just businesses that are concerned. Workers across

the province are concerned about the delay and the stalling of this

government and moving forward with the provisions, even of the temporary

provision, of this legislation, which provides partial funding for sick

pay for workers for up to three days between now and the end of this

year.

This legislation was so rushed out the door that there has been no

real, solid consideration of the true impacts. I raised in this House,

just two days ago, the inequity that exists within this legislation. The

legislation that is put before this House identifies that the three days

of paid sick leave is available to both part- and full-time

employees.

When I asked and canvassed the question of this minister if it was

the intention of the minister to create an inequity by providing the

opportunity for a part-time employee that works for three different

employers to be eligible for three days from each of those three

employers, for a total of nine days — if it was the intention of this

minister to provide nine days of paid sick leave for an employee working

three jobs, yet only three days for an employee that has full-time

employment with a single employer — the minister refused to

answer.

When I provided the minister with the opportunity to provide

further clarity to this bill, to provide an annualized cap between now

and the end of the year, which would provide equity — clarify the fact

that, whether you’re a part-time employee or a full-time employee, each

of those employees would be only entitled to three days of paid sick

leave under the provisions of this bill — the minister refused to take

that initiative.

The provisions of this bill create not just inequity; it’s

discriminatory. A full-time employee is only entitled to three days

where a part-time employee, working for two employers, is entitled to

six. A part-time employee that might provide part-time services to three

businesses is entitled to nine.

[2:45 p.m.]

I fail to understand how this government, this minister, with the

support of 30,000 paid bureaucrats that I know are intelligent, that are

able to provide the level of detail and information…. I can’t for the

life of me believe for a second that this minister actually relied on

many of the services that are available to government — Treasury Board

analysts or otherwise.

This bill appears to be thrown together on the back of napkin. It

creates inequity and certainly no clarity, no certainty for businesses.

That causes me great concern. Under this government, we have seen the

competitiveness of B.C. businesses continue to erode.

I’ve shared in this House the corporate income tax rate in B.C. is

now 50 percent higher than our neighbouring jurisdiction of Alberta. In

Alberta, it is 8; in B.C., it is 12. That is just the provincial

portion. Now, people listening from home might think: “Ah, 4 percent is

not a lot.” Most businesses operate on the anticipation of net profits

between 4 and 7 percent. Yet this government chooses to have a corporate

tax rate that is a full 50 percent higher than our neighbouring

jurisdiction of Alberta. Since coming into power, they put an additional

$1.9 billion of new taxation on the backs of B.C. businesses, through

employer health tax.

I agree with and support the need to provide sick pay for workers

across the province. However, the manner in which it’s being undertaken

by this secretive and backroom-dealing government causes many extreme

amounts of concern. I just don’t know where to start. It is extremely,

extremely unfortunate that we are at this juncture at this

time.

Government is currently sitting on a $3.1 billion COVID surplus.

That’s $3,100 million. The minister, in his own estimation, estimates

the cost of this temporary program at $320 million. That’s barely over

10 percent of their COVID recovery. Government could do more. Government

can do more. They have the opportunity to do more. They certainly had

the opportunity to act many months prior to now.

When posed with the opportunity to provide a temporary paid sick

leave program in the summer, we didn’t see anything. When provided with

the opportunity to bring something forward in the fall in the typical

fall legislative session, nope. What did government do? Called a

pandemic election. Put their own self-serving political interests ahead

of the health and well-being of British Columbians. And when we

reconvened the Legislature in December, a bill as simplistic as this —

nope, we didn’t see it then.

Then when we sat for the second sitting of the 42nd parliament on

March 1, where was this piece of legislation? Nowhere to be seen. And we

sat, and we waited in March and in April. Not until May, two months into

the sitting of this Legislature, do we finally see this ramshackle bill

that creates inequities within it.

I am extremely concerned with where this government is going. The

Retail Council of Canada — I’ve seen a letter that was just penned today

— raised many of the same concerns that I raised with the minister in

this House, seeking clarity, seeking some form of confirmation from this

minister that as they look to develop the reimbursement program — to

provide those additional supports for small businesses that will bear a

significant cost burden in association with this legislation. But what

did we hear from this minister, who had an opportunity to provide some

clarity, some confirmation to businesses? Crickets. I am extremely,

extremely concerned.

[2:50 p.m.]

Back to the question that I had posed. Can the minister please

provide a bit of clarity with respect to who will actually identify and

determine what the definition of “prescribed circumstance” will actually

entail?

Hon. H. Bains: I could answer his rant with another rant. A nonsensical speech

that he made, not backed up by facts and full of errors. It’s such a

level that I will not go there, in order to respond to the way he was

ranting.

But I will try to do this again. Let me read it to the member once

again so that he will understand. Subsection 49.1(4) allows for

regulations to cover employees for whom the formula for permanent paid

leave, basic leave, in subsection 49.1(3) does not fairly represent an

average day’s pay. Okay?

A similar provision is included in the Employment Standards Act

for paid domestic or sexual violence leave and is also set out in

section 3 of this bill, regarding paid COVID-19 sick leave. For domestic

and sexual violence leave, no regulations have been enacted to

date.

[2:55 p.m.]

So it is just to cover a scenario, a situation, that may have been

missed — how to calculate someone’s wages so that we could, through OIC,

come up with a regulation to reflect the true loss of wages or calculate

the true wages for that day for that employee, to be fair to the

employer and to be fair to the employee. It is in the Employment

Standards Act, in other parts of it.

We had that debate before when we were debating those bills here

in this House not that long ago. Obviously, the member is likely to just

drag it out with the speech that he made a little earlier without any

sensible questions. That’s his prerogative.

I think what is offensive…. He talked about…. The of­fence

is to the employer who is looking at a situation where when one of their

employees is sick and would be able to afford to stay home so that they

don’t bring the illness to work and help transmit the virus in the

workplace.

It will help to keep those operations open, and it will help to

keep those workers healthy. That’s the purpose be­hind it. I think

it’s in line with our focus all along and ever since this pandemic hit

us — to make sure we keep our population healthy, to make sure we keep

our workplaces healthy and safe and to make sure our workers are safe in

the workplace. It’s in that spirit that this bill is here.

Workers all across Canada are asking for action. We have been

working for the last 14 months. We worked with the federal government

and took a number of initiatives on our own to help the workers, to fill

the gaps and to help the employers at the same time.

If he’s really looking for meaning…. We’re not reinventing the

wheel here today. It is already there. This language already exists in

the employment standards. All this member has to do is a little bit more

homework. They’ve got a research department downstairs. If he doesn’t

know how to do it, he could just go there and ask them. They’ll tell him

that this language exists all over in the employment

standards.

I tried to do the best I can to explain to the member. I will try

to continue to answer the questions that the member wishes to have, but

I will not match his political rhetoric with political

rhetoric.

The Chair: Shall clause 2 pass?

Division has been called on clause 2. There will be a vote on

that tonight pursuant to the sessional orders. Tonight is Wednesday.

So that means it’ll take place around 6:30.

Thank you, Members, on clause 2.

Shall the title pass?

Interjection.

The Chair: We will deal with the title after we deal with clause 2. Of

course, that’s appropriate.

Thank you to our Clerk’s staff for that.

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:58 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call the committee on Bill 5.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — I n BC

INVESTMENT CORP. ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 5;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 3 p.m.

The Chair: Thank you, Members and Ministers. I would like to call a short

five-minute recess so that we can prepare for the next

bill.

The committee recessed from 3:01 p.m. to 3:08 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

On clause 7.

T. Stone: I wanted to ask one question here in this section, and then we’ll

be able to move on. I’m wondering if the minister could confirm that the

board of directors positions, which he has announced…. Were those

positions actually posted on the board resourcing office website, which

is typically standard practice?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah, I think we canvassed this yesterday. The BRDO has a standard

process, which is that anyone can apply, and even apply and say that

they want to apply for a specific board. Anyone can apply for any

position, obviously, and people can post their résumés as per the CABRO

process, and that’s the process that was used here.

T. Stone: I think the question that I’m trying to get at is…. I’m well aware

people can just proactively submit a résumé and reach out to the BRDO

office. But the board resourcing and development office also posts….

It’s a typical practice that they actually post descriptions of vacant

positions or positions that the government will be looking to

fill.

So my question is: did the ministry actually have a posting,

irrespective of whether people proactively applied for a director

position with InBC? Did the government actually have a posting for these

director positions up on the BRDO website? And related to that, was

there any competitive process whatsoever insofar as going out there to

try and find the best people possible for these positions?

Hon. R. Kahlon: My answer is still the same, which is: we followed the standard

BRDO process, which is that people can apply. My assumption is that BRDO

went out and actually found people. In fact, they must have, because

many of these board members I’ve never met with and don’t know them. But

their résumés are quite impressive.

As the member will know, they often do the work of searching for

people with these unique skill sets to serve on the board, and that’s

what’s happened here.

Clauses 7 to 10 inclusive approved.

On clause 11.

T. Stone: This is the

section that deals with the duties and powers of the

board, so I’m just wondering what type of influence the board will have

over investment policies. I think that’s a pretty critical piece that

British Columbians, I think, would like the minister to walk through. As

part of that, can a board terminate the CIO’s employment?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll go backwards with the questions from the hon. member. The

CEO, with consultation of the board, can terminate the chief investment

officer. The CEO, with consultation of the board, can hire a chief

investment officer. But it’s done through the CEO so that the board

doesn’t have to directly speak with the CIO.

The question the member had around the role of the board…. The

board has responsibility of selecting and approving a CEO and a CIO and

monitoring performance accountabilities, reviewing and approving annual

corporate financial statements, having oversight of policies that relate

to InBC’s mandate and holding the executive to account for their

accountabilities with respect to InBC’s mandate, oversight of InBC’s

operation, and selection and appointment of InBC’s auditor.

T. Stone: Well, if the board can provide advice to the CEO, who has the

rights to hire and fire the chief investment officer, that means that

the board actually can exert some influence. We have asked many

questions and had lots of discussion around the minister’s assertion

that there is true independence at play here. I would suggest this is

another example of that not being the case.

The board, which we canvassed yesterday, has a majority of people

on it that are aligned with this government, and they actually will have

the ability to influence the selection of the chief investment officer

and that person’s termination. So I would suggest that that doesn’t

qualify to the standard of independence, certainly not that’s been put

out there.

The minister can respond to that if he wants, but I don’t have any

further questions on this section. I’m ready to move on to the next

one.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’d just say that, of course, I disagree with the assessment from

the hon. member. Again, as per our conversation yesterday, all the board

of directors…. Certainly, we highlighted the two deputy ministers who

served the people of British Columbia for over 20 years in different

governments. Some of them worked with the hon. member asking the

question. We have a CEO that’s the chair of the largest credit union in

North America and one of the largest credit unions in the world, who has

incredible impact investment experience.

We’re proud of the board, and we do think that they will do a good

job of ensuring the accountability. But again, there is independence

from the board, from the chief investment officer, for making

decisions.

Clause 11 approved.

On clause 12.

T. Stone: Clause 12 deals with board remuneration. I’m wondering if the

minister could advise the House how much each board member will be paid

on an annual basis. What would the total compensation be for the board

on an annual basis? And thirdly, and importantly, with respect to one of

the board members, Carole James….

[3:20 p.m.]

Unless this is no longer the case, and the minister can indicate

as such, my understanding is that she’s acting as an adviser to the

Premier, the Premier’s office, at the cost of $1 per year.

I think it’s a relevant question here to ask: will Ms. James be

compensated as per all other directors? What’s the total compensation

for each director — total compensation for the entire board of directors

together? Is Carole James still at the $1 per year that she had signed

on with the Premier’s office, or is she going to be paid as all other

directors are paid?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The provincial Crown corporation board remuneration levels are

prescribed by Treasury Board directive. Remuneration levels for each

Crown are assessed against these directives and authorized by the

government’s appointee remuneration committee, which is chaired by the

Minister of Finance.

The board members from outside the public service will be

remunerated for their service. The board chair receives $30,000 a year,

and the directors, except for the two public service employees, will

receive a retainer of $15,000 a year. The board chair and directors will

receive meeting fees for full-day meetings if they have full-day

meetings.

The question around Carole James. I don’t see why she wouldn’t be

remunerated for the work that she does for this agency. I’m not directly

sure of where he’s going with that question, but she is a board member

and will be receiving the fees.

Clauses 12 and 13 approved.

On clause 14.

T. Stone: The question I have on clause 14 is this. In acting in the

interests of the corporation, are directors bound by government policy,

as laid out in

section 4? If a government-policy-related investment is

not in the best interest of taxpayers or the corporation, are directors

bound by a government policy that would urge them to act

otherwise?

Hon. R. Kahlon:

Section 4, which we canvassed yesterday, clearly sets out the

purpose of the corporation. Obviously, the

section that we’re on now is

about the duties of the officers: “(

a) act honestly and in good faith,

with a view to the best interests of the corporation; (

b) exercise the

care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent individual would

exercise in comparable circumstances, and (

c) act in accordance with

this act and the regulations.”

Clause 14 approved.

On clause 15.

[3:25 p.m.]

T. Stone: I would like to ask a few questions about the chief executive

officer that’s contemplated in this section. I would like to know first

if a CEO has been chosen yet. Secondly, can the CEO and the CIO be the

same person? That has been the case in other investment companies that

I’m aware of. It doesn’t happen very often, but I would like to know

what the government’s plans are around that — if there is a hard line

that that cannot be the case.

How much will the CEO of InBC be paid? What does the minister

believe the total compensation will be for the CEO of InBC?

Hon. R. Kahlon: So three questions there. I can confirm that the search for a

permanent CEO has not started yet, so no CEO has been chosen. No, the

CEO and the CIO can’t be the same person as the structure is laid out

here. And currently, the work around compensation for a CEO and a CIO is

still under development. We don’t have all those things finalized

yet.

T. Stone: In response to the minister’s response, I would ask this: has the

minister got any sense of a timeline as to when the CEO search would

begin? Much has been made about a $500 million fund here that the

government says it intends to see deployed as quickly as possible. If

the CEO can’t be the same person as the CIO…. I mean, the organization

can’t function without that chief executive in place, as per the

minister’s previous response.

So when is that search going to begin, and what is the timeline

that the minister has in mind for the actual selection and announcement

of a chief executive officer?

I have one more question after that.

Hon. R. Kahlon: An RFQ process has begun. There are four executive search firms

that have been sourced to help find the potential CEO.

[3:30 p.m.]

T. Stone: In a previous response, the minister indicated that he wasn’t

available at this time to provide any details on the compensation level

for the chief executive of­ficer and that that work is under

development, I believe were his words.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

I just want to know how the minister squares that with the service

plan, which actually does provide for a line item called salaries and

benefits for InBC. This is page 13 of the service plan. Presumably,

we’re talking about a cumulative expenditure of the CEO compensation

costs, the CIO and whatever team of supporting individuals there are in

InBC. But we’re talking about how the service plan lays out $1.5 million

for the ’21-22 fiscal year; $3.37 million for the ’22-23 fiscal year and

then $3.98 million for ’23-24. So it’s actually a cumulative cost of

$8.88 million over those three fiscal years.

Having been to Treasury Board many times in my car­eer,

previously, in government, and understanding how these service plans

work, these numbers weren’t pulled out of thin air. They’re not

rolled-up numbers that might suggest that they’re estimates. They’re

very specific numbers, so that would tell me that the ministry actually

has done some work to provide an allocation, a number that it believes

is a reasonable cost estimate for salaries and benefits.

Again, with that context in mind, I’d ask the minister to please

share with us what he contemplates the compensation to be for the chief

executive officer of this corporation.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member referenced the service plan, page 13. That reflects the

staffing costs over a three-year period. It’s a broad-brush estimate of

those costs. The compensation plan is still under

development.

T. Stone: Broad-brush. Again, I think this is another reason that we would

be concerned that the government is moving forward with this $500

million risky investment fund scheme — that they can’t even, to this

point, provide a clear statement of numbers in the service plan for

InBC. These are very specific numbers that are contemplated

here.

Is the minister not prepared today to provide us with the

component of the salaries and benefits line item for each of the three

fiscal years as noted on page 13 of his service plan or the service plan

he’s responsible for at InBC.? Is he not prepared to break out for us

today what component portion of the salaries and benefits line item for

each of those three fiscal years relates to the compensation of the

chief executive officer?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: In terms of pay, we’re working with an external HR consultant to

develop the compensation plan that will balance, obviously, attracting a

strong, qualified candidate with the principles of public sector

compensation. I’ll say that it’s vital that we secure the right talent

for InBC. InBC executive salaries will be publicly reported on an annual

basis, consistent with Crown corporations, to disclose their

salaries.

Clause 15 approved.

On clause 16.

T. Stone: Clause 16 deals with the chief investment of­ficer, arguably

the most important individual that will be associated with

InBC.

Again, similar to the questions I just asked about the chief

executive officer, I’m just wondering if the minister could confirm

whether or not a chief investment officer has been selected or if there

is a search process underway for that position.

If a search process hasn’t initiated, as per his comments on the

CEO position, for the CIO, would he please advise when the search

process for the CIO position is set to start. How much will the CIO be

paid at InBC?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No, the chief investment officer has not been hired. The HR

consultants that we will bring in will run a parallel search for

talent.

Then the last question the member had was…. Again, InBC executive

salaries will be publicly reported on an annual basis, consistent with

how other Crown corporations disclose their salaries.

Clauses 16 and 17 approved.

On clause 18.

T. Stone: The minister has said in comments: “For ex­ample, if someone

sitting on the InBC board of directors came across a good investment

opportunity and they wanted the chief investment officer to consider it,

that director cannot call them up and ask them to look at

it.”

I’m well aware that this

section provides for there being no

direction provided to the chief investment officer. But I’m wondering if

the minister could point to where in

section 18 it actually forbids

suggestions.

[3:40 p.m.]

Before I’m accused of splitting hairs here, there is a big

difference between directing someone to do something, especially if

you’re on the board of directors or you’re the CEO…. I understand the

minister’s comments around…. Independence is provided for here because

no one can direct the chief investment officer to do one thing over the

other. What’s preventing, in this

section or anywhere else in this bill,

anyone from making suggestions to the chief investment

officer?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There will be a single stream, a single process for any business

that’s looking for investment. There will be clear directions on the

website of the process. So there will be no special entries. It’ll be

one process set out, and everyone is required to follow that one

process.

T. Stone: Well, with all due respect, I’m not referring to the formal

process, which the minister has referenced a number of times now. And

fair enough. There’s a process, presumably, for companies that are

seeking investment through InBC to submit their requests or applications

for consideration for investment. What I’m talking about is that this

section specifically uses the phrase “not subject to direction.” It uses

that phrase in three different places in subsection (2) and subsection

(3). It does not provide for, anywhere in this

section or anywhere in

the bill, any protection from other types of interactions which this

chief investment officer might have.

I think it’s a fair question — not the formal application process,

but where influence will take place. If it takes place, its going to be

around the water cooler. It’s going to be over…. When we can get back to

having meals with each other, it’ll be in a restaurant during lunch. It

won’t be documented in a formal application process.

Again, where in this section, and if not in this section, where in

the bill, does that independence that the minister speaks about actually

exist? Again, I’m talking about that…. For the minister to essentially

say, “Well” — wink, wink — “there’s not going to be any influence here

because it’s going to be done all through an application process,” I

think is a pretty weak response here. This, to me, seems to be a

significant hole, a significant flaw in this legislation that cuts right

to the core of what we’ve been saying around independence — independence

of investment decisions.

Again to the minister, where in this

section or elsewhere in the

bill is there protection against the chief in­vestment officer

being influenced through suggestions and conversation and whatnot? How

is that prevented from happening?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll say to the member that people will need to be extremely

careful. Within the legislation, on

section 18(3), it says: “For

certainty, in making investment decisions on behalf of the corporation,

the chief investment officer and an external fund manager are not

subject to direction from any of the following: (

a) the government; (

b) a minister; (

c) the board or a director; (

d) the chief executive

officer; (

e) any other public officer.”

At any point, the chief investment officer can point to this

specific legislation as proof of their independence. Again, the people

we have on the board are of the highest integrity. We expect them to

live by the rules within the legislation.

T. Stone: Well, I don’t share the minister’s enthusiasm for the independence

which he is suggesting is in place here. I don’t believe the

independence is there.

There are a myriad of other words that could have been chosen for

this section, but they went with the word “direction.” Direction is a

very deliberative act. There is no provision here for the wink, wink and

nudge, nudge that takes place at water coolers or at lunches and that

goes undocumented.

Furthermore — I’ll deal with it at this point instead of later on

section 29 of this act, which deals with the Offence Act, basically

says: “Section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply to this Act

or the regulations.” That would tell me that there are actually no

penalties for any contravention of this investment independence that is

addressed in

section 18.

Could the minister, in light of the fact that there appear to be

no penalties…? The Offence Act doesn’t apply. He’s opted to go with the

word “direction,” which is very deliberative. It doesn’t capture those

more casual interactions.

[3:50 p.m.]

When there are no penalties and there’s no provision in this

section for those other types of interactions from taking place, how are

British Columbians supposed to believe that this corporation is truly

going to operate in an independent fashion, with independent investment

decisions being made, independent of influence from the board of

directors and others?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. I think the member, maybe offline, has

to explain to me what he means by wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

What I will say is that we did an extensive market sounding. In

the market sounding, the CPPIB and the BCIMC both recommended this type

of structure and to put it in legislation in this clear way so the chief

investment officer has the certainty that they have that independence. A

chief investment officer, at any point, can point to legislation — that

it’s in legislation that they have that independence and clearly in

writing for all the officials that cannot give any direction to a chief

investment officer.

[3:55 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: This clause talks about independence, and I think the official

opposition critic has asked a number of questions on that. But what I’m

wondering about is just clarifying of the reporting structure

generally.

So the chief investment officer is independent from direction from

the board. But who is this person ac­countable to? How are they

held to account for investment decisions? And what is that structure of

accountability in this legislation?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The chief investment officer is res­ponsible for carrying

out all the duties related to the management of the funds and overseeing

the work of the investment team. Now, while the chief investment officer

is independent in investment decision-making, the chief investment

officer is accountable to the board for compliance with the requirements

of both the mandate letter direction, provided by the government, and

the investment policy statement.

The investment policy statement will be developed by the board in

collaboration with the chief investment officer. It will serve as an

accountability document for the board to hold the chief investment

officer responsible for the chief investment officer’s execution of the

investment policy.

S. Furstenau: Just some clarity on that. Is that typical that an officer and a

board would work together to decide on the accountability of the

officer? I’m thinking about local government — for example, a board and

a chief admin­istrative officer. That seems a bit unusual. Is that

a typical approach to accountability structures?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Through the market sounding, this was suggested to us — that it’s

typical for a chief investment officer to be engaged in the investment

policy which, ultimately, they will be held accountable on.

Clause 18 approved.

On clause 19.

[4:00 p.m.]

T. Stone: On

section 19 here, I wanted to ask this. When the government

launched InBC, it made some very strong statements — and has continued

to this day — relating to InBC having “the highest standards of

transparency and accountability to the public.”

With that in mind, I would like to know if the minister is going

to ensure that the business plan that was deve­loped and that led

to the decision to move forward with InBC, the business plan that really

speaks to the operations and the expectations of this corporation…. Will

he make that business plan available to the public?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Over the last few days, we’ve been consulting with staff on the

process to make the business plan available. That work is ongoing, and

my hope is that sometime in the near future, we will make that plan

available.

T. Stone: Can the minister be a bit more precise than that he’s hopeful that

at some point in the future he can make this plan available? I think

there is a public expectation that naturally flows from a government

decision to invest $500 million of public funds into what, by the

government’s own admission in their service plan, will be very high-risk

venture capital investments. I think there’s an expectation from the

public that the business plan that underpins the decision to move

forward with this scheme will be made available and made available

soon.

I’d ask the minister again: if he truly believes what the

marketing material wrapped around the announcement on this said — that

InBC will have the highest standards of transparency and accountability

— when will the public of British Columbia be able to access an

unredacted version of InBC’s business plan?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it would be important to note here that when the official

opposition were in government, and they had a tech fund — $100 million —

no business plan was released. In fact, we couldn’t get any answers on

where the investments were going. The now Attorney General had to go

through estimates several times to try to get answers on where

investments were going, to whom, which companies were benefiting from

that. We were not given any answers.

Multiple transparency measures are put in place with this

legislation — yearly reporting, annual reporting, five-year audits — so

that the public has a sense and understanding of where these investments

are going. That being said, the member also knows that there is a

process, when this type of disclosure happens, for reviewing documents

prior to disclosure. That work of proactively releasing that is ongoing,

and there’ll be more on that in the near future.

S. Furstenau: I’m listening to this exchange with some interest, but just noting

that it is disappointing to hear a minister try to suggest that because

a previous government behaved in a certain way…. That doesn’t preclude

better transparency and accountability from his government.

[4:05 p.m.]

I think that always striving to be more transparent and

accountable, particularly when it comes to half a billion dollars, is

something that we should be hoping and expecting to see from this

government and indeed from any government in this place. I just find the

rhetoric around using past practices of the opposition, when they were

in government, as a way to deflect from a legitimate question from the

critic, about transparency, doesn’t build the kind of confidence that we

want to have in government, their actions and activities. I hope that

this minister actually will commit to the highest level of transparency

and to releasing the business plan, as has been suggested by the

official opposition critic.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Maybe I didn’t articulate my answer clearly enough. I was

highlighting to the hon. member from the opposition that they also had a

tech fund which had no public accountability, had no transparency on

where the investments were going, who the investments were going to. The

Attorney General questioned them several times to try to find that

answer, to no avail.

I was just highlighting to the member the different

ap­proach we’re taking here. In legislation, InBC will be

re­quired, yearly, to put out a report; will be required, every

five years, to have an independent audit, which will be made public.

Everything will be made public here in this Legislature, and I confirm

that we’re going through the process right now on a proactive disclosure

of the business plan. It’ll be coming in the coming weeks.

With all respect to the member and the Leader of the Third Party,

I was just articulating that we are building in transparency, and we do

aim to be much more transparent than perhaps this chamber has seen in

the past.

Clauses 19 and 20 approved.

On clause 21.

T. Stone: I could have picked, I guess, any

section to ask this next series

of questions, so there’s no particular rhyme or reason for this one. The

minister has talked at great length about the transparency and

accountability of this corporation and that that will be are reinforced

and underpinned with independent investment decisions. I think we’ve

canvassed that in debate yesterday and today. As the official

opposition, we have some very serious reservations around just how

independent those investment decisions are going to be.

This relationship between the chief investment officer and the

board of directors is not clear and, we believe, affords a tremendous

amount of opportunity for undue influence and lack of independence. The

minister keeps pointing back to requirements for annual reports and for

a review. The first big, independent review won’t be done for five years

— conveniently after the next provincial election. All of this we take

great issue with and, we think, is far from the highest standards of

transparency and accountability that you can get.

It’s not just our sense on this that there are glaring holes in

terms of accountability and transparency. The freedom-of-information and

protection-of-privacy commissioner wrote a letter that was delivered to

the minister and his colleague the Minister of Citizens’ Services. The

letter was written and delivered today. It was accompanied by a news

release that was published by the commissioner’s office.

The letter is quite pointed, and it’s very clear as to how the

commissioner feels about InBC and the lack of accountability that’s

built in or lack of transparency that’s been built in, insofar as this

government’s decision not to make InBC applicable to the requirements in

the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

[4:10 p.m.]

The minister said, in answer to several questions yesterday — I’ll

just quote one of them; there were several questions on this topic: “In

the legislation, there are many pieces that are important for

transparency. Every year a report has to be made public, here at the

Legislature, on the investments being made…. Every five years an

independent audit needs to be done.”

We get that. But the commissioner, in his letter, again, dated

today, says this: “It would be no answer to say that FIPPA coverage is

unnecessary, because InBC will be required to release annual reports and

be subject to external reviews. Its annual reports are to be in a form

and manner specified by the minister, and external reviews will occur

only every five years. These accountability mechanisms fall far short of

what is needed and lack the ongoing transparency afforded through the

access-to-information regime.”

I’d like to ask the minister why the decision has been taken,

presumably by him and in conjunction with his colleagues, to not ensure

that InBC falls under the purview of the Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act. Why was that decision not made?

He can point back as many years as he wants about successive

governments and what different governments did and didn’t do, and so

forth. He’s the minister. This government has been in power for four

years now. He’s the minister bringing forward this InBC legislation.

He’s the minister that’s asking taxpayers to feel okay — in fact, feel

good — about $500 million of their funds being invested in high-risk

venture capital investments.

These are his decisions. The public deserves to have access to

InBC documents. The public has the right, or should have the right, when

it comes to InBC, to access this material when the public sees fit, not

when the government determines that they’re going to push some

information out in a glossy annual report or wait for a five-year

independent review. When the public wants to see the information, the

public should have a right to see this information pursuant to

FIPPA.

So the question to the minister is: why is the government not

ensuring that InBC falls under the purview of FIPPA? Why is the

government not following the very clear statements and the urging of the

commissioner to make sure that that’s the case?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We were just starting to canvass this in question period today,

and I’m glad we get a chance to talk about it now. The hon. member will

know…. It’s convenient for him if I don’t remind him about how this

structure was set up, but I think it’s important for context.

[4:15 p.m.]

The immigrant investment fund, which is now being shifted over to

InBC, was created by his government at the time. It has $180 million in

that fund. When they put the $100 million in for the B.C. tech fund, I

presume they did it because of the concerns that we have as well, which

is the chilling effect that could happen from the private sector to

bring proposals forward.

In fact, Kensington Capital raised those concerns with them at the

time and suggested that it would have a chilling effect. Especially

companies that are on the cutting edge — their competitors, all in the

B.C. market, may want to FOI some of their sensitive information and

have it up for

interpretation. I think that’s the reason why the

member’s government chose to leave it out at that time. Of course, he

can clarify if that’s not the case. But we are aware that Kensington

Capital, at the time, said that there were concerns around sensitive

information and how that can be shared.

Our office has been in touch with the independent of­fice.

They had conversations last week. We saw the letter just a couple of

hours ago. We’re going to continue to engage with the investment

community to ensure that we get a sense from them on what this means —

the sug­gestions from the independent officer. We will be

responding to the independent officer once we’ve done some of that

engagement.

T. Stone: Well, the minister would be wise to also en­gage with

British Columbians on this. I mean, it’s British Columbians that are on

the hook for $500 million. I will say it over and over again. Pursuant

to the government’s own service plan for InBC, this $500 million is

going to be invested in high-risk venture capital investments. We have

huge concerns about that taking place, particularly with this

government.

The minister keeps talking about corporate interests and so forth.

The commissioner had something to say about that in his letter today as

well.

“The business interests of InBC and parties with whom it does

business can be fully protected by FIPPA’s robust access exceptions.

This is amply demonstrated by the almost 30 years of experience of

public bodies such as BCIMC, ICBC and B.C. Hydro in protecting their own

business information and that of their business partners.

“Examples of the FIPPA exceptions that can come into play are

sections 13, which is advice or recommendations;

section 14,

solicitor-client privilege; 17, financial interests of InBC or the

provincial government; 21, third-party business interests; and 22,

personal privacy of InBC employees and others.”

That’s the commissioner saying to this government that it’s a

false argument to be making — that because of the worry around

commercial interests, this government has no obligation, therefore, to

provide public access through the Freedom of Information Act to InBC

information. There is a whole broad range of other types of information

that wouldn’t necessarily involve sensitive corporate information at

InBC. So I think that’s a bit of a huge red herring that the minister is

throwing out there.

The reality is that it appears that this government is, at best,

going to drag its heels on FOI applicability to InBC. They really should

make InBC subject to, as virtually every other public body in this

province, including BCIMC and many others…. BCIMC manages a $173 billion

asset portfolio. They’re subject to FOI. They have a heck of a lot of

commercial interest concerns with those investments, but somehow it

works. Innovate B.C. has third-party financial relationships and

whatnot. Somehow Innovate B.C. is subject to the FOI

requirements.

It’s unacceptable that this government didn’t just come right out

of the gates and say, “We’re going to make sure that InBC is added to

table 2 or

schedule 2 of the FIPPA act, where all the other public

bodies are listed” — which, by the way, can happen with the stroke of a

pen. That’s done through regulation.

[4:20 p.m.]

The Minister of Citizens’ Services could do that today. She could

sign a regulation today that would ensure that InBC is added to that

list of public bodies in FIPPA. That would therefore assure British

Columbians of access to InBC information, subject to, as I just read

into the record, the series of FIPPA exemptions that are a part of the

FOI process.

I say all of that….

[Interruption.]

You have to be very careful what you say — Surrey or sorry. Life’s

embarrassing moments.

My question to the minister, in the context of everything that

I’ve been saying is: why did this government, if they were in

consultations with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner — who would

have been, presumably, providing them with the same information that he

wrote in a letter today…. Why did they not just trust British Columbians

and say, right from the get-go: “We’re not just going to talk about the

high standards of transparency and accountability. We’re actually going

to ensure that that’s embodied in the actual establishment of the

creation of InBC right from the get-go, by making sure that the FOI

legislation that we have in this province applies to a corporation that

is going to engage in investing $500 million of public

funds”?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the hon. member saying: “Do as I say, not as I did.”

I appreciate the argument that he’s trying to make. But again, I remind

him that there was a reason why they chose to go down this route with

the Immigrant Investment Fund when it was originally created. The member

can clarify why they chose to go in that direction. I can only assume

it’s because partners like Kensington Capital came back to them and

said: “This will have a chilling effect on investment.”

InBC will receive, on an ongoing basis, the most significant,

confidential, commercially sensitive, proprietary and financial

information from applicants for investment and the same category of

information from co-investors, financial institutions and other partners

that are in B.C. Market expectations and requirements will be that this

information is shared with InBC on an entirely confidential basis. This

type of information that will be shared with InBC is not otherwise

subject to disclosure.

Again, similar advice that they probably got when they created the

Immigrant Investment Fund, similar advice they got when the B.C. tech

fund was created, similar to feedback we’re getting. We’re going to

continue to engage with the independent officer. We’re going to also

check with those in the investment community about the letter. We will

be acting on that.

But within the legislation, because this is a continuation of the

Immigrant Investment Fund, it’s not a legislation

requirement.

The Chair: I’m curious to see if Hansard picked up Siri’s

answer.

Member for Kamloops–South Thompson and Siri, you have the

floor.

[4:25 p.m.]

T. Stone: I wanted to ask this question. The minister referenced…. He has

said it a few times today. He mentioned it a few times yesterday, where

he said that his ministry was in discussions with the Office of the

Information and Privacy Commissioner.

I would like to ask him: if that indeed is the case, when did the

ministry actually meet with the Office of the Information and Privacy

Commissioner? What advice did he provide them at that time? How is it

that if they were having discussions…?

He refers to good discussions, good engagements that are

happening. How could it possibly be that these discussions, if they took

place, were good, when the Office of the Information and Privacy

Commissioner saw fit to write a pretty scathing, pretty pointed letter,

strongly urging the government to make sure that the FOI rules in this

province apply to InBC? There seems to be a major disconnect there that

I would appreciate the minister addressing.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m not here to speak on behalf of the commissioner. I’ll let the

commissioner speak. But my team had been engaging with the commissioner.

Again, as I’ve already highlighted a couple of times, we’ll go out and

assess with the investment community on the letter, and we will continue

to engage with them.

Clauses 21 to 36 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

The Chair: Minister, would you like to make a motion?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the committee rise and re­port the bill complete

without amendment.

The Chair: In my judgment, the nays have it.

Division has been called, and pursuant to standing

ord­ers adopted, I think, April 21, division will be delayed

until half an hour before the end of session today.

Interjection.

The Chair: We’ll be with you in just a moment.

[4:30 p.m.]

Thank you for your patience. This was the first time for me,

and obviously, the first time for many of the members as

well.

Pursuant to

section 5, clause 11, divisions are not

per­mitted on a motion that a committee rise and report and on

a routine motion moved by the Government House Leader or their

designate that the House adjourn so as to not prevent the House from

undertaking business in a manner consistent with the intention of

the arrangements of formal divisions in hybrid proceedings. Members

may use practice recommendation No. 1.

I’ll note that Bill 5 was carried on division.

Motion approved on division.

The committee rose at 4:32 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 5 — I n BC INVESTMENT CORP.

ACT

Bill 5, InBC Investment Corp. Act, reported complete without

amendment on division.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — I n BC INVESTMENT CORP.

ACT

Mr. Speaker: Members, you’ve heard the motion.

Division has been called. Division will be conducted half an hour

before the end of the day.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading, Bill 7, Electoral Boundaries

Act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT,

Deputy Speaker: There he is, the Attorney General, ready to go.

[4:35 p.m.]

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

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Hon. D. Eby: This important bill is not lengthy, but it is very important. It

makes some necessary updates to the legislative framework that will

guide our next Electoral Boundaries Commission.

The Electoral Boundaries Commission Act requires an independent,

non-partisan Electoral Boundaries Commission to be appointed within a

year of every second general election. Our most recent general election

having been held last fall, the next commission must be appointed by

October 24, 2021.

Government is looking forward to appointing commissioners to

recommend electoral district names and boundaries for our next two

general elections. First, some amend­ments to the act are urgently

needed to ensure the commission is equipped to draw an electoral map

that upholds British Columbians’ constitutional rights and supports

effective representation for all British Columbians.

The purpose of redistributing electoral district boundaries is to

establish districts with relatively equal populations. Relatively equal

populations is not a goal based on a mere preference for fairness. It is

a constitutional imperative. Canadian courts have emphasized the

connection between our Charter of Rights and Freedoms

section 3 right to

vote and the electoral district boundaries within which we exercise that

right.

In the late 1980s, B.C. had an electoral map with districts

ranging in population from as few as 5,500 people to just over 68,000

people. In its 1989 ruling on the constitutionality of that electoral

map, the B.C. Supreme Court emphasized that the “relative equality of

voting power is fundamental to the right to vote enshrined in

section 3

of the Charter.” To quote: “The dominant consideration in drawing

electoral boundaries must be population.”

The 1991 Saskatchewan reference case is the leading Supreme Court

of Canada case on electoral boundaries. In drawing on the B.C. Supreme

Court decision, that case further elaborated that “the purpose of the

right to vote enshrined in

section 3 of the Charter is not equality of

voting power per se but the right to ‘effective

representation.’”

The court said: “Factors like geography, community history,

community interests and minority representation may need to be taken

into account to ensure that our legislative assemblies effectively

represent the diversity of our social mosaic.”

Further, the court said: “Parity of voting power, though of prime

importance, is not the only factor to be taken into account in ensuring

effective representation.”

It is a practical fact that effective representation often cannot

be achieved without taking into account countervailing factors. Thus,

the case law on electoral boundaries has been critically important in

establishing the foundational principles for electoral boundaries

commissions:

(1) The commission should be independent and

non-partisan.

(2) To provide for effective representation, voter parity is the

first order principle.

(3) The right to effective representation sometimes

re­quires the creation of electoral districts with populations

outside of the average range to reflect Canada’s vast geography and to

be attentive to community of interest concerns.

Electoral boundaries commissions face significant, arg­uably

unique, challenges in light of B.C.’s population dispersion and

geography. At just over 922,000 square kilometres, our province is

immense. Some electoral districts are larger than entire European

countries. Our population is strongly concentrated in specific

areas.

At the most recent census in 2016, 78 percent of British

Columbians lived in the four census metropolitan areas of greater

Vancouver, Abbotsford-Mission, Victoria and Kelowna. Approximately half

a million more people have moved to B.C. since the last commission

finished its work in 2015, with most of them moving to those

areas.

As is the case in other provinces’ legislation, the average

electoral district population is a critically important con­cept

in the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act. The average district

population is referred to as the electoral quotient. The commission must

aim to have most districts within plus or minus 25 percent of the

electoral quotient.

[4:40 p.m.]

The 25 percent deviation principle was first applied by the

1987-88 Royal Commission on Electoral Boundaries for British Columbia.

It was subsequently legislated when this act was adopted in

Population growth causes the electoral quotient to

in­crease. In turn, slower-growing electoral districts fall

further below the electoral quotient. Ultimately, a widening gulf

between the least and most populated electoral districts compromises the

principle of representation by population, with the votes of the

residents of the least populated districts having a disproportionately

high impact in determining the composition of this House.

At the time the next commission is appointed, the ten highest

population districts will likely have between 70,000 to 80,000 residents

each, an average of just over 73,000. The ten lowest population

districts will likely range from about 22,000 to 40,000 people, an

average of just over 31,000.

Urban MLAs are representing an increasingly large number of

diverse constituents with increasingly complex issues to be dealt with

in the constituency and in this assembly. At the same time, MLAs from

our less populated northern and interior regions face unique challenges

in ensuring their constituents are well represented and connected to the

work the MLAs do on their behalf in the constituency and in this House.

Technology has mitigated the geographic barriers to MLAs connecting with

their constituents, but not all of the province enjoys high-speed

Internet access yet.

Ensuring that all British Columbians have their right to effective

representation respected is the primary challenge facing our Electoral

Boundaries Commission. To equip the commission to meet that challenge,

this bill would, first, allow the commission to recommend an increase in

the number of electoral districts, up to a maximum of 93; second,

eliminate the three regions in the act that are collectively guaranteed

a minimum of 17 electoral districts; and third, update the guidance to

commissions in recommending electoral boundaries, including evaluating

when it is appropriate to recommend districts with populations outside

of the plus-minus 25 percent deviation range.

I want to emphasize that the core tenets of the act would not be

changed by this bill. The legislated plus-minus 25 percent deviation

principle, in place since 1989, remains in place. This range is a fairly

common Canadian standard used by B.C. and a number of other

jurisdictions for many years.

Since 1989, the act has allowed the commission to ex­ceed

the 25 percent deviation principle if it finds a justification for doing

so. This bill would change the reason for allowing deviations from “very

special circumstances” to “necessary…for effective representation,” but

the concept remains the same.

The commission has authority to exceed the 25 percent deviation

principle. B.C. would continue to be consistent with almost every

Canadian jurisdiction in providing explicit recognition within the

legislation that absolute voter parity is impossible and even, in some

circumstances, undesirable.

In introducing this legislation, I acknowledge that I do not

believe this legislation will make the commission’s task simple or

straightforward. This bill would restore the commission’s ability to

exercise independent judgment in balancing voter parity with other

effective representation concerns, including those that tend to arise in

rural and remote regions. Achieving that balance has never been easy.

The commission will need to balance competing demands from B.C.’s

communities in a way that the commission believes contributes to

effective representation for the entire province.

With that said, I am confident that this legislation will make the

commission’s legislated guidance more consistent with the constitutional

principles laid out by Canadian courts. The courts have provided

guidance that exceptions to the voter parity principle should be clearly

and rationally justified.

I am not confident that the act’s existing approach to

guaranteeing rural representation meets that standard going forward. The

most recent commission itself cast some doubt on the continued

workability of the approach, inviting the Legislative Assembly to

“assess the degree to which this legislative solution achieves the

appropriate balance required between the principle of representation by

population and the need to take into account other representational

imperatives.”

[4:45 p.m.]

To be clear, this bill does continue to provide for rural

representation. The bill specifies that in considering whe­ther

the need for effective representation warrants exceeding the 25 percent

deviation principle in a district, the commission may take into account

special demographic and geographic considerations, including manageable

geographic size of electoral districts.

The 2014 amendments to this act prohibit the commission from

recommending any fewer than 17 seats in the three specified regions of

the province. That is a broad and rigid approach, with no real precedent

in Canada.

At the same time, if we were simply to return the act to its

pre-2014 state, the result would be that the commission may recommend

districts that exceed the 25 percent deviation principle in “very

special circumstances.” This terminology is arguable rigid in its own

way and has been criticized as tilting the balance too far in favour of

strict representation by population. This bill is intended to provide

reasonable latitude for the commission to provide its own best advice on

balancing urban and rural interests.

With that, I am pleased to provide this bill for the Legislative

Assembly’s consideration. I believe that this legislation provides the

commission with the flexibility it needs to carry out its mandate and to

exercise independent judgment as it develops an electoral map for this

assembly’s consideration.

I look forward to explaining the specifics of the bill during

committee stage debate.

C. Oakes: I want to start by recognizing, with respect, that I’m speaking to

you today on the Lhtako First Nation and the South Dakelh Nation

Alliance.

I rise today, virtually, on behalf of all of my constituents of

Cariboo North, to address second reading of Bill 7, the Electoral

Boundaries Commission Amendment Act.

There are moments that become etched in one’s mind, words that

take on much more significance as time progresses, roles that become

much more defined. For myself, that moment happened in 2017 when a B.C.

wildfire incident commander told a group of elected officials, which I

was a part of, that we all needed to prepare ourselves that we may lose

it all. Everything could be destroyed by the raging

wildfires.

Words and experiences that are very relevant to the bill before

this House. Knowledge acquired, no different than what we have learned

during this pandemic. Vulnerabilities and gaps that have a profound

impact on people — not intentional but no less of an impact. And the

reality of what is required to meet crises and the challenges of our

time.

Crisis puts a magnifying glass to the frailties of our system,

even our democratic ones. As I rise today, on behalf of my constituents

of Cariboo North, to address second reading of Bill 7, it is my hope

that members of this House will think about the people and the stories

that I will share and consider the significant trauma that Cariboo North

has and continues to suffer.

Understand that inequities exist in our communities, specifically

rural populations. How much of the rural populations still do not have

access to basic services such as cell service, Internet or affordable,

reliable Internet, let alone high-speed Internet, which the member just

mentioned before. I hope that members will consider the in­equity

in connectivity that truly works against people living in rural ridings

and, in fact, silences their voices and creates true barriers to

effective representation.

Effective representation in a democracy is not just confined to a

short 28-day election cycle where what has been garnered over a snapshot

in time will somehow provide a candidate or future MLA with a

comprehensive list of all of the people’s concerns, both at the

mo­ment and into the future. That is to say that if people have

had their ability to vote, then they’ve been represented and their

voices have been heard.

[4:50 p.m.]

What happens when catastrophic events and issues em­erge

between election cycles, such as a pandemic, the opioid crisis and

extreme weather events? Are the people’s voices represented because

efforts were made in order for them to elect a representative? Or is the

contract much more comprehensive, where the expectation of

representation effectively is one that should and is necessary to happen

between constituents and their MLA on a continued basis? How do we

ensure that all voices are heard equally in this House?

A basic foundation of this principle is that in order to be

represented equally, the same access to connectivity should be available

to all citizens connecting them to their MLA, or there needs to be a

recognition that special circumstances exist necessary for effective

representation. I’m calling on this government and this Attorney

General: special circumstances do, in fact, exist in rural ridings and

that this be placed in the bill before the House.

This bill, as it stands, suggests that the government does not

understand the disparity that currently exists between people living in

different parts of the province or that it just doesn’t care. Why has

government not recognized in this bill that there are inequalities

between regions? And why has it not included the needs that exist of

special circumstances in rural ridings?

I just heard the Attorney General talk about high-speed Internet.

Boy, in most of our rural ridings, we don’t even have Internet or cell

service.

Let us hold the magnifying glass to these inequities that exist in

rural British Columbia and the significant disadvantages of large areas

of geography where those people live and the services that they have

access to that support them with being represented — these hard-working

men and women who work in and are producers for agricultural, forestry

and mining sectors, to name a few.

Why is this bill focused on simply the electoral quotient? And why

does government not understand the very real consequences it will have

on people living in rural British Columbia, people that do not benefit

from the equal access to connectivity? I would argue that is the

integral part to effective representation, unless special circumstances

exist and are recognized.

I am confident that over the course of second reading, my

colleagues will provide this House with the technical details and

impacts of this bill.

I feel that it’s important today to spend my time focused on the

people of Cariboo North and sharing their voices here in this

Legislature. I feel a responsibility to share my experience of

representing a riding that has and continues to face catastrophic trauma

and impacts, in hopes that we all can be better prepared and that our

people’s voices are heard during challenging times. I pray and hope that

other people never feel the impacts that Cariboo North has felt.

However, weather does not discriminate against a riding, a party or a

government.