Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, November 6, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 179

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 (Standing Order 25B)

Delta Farmland and Wildlife Trust

I. Paton

Apprenticeship

J. Rice

Craft breweries in Richmond

J. Yap

Adoption awareness

R. Singh

Alternatives to plastic straws

T. Wat

B.C. Agriculture Day

R. Leonard

Oral Questions

Government recordkeeping policies

S. Bond

Hon. J. Sims

M. Stilwell

Fish health and wild salmon protection

A. Olsen

Hon. L. Popham

Government recordkeeping policies

P. Milobar

Hon. J. Sims

G. Kyllo

M. Hunt

M. Polak

Standing Order 81.1

Schedule for debate on Bill 53

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 53 — Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018 (continued)

P. Milobar

D. Davies

J. Isaacs

Point of Order (Speaker’s Ruling)

Standing Order 81.1

Schedule for debate on Bill 53 (continued)

Hon. M. Farnworth

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 44 — Budget Measures Implementation (Employer Health Tax) Act, 2018 (continued)

T. Redies

Hon. C. James

S. Bond

A. Olsen

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2018

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Members, before we start introductions, let us welcome back the member for

Nanaimo. [Applause.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Popham: It is my honour to introduce some very special guests today that are

joining us at the Legislature — 31 of them, in fact. Thirty-one

representatives from the B.C. Agriculture Council are here today to help

celebrate Ag Day, my favourite day of the year. They are joined by chair

Stan Vander Waal.

The BCAC does incredible work advocating for agriculture in this

province. I know they’re looking forward to meeting with all of us on both

sides of the chamber, and I appreciate all the time the members are taking

to hear about issues about agriculture.

Please join me in welcoming them.

Hon. M. Mark: Well, this week is Apprenticeship Recognition Week, and I have four

guests in the chambers that I’d like to introduce. Dason Beaverbone-Townsend

is a welding apprentice. Crystal Nassichak is an automotive apprentice. Both

are in the foundations program at Camosun College. Joining them are Kyle

Preston from the Industry Training Authority — he’s an apprenticeship

adviser for the south Island — and Rod Bianchini, the interim COO from the

ITA. Will the House please join me in welcoming these movers, these shakers,

these builders and these makers.

Hon. H. Bains: It gives me a great deal of pleasure…. I looked in the gallery. My

longtime friend Fred Girling is up there. Fred has been involved, I think,

ever since he was just out of his diapers and been an activist all his life,

helping to improve the lives of working people. Even in his retirement days

right now, he’s also very, very active with the retirement community, trying

to make seniors’ lives much more affordable and helpful. Please help me give

him a warm, warm welcome — Fred Girling.

C. Oakes: As the Minister of Agriculture said, it is also one of my favourite

days today, to recognize the importance of agriculture and the constituents

who have come down to meet with us, on both sides of the House.

I have a very special guest today, Lynda Atkinson, who is here as part

of the agricultural working group. Lynda and the group in Quesnel have done

a significant job, in fact, in the region around an agricultural working

group, specifically around looking at how we can become an agricultural

centre of excellence.

Following the wildfire seasons, we certainly know we need to

diversify. Agriculture is incredibly important. I am very proud of the work

that this working group is doing.

Maybe just a final note. Both Lynda and her husband were teachers of

mine.

It is my pleasure to say thank you for your efforts. I’m incredibly

proud to have you here today.

Would the House please help me welcome them.

Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the members’ gallery this morning is Ms. Galit Baram,

the consul general of Israel based in Toronto. The consul general and I have

met before and will meet again today. She also has a number of other

meetings with ministers and officials during her day here in Victoria. Will

the House please make the consul general of Israel welcome.

A. Olsen: I, too, stand today and welcome all of the members from the B.C.

agricultural community that are in and around the precinct today.

[10:10 a.m.]

I had the opportunity to meet with members from the sector earlier

this morning at a hotel nearby. I just wanted to raise my hands and thank

Heather Stretch and Mickey Aylard, both members from my riding, for the work

that they do.

Of course, everybody knows that Saanich North and the Islands is home

to some amazing agricultural producers. I raise my hands to all of them for

the food they produce for us.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

DELTA FARMLAND AND WILDLIFE TRUST

I. Paton: First of all, today, as we welcome the B.C. Agriculture Council

and a number of guests for Agriculture Day in Victoria, I would like to

speak about our Delta Farmland and Wildlife Trust, which was established

in 1993 by a group of farmers and conservationists with an interest in

conserving agriculture and wildlife resources in Delta.

This non-profit organization promotes the preservation of over

4,000 acres of farmland and wildlife habitat on the Fraser River delta

through cooperative land stewardship with local farmers. These programs

integrate research, education and financial incentives to provide

farmers with cost-share funding to establish wildlife habitat or invest

in long-term soil fertility on their farms.

Five key stewardship programs include winter cover crops,

grassland set-aside, hedgerow planting, field liming and laser

leveling.

Winter cover crops provide vegetation on fields planted after fall

harvest. This shared cost of seed provides winter feed habitat for

waterfowl and provides stability and protection to the soil, adding

organic matter as well.

Grassland set-aside aims at giving farm fields a rest for a few

years while at the same time providing tall, unused grasses as perfect

habitat for owls, raptors, rodents and pollinating insects.

Hedgerows and ditch bank grasses are also a funded program that

provide year-round wildlife habitat along field edges. Hedgerows provide

valuable shade and cover for songbirds, raptors, pheasants and

bees.

An annual highlight in Delta is Day at the Farm on Westham Island

near Ladner. This event is hosted by the Delta Farmland and Wildlife

Trust and provides an incredible opportunity for city folk to connect

with real farmers on real farms, experiencing displays, educational

hayride tours, demonstrations, food trucks, Clydesdale horse plowing and

antique farm equipment displays.

After many years of strained relationships between farmers and

conservationists, we now have a collaboration that ensures that land

will continue to be available for food production and wildlife

conservation well into the future.

APPRENTICESHIP

J. Rice: Every day B.C.’s apprentices work with their hands, heads and

hearts to make sure that our roads are safe, that our homes are powered

and heated and that our culinary scene is world-class. That’s why I am

so pleased to rise and celebrate Apprenticeship Recognition Week,

November 4 through 10.

This week honours the thousands of hard-working apprentices

throughout B.C. That’s 35,000 adult apprentices, 5,000 youth and 4,000

foundation students waiting to join the workforce. Apprentices are

training for over 100 diverse trades, from automotive technicians and

welders to chefs and funeral directors.

On top of the 45,000 apprentices and students ready to go right

now, it’s expected that there will be about 71,000 new job openings in

the trades over the next decade. The high-demand trades include

millwrights, heavy-duty mechanics and carpenters. Skilled tradespeople

will be needed throughout the province in industries like construction,

manufacturing and forestry.

Our government is ready to train the next generation of B.C.

workers. There are over 100 trades programs offered at 15 post-secondary

institutions as well as private post-secondary institutions all over the

province. Just this year seven new trades-training facilities were

opened at post-secondary institutions throughout B.C. Students in

Vernon, Cranbrook, Terrace, Prince George, Kamloops, Nanaimo and Dawson

Creek are enjoying state-of-the-art facilities with world-class

instructors. That’s not all. Next year two more facilities will open in

Campbell River and Nelson.

There’s a scenario that plays out at worksites all over B.C.

Contractors are looking for skilled tradespeople, and too many

apprentices can’t get the skills they need without experience. That’s

why I’m proud of the community benefits agreement for large-scale public

projects.

[10:15 a.m.]

An apprenticeship in the skilled trades is an important entry

point to a long-lasting, good-paying career with opportunities around

the province. To the apprentices out there: keep creating, keep fixing,

keep innovating and, most importantly, keep helping to build the best

B.C.

CRAFT BREWERIES IN RICHMOND

J. Yap: Behind every great beer is a great story. Today I have the

pleasure to tell you the tales behind Fuggles and Warlock, Britannia

Brewing and Monkey 9 Brewing.

Recently the three breweries in Richmond took home four prizes at

the 2018 B.C. Beer Awards, an annual competition that features judges

from all across North America.

The first winner, Fuggles and Warlock Craftworks, sticks to its

motto of “Keeping beer weird.” It took third place in the specialty IPA

category with a hoppy and zesty pale ale featuring a hint of

lemongrass.

The owners of Monkey 9 say their name is meant to invoke

positivity, togetherness, magic and wisdom. They took home a prize with

their James Brown ale, a beer with hints of chocolate and

biscuit.

Last but not least, Britannia Brewing won two prizes. The company

said its mission is to brew best-in-class ales following in the British

tradition, and it’s clearly succeeding in that goal.

As the former Parliamentary Secretary for Liquor Policy Reform,

I’m very excited that the achievements of our craft brewing industry are

being recognized. We modernized B.C. liquor laws to support innovation

and cut red tape. The changes we made have enabled many more craft

breweries to open and grow. From 2011 to 2017, craft beer sales in B.C.

have almost tripled, and British Columbia continues to gain recognition

as the craft beer capital in Canada.

Congratulations, again, to the winners based in Richmond. As the

saying goes, it’s good to have a warm heart and a cold beer.

ADOPTION AWARENESS

R. Singh: Each year November is proclaimed as Adoption Awareness Month. It

is not only a time to raise awareness about children in adoptive care

but also a reminder for British Columbians about the thousands here in

B.C. and millions worldwide who are looking to be adopted or to adopt

and to become families.

We all know that family is the root from where a life grows and

thrives. So it is time to give thanks to adoption social workers who

work passionately to make families happen by finding loving homes for

children. They deserve our sincere gratitude, as do the generous foster

families that provide care for so many B.C. children. Their kindness is

inspirational to all British Columbians.

Here in B.C., there are three private adoption agencies that the

ministry licenses which facilitate adoption across Canada and

internationally. There is also the Adoptive Families Association of

B.C., which provides pre- and post-adoption support services,

educational events and training on behalf of the ministry. The work they

do every day not only makes a difference, but it changes

lives.

I would like to take this opportunity to ask British Columbians

who are ready to start or expand their families to consider adoption as

one more way to share their love. I would also like to encourage all

British Columbians to create a dialogue about adoption and to raise

awareness for the many young people in care in B.C. who are counting on

individuals, couples or families to provide the permanent, loving homes

that they, like all of us, need.

ALTERNATIVES TO PLASTIC STRAWS

T. Wat: I rise today in the House to talk about two young entrepreneurs

from my riding of Richmond North Centre, their good intention and their

effort to protect the environment while at the same time provide

Roger Chen and Alfie Hsu have recently launched a green

revolution. They suggested that plastic straws be replaced by sugarcane

straws that are derived from renewable resources. These sugarcane straws

are eco-friendly and compostable.

[10:20 a.m.]

United Nations figures show nearly nine million tonnes of plastic

bottles, packaging and other waste enter the ocean each year, killing

marine life and entering the human food chain.

Plastic straws add up to about 2,000 tonnes. They also account for

about 4 percent of the plastic trash by the number of pieces. According

to the city of Vancouver, about 57 million plastic straws are used in

Canada every day. A video that showed marine biologists removing a straw

from a sea turtle’s nostril went viral in 2015 and raised awareness in

our community. I urge all members to go on the website and to take a

look.

Many companies, such as Starbucks and Swiss Chalet, have pledged

to ban plastic straws. However, critics say cutting out straws may

create unintended difficulties for people with mobility limitations.

Roger and Alfie came up with an idea to save our planet and, at the same

seniors.

They are hoping that the government will support replacing plastic

straws with eco-friendly and accessible options, such as sugarcane

straws. These straws are made from reusable sugarcane fibre, which is

not only a natural source for the material but is also biodegradable.

I’m proud of the good intention and innovation of these two young

entrepreneurs. Best wishes to them on their endeavours.

B.C. AGRICULTURE DAY

R. Leonard: K’ómoks. It means “the land of plenty” in the language of

the K’ómoks people. This past Saturday many of our farmers at home got

to showcase their food and food products to the Premier as he toured our

bustling farmers market and Natural Pastures, a local cheese producer.

These institutions exemplify the growing agricultural sector here in

B.C.

Today is B.C. Agriculture Day. It’s a day for all of us to

celebrate with farmers and ranchers in praise of B.C. agriculture. It

provides good jobs, good food, and it boosts local economies throughout

B.C. The province’s Grow B.C., Feed B.C. and Buy B.C. are helping new

farmers get into farming, introducing local foods into institutions like

hospitals and schools and growing markets for B.C. foods and food

products.

There’s value in growing our important agricultural sector, which

last year alone saw $3.2 billion in farm cash receipts, up 4 percent

from the previous year. A focus on sustainability and food security is

resulting in amazing transformations, with B.C.’s world-class new

technologies providing solutions to major challenges like pest

management and automation in greenhouses.

B.C.’s proximity to markets is a competitive advantage to help

grow our agriculture, seafood and food-processing sectors. We all

benefit as our high-quality food is appreciated throughout the world,

allowing more B.C. products to hit our grocery store shelves.

On the other end of the spectrum, small-scale farmers and

processors also add great value, as more and more people seek out local

meats, produce and products. During the wildfire season last year, we

saw how access to local food became a very real necessity. There’s so

much to celebrate this B.C. Agriculture Day, so let’s eat B.C., drink

B.C. and be merry, B.C.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RECORDKEEPING POLICIES

S. Bond: I have here the government guide to transitory records, with

nearly a dozen examples of non-transitory records. They include things

like work schedules, assignments, information about a decision,

documentation of a policy matter, instructions, advice, meeting minutes,

agendas or useful information that helps explain the history of a

relationship, a decision or a project.

Can the minister who is responsible for FOI stand up today,

acknowledge that she has read and understands that list and make it

clear that she believes that it is unacceptable to delete any emails

that fit under this definition?

[10:25 a.m.]

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for that question. It is important

for the public to have confidence that their government is managing

records properly. All employees are required to keep and dispose of

records according to the Information Management Act, which has been in

place for a number of years.

We committed to holding ourselves to a higher standard, and

admittedly, some examples from earlier in our government may have fallen

short of that. But we agreed that extra training sessions should be

provided to staff and ministers to ensure they understand how to

properly identify and appropriately store government records. That

training has been given, and ongoing training is planned.

It is important that rules and best practices are followed, and

our government is committed to doing just that.

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

S. Bond: Well, we appreciate that very straightforward and passionate

defense of the rules around non-transitory emails.

Let’s walk through an

article that was written in July of 2017.

That

article was in the Vancouver Sun . It related to Marie

Della Mattia, and it said that she was one of the Premier’s most trusted

advisers, who, during her time in office, worked on special priority

files.

Non-transitory records that must be kept include — and the

minister, in fact, just agreed — instructions, advice, useful

information that helps explain the history of a relationship or a

decision.

Does this minister really expect us or British Columbians to

believe that absolutely none of Della Mattia’s emails during what is a

critical time of transition, during the early days of her

administration, fit the definition of non-transitory?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for her follow-up

question.

The freedom-of-information requests were for her sent emails

during the very first days of the government’s mandate. The employee was

working for only a portion of that time and only part-time. The nature

of her work during this time was in-person meetings with the director of

communications. She was not involved in operational or policy

decisions.

This employee was only a government employee until January 15.

After that time she no longer had government email.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a second

supplemental.

S. Bond: Thank you very much. You know, I know the minister is aware that

it’s not how many hours that a person works that actually triggers the

definition. It’s every single piece of work that a person does when they

are working for the government.

On May 31, the Leader of the Official Opposition actually asked

the Premier about the missing records of Marie Della Mattia. In

response, the Premier acknowledged the breach of FOI rules and said: “I

asked my deputy minister to have all information that had been removed

from computers as ‘no records’ responses brought back into the system.”

It was an easy matter to retrieve the information.

Well, apparently, not quite as easy as the Premier thought. We now

know that Della Mattia’s emails are still missing. Simple question to

the minister: where are they?

Hon. J. Sims: Thank you to my colleague across the way for her follow-up

question, because it gives me an opportunity to follow up on the

questions that she has asked and the questions that were asked

earlier.

We did recover and review the emails for seven staff who sent “no

record” responses from the Premier’s office. Those were recovered by our

professional public service. With this complete, we processed past

freedom-of-information requests. Where applicable, final responses to

these requests were published to government’s Open Information

website.

[10:30 a.m.]

Let me repeat again. When it came to this particular individual,

why no records came up, she only worked part-time, only for a short

time, and the nature of her work — and it’s really important that it’s

the nature of her work — during this time was in-person meetings with

the director of communications. She was not involved in operational or

policy decisions.

M. Stilwell: Yesterday there was a list of 18 individuals that was provided to

the minister’s office, individuals who have deleted every single email

and text message that they created, for months at a time. The minister

states that she’s holding herself and the government to a higher

standard. So the Minister of Citizens’ Services should be able to

explain to us the continued NDP practice of deleting all

emails.

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for that question. I’m absolutely

awestruck every time I hear questions from the other side about record

management, taking into consideration their track record.

When I look at their track record — it was the Leader of the

Opposition who was the minister responsible for freedom of information —

they had an embarrassing track record. In a clear violation of the

rules, they got caught deleting emails after an FOI request came in.

That was wrong. On top of that, they were triple-deleting to cover it

up. That’s also wrong. Even when someone blew the whistle on both these

practices, they lied about it. That side has nothing to teach us about

FOIs.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.

M. Stilwell: Eighteen news releases were issued by the Minister of Education in

September and October of last year. Each one of those would have

required decisions to approve not only the content but the quotes. The

senior ministerial assistant in that office would have been involved in

those decisions and likely much, much more. However, he couldn’t produce

a single document — not one, zero records.

How does the Minister of Citizens’ Services explain

this?

Hon. J. Sims: I do want to thank my colleague for that follow-up question. As I

said yesterday, I did ask my staff to look into the specific request. I

got the details from the opposition at 8:45 last night. We have looked

into it. This request came in after the person was no longer working in

that office. My staff are looking into this particular request, and when

I have more information, I’ll be happy to provide it to the

member.

FISH HEALTH

AND WILD SALMON

PROTECTION

A. Olsen: Clayoquot Sound used to support healthy, vibrant populations of

sockeye, chinook, coho, chum and pink salmon. Today those populations

are threatened.

Last week Living Oceans issued a report which revealed that sea

lice are out of control in Clayoquot Sound. This past spring wild salmon

were infected with sea lice at unprecedented levels. Independent

monitoring found that 96 percent of wild juveniles carried an average of

eight lice per fish. In some cases, fish carried up to 50 sea lice. One

to three sea lice can kill a juvenile salmon. In all likelihood, this

outbreak could kill off an entire generation of fish from the

area.

My question to the Minister of Agriculture is: was her ministry

aware of the growing threat of sea lice in B.C. fish farms, and if so,

what is she doing to address it?

Mr. Speaker: Minister, before you begin, may I remind members that it is not

appropriate to use the word “lie” in the House.

[10:35 a.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I want to assure the member that our government is committed to

keeping our water safe and protecting the health of our wild salmon

stocks. The federal government has primary responsibility for fish farms

and fish health in our waters. That includes regulating SLICE, tracking

drug effectiveness and potential resistances. I understand that DFO is

conducting a review of a Cermaq fish farm in Clayoquot Sound to

determine whether protocols for reporting and treating an outbreak in

the spring were followed.

I’ve had conversations with the federal minister, and he

recognizes that things need to change. I’m encouraged by DFO’s recent

re-engagement on the west coast and the renewed commitment to addressing

fish health and protecting wild salmon. We will continue to work with

our federal partners to ensure that they fully recognize and exercise

their responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a

supplemental.

A. Olsen: The outbreak in Clayoquot was triggered, as the minister

mentioned, by a growing pesticide resistance to SLICE, the single drug

approved for sea lice treatment in Canada. In 2014, DFO knew that

resistance to SLICE was building. They documented failures in Klemtu in

2013, Esperanza Inlet in 2017 and now Clayoquot Sound in

The alternative to using SLICE is to dump a cocktail of new drugs

and chemicals into our oceans, with untold effects. For wild salmon,

this means either an increasing risk of exposure to lethal parasite

levels at a time when stocks are critically depressed or, potentially,

irreparably harming the marine environment where they live.

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. I don’t have such a

high level of confidence in DFO. We’ve seen that they’re vastly

underfunding fish stock analysis. They continue to ignore the growing

body of evidence of the threat that open-net fish farms pose on our

coast. It really feels like they are bringing the cod fishery plan out

here on the west coast.

To the Minister of Agriculture, at what point is our government

going to stand up and publicly demand that they take action, that the

Department of Fisheries and Oceans respect our coast?

Hon. L. Popham: The member will know that the federal government holds much of the

jurisdiction in this area, but as a provincial government, we’ve taken

action on the provincial level to protect wild salmon.

In response to First Nations and public concerns around pesticide

use, the Ministry of Environment proposed changes to the integrated pest

management regulation. People have until November 30 to submit feedback.

We’ve introduced rigorous new requirements for salmon farm tenures.

We’ve engaged in historic government-to-government talks in the

Broughton Archipelago to resolve nations’ long-standing concerns around

salmon farms in their territories, and we’ve launched the Wild Salmon

Advisory Council.

Although the federal government has a lot of responsibility, we

are taking action, and we’re working with the federal government to

ensure that they fully exercise their responsibility to address salmon

health.

GOVERNMENT RECORDKEEPING POLICIES

P. Milobar: The minister for FOI was correct that Ms. Della Mattia was a

member of the Premier’s office until January 2018. As a fan of Paul

Harvey growing up, I will now share the rest of the story, though,

because after that Ms. Della Mattia became a member and a GCPE

employee.

On February 22, she requested that an auto response be put on her

government email to redirect people to her Gmail address. On March 5,

she emailed again to the GCPE service desk lead to say that she did not

want a government email account at all. The same day she received a very

clear-cut response: “I always recommend using government email to send

and receive government information and data.”

Does the Minister of Citizens’ Services agree that Della Mattia

should use a government email account for government

business?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for that question. It is important

for the public to have confidence that their government is keeping

records. There are very clear rules that exist for usage of your emails

and how records should be kept. All employees are required to keep and

dispose of records according to the Information Management

Act.

[10:40 a.m.]

We committed to holding ourselves to a higher standard, and we

have been providing additional training to staff to make sure that they

are properly identifying and appropriately storing these records. The

training has been done, and we will continue to do ongoing training. It

is important that rules and best practices are followed, and our

government is committed to doing just that.

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–North Thompson on a supplemental.

P. Milobar: These are employees at a very high level. One would assume the

training would have set in, because on March 8, the issue escalated in

an email sent by Della Mattia to the deputy minister of government

communications, Evan Lloyd. Della Mattia writes: “I recommend that we

delete the GCPE account immediately and continue to have ministers’

offices and others contact me via my Gmail address.”

Now, here is the reply from the GCPE deputy minister: “Agreed.

Whoever is responsible, please follow through and delete the GCPE

address.”

Will the minister make it clear today that this is wrong, that

Gmail should not be used for government business?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for that question. Policy is very,

very clear, as has been our training, that for government business,

emails that are provided by government should be used. If, in

extenuating circumstances, non-government email has to be used, then we

have to make sure that those records are transferred into the government

records.

G. Kyllo: On April 26, the Minister of Citizens’ Services said: “We really

are very firm, in the outreach we do with employees, to use government

emails.” Not only did Della Mattia use her private email. It’s now clear

that one of the most senior positions of the public service, a deputy

minister, actually approved this indefensible circumvention of policy

that this minister is responsible for upholding.

To the Minister of Citizens’ Services, there have to be

consequences when people knowingly break the rules. What are the

consequences?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for the opportunity to stand up and

make it very, very clear that Ms. Della Mattia was no longer a

government employee after January 15. She was a contractor, not a GCPE

employee. Her OIC was rescinded January 15, 2018.

Let me be very, very clear. The policy is, for government

business, use government email unless there are extenuating

circumstances. And if there are, then you make sure that that

information is recorded into your government email.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Shuswap on a supplemental.

G. Kyllo: I hope that the minister is not somehow trying to set the tone

that if you want to circumvent the rules of the House with respect to

the requirement to maintain emails and text messages, well, you just

contract the service out. Entire pages of Della Mattia’s emails to

senior staff in the Premier’s office are redacted as policy advice or

recommendations, clear evidence that she was conducting government

business on a private Gmail account and the Premier’s office was fully

aware.

Question. Will the Minister of Citizens’ Services do what she

should have done already and confirm that government staff are no longer

breaking the rules?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. J. Sims: Government staff, whether they work in the Premier’s office, the

minister’s office or whether they are professional public service, use

government emails to do government business — the policy is very clear —

unless there are extenuating circumstances. Then they’ve got to make

sure that if it has to do with government business, it becomes part of

government records. That is what happens with employees, and that is

what happens with ministers.

Now, it is very hard to sit on this side of the House and listen

to questions from that side of the House about record management and

about the use of emails, when they’re a government of “Win at all costs”

and triple deletes and have ministers who went on record to say they

didn’t ever use email. Mr. Speaker, we are getting this

right.

M. Hunt: It’s clear that the deputy minister sanctioned Della Mattia’s use

of a private email address. The same deputy minister also signed the

public service oath of employment, where he swore to “safeguard

confidential information.” The deputy minister broke the

rules.

Will the Minister of Citizens’ Services

please tell us: what consequences did he face?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for his question. You know, I’m

trying to work out here what it is that the opposition is trying to

clarify, because I have answered this question. In this case…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.

Hon. J. Sims: …the employee OIC was actually rescinded on January 15. After that

she was a contractor. While she was an employee, a lot of her work was

having conversations with the director of communications, and this did

not involve sending lengthy emails. As we’ve said before, all the emails

that were “no response” from the Premier’s office….

They were all reviewed by our professional public service, and

then every freedom-of-information request that came in was re-processed

by the public service. That is what happened. We are committed to making

sure that government records are kept and people are following

processes.

M. Polak: Let’s see if I can help the minister out a little bit here. It

doesn’t matter how long the emails were. It doesn’t matter if she was on

contract, as long as she was being paid by the government to do work for

government. The fact that many of those emails were redacted…. Why?

Because they might contain advice to government. It shows quite clearly

that government business was being conducted on a Gmail address. Not

only that, but as we have seen, this behaviour was being sanctioned by a

deputy minister.

Now, this minister promised an investigation, promised to get to

the bottom of it. Here’s what the Premier had to say: “We missed the

mark. I acknowledge that…. My senior officials…know full well my

profound disappointment….”

With even the Premier being disappointed in this behaviour, why

have there been no consequences visited upon those

responsible?

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for that question. Let me be very,

very clear. All the emails from the Premier’s office, the “no responses”

that were given, were reviewed for the seven staff who sent “no record”

responses, for all of them. With this complete, we processed each and

every freedom-of-information request that came in. First, we retrieved,

and then we reprocessed. Where applicable, final responses to these

requests were published to government’s Open Information website.

There’s something novel to that side of the House.

In the meantime, extra training sessions have been provided to all

staff and ministers to ensure they understand obligations to properly

identify and appropriately store government records. We plan to continue

that training because we know it’s a work-in-progress always.

We are committed to holding ourselves to a higher standard. The

steps we took to retrieve the records and have our public service review

them and then reprocess the FOI request show our commitment to open and

transparent government. We are proud of that.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the official opposition on a

supplemental.

M. Polak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is how Della Mattia justified her use

of Gmail: “Confidential information is only being shared with me in

person, not via email.” I seem to recall a time when those on the other

side decried the idea of sharing confidential government information

only in person and only verbally. My, how quickly the spots on the

leopard have changed.

Interjections.

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

you.

M. Polak: All of this was to be cleared up through an investigation — an

investigation that was announced six months ago, an investigation about

which we have heard nothing in terms of reports, findings. We get

postings of emails that have been recovered yet missing ones as well.

And in the case of Della Mattia, nothing. Nothing. They’re gone. They

don’t seem to exist anymore.

The minister can’t hide behind investigations that never seem to

wrap up. Instead, it’s time for her to hold people accountable, and it’s

time for her to do the simplest thing possible, which the previous

government did in response to similar issues. That is to require

ministers and staff to keep their sent email items.

Why won’t she do that? I’m wondering what she has to

hide.

Hon. J. Sims: I’m so glad that my colleague across the way brought up their own

record when it comes to records management and emails. After all, while

sitting on this side of the House, they were well known in the public

arena, as well as in here, for being a government of triple delete, a

government who actually deleted the records after the requests came in

and then misled the public when they were asked about it.

On the other hand, I am so proud of the record of our government.

As our Premier said, in some areas, we did fall short, but then we took

steps to address it. As a teacher, I know how important that is. We took

the concerns seriously. We restored the emails for the seven “no

response” records. The public service, not ministers, then took the lens

of the FOI requests that came in. They reprocessed every request, and

guess what. Unlike my colleagues on the other side, we then posted those

on the website.

Are we proud of the work we’re doing? Absolutely.

[10:55 a.m.]

[End of question period.]

Standing Order 81.1

SCHEDULE FOR DEBATE ON BILL 53

Hon. M. Farnworth: I rise to advise the House that agreement could not be reached

under the provisions of Standing Order 81.1(1) in relation to Bill 53

intituled Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018. Therefore, I move

the following motion.

[Pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 (2), all remaining proceedings

related to Bill (No. 53) intituled Recall and Initiative Amendment

Act, 2018 shall be completed and disposed of on or before

Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 6:30 p.m. At 6:00 p.m. on the date

mentioned, the Speaker and the Chair of the Committee of the Whole will

forthwith put all necessary questions for the disposal of all remaining

stages of the said bill without amendment or debate.

Any divisions called on any

section of Bill (No. 53) shall be taken

in accordance with Practice Recommendation No. 1. Any division called on

any second reading amendments, second reading, or third reading of the

said bill may be taken in accordance with Standing Order 16. Proceedings

under this motion shall not be subject to the provisions of Standing

Order 81, or the Standing or Sessional Orders relating to times and days

of the sittings of the House.]

Point of Order

M. Polak: I rise on a point of order.

According to Standing Order 32, a bill being debated would be dropped

if, indeed, at the end of that speaking, it wasn’t adjourned for debate and

instead was just straight up adjourned.

I note, from reviewing Hansard for yesterday, that that, in

fact, is what happened. I’ve got copies of it. The member did not move

adjournment of the debate. The member moved adjournment, and that

passed.

[11:00 a.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Orders of the day.

Mr. Speaker: Before we get into that, I should note that the motion put forward by

the Government House Leader will be on hold until we have the decision

raised by the official opposition.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker. While we await your ruling, I call continued

second reading debate on Bill 53, Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, in this

chamber. In committee A, I call….

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, we can do that. We most certainly can do that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, proceed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I now, in the little House, call Committee of the Whole on Bill 44, budget

measures implementation act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 53 — RECALL AND INITIATIVE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

On the amendment (continued) .

P. Milobar: It gives me great pleasure to continue my place in the debate on

the amendment to Bill 53 to refer to the committee — most notably, for

the committee to look at ethical conduct as one

section of it. I know

I’m already 15 or 20 minutes in, so I will continue to pick up where I

left off yesterday.

This bill is beyond a self-serving piece of legislation and,

frankly, with only days to go before recall campaigns can be initiated

across this province, only days before people who have been, in some

situations, planning for quite some time to initiate recall

campaigns….

Deputy Speaker: Members, those who are not speaking or are not on duty, maybe you

can either leave the House or sit down in your seats, and listen to the

speaker, please. Thank you.

Continue.

P. Milobar: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is nothing more than that attempt to try to squelch the

people who have been working diligently ahead of time, planning out

potential recall campaigns for any of the 87 members in this House. And

for it to be brought forward by an Attorney General, who in their own

riding is continually — for months now, months upon months — driving

past potential recall campaign signs encouraging a recall of that

member…. For the Attorney General to then turn around and say he was

totally unaware or alluded to the fact that this is not self-serving

legislation is ridiculous in the extreme.

[11:05 a.m.]

I think anybody would see this for what it is, outside of these

chambers, and it’s very problematic. It’s problematic when you consider

the potential recalls of other members of this House — that those

ridings would be subject to this as well. It’s being characterized by

opponents of the government and the Third Party saying that this would

trigger million-dollar cheques flowing into local recall

ridings.

In fact, my riding was pointed out, that I’d be running around

being able to collect million-dollar cheques. Well, if you look at the

pure dollars raised by political parties in general for general

elections or regular operations, and if you look at the dollars raised

by political parties across the political stripe across the country,

that’s simply farcical that we would have the Leader of the Third Party

trying to suggest that anyone in this chamber would be out soliciting

million-dollar cheques to launch recall campaigns against

members.

What a recall campaign is…. It was…. Again, I will point out that

it actually went to a referendum with the people — this legislation. The

people of this province voted 80 percent in favour of the concept of

this. In fact, it spanned political ideologies because it was a Socred

government in their final days that brought forward the referendum, and

it was an NDP government that, although they weren’t held and bound to

the referendum results, implemented the results of that referendum

because there was such strong support for this very

legislation.

Here we have an Attorney General who, after 27 years of

legislation that has enabled zero successful recall campaigns, suddenly

worried about mythical million-dollar cheques showing up. They’re trying

to cloud the debate by talking about these million-dollar donors so that

they don’t have to talk about the fact that they are telling you: “You

can’t gather in your house and fundraise with your neighbours about a

recall campaign that affects you and your neighbours directly that is

confined to you and your neighbours’ own riding.” They’re telling you,

“How dare you do that?” if you try to fundraise more than $100 a

person.

They’re not saying that you…. Either way, you have to track it

properly. They are saying they have so little faith in you having

someone around your coffee table in your own home with this bill that

you may account for a $100 or a $99 donation properly. But there’s no

way you would account for a $150 donation properly, so you can’t have

those conversations.

This bill is strictly designed for self-preservation of certain

members who feel worried that the grass roots in their riding may not be

overly happy with how they’ve conducted themselves as an MLA over the

last 18 months. That’s exactly what this legislation is meant to do —

give people that voice and give people that ability. That’s why the

amendment to send it back to a committee to make sure it’s just not some

unilateral….

We’ve already seen an Attorney General that sees fit to bring in

rules on all sorts of electoral reform and democratic processes that

totally undermine people’s ability to have a fair and open process and

an informed process with actual detail and actual fact. We’re seeing

that play out with this bill as well. That’s why the amendment to put it

to a proper committee to study what, if any, amendments may need to be

made to the recall act is so important. Because that’s exactly what

would happen. People would be able to properly scrutinize at the

committee level and put that lens on it of what’s fair and what’s

reasonable to try to institute.

There should be no massive rush for this change. The committee

could do its work over the next few months. We could come back in the

spring session, and the public could see exactly what has been properly

vetted and move forward. The fact that the Attorney General seems

terrified that there will finally be a successful recall campaign and

sees fit to try to rush this through — in fact, to the point of trying

to invoke closure on this bill without having proper debate…. Talk about

undemocratic. What ever happened to being the head of B.C. Civil

Liberties and wanting to make sure people had due process?

It’s ridiculous in the extreme. The actions of the government

actually back up what we are saying.

[11:10 a.m.]

The attempted closure of this bill tonight to wrap

every­thing up by the end of today instead of letting the debate

happen as any piece of legislation should happen in this House, is an

affront to everybody and should be a signal to everybody else that this

truly is about the Attorney General trying to either protect his own

skin or the Leader of the Third Party’s skin, in Oak Bay–Gordon Head,

who have tried recall campaigns in the past. But let’s be clear. This is

far from proper process, and that’s why the amendment to move this over

to a committee is so important.

If the government, for one second, would actually try to action

what they try to say in words, this would be a very easy vote. Instead,

we have a government that’s trying to continue to game the system and

trying to make sure they get a desired outcome without any care for

proper process and without any care for proper in-depth information to

the public.

For that reason, I will support the amendment to move this to

committee, because I cannot support the bill as it stands. Thank you for

the time, Mr. Speaker.

D. Davies: It seems like it’s been weeks since I’ve discussed this bill last,

but it was yesterday — sorry, the likeness of this bill.

I am proud to stand up here and speak on behalf of the residents

of Peace River North on the amendment to Bill 53, Recall and Initiative

Act, stating that “Bill (No. 53) not be read a second time now but that

the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private

Bills.”

Before I move into my remarks, I’m going to read the definition of

“ethics,” just to have folks have that fresh in their minds as I move

into my remarks. “Ethics is a branch of philosophy that involves

systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong

conduct. Ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality by defining

concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice,

justice and crime.”

As we look at ethics and sending this to a committee on ethics, I

will make some remarks further on in my comments here around why this

doesn’t sit well with me or, certainly, with many folks on this side of

the House.

I usually take a moment, at the start of all of my remarks that I

make in this place, to certainly state how proud I am to represent the

residents of Peace River North. I do get an opportunity to travel my

riding quite regularly, whether it be in Fort St. John or driving north

to Fort Nelson. I do have an office in Fort Nelson. I often go up there.

I have regular meetings, meeting folks for coffee and, of course, just

folks that live in the northeast, in Peace River North.

The reason I’m focusing on that is that I’ve had a number of

people reach out to me since this initial bill, Bill 53, was initiated

that have stated their absolute mistrust for this government as a result

of this bill and some others that we have debated here over the last

number of months. Folks are just as surprised as I am, just as surprised

as we are, that the Attorney General has introduced such a bill on the

eve of a recall campaign.

As I’ve previously stated a number of times, British Columbians —

certainly including residents in my riding — are quite proud of the

democracy that we have here in British Columbia, the democracy that we

cherish in our country, a democracy and a system that has worked

extremely well for the last, I think, 153 years in Canada and since 1871

here in British Columbia.

Since that time, we have elected good governments. We’ve elected

governments that have represented, for the most part, the will of the

people.

[11:15 a.m.]

We have had many majority governments, which have a clear mandate

to move forward and take our great province in the direction to where we

are today, with, of course, one of the strongest economies in the

country, an incredibly resilient province and a place that people from

around the world look to when they are trying to make their own

democracies better.

We have people from all over the world watch our elections, here

in the province and throughout Canada. Observers come here and see how

we do government and how well we do it and take that information back to

their own countries.

We’ve really become an envy of the world when we talk about our

democracy. One of the things that really worries me is that we have a

government today that is aimed at fixing it. Well, it isn’t broken. Now,

that doesn’t mean to say that we’re not willing to go and look at ways

that we can improve our democracy, because I think that’s absolutely

important for all of us to understand — that anything we do in this

place, we should try and improve upon.

By saying or implying, certainly, that things are broken…. We are

going through, of course, a referendum right now on changing how we

vote, with the referendum on electoral reform. We are debating Bill 53.

Of course, we’re now debating an amendment to this bill to send it to a

committee. I look at these pieces, and it really is concerning to me how

the government today is looking at taking away pieces of our democracy,

whittling away at things that have been put in place to protect the

citizens, to protect the voters.

As I just mentioned, British Columbians are going to a referendum.

In fact, we’re right in the middle of a referendum on proportional

representation, which, we’ve heard, claims to bring a newer and better

democracy to town. It will make everything wonderful. I wish I could….

My colleague that sits next to me from Chilliwack often says it quite

well, but it’s going to bring this magical world and make everything

better.

I, for one minute, don’t believe that, nor do many of the

residents in my riding. Instead, what we see is our democracy being

threatened. The government, supported by its friends in the Third Party,

are doing the exact opposite, delivering more strength to the parties

that are represented here in this room, and in the future, to the

multiple parties that are to be expected.

That is not right. It’s not right to take away more of the

democratic strengths that are invested in voters and turn that over to

parties. Yesterday there was a Monday morning motion that was debated. I

think it was, “Why 40 percent equals 100 percent of the power,” which,

of course, completely misses the mark. It’s a wonderful sound bite,

until you look into it a little further.

Taken completely out of the formula are the 87 individual

elections that are hosted around the province in every single riding.

Those individual elections where each member within that riding can cast

their ballot and send the representative who they want to represent them

to this place here to be their voice for that riding.

Now, of course, we’ve heard in the past…. In my riding, I may not

represent every single person because they didn’t vote for me as a B.C.

Liberal. But again — as we’ve heard many times, over and over again,

here in this place — I don’t ask anybody’s political stripe when they

walk through my office or when they email me or when they walk into my

Fort Nelson office.

[11:20 a.m.]

By virtue of the office that we hold and its importance, probably

one of the most fundamental pieces is that we are advocates of all of

our constituents, regardless of their political stripe. If they have a

problem, we have signed that dotted line to say that we will represent

them and try to bring resolve to their issue.

It worries me, again, as we start going down the road of trying to

make improvements to our electoral reform process. In reality, we are

handing more of the strength over to the parties and taking it away from

the voters. A lot of these decisions are going to be made inside the

party headquarters or at the cabinet table. Again, it’s not

right.

I mentioned yesterday, and I’ve mentioned it already a few times,

that I believe that our democracy is being eroded by implementing, down

the road, the possibility of proportional representation. Further, we’ve

heard today there’s a move to halt debate on this, but we’ll find out if

that’s going to be the case. Bill 53, again, is another piece that’s

whittling away, taking away, more of the voter’s voice. That is

democracy under fire. We on this side of the House cannot stand up and

let that go without a fight.

It worries me that MLAs, under proportional representation, are

going to be selected and appointed, potentially, from party lists.

Again, we don’t know. More of this power is going to be entrenched in

the political parties. Whether it be under proportional representation,

whether it be the ability to tie the hands of voters on a recall

initiative, this, again, is what we’re seeing here in this House:

parties trying to stifle the democratic process.

That isn’t democracy. That’s not strengthening our democracy.

That’s not fixing our democracy. It is, in fact, the complete opposite.

Of course, we’ve seen that Bill 53 is just another piece that’s woven

into this whole democratic crumbling, I guess.

I find it quite interesting that we see that side of the House as

being here — and we hear this on many aspects — cleaning up, cleaning

things up, making things better, bringing the rules in line with many of

the other changes that they have.

We talk about, you know, getting big money out. We’re not arguing

the merits of taking big money out of politics, but if they truly are

going to believe that, if government is truly going to believe what

they’ve initiated in regards to getting big money out of it, well then,

they need to be living by that as well. It’s quite hypocritical when we

see, presumably, the promotion of letting union-paid activists work on

municipal campaigns, which have just ended here this last weekend. We

really start seeing…. What is the real purpose here? I mean, is this all

talk and no action? Unfortunately, I believe we’ve seen that.

When we see all talk and no action and certain MLAs that are lucky

enough to be sent here by their folks…. When residents start to see that

their MLA might not be performing, that their MLA may be reneging on

some promises that were made or just aren’t doing their job, going

against the will of their voter, we have a piece of legislation called

the recall legislation. Every British Columbian has the right to

challenge their MLA and have them removed from office if they’re not

following the will — certainly of the majority — of their

residents.

[11:25 a.m.]

It’s not an easy task, and nor should it be. I believe there have

been 26 campaigns that have happened. Twenty-six recall campaigns or

petitions have been launched since 1995, which has only resulted in one

MLA, basically, having to leave this place. It didn’t even get to that

point, as the MLA actually ended up resigning.

This is incredibly important for people, though, to have the

ability to do it. It’s hard to sign up 40 percent of the electorate. But

that right is being restricted by the Attorney General in a bill that’s

been tabled — Bill 53, the Recall and Initiative Amendment

Act.

This is why I am so in favour of the amendment of having this sent

to a committee, because there are too many pieces around this bill that

are going back to tying the voters’ hands and taking away the ability

again for residents, for the average voter in British Columbia, to fully

exercise their right in our democracy.

This is why I believe that we absolutely should be sending this to

a committee to review this and to come up with a proper bill. And if I

even just look at the bill, there is a lot in here. There are a lot of

changes in this bill. I believe — actually, I can’t quite remember —

there are about 50-some-odd pages to this Bill 53. The original bill,

actually, was only just over 20 pages.

Again, as I mentioned, British Columbians were quite proud of that

piece of legislation. But here we are debating an amendment to send this

to committee. We shouldn’t have even been here. We should not even be

debating any of this because, as everybody is aware, the minister that

has tabled this bill is in the middle of a recall campaign right

now.

Granted, the official recall campaign won’t start for a couple

more days yet, which already starts to make you wonder if this is very

directly covering someone’s butt. I don’t know. I can only presume that

while this bill was being written, all 50-some-odd pages of it, Bill

53…. Looking at some of this, for one moment or many moments, there had

to have been that thought process of: “This pertains to me. This has to

do with me.”

When you are writing a bill that you have to think about and think

that it could put you in some sort of conflict, well, then you are. And

I think any time that anybody puts forward legislation or takes a stand

on something if you sit on a board…. I’ve sat on many boards over the

years — in fact, most recently city council. It was great to sit on city

council for 12 years in Fort St. John.

If there was anything that could be connected to me as a city

councillor that put me in conflict, where someone could say, “Well, you

may benefit from this bylaw that’s going forward,” we had to be removed.

So I find it quite hard to believe that the Attorney General, while

writing this bill, didn’t for one moment think: “Oh, does this pertain

to me?” I find it extremely hard to believe that.

Of course, there is a bit of an argument that there is no recall

underway. And that is right. There is no official recall. That cannot be

started until Friday morning. But rest assured, there is a recall

campaign underway. I just printed off two tweets that have come off of

the recall page that’s on Twitter. I have looked at the

webpage.

[11:30 a.m.]

The newspaper articles from a number of months ago, following the

rallies in the area of Vancouver–Point Grey — rallies very specifically

aimed at the Attorney General — and the citizens of Vancouver–Point Grey

that are extremely upset at the performance of their MLA….

When you get a large enough group of people together that all

share the same issue or some issues around their MLA, that is where the

importance of the recall legislation comes in. People should be able to

have that little piece to fall back on if something does not go right.

If we voted for our MLA for X, Y and Z and now we see that they’re not

following through with X, Y and Z, citizens have that right, and should

have that right, to launch a recall campaign. But we have a minister

that, facing this campaign, is changing the rules on the eve of a

campaign being officially launched.

I mentioned a second ago that this is starting this Friday. In a

mere three days from now, a recall campaign can be started. A couple of

the additional rules have been changed. Well, first of all, there’s a

maximum of $1,200 per individual to contribute to the campaign.

Campaigns are going to cost money, without a doubt. It’s no different

than the campaign that I ran or the 86 other MLAs in this place ran in

last May’s election. It takes a lot of money; we understand

that.

By tying the hands of the voter…. By only allowing them $1,200 or

a combination to the recall campaign, it really does tie their hands.

What ties it even more is if an individual…. Every individual has the

right to belong to any political party they want to in this province,

and any individual in this province can also contribute $1,200 to any

political party they want.

However, that $1,200 cap now is a total contribution cap that can

be made, either in combination with a political campaign or to a

political party or now to a recall campaign. Again, it’s another way of

stifling or taking away a voter’s ability to contribute to a campaign or

to contribute to some­thing that they, as a voter, believe

strongly in. They can only contribute up to $1,200 per year in

combination with either a political party, a political campaign, an

individual MLA or now a recall campaign. It’s all part of that $1,200

maximum contribution.

Again, there is no doubt a reason why this has been changed on

this recall campaign. If I had a recall campaign coming against me,

that’d probably be going through the mind. For the minister to introduce

this as just one more piece…. One more way to whittle down a very

important piece of democracy is by introducing rules such as

this.

It also states that you can only have one recall campaign petition

circulating in a district at any given time. Well, if I, myself, and a

couple of other individuals or organizations are upset at the MLA, why

would anybody want to limit that? That is, again, stifling the

voter.

[11:35 a.m.]

The minister was on CKNW just a little while ago. It was also

raised by Jon McComb on the CKNW morning show that this opens up the

whole thing for some hanky-panky that can happen.

Interjection.

D. Davies: I did say “hanky-panky” yesterday. It was me. I still believe it’s

hanky-panky. I’m not even sure how to spell hanky-panky.

If I can organize some friends of mine to head off this activity

that’s coming at me…. Changing this rule has now allowed

that.

It’s allowed me to say: “I’ve got a recall campaign against me.

I’ve got Facebook groups. I’ve got a webpage against me. I’ve got

hundreds of people coming out to a few different rallies. I need you to

line up and be the first person in there in the morning to start this

campaign against me. Of course, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, we’re not

going to start this campaign against me. We’re just going to be the only

one running, and then that ends the whole fight against me.”

I’m sure that these things have happened throughout time. I’m not

going to give examples where governments and people in power try to

change the rules and they go very bad. But I certainly believe that this

is a horrible piece that’s in this legislation — again, another reason

why I support this amendment that we need to be reviewing this. This

cannot go forward in its present state. We need to talk about what is

best for the voter, what is best for the citizens of British

Columbia.

Also, as we’re very aware, you can’t do a recall campaign within

six months of an election because, heaven forbid, that would maybe bring

your name down a little bit running into an election. We wouldn’t want

the citizens to start talking bad about their MLA or raise another

campaign that might, you know, not make them look as good, even though

the citizens may have a valid reason to bring forward a recall

campaign.

Those are just a couple of the pieces that I look at here in

regards to why this bill should not go forward in its present form as

Bill 53. Again, I truly believe that we do need to send this to

committee.

While I was talking there, just over the last few minutes, I

started off with my definition around ethics. I really believe that if

you can keep in mind the whole ethics conversation or the definition of

ethics, and you lay this over some of what I just said, there are some

real problems with this.

There are real problems when we have an individual who is supposed

to be, at all costs — and all of us in this room, at all costs…. Our job

is to make sure that we are doing what is right for the citizens of

British Columbia, that we are doing what is right for the residents of

our riding and making sure that our democracy is sound, that our

democracy is protected. When I see something like this coming forward,

it’s being threatened.

It’s just not right. It is not right that we are shutting out the

citizens who want to start a recall campaign against their MLA. It is

yet again another way that we are whittling away or we are demeaning or

eroding our democracy as we have it now. I’m all in favour of allowing

and giving citizens all the tools in the toolbox, regardless of what

that is, to allow them to exercise their right in democracy. We do that

very well.

[11:40 a.m.]

Of course, whether it’s election campaigns or whatever, we allow

advance voting, to make sure that people can participate fully in

democracy. We allow mobile polls. We allow people to go into senior

citizens’ homes to make sure that everybody has the democratic right. We

allow people, residents…. We allow people that put all of us in this

place…. If they’re not happy 18 months after the election, there’s a

tool that we give the residents to say: “You know what? We are not happy

with the person we elected.”

That is a tool of democracy. This minister is trying to take away

these tools, and they’re certainly trying to take away that tool. True

democratic rights rest with the people. Citizens have the right to

recall. That’s why I’m supporting this amendment, and I hope the rest of

the colleagues in this House do.

J. Isaacs: Thank you to my colleague from Peace River North for his

thoughtful comments on this issue. I, too, rise today to speak to the

amendment of Bill 53.

British Columbia is one of the most desired locations in the

world. People want to live here. They’re moving here from other parts of

the country, from other provinces and from other countries. While we

have a beautiful landscape throughout the province and so many exciting

reasons why people want to live here, one of the biggest, major reasons

that people want to live here is because of our stable government and

our democracy.

British Columbia was the sixth province to enter Confederation,

and our electoral system has worked well. We have elected stable

governments, and although we may disagree on some policies, most people

have confidence in our democracy.

We have a fair and representative voice that is available to all

voters. Generation after generation has built a prosperous and peaceful

place that is the envy of the world. Families have deep roots in their

communities and have worked hard to create meaningful and purposeful

lives, and they want to have confidence in our democracy.

Now we are seeing one of the greatest bait-and-switch programs

that we have seen in our political system. This government and their

partners, the Green Party, want you to believe that they are working to

fix policies. They promise that they are working on your behalf. Yet

every step that they have taken is one more step towards shifting power

from citizens to government, and each step taken undermines the

democracy.

That side of the House said that they were getting rid of big

money — out of municipal politics. But clearly their promises have not

addressed the issue in any meaningful way. They have absolutely failed

to line up with their words. We have just witnessed big money in

politics during the recent municipal elections. Union-endorsed

candidates enjoying enormous support from union members in a number and

variety of different ways.

How is that getting big money out of politics? It is simply

another bait-and-switch scheme. They have simply switched time for money

and tried to make you believe that millions of dollars are funding

recall campaigns — that there is an absolute need to limit spending and

advertising. This is not the case.

Right now British Columbians are voting in a referendum on

proportional representation that proclaims it’s bringing more democracy

to voters. They’ve gone as far as to claim that somehow, under this new

system, every vote will count.

[11:45 a.m.]

Instead of more democracy for people, this government and its

friends in the Third Party are actually delivering more power to

political parties and not to the people. For all the talk of making

every vote count, the reality is the real choices are being made well

before election day and by a small cabal inside party

headquarters.

Every vote does count, and changing our system to proportional

representation will not deliver better representation or better

government. It is the pathway to less representation, less

accountability and unstable, more expensive government. It transfers the

power from the people and gives the power to government.

What that side of the House calls more democracy we call an

erosion of democracy — one more step taken to undermine the rights of

citizens. With MLAs selected and appointed from party lists, the power

of political parties is embedded with the party. Party insiders will

choose who is on the list, and they will likely be, as we have seen from

this bill and the other bills that have been introduced, motivated by

their own self-interests and not the interests of voters or citizens.

People will see their democratic rights wane. The choices they make are

preselected by a party and not by citizens. That is less democracy and

not more.

The bill we are debating today is yet an example of how this

government is grinding away the very democracy that we have built over

the years. They are trying to make you believe that they are giving you

better representation. They are claiming that they are cleaning things

up and bringing the rules in line with the other changes that they have

made.

When they talk about banning corporate and union donations,

they’re really just talking about banning corporate donations. The union

donations are full steam ahead, and they are coming in a number of ways

— a dedicated volunteer pool, canvassers to drop literature, campaign

teams of advisers and strategists, administrative staff, office space

and unconstitutional agreements with preferred unions that shut out a

segment of our workforce.

When British Columbians feel that they have had a bait-and-switch

happen to them, they want to know that they have some recourse. Buyer’s

remorse can happen. When there are legitimate reasons for citizens to

take actions, citizens should have a process in which they can recall

their MLA, a mechanism in order to recall their MLA.

British Columbians are proud of our Recall and Initiative Act. It

is the grass roots of our democracy. Every British Columbian has the

right to challenge an MLA and have them removed from office if enough

people in their constituency agree with them. This Attorney General,

through this bill, has essentially taken that right away from voters. He

is using his power to change the rules in his favour in the middle of

the game.

Once again, we have to raise the question of why. Why the urgency

to put this bill forward now, when there are so many other issues that

government should be focusing on? It is easy to draw a conclusion based

on the evidence we see before us. There is only one recall being

initiated in the entire province right now, and it is in the Attorney

General’s home riding of Vancouver–Point Grey.

I guess we should expect that his motivations would be

self-serving. After all, it is the same minister who tries to portray

himself as the government’s independent and unbiased arbiter of

electoral reform when he has, at the same time, clearly stated that he

supports a change from our current voting system to proportional

representation.

[11:50 a.m.]

It’s even bigger than that. This is the Attorney General of

British Columbia putting forward a bill that affects himself as the MLA

in the only riding in the province pushing forward a recall. I would

expect the Attorney General to have a higher fiduciary duty to ensure

that citizens, particularly the citizens he represents in his own

riding, would have the legal right to initiate a recall process if they

choose to do so. It is shameful that the chief lawmaker would put this

bill in front of the House. If this bill passes, MLAs will only be

subject to a single recall campaign. Only one recall is attempted. There

can be no more during that office.

Noting the hour, Mr. Speaker, I reserve my place and move

adjournment of the debate.

J. Isaacs moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

granted leave to sit again.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, we will be just a moment, waiting for the Deputy Clerk to

arrive.

[11:55 a.m.]

Point of Order

(Speaker’s Ruling)

Mr. Speaker: Members, in light of the point of order raised by the official

opposition House Leader this morning, I’ve had the opportunity to review the

November 5 evening broadcast of the proceedings, the accompanying transcript

and the Votes and Proceedings for the adjournment of the

debate.

I conclude the following. The member for Kamloops–​North

Thompson appears to have moved the incorrect wording of the motion to

adjourn debate on the amendment. Certainly, the Chair interpreted this

motion as a motion to adjourn the debate. The Chair put the question to the

House, and it was carried. That decision stands. Therefore, the motion for

second reading of Bill 53 and the amendment are not dropped.

If the member for Kamloops–North Thompson had indeed intended to move

adjournment of the House, he should have risen on a point of order moments

later, when the House then proceeded to continue sitting and receive a

report from the Chair of the committee on Bill 44 before receiving and

agreeing to a motion to then adjourn the House. The fact is that the member

moved adjournment and further business continued. Accordingly, the member

failed to raise a point of order at the appropriate time.

I will also note for the record that a dropped order under Standing

Order 32 would, if it had indeed occurred, have resulted in the loss of the

amendment only, not the main motion for second reading. This practice is

described in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia , fourth

edition, page 76.

In any event, I conclude that although the member did not state the

motion as clearly, the point of order raised today cannot proceed. The

debate last evening on the amendment to second reading of Bill 53 was

adjourned, other business transacted, and then the House

adjourned.

I now recognize the Government House Leader to move the

motion.

Standing Order 81.1

SCHEDULE FOR DEBATE ON BILL

(continued)

Hon. M. Farnworth: I will start from the beginning. I rise to advise the House that

agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order

81.1 in relation to Bill 53 intituled Recall and Initiative Amendment

Act, 2018, and I, therefore, move the following motion.

[Pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 (2), all remaining proceedings

related to Bill (No. 53) intituled Recall and Initiative Amendment

Act, 2018 shall be completed and disposed of on or before

Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 6:30 p.m. At 6:00 p.m. on the date

mentioned, the Speaker and the Chair of the Committee of the Whole will

forthwith put all necessary questions for the disposal of all remaining

stages of the said bill without amendment or debate.

Any divisions called on any

section of Bill (No. 53) shall be taken

in accordance with Practice Recommendation No. 1. Any division called on

any second reading amendments, second reading, or third reading of the

said bill may be taken in accordance with Standing Order 16. Proceedings

under this motion shall not be subject to the provisions of Standing

Order 81, or the Standing or Sessional Orders relating to times and days

of the sittings of the House.]

[12:00 p.m. - 12:05 p.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 44

Chouhan

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Krog

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Glumac

NAYS — 37

Cadieux

Bond

Polak

Lee

Stone

Coleman

Wat

Bernier

Thornthwaite

Paton

Ashton

Barnett

Yap

Martin

Davies

Kyllo

Sullivan

Isaacs

Morris

Stilwell

Ross

Oakes

Redies

Milobar

Sturdy

Clovechok

Shypitka

Hunt

Throness

Tegart

Stewart

Sultan

Gibson

Reid

Thomson

Larson

Foster

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 12:06 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 44 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION (EMPLOYER

HEALTH TAX) ACT,

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 44; S.

Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11:08 a.m.

section 6 (continued) .

T. Redies: Nice to be back. It seems like it was only a few hours ago that we

were in here, but who’s counting?

I’d just like to move to maybe some of the mechanics around,

particularly, some of the announcements that were made after the tax was

first introduced in the budget, and that is around the government’s

funding of the, I guess, internal costs of this tax. Can the government

confirm that all such sectors will be covered by the funding the

government is planning to provide to offset the impact of the payroll

tax? Can the minister confirm how this offset will work with the

government sector?

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: Just to be clear for the member, this does come in a later

section

as well. Just so we know. It’s not really in the avoidance

section in

section 6.

But just to provide the information, we talked a little bit

yesterday about the costs of administering the MSP. Just to put those,

again, on the record, it’s about $65 million to administer the MSP, and

administering the employer health tax will be about $2 million. Those

savings will go towards some of the cost of looking at supporting the

SUCH sector, as the member said — schools, hospitals and

universities.

They won’t be impacted. We will cover the net costs. That’s

remembering that they’ve saved 50 percent and another 50 percent this

coming year, so it will be the net costs. That’s expected to be about

$90 million annually, and that will be, as I said, offset by a large

portion of the savings that are there.

TB staff is working right now with each of the individual

ministries to determine what the easiest way to administer that is. It

could be off the grants. It could be the grants, and they provide the

money back. They’re looking at what method would make the most sense for

the sector.

T. Redies: We’ll leave my subsequent questions to the relevant section. My

apologies.

I guess, maybe, just looking at

section 6…. I wonder if the

minister could just kind of take us through what

section 6 is designed

to do with respect to the tax legislation, kind of in layman’s terms,

for those many viewers who are watching us. I’m sure they would

appreciate a simple explanation.

Hon. C. James: Yes, I’m sure people appreciate the sections of the bills. I’m

sure many people are watching this and going through it with

us.

This

section talks about anti-avoidance. Basically, it’s a

section

that ensures that the people who should pay the tax are paying the tax.

That’s really the purpose of anti-avoidance pieces. It removes the

benefit of using arrangements — other than the employment relationship

between non-resident employers and employees — that people would look at

and say: “That’s a loophole. That’s an unfair process, and you’re taking

advantage of it.”

That’s really what this

section talks about it. It talks about

making sure that it captures situations where people are trying to avoid

paying the tax and ensures that those are covered off so that they don’t

have the opportunity to do that.

S. Bond: I appreciate the minister’s explanation.

section 6, subsection (3)(c)(

i) and (ii), could the minister

walk through, for me, just a little bit about…. It looks like it’s not

an arm’s-length kind of relationship there. Could the minister explain…?

For example, it’s talking about “work performed,” and it talks about the

type of work “…that can reasonably be considered to be performed or

provided by an employee of the B.C. resident.” The language is very

complex. Could the minister just provide an explanation of that

section

for me?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: Remembering this, again, is the anti-avoidance rule section, so

looking for how we close those opportunities for people to be able to

try and find ways to avoid paying the tax.

You have two legal entities, for example, one in Washington state,

one in British Columbia. The business is setting it up purposefully that

way. They have people working in British Columbia, and they say: “No. We

have a legal entity in Washington, therefore we don’t have to pay the

tax.” What this

section says is: “It is reasonable to expect. You have a

legal entity in British Columbia. Those people are working in British

Columbia. Therefore, you must pay the employers health tax.”

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

A. Olsen: I have a few questions that come from some businesses in my riding

that I’d like to just canvass with the minister. I guess one of the

contexts that has been raised to me is the passing on of payroll costs

to workers through lower wages, through hiring fewer people,

particularly younger employees and people of vulnerable backgrounds.

This is an issue that’s been raised with me.

One of the questions that I have is around the government’s look

and research — well, study — on the impact that this tax will have on

the B.C. economy and, as well, on employment. Did the government do any

modelling in this respect to clearly understand the impacts that this

tax might have on the business community?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for the questions. I’ll talk a little bit

about the kind of modelling and the analysis that we did before the tax

came into place, because obviously there was a lot of work that went

into that. But I think it’s also important just to note the Q1 report,

which actually included, as well, the impact of the tax.

In taking a look at the modelling and analysis, we obviously took

a look at a number of factors in the economy. That’s a critical piece

that we do whenever we make program changes or whenever we look at any

kinds of measures, including tax measures.

We took a look at both external and internal factors which we

think are critical. National and global indicators. How the economy is

looking, short-term and long-term, both provincially as well as

nationally. Interest rates, what the impact of interest rates was going

to have on our economy with introducing this tax as well.

Provincial and federal policy changes. Again, those have a big

impact on the economy. Obviously, commodity prices. Obviously, trade

issues. Obviously, competitiveness. That was a critical piece for us to

look at and to factor in. Migration. Employment numbers. Unemployment

numbers.

We really wanted to make sure that we’d taken a broad look in

bringing in this tax. I think, as well, taking a look at the strength of

B.C.’s economy…. When you look at our employment numbers right now, at

our unemployment numbers, at wage growth, for the first time in British

Columbia in many, many years, you’re actually seeing wage stagnation

change and wages go up.

I think that’s important to take a look at in introducing this

tax. I think that’s, again, part of the modelling and part of the

analysis that was critical to look at in this tax.

Then again, in the first quarter report that came out a month or

so ago — time flies — the employers health tax was also included in the

modelling for the Q1, which again shows B.C. continuing to lead when it

comes to economic growth. We certainly took into account the balance of

all of those pieces when it came to introducing this tax.

I think the last point to mention — I know we talked a little bit

about this yesterday, as well — is the strength to the economy of making

sure that families have the $900 as individuals, $1,800 as families. As

we know, when families have money in their pockets, they’re going to be

spending it in their communities and in their small businesses. So that

was also taken into account when we took a look at the economic

modelling of the tax.

A. Olsen: As was mentioned by my colleagues yesterday evening, I believe,

the task force which was struck in order to take a look at how to deal

with the highly regressive MSP came forward with an interim report — I

think it was on the day of the budget or slightly before — with a series

of other alternatives that the government could choose. Payroll tax,

admittedly, was a part of that. That was raised yesterday.

I guess the question is around the willingness of the government….

Once this tax is implemented, passes, what’s the willingness of the

government to take a look at monitoring the impacts? But then, as well,

it’s the flexibility and the agility that government needs to make

changes as it goes, in order to address, maybe, some things if it’s

negatively impacting the economy. Is the government taking a look at and

willing to look at the other options that were put on the table by the

task force?

Hon. C. James: I think there is no question. As I do each year as the budget

comes up, we go through, reviewing all of the taxes that are in place

and looking at the impact, the economic impact, the modelling that is

done by our economic forecasters, both folks outside the ministry —

because we have independent economic forecasters who give their

estimates around growth — as well as our own internal people. We have

incredible staff who provide that kind of support as well.

There is no question that as we continue along, we review each and

every year and take into account feedback that we receive as well.

That’s an important part, I believe, of being a responsive minister and

a responsive government — making sure that we take that opportunity. So

those will be pieces that, yes, we’ll be continuing to do.

Just back to the task force, I think it’s important to note that

the task force did some great work. We received the report, and I’m

appreciative of the people who provided that report. They provided it in

January. The budget was February. It gave an opportunity, as I said, to

have some great discussions. There was also a lot of information that

came in from their consultation but also other people who provided

information around various ways to look at it.

[11:25 a.m.]

There certainly are a number of ways, as the task force pointed

out. The money could have been divided. You could look at providing a

tax on businesses but also looking at individuals. We certainly felt,

when it came to affordability for families, that to add an additional

tax to make life more difficult for those families was not something

that made sense for our province — that, in fact, giving people the

break from the MSP was a direction that we needed to go. That’s why we

made the decision we did.

A. Olsen: I guess I’m always somewhat uncomfortable when this is being

talked about as a new tax. This has really just shifted, a decision that

the government is making from shifting revenue generation from one form

to another and from one group to another. The wholesale characterization

of this as a new tax, I think, is wrong. The government has decided, in

this case, to shift it from a premium on people to, basically, a tax on

business and, in doing that in a wholesale way, ignored some

things.

It’s not just the aspects on people or on income tax, for example,

but also on…. A tobacco tax or a sugar tax is an example of a couple.

Did the government ever consider it outside of the very narrow “we’re

going to shift this from people onto business” or “we want to just not

charge individuals anything for this or any part of this,” even in a

progressive way, like is done in other jurisdictions?

Hon. C. James: I think, again, just to be clear about the finances…. I appreciate

the member raising the issue of the shift, because it’s very true. In

fact, we aren’t bringing in all of the resources that were brought in

through medical service premiums, as $2.6 billion came in from medical

service premiums, and the employers health tax is $1.8 billion. So it’s

actually an $800 million tax cut, not a tax increase, when you take a

look at the shift. I think that’s important to note.

I appreciate the discussion around it. I think the Select Standing

Committee on Finance…. I had the opportunity to sit on that committee in

opposition, and there are a number of different ideas. The sugary drinks

piece was also a piece that came up through that group.

I think, as we do every year, we take a look at all the ideas that

come forward. We did in the budget, in fact, increase tobacco taxes.

That was done in the budget, so that was a piece that was already there.

We actually also increased income tax on the top 2 percent. So that was

a piece where the government had given them a tax break. We increased

that tax again on the top 2 percent of income earners.

We felt those pieces were done in the budget update in September —

did spread those dollars around and provide the ability to be able to

move ahead with the MSP and the employers health tax as we

did.

A. Olsen: I had the benefit this morning of meeting with the B.C.

agricultural producers association. I think I almost got that right. The

B.C. ag producers. One of the issues that was raised to me was around

the payroll tax and, I think, the seasonal worker program and the

temporary foreign worker program.

It’s my understanding, if I got it correct, that they have to pay,

as part of that program, health insurance. One of the issues that was

raised to me — and, again, I only had a chance to hear about it at a

very, very high level, quick level, today — was that they feel that they

are being hit twice now, that their workers have coverage and now these

businesses are paying the payroll tax. Can you maybe shed a little bit

more light from your perspective on that, please, Minister?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: This is the first discussion that I’ve heard as well, but it’s a

piece that we’ll certainly take a look at. But I think it’s important to

note that the employers health tax is not a direct link to health care.

So there’s not a direct link between the money that comes in….

Obviously, much more is spent in health care than comes in on the

employers health tax. It’s not a direct link. It provides the

opportunity to eliminate a very regressive tax, the Medical Services

Plan premiums. We’re the only province left that continues to have

those, but there’s not a direct link there.

If there are individuals who are not covered, for example, under

the B.C. health care plan, that process would still continue. That

wouldn’t be linked to the employers health tax.

A. Olsen: I apologize to the B.C. ag people that I may not have got that

exactly right. But just to bring it to your attention. I think that, if

in fact that is the case, then it’s certainly something that I have

concern over.

As you know, Minister, there have been a number of businesses

within my riding…. I’ve expressed concern publicly because I’ve got

quite a number of businesses that could be classified as medium-sized

businesses. They generate about $1 billion worth of revenue for this

region out on the Saanich Peninsula. Manufacturing is a very, very

strong sector out there.

In addition to that, I’ve got a very well-performing tourist

attraction, which I know have written very, very compellingly — I felt

they were compelling — to the ministry and to you, Minister. One of the

issues that was raised by the CEO of Butchart was the number of young

people that they have hired there. They were previously covered under

their family’s MSP plan, which they didn’t have to cover, and are now

coming onto their payroll.

Perhaps can you talk about how the ministry or how you are

addressing this scenario? Businesses such as Butchart that really spend

an awful lot of time training young employees are being…. It was my

first job. I can track where I am standing today back to the training

that they gave me, in many ways — very, very valuable training. They’re

being impacted here and are going to be making decisions about who they

hire and how they hire based on this and the potential impact on young

employees or the hiring of young employees.

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I appreciate we have had some conversations about businesses and

the impact. I think there’s no question that, in moving from the MSP to

a payroll tax, there are shifts. There is no question about that, and I

acknowledge that. We’ve had, as I said, good conversations, and I’ve

certainly talked to Butchart as well.

I think, overall — and this is why I think it’s so important for

us to look at the economic modelling and to take a look at the impact on

the economy overall — it will be a plus. When we take a look at

returning $800 million to the economy, that is a benefit.

I think it’s important to note, as well, some of the other pieces

that we put in place for small business and that we’ll continue to put

in place for small business — lowering the small business tax rate, for

example, the PST on electricity for businesses overall, ensuring the

corporate tax rate continues to remain strong.

Investing — I know the member has raised this in his community as

well — in housing and child care are two big pieces when you’re taking a

look at employees. The member mentions young employees, and I recognize

he’s talking about people who are still living at home. But again, young

families, young employees, mainly women, who want to get back into the

workforce now have the opportunity to be able to do that, in many cases,

because of the investments in child care.

While I recognize there is a shift, as we introduce this tax and

as we make the shift, I believe that we’ve concentrated, as well, on the

other pieces to make sure that businesses are also provided with the

supports that they need. I think we just need to look at tourism and the

increase in tourism and the support that’s there — a 4.1 percent

increase in international travel, a large percentage of those

individuals coming to British Columbia. Again, certainly when it comes

to Butchart, we know it’s always on the list for everyone who arrives in

British Columbia.

We’ll continue to monitor that, and we’ll continue to have that

critical discussion with businesses to look at if there are other areas

that they feel we could strengthen up to provide that support. That’s

something we’ll certainly look at. And I’d just say, for the families,

those young people who’ve been paying those medical service premiums,

that $1,800 will certainly be a support to them as well.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Minister, for that.

Just shifting gears a little, one of the issues that was raised by

the task force was around the concern for business competitiveness in

the province. I visited a business, a couple of weeks back, called

Epicure. They’re also out on the Saanich Peninsula, in North Saanich. In

fact, it started in a basement right here in your riding, in James Bay,

and we are now the beneficiary of it — a very large business, $50

million a year. They’re looking to expand.

They’re a Canadian business who provides food products to

Canadians. They want to expand into the United States. And they’re not

the only…. In fact, I’ve talked to a number of businesses that are being

actively recruited right now — aggressively recruited — like, “We’ve got

all sorts of free stuff to give you,” including space, square footage,

cheap labour, all sorts of really, really enticing morsels on the table

for them, to try to bring them to Scottsdale and to Atlanta, Georgia,

and to other places in the south.

One of the things that I worry about when I hear Epicure telling

me that they’re opening an office in Utah is that more and more of the

business doesn’t, over time, shift to the new office that they’re

opening up in Utah.

If you can provide some assurance, hopefully, with respect to

business competitiveness…. It was raised by the task force. I’ve raised

it. Businesses in my riding have raised it. It’s a concern that I have

in ensuring that we remain competitive with highly aggressive and maybe,

actually, to their own detriment, too aggressive…. But that’s the

business climate we’re operating in.

The Chair: For members, just remind you to come through the Chair as

opposed to directly to the minister.

Hon. C. James: Thank you very much, Chair, and through you to the member, it’s

certainly something that I’m sure every Finance Minister worries about

and wonders about and pays attention to — the issue of competitiveness

in this global economy. I think we’ve seen examples of that all across

the globe, and the competition is steep for good talent.

[11:40 a.m.]

I think we do have some advantages in British Columbia — there’s

no question about that — when it comes to a well-skilled workforce.

People come to British Columbia. You hear it often from the arts and

culture industry that although they may be able to get a bit better deal

down south, they actually look at British Columbia because of our

well-trained workforce, because of their ability to be able to utilize

people to hit the ground running and to not have to worry about people

being trained up.

I appreciate the member raising it. Certainly, when we take a look

at the kinds of basic indicators that most people would think about —

the corporate tax rate, tied for the third lowest; second-lowest small

business tax rate; $800 million back into the economy, which helps on

competitiveness….

It is a shift, and I’ve talked about this in both the budget

update in September and my first budget in February. It’s also part of

the reason that we’re making investments in people in British Columbia.

If you talk with — certainly the last Economic Forecast Council meeting

that I had — the independent economic forecasters, to look at continuing

B.C.’s growth and economic growth and strength, we need to invest in

people. That’s really the best resource we have in British Columbia. We

need to make those investments in people to keep that kind of

competitive edge and keep our economy growing.

It’s exactly why the February budget had the major investments it

did: in child care and housing, in particular, but also in skills

training — the first major expansion of skills spaces in British

Columbia for a very long period of time. So making sure that we’re

putting those investments in place, making sure that we’re investing in

people, and listening to businesses talk about the challenges that they

face provides us with exactly that opportunity.

We can’t underestimate housing, in particular. We have competition

across other provinces when it comes to housing. We’ll recruit….

Businesses will talk to me about recruiting someone for the business —

having them come here, take a look at the real estate page and change

their mind, go somewhere else. So again, making sure we have the

affordable housing for employees is critical.

I think we’ve got those advantages in British Columbia, but I

think we can’t rely on simply what we’ve done. We have to make sure we

continue to look at doing more.

A. Olsen: I apologize, Mr. Chair, for not funnelling my questions directly

through you to the minister. The minister is just right over there, so

it’s so easy for me to….

Through you, Mr. Chair, to the minister: thank you for your

response. I would add that housing and child care have been raised a lot

in the meetings that I’ve had, but transportation also is a very, very

big piece when it comes to business competitiveness and making sure that

businesses and their workers get the level of support.

It’s not just here in my riding. It’s in the member for

Surrey–White Rock’s riding, I imagine, as well — issues around

transportation. So that’s another one. While we’re talking about things

that could help business, transportation is one for sure.

Shifting gears a little bit, and one that I heard when I met with

the folks from Nicholson Manufacturing this past week. They make a line

of products that debark wood and move wood around in logging sites. They

have a unionized workforce. Their unionized workforce has a collective

bargaining agreement, and the MSP premium is a benefit in that

agreement. One of the issues they raised with me was concern that

basically, they’re paying the payroll tax and the MSP benefit until such

time as they can renegotiate a collective bargaining.

Now, pardon me for not understanding exactly when that agreement

is over. But just the principle of it is problematic for me. I’m

wondering if that has that been addressed and if it can be addressed in

this legislation to keep those costs down for the business.

The Chair: Minister, just noting the hour. If this is going to take a

while, we can come back.

Hon. C. James: I think we’ll be quick.

Yes, we certainly heard that from a few employers. That’s,

obviously, part of free collective bargaining. We wouldn’t get involved

as government in free collective bargaining. That’s their ability to do

that bargaining at the bargaining table, between the employer and

employees.

I think it is important to note that if an employer is now paying

medical service premiums, they this year saved 50 percent of those

medical service premiums and next year will save another 50 percent. So

there are savings, in fact, for those businesses that happen

automatically because of the reduction of medical service premiums — cut

in half. That’s a savings of both. It doesn’t help the collective

bargaining piece. I appreciate that, but it certainly is a savings to

businesses and to employees, depending on who’s paying the

rate.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2018: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada