British Columbia Hansard — 20151001pm Hansard v28n14

20151001pm-Hansard-v28n14

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Th ursday, October 1, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 28, Number 14

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

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

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

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

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

Teresa Wat Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon. Suzanne Anton Minister of Small Business and Red Tape Reduction and Minister Responsible for the Liquor Distribution Branch ........................................................................................................ Hon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter (BC Liberal) ................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacifi c Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ............................................. Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Wm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS Th ursday, October 1, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 9339 Bill 34 — Red Tape Reduction Day Act (continued) S. Simpson D. Plecas A. Weaver A. Dix J. Martin G. Heyman D. Bing V . Huntington M. Morris R. Fleming Hon. N. Y amamoto L. Krog J. Th ornthwaite D. Eby G. Kyllo J. Shin Hon. C. Oakes Bill 32 — Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 2015 Hon. S. Anton L. Krog D. Plecas Hon. S. Anton

THURSDAY , OCTOBER 1, 2015 Th e House met at 1:33 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Orders of the Day Hon. N. Y amamoto: I call continued second reading of Bill 34. Second Reading of Bills BILL 34 — RED TAPE REDUCTION DAY ACT (continued) S. Simpson: I’m pleased to stand and speak to Bill 34, the Red Tape Reduction Day Act. Th is is a piece of legis- lation that I think, all in, is about 12 or 13 words, some- thing like that. Th e challenge with this bill is, of course, when we talk about red tape…. I heard the Minister of Jobs say that this is all about small business. But this talks about red tape.

It doesn’t talk about small business. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] What we know is deregulation, something this gov- ernment has been pursuing for 14 years, apparently not particularly successfully, since we keep reintroducing the question of deregulation. But what we know that it has done — deregulation, across the government — is hurt a lot of people and hurt the environment. When you look at workers compensation, when you look at worker injuries, when you look at the things that underlie coroners’ juries on matters like Babine and Lakeland….

When you dig deep on those tragedies, you will fi nd that deregulation played a role. When you look at employment standards and you look at workers who were hurt, you will fi nd it is deregulation and moving to the self-help model that has hurt workers who are unorganized and who are oft en at the mercy of their employer. Y ou hope their employer is positive and not negligent. [1335] When you look at the environment and you look at de- regulation around the environment, it is the regulatory regime and those cuts that have hurt the environment.

Oft en, it’s a matter of the government — this govern- ment — slashing resources in those areas and then say- ing to industry, “Well, we’ d kind of like you to do this, but it’s a self-regulatory model. So do whatever you’re going to do, but we’ d kind of like to you do this, ” and then not having the ability to do the oversight or the enforcement to ensure that happens. I listened to the Minister of Jobs say that this is all about small business and not about those things and that she wouldn’t allow that to happen. Well, the reality is that it has happened, time and time again.

Workers have been hurt and the environment has been hurt because of deregulation. Th ere were decisions to streamline things, and people went too far and the government went too far. Th e government has an obligation to regulate where it makes sense. Nobody is looking for unnecessary regula- tion. Nobody wants unnecessary red tape. Nobody wants to hurt small business. Everybody wants that success. I have small businesses in my constituency. Obviously, they want help. Th ey’re looking for help from the gov- ernment, and frankly, they never talk about these things when they talk about the help that they need.

Th ey want help, and presumably, we all want to help small business to succeed. It’s good for us. It’s good for job creation. But this kind of stunt, as was noted…. I mean, I think that we had a Small Business Week not long ago. Th is kind of stunt, like yesterday’s stunt, is not about dealing with substantive issues. It’s not about deal- ing with the matters that are important to us. It is about playing a game. I don’t have any problem with saying that we need to do what we can do for small business, but this doesn’t say that.

When you read the content, it’s says: “Th e fi rst Wednesday in March is Red Tape Reduction Day. ” It doesn’t say it’s reduction day for red tape for small business. No, doesn’t say that. If it meant that, then it should say that. It says this. Th at says to me: that’s a reduction in regu- lation for workers’ compensation. Th at’s a reduction in regulation for employment standards. Th at’s a reduction in regulations for environmental protection. Th e reality is that we have seen every one of those things over the last 14 years.

Th ere have been signifi cant reductions in safety for workers, in safety for the environment. We have seen it continually, the erosion in those areas — a combination of accommodating people who asked this government to do that and of slashing the resources necessary to put the people on the ground to provide the oversight and the enforcement. Th at’s the problem that we face today. If we want to talk about red-tape reduction for small business, then let’s talk about that. And let’s talk about it in a way that’s meaningful. Th is piece of legislation is not going to do anything for anybody.

It’s one day a year when we’ll probably have a debate over how we did. Again, it is instead of being something substantive, in- stead of being something meaningful. It would have been good for this minister and her fi rst step on this fi le to have done something meaningful or substantive. She didn’t do that. She put this up. One sen- tence — a piece of legislation that is one sentence that says nothing and that does not deal with any of the sub- stantive issues. If this minister of deregulation was serious, she would have brought forward an approach that said, “Let’s talk 9339

British Columbia Debates9340 Thursday, October 1, 2015 about how regulation works. Let’s talk about good regu- lation and what happens there, ” versus negative regula- tion. We could have that discussion. [1340] Th is isn’t simple math. Th e silly, absurd comments by the government of: “If we put a regulation in place, we have to eliminate a regulation…. ” Th is is silly. Y ou put in place regulatory controls that you need to protect the public interest, and if you have regulations that make no sense, you get rid of them.

It isn’t about one for one, but this government has chosen to play this game around the regulatory regime. I will go back again and say we have seen far too many workers injured or killed because the regulatory regime didn’t work. We have seen workers exploited because the regulatory regime around employment standards didn’t work. We have seen the environment compromised, our habitat compromised, because the regulatory regime doesn’t have the resources behind it for the oversight and enforcement that are necessary. What we really need to do…. We should have a mean- ingful discussion about regulatory regimes.

It’s certainly not the Red Tape Reduction Day Act, certainly not this one sentence that we’re calling a piece of legislation. Th e minister, when she gets up to close this debate at some point, should explain to this House what she under- stands about how the regulatory regime should work in this province. She should explain to those workers who’ve been injured how she was committed to improving the regulatory regime for those workers. She should explain how she’s going to work with the Minister of Jobs and for Labour to fi x that.

She should explain how she’s going to work with the Minister of Environment to fi x the situa- tion there. Th at’s what the minister responsible for red tape should be talking about. I guess maybe she can’t do that. I notice here that she’s not the minister for the regulatory regime. She’s the Minister of Red Tape Reduction, not for the regula- tory regime. I guess it’s a one-way street. All you can do is erode the regulatory regime, whether it’s good or bad to do it. Th at’s the only option she has, presuming…. If this title means anything, that’s the only option she has. Th at is never good public policy.

Y es, regulations that are duplication, that have un- necessary amounts of bureaucracy attached to them…. I’m the fi rst one to say: “Let’s move them along. Let’s streamline them. Let’s change them. ” But regulations that protect the public interest, that protect our habitat and where we are and that protect the people who go to work each day…. Let’s make sure those regulations are as strong as they can be, are as fi rm as they can be, with real oversight, real enforcement and real consequences for those people who are not prepared to play by the rules. D.

Plecas: On behalf of my constituents of Abbotsford South, I rise today to speak in support of Bill 34, the Red Tape Reduction Day Act. With the passage of this act, red-tape-reduction day will be observed every year on the fi rst Wednesday of March. Th is government is reinforcing its ongoing com- mitment to reduce red tape, an administrative burden for citizens and businesses. Why is it so important to ensure we continue to re- duce red tape? By doing this, we are ensuring British Columbians’ economic competitiveness.

Easing the regulatory burden is also critical to providing citizens with high-quality government services and programs. Th is makes it easier for small business to do business. Removing frustration for citizens by streamlining and modernizing government services makes them easier to access and simpler to use. In addition, we are inviting British Columbians to submit their own ideas on how to streamline how they use and access services. Listening to the people that use these services each and every day will help streamline service.

Th ere will be a public engagement opportunity for British Columbians to share their ideas. It can be the simple fi xes that can help make using and accessing these services easier and simpler to use. When it comes to cutting red tape, what are we doing? We are reviewing and assessing provincial regulations. Contrary to what the opposition says — that somehow it’s one or the other — this is a government that can do more than two things at once. It is a concern for regula- tion, but it’s also a concern for reducing red tape. [1345] We are reviewing and assessing government regula- tions.

Th is means outdated and counterproductive regu- lations are removed from legislation. It will be easier for businesses and citizens to understand what is required of them when assessing government services. We will help entrepreneurs save valuable time. Th ey can redirect their time and resources into the de- velopment and expansion of their businesses instead of adhering to outdated and unnecessary regulations. Any improvements and modernization processes that will save citizens time, money and frustration when they are searching and using government services….

Having a straightforward regulatory regime will en- courage more businesses to invest in B.C., and that is a good thing. As well, I’ d like to note that October is Small Business Month. Th is is the ninth consecutive year we are celebrat- ing this. It is a time when we celebrate the contribution of small business to B.C. ’s economic community and so- cial well-being. Th e Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the voice for small business, has given B.C. an A grade four years in a row. Th at’s four years in a row. We are the only province to ever receive this grade.

We have reduced red tape by 43 percent since 2001. We heard the opposition say: why don’t we do something meaningful? It’s not us who are saying we’re doing some-

British Columbia DebatesThursday, October 1, 2015 9341 thing meaningful. We have an independent body that’s telling us that we’re doing something that’s meaningful and more than that. Th e increased supports we have undertaken for small business have led B.C. to having amongst the highest small business confi dence numbers in Canada for over a year. In B.C. small businesses generate 33 percent of the province’s GDP . This legislation institutionalizes the accountability and transparency of regulatory reform that British Columbians expect from us.

In 2014 alone, B.C. has cut more than 1,700 regulatory requirements. More than 200 red-tape-reduction projects have been completed, with many more underway. Each year since 2001 we have undertaken streamlining initiatives to reduce the over- all regulatory burden. We have changed processes, forms and government websites to make it easier for citizens and businesses to deal with government. Th is legislation makes B.C. the only province in Canada with a red-tape-reduction day, and this is just one more thing we are doing to help small businesses in our province. A.

Weaver: I think it’s important that I start off my speech with a little bit of history of where the term red tape actually comes from. It all began during the reign of King Charles V in 16th and 17th century Spain. Back then, his administration diff erentiated the most important documents from those that were more mundane by tying them with a red rib- bon instead of a rope. In honour of this tradition, I en- tered the chamber today with my papers, my important papers on this topic, tied in red tape. More recently the term red tape is used to describe unnecessary bureau- cratic regulatory roadblocks.

Let’s be clear. Let’s be very clear. Th is bill has nothing to do with red tape. Th is bill is yet another example of a nar- cissistic government trying to take credit for the things that were done by the previous administration. Th is gov- ernment is out of ideas. [1350] Th is government calls an emergency session in July to discuss the project development agreement for its LNG pipedream, continually chasing that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow that keeps never being found.

How many hundreds of thousands of dollars — taxpayers’ dol- lars — were used to bring back the session to debate a bill that we should be debating now? Instead, what are we doing? We’re debating the ab- surd. We’re debating a bill that should have been done through proclamation, to name a date — the red-tape- reduction day. I’ve put a motion on the order paper, and you will see that in your order papers tomorrow. I take exception to the date proposed. My motion that I’ll bring — and give notice now that I will be calling a division on — is to move the date to April 1.

Th ere’s a very real reason why that date would be April 1. Th is is a government that is void of ideas. Th is is a gov- ernment that has no vision. Th is is a government that rec- ognizes that its small business base is lost. I know that that small business base is lost. I’ve toured the province. I’ve spoken to businesses. I know that they look at this government, and they see a lack of leadership. Th ey see a lack of leadership because they feel that this government is singularly focused on LNG, at all costs, at all expenses.

Th ere are small businesses — left , right and centre — talking to me about this issue. Th ey wonder where their government is for them. Where is their government ac- tually reducing red tape? Where is their government actually supporting them? Where is their government putting their interests, the interests of British Columbians and small businesses fi rst, instead of spending all of its time, all of its legislative agenda in trying to land its pipe- dream of an LNG? Y esterday evening, I was fl abbergasted that we are ac- tually debating this. I mean, this is not even a serious bill.

Th e taxpayers of British Columbia should be astonished that we are wasting their money, their time, to debate this, astonished that this government is debating a bill like this. Maybe we should “om the bridge” again and think about it deeply and sincerely as we contemplate more bills like this. When I put this on my Facebook page, I had no idea. I put it out as a joke. It’s not a joke. I have some comments that were posted on my Facebook page. In my career here in the Legislature, I have had very few posts that have had such a viral, organic reach in such a small amount of time.

Let me tell you, the comments are not pleasant. Th is bill is precisely the reason why voters in British Columbia are turned off by this government, are turned off by politics, are cynical about politicians, cynical about the political goals that they have. Th e reason why is that this bill has nothing to do with the well-being of British Columbians and everything to do with the narcissistic, self-congratulation of a government out of ideas, out of direction, visionless and losing its base in small business. It’s a very sad day for British Columbia. Politics should be serious.

We should be discussing serious issues. I wel- comed the chance yesterday to discuss the Site C dam. Too bad that it wasn’t seven months ago, but neverthe- less, we were able to discuss real issues. Again, it should have been done seven months ago when it would have actually meant something. Let me read some of these comments. My favourite one, I thought, was…. Well, there are a lot of them. Here’s one: “I can’t believe there is such a thing as a Minister of Red Tape Reduction. Ludicrous. Sounds like something made up in a children’s story.

Th ere should be a minister of regulatory aff airs, maybe, who is responsible for en- suring regulatory measures to ensure public safety are equitable, achievable and enforceable. ”

British Columbia Debates9342 Thursday, October 1, 2015 Another one here: “Is there not anything else they could work on, like — oh, I know — child welfare, the homeless, education, etc.?” “Isn’t that, by nature, an oxy- moron?” “I was looking for the line with the words ‘the Onion’ beside my post. ” For those who don’t know, the Onion, of course, is a comical, satirical magazine in the U.S. “While they’re at it, can you ask them to make an offi cial silly walks day?” “We’ve already got a Ministry of Red Tape. ” I’ve got to read a few more. “Ha, ha, ha.

Let’s do yoga on the bridge. ” I’ve already used that one. “What about hardhat day?” somebody posted. “Gotta be bright blue. ” Let’s do some more. Well, this one is very dear to my heart. It says: “We could easily reduce red tape. ” In cap- ital letters: “Get rid of the Liberals. ” Here’s another one: “Well, that is what the federal Conservatives are touting, 40 percent less red tape, and Clark is a…. ” With respect. I’m quoting here. “Th e per- son, the Premier, is a con, ” it says here. [1355] “Th e stupidity of the B.C. Liberals never fails to sur- prise me. ” Another quote.

I could go on and on. “Words escape me. ” “Who are these people?” “Th is is too absurd for words. ” “Face palm. ” “No, wait, is it April 1?” Th at comment on my Facebook page — I really like to engage my constituents on Facebook — prompted me to put in this amendment to this bill, this ridiculous bill, to change the date to April 1. “Why? Why? Why? No direction. No leadership. No brains, ” is another comment. I’m not picking and choos- ing. I’m just reading the comments. “What’s next, anti- provincial holiday day? How much did it produce to then reduce?” Th at’s a good one.

How much red tape are we introducing to then reduce it? We could keep on going. “Did it pass?” somebody asked. “Baffling, staggering, stupefying. ” “I solemnly swear never to vote for those responsible ever again. ” “Give me a break. With PCTIA taking over the language sector, the B.C. government has shown they have no concept of red tape and the harm it does to businesses — businesses that support B.C. residents and the B.C. econ- omy in general. ” Th ese are not my friends and relatives. Th ese are ran- dom people commenting on this. Here, “Oh, can we start with the B.C.

Liberals?” another comment about reducing red tape. “Comment: no comment. ” “Oh, ser- iously? It’s not even April 1.What a waste of time. ” Here we have another one, and this one is truly my fa- vourite. Th is one makes me happier than all of the others combined. I will not say this person’s name, but he said the following. Th is is somebody who never voted in his life before because he thinks that all politicians are cor- rupt. He thinks that politics is a waste of time. He has lost hope in politics. He thinks the government is cor- rupt. With respect.

He doesn’t believe in support of the opposition either, and he said this. “Mr. Weaver” — Mr. MLA for Oak Bay–Gordon Head — “I have been thinking long and hard what you told me when I commented on not voting. Y ou made some very valid points, and I have decided to vote. I wish to thank you, and I wish you good luck in the next election. ” It is precisely this type of bill brought to us today that is en- couraging these non-voters to regain their democracy. I keep going: “The only thing missing was Mayor Quimby in his sash. ” “On that point, I have to agree with you. A bill is not needed to reduce red tape.

Th at requires a minister who knows how to accomplish that within his or her department. ” “Seriously? Are we being pranked?” “Stranger than a Monty Python skit. ” “What a waste of time and the paper it is written on. ” I keep going on: “Th is is the kind of waste of time we have to shed. We have a lot of serious issues that need our senior levels of government. ” “Th e Premier leaves me speechless, but Andrew, you and others like you give me hope. ” I won’t bore the House. I’ve got another four pages of them, and not a single one of these comments….

And I come from a riding that was for 17 years the home of a Liberal cabinet minister, a riding that was the only Conservative riding in the province of British Columbia when Dr. Scott Wallace sat in this Legislature here. Th is is what my constituents are saying — my constituents, who this government would honestly believe form their base.

Well, let me tell you, they don’t have a base anymore, because this government has lost touch with its base, it’s lost touch with the people of British Columbia, it’s lost touch with small business, and this is a desperate attempt for them to try to regain some control of their base. Sadly, it won’t work. It isn’t going to work, and sadly — well, happily for us — in only two years, this government will be replaced. A. Dix: One is, of course, tempted, when the govern- ment engages in this level of political stunt, to respond with derision.

But I think that it might be better today to have a serious discussion and for the government to have a serious refl ection on what it’s actually doing here. I want to, if the member for North Vancouver– Lonsdale, the minister, will bear with me, speak briefl y about her family and mine. I think one of my proudest moments as an MLA in this Legislature was when the minister stood up and moved a motion that we unani- mously supported talking about what happened: the in- ternment of Japanese Canadians in World War II. [1400] She spoke eloquently, and everybody in this House stood and applauded what she did.

It brought us together as a House. I followed her and spoke in support of what she was doing and of her motion, and everybody in this House stood up for me. It was a moment of great pride for me, because I have thought and refl ected on the issues involved all my life, from the time I was a student to the

British Columbia DebatesThursday, October 1, 2015 9343 day I spoke in the Legislature. Aft erwards we went to the minister’s offi ce, and she held a reception. Many of us came and celebrated with members of her family. It was a great moment for this Legislature. It truly was. I want to speak about my family. My dad was a small business person for most of his life. He came to British Columbia to open a small business in 1969, and he and my mom ran that business until 2012. He passed away in 2013. He supported and raised my sister Wendy and myself and my brother Dylan from the proceeds of that small business.

He cared about it. At his funeral, I must say that people who, as a small business person, he had served in the community, came in large numbers. Th ey only knew him because he was their insurance agent, but they admired him and they loved him. He understood that small business played an import- ant role in the community and that we succeeded as a society because we had the rule of law, that people were protected, including him, at times by regulation and by law. He understood at times, because he ran a small business, the absurdity that that sometimes brought.

He would point it out, and he would fi ght for change. He would work to make things better in his industry, and he did. He was respected for it most of all by those that loved him and by everyone in the community. So I refl ect today about what my father would say about this action. Five times in the history of the British Columbia Legislature — five times — we have pro- claimed, legislatively, days. Th e cabinet proclaims days all the time. In fact, here’s a list in 2015 of the days, months, weeks and years that have been proclaimed: 2015, the Y ear of Sport in British Columbia. Craft Y ear 2015 in January.

Alzheimer Awareness Month and Red Tape Awareness Week — so we’re duplicating here. Mineral Exploration Week. Family Literacy Day. Data Privacy Day. Black History Month. Heart Month in February. Toastmasters Month. Th e 2015 Canada Winter Games Weeks. Heritage Week. Chamber of Commerce Week. Resident Awareness Week. International Mother Language Day. Bullying Awareness Day. Community Social Services Awareness Month. Y outh Science Month. Cowboy Heritage Week. Social Work Week. Stop the Sexual Exploitation of Children and Y outh Awareness Week — perhaps it requires a legislative amendment. Dieticians Day.

Journée de la francophonie. World Down Syndrome Day. Community-based Trainers Week. Lynch Syndrome Awareness Day. B.C. Pharmacy Day. Purple Day for Epilepsy Awareness. Autism Awareness Month. Canadian Cancer Society’s Daff odil Month for cancer. Parkinson’s Awareness Month. World Autism Awareness Day. Make a Will Week. Canadian Oncology Nursing Day. Child Abuse Prevention Day. Emergency Services Dispatchers and 911 Awareness Week. Prevention of Violence Against Women Week. Law Week. Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Week. AED Awareness Day. National Meetings Industry Day. Administrative Professionals Week. B.C.

Arts and Culture Week. Victims of Crime Awareness Week. Medical Offi ce Assistants Week. Administrative Professionals Day. B.C. Book Day. Animal Abuse Prevention Day. Red Hat Society Day. Creative Industries Week. B.C. Guide Dog and Service Dog Day. Asian Heritage Month. Child Care Month. Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month. MS Awareness Month. Social Enterprise Month. Mining Week. North American Occupational Safety and Health Week. Family Caregiver Week. Mental Health Week. TB Vets Week. British Columbia Midwives Day. British Columbia Fallen Paramedics Day. [1405] Pediatric Stroke Awareness Day.

Child and Y outh Mental Health Day. Healthcare Auxiliary Day. Tzu Chi Day. Nursing Week. Licensed Practical Nurses Day. Bereavement Day. Cycling4Diversity Week. Local Government Awareness Week. National Public Works Week. Canadian Camping Week. Aboriginal Social Enterprise Day. Child Care Provider Appreciation Day. SIDS Awareness Day. B.C. Jade Day. B.C. Beef Day. B.C. ALS Awareness Month. B.C. Seafood Month. Invasive Species Action Month. Italian Heritage Month. Smoke-Free Multi-Unit Housing Month. Stroke Month. Intergenerational Day. B.C. Child and Y outh in Care Week. Clean Air Day. Nurse Practitioners Week.

World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. Ride 2 Survive Day. St. John Ambulance Week. Legion Week. Automotive Heritage Month. Latin American Week. Screen in B.C. Day. Disability Employment Month. Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Prevention and Support Month. Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. KidSport B.C. Week. Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Prevention and Support Day. World Suicide Prevention Day. World Sepsis Day. Sales and Marketing Education Awareness Week. Square and Round Dance Awareness Week. Balance Awareness Week. Sales and Marketing Education Awareness Day. Vancouver Community College Day. B.C. Coaches Week.

Organic Week. Recovery Day. Be Care Aware Day. B.C. Culture Days. B.C. Law Enforcement Memorial Day. ADHD Awareness Month. Community Living Month. Foster Family Month. Library Month. Occupational Therapy Month. Registered Disability Savings Plan Awareness Month. Small Business Month. Breastfeeding Week. National Family Week. Every Girl Matters Day. Co-op Week. Healthcare Security and Safety Week. Homelessness Action Wee k. There’s Manufacturing Week. Interjection. A. Dix: Oh, we’re keeping going. I know it’s hilarious. Natural Gas Week. Veterinary Technologist Week. Change Day B.C. Credit Union Day.

Pregnancy and Infant

British Columbia Debates9344 Thursday, October 1, 2015 Loss Awareness Day. Confl ict Resolution Week. Health Care Assistant Day. National Teen Driver Safety Week. Registered Massage Th erapy Awareness Week. School Library Day. National UNICEF Day. Apprenticeship Recognition Week. Down Syndrome Awareness Week. World Pancreatic Cancer Day. Child and Y outh Day. Th at’s so far this year, proclaimed by the cabinet. Th at is a good thing, I would argue. All of those are very im- portant circumstances, red tape reduction amongst them.

Th e government has decided, of all of those things, that there’s a diff erent level for red tape reduction. In fact, as I said to this House, fi ve times in the history of British Columbia — fi ve times — we’ve passed legislation cre- ating days by legislation. By defi nition, these are special circumstances refl ecting special things. And they are as follows. British Columbia Day Act, 1996,

chapter 34. I think we all understand that. Douglas Day recognized a great fi gure in British Columbia’s history, as other countries do. Terry Fox Day, which we, as legislators, passed last year, together with the Fox family. Family Day, which was a proposal put forward by the current government to cre- ate a new holiday in February that received much pub- lic consultation and discussion. Finally, one introduced and passed unanimously under the NDP government — Holocaust Memorial Day Act.

So fi ve times in our history — fi ve times — we’ve de- cided to give special recognition to things important to British Columbia, important to its history.

I commend the minister to read the debate from those days, because what they refl ected on those days was community sup- port for important recognitions that needed to be rec- ognized by legislative action and turned into days in the Legislature I ask her to consider the speeches made by all mem- bers of the Legislature, from all sides of the House, on Holocaust Memorial Day — by all sides of the House, including my colleague from Port Coquitlam who knew the Fox family and knows the Fox family so well, on Terry Fox Day. Th ese were events that brought us together.

Th ese weren’t cheap political stunts. [1410] Th ese days are devalued when the government engages in what they are doing now — devaluing the work that legislators have done for a generation. Calling us back at a time of signifi cant issues for everyone, including small businesses, in British Columbia and engaging in day aft er day of trivial activity — this is wrong. Read those legislations, and then read the speeches made on the government side of the House, lauding their own record, and then saying: “We’ll proclaim a day. ” Lauding their own record, attacking the opposition of the day.

Th ese events, these recognitions…. Th ey’re sup- posed to be beyond that, above that. Th ey’re supposed to bring people together. Declaring a day by the B.C. Legislature is not a wedge issue for the Premier to use at her discretion. She de- fi es…. We had two Premiers’ sons. We had the grandson of W .A.C. Bennett, the son of Bill Bennett, here yesterday. His dad and his granddad didn’t engage in such tactics. Th ey didn’t do that. Th ey’re not on the legislative record doing that. Dave Barrett isn’t, Mike Harcourt isn’t, Glen Clark isn’t, and even Gordon Campbell isn’t. Th is is a new type of behaviour.

It’s inconsistent with the values I know the minister holds, which is to create, to use this special mechanism…. I repeat what these days are: B.C. Day, our collective history — where we celebrate together our collective history. I had an event, a wonder- ful event, at Trout Lake Community Centre this year on that day. On Family Day, similarly at Renfrew community centre, we had a day where we came together and recog- nized that. I don’t need to tell members who take

part in the Terry Fox Run what that means to communities and what it means to all of us. When we rise and, after much discussion, want to recognize these special events, it seems to me that they have to have value, that words matter, actions have value. Th ey’re not things to be used at discretion by the Liberal Party when they don’t have a legislative agenda and they want to jam people. Th ey’re not additional regulation. Th ey are supposed to refl ect our collective spirit and what we’re about.

How can members of the government side serious- ly say that this eff ort, this partisan performance by the government today, is in the same measure as B.C. Day and Terry Fox Day and Family Day and Douglas Day and Holocaust Memorial Day? Or that the speeches put forward by government ministers — when they call this bill without discussion, and then they have a debate the next day — are in any way refl ective of what happened on any of those days or why those measures were brought forward?

In 2000, our collective horror of the Holocaust led people on both sides of the House to recognize that day here in British Columbia. Our absolute…. I think most of us in British Columbia who remember Terry Fox and remember that moment were profoundly aff ected by it. Th at’s what you have a day for — not because you’re out of a legislative agenda, not because you want to poke the opposition, not because you want to mobilize the base — because we want to bring people together.

I don’t know how the member from West Vancouver can vote in this way and say that this is a good idea to bring this kind of thing forward when he knows that that’s what this is. It is entirely appropriate for the government to pro- claim a red-tape-reduction day. What isn’t appropriate, it seems to me, as someone who strongly believes that gov- ernment needs to regulate strongly where it is required and not when it’s not required. Unnecessary regulation of course should be eliminated, but understanding that there’s oft en a debate about what that regulation is.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, October 1, 2015 9345 I know, for example, Phuong Le, a woman who worked on a farm in British Columbia. She has lost her husband — he’s been permanently brain-injured — in what’s be- come known as the Langley farmworkers accident or incident in September of 2008. It is a fact that as part of the deregulation agenda, the government, without talk- ing to a single farmworker, eliminated protections for farmworkers in 2002. [1415] Th at is not a question of red-tape reduction. Th at was a political decision made by the government.

Th ey decided, in consultation with political supporters of the govern- ment, to engage in that practice, and it had consequences for all concerned. Th at’s not red-tape reduction. Th at is a legitimate discussion of what role government should play in that industry, and we have a strong disagreement on that question. Unnecessary regulations…. I would always, 100 times out of 100 — I wouldn’t be my father’s son if I didn’t do it — vote against unnecessary regulation. We’ve got a lot of work to do, and we shouldn’t do what’s unneces- sary. I am against red tape.

I am against red tape if red tape means unnecessary regulation. I am against it. I am against it, and every single member of the opposition side is against it. Th is kind of trick and thing that we get up and all will vote, and you’re voting against it, and I’m voting in favour of it…. Th is is really beneath us as legislators, and we’re not going to fall into that trap. We’re against red tape, but it was the government that brought this bill forward.

It was the government, just as governments before, that brought forward the Terry Fox Day Act,which had been advocated for by my colleague from Port Coquitlam but also members on all sides of the House, including other members from the Tri-Cities. Douglas Day, refl ecting our history, and B.C. Day, re- flecting our collective action, and Holocaust remem- brance day, representing, I think, our soul as human beings. That’s worthy of a day to be passed by this Legislature. That’s what we should have been doing.

Frankly, I would suggest that the ministers of the Crown, the Liberal members, who have spoken to this and given partisan speeches should go back and read Hansard and read not what the NDP members said on those days but what the Liberal members said on those days. Does it give the same value to our collective action on all of those occasions when we celebrated what we are as a community, not as Liberals and not as New Democrats and not as Green members and not as Conservatives but as British Columbians?

On all of those occasions, that’s what we did, together in this House, as one — unani- mously supported, brought forward aft er lots of discus- sion and consultation and belief in the community to refl ect the best of ourselves. That’s why you do this kind of legislative day. The minister knows it, and the other ministers know it. And the members of the Liberal Party — they know it too. Th ose fi ve days and then this — refl ecting the heart and soul of this government, which is to use any technique. “ Anything is worthwhile. Any action is worthwhile. We’ll just poke at people. ” Th at’s not what this is for.

In conclusion — let me say unequivocally so that everybody understands it — we in the opposition are not into this game, this use of the Legislature for just silly games. I’m not talking about politics. Th e government, of course…. We are politicians, and what we do is politics. I’m talking about wasting time. I’m talking about adding laws to reduce red tape. I’m talking about demeaning previous unanimous actions of the Legislature. I am saying that we’re not going to play this game. We’re not going to worry about this vote, which is just a trick. We’re against red tape.

We’ll vote against red tape every day of the week. But what we won’t do is vote against government regu- lations protecting workers, protecting the safety of cit- izens, ensuring a democratic and just society. We won’t do that. And we won’t…. Th is, I think, people understand. My dad understood it. He understood it when he ran his business all those decades. He understood it. Th e people of B.C. understand it. Y ou don’t get ahead in this world by taking the collective good and attempting to turn it to your own purposes in a kind of low and sneaky way. Th at’s what this is. We’re not going to fall for the trap.

We’re not into that. We can go forward with this. It doesn’t really aff ect us. It’s not an expression of our best wishes. It’s certainly not the expression of the small busi- ness people that I know — to say that, yes, we absolutely should refl ect that. We already have. Th e government already did this year. Th ey did it in January. And now what are they doing? What they’re saying is: “Our political interests are at the same level as B.C. Day and Terry Fox Day. Now we have “Save the Liberal base” day. [1420] Seriously, the government needs to recognize that.

Five days passed by this Legislature — all the other holi- days passed by our national parliament and recognized by this Legislature, refl ecting our tradition; in some cases, our religion; in some cases, our collective will; in some cases, our best selves. Surely, Terry Fox is that. Th en we have this government, which says: “Th is is just a mechanism for us that we can use to poke people we don’t like. ” I think enough has been said about this. In fact, we have a Liberal government…. Sometimes your action…. And this is a small thing. It’s a bill. It’s one week in March. I don’t mind talking about red tape.

I don’t need to talk about it one day. We should talk about it every day. We should talk about the best way to govern the province every day. Th at’s what I try and do, as an MLA. One day in March doesn’t signify a great deal, in that sense. What it signifi es is a government that has lost its

British Columbia Debates9346 Thursday, October 1, 2015 soul and lost its understanding of what its purpose is. Th e purpose of government, in these important, sym- bolic ways, is to bring the community together. Terry Fox understood that. Th e people and the members of the Legislature who voted on these previous days understood that. Unfortunately, this Premier doesn’t understand any- thing of the sort. J. Martin: I’m happy to rise on behalf of my constitu- ents from Chilliwack and speak to Bill 34, the Red Tape Reduction Day Act.

As we know, this bill marks the fi rst Wednesday of March as red-tape-reduction day every year. It’s an honorary day to shine a light on government’s commit- ment to a net-zero increase in regulatory requirements to 2019. Th is means that every year the government will shine a spotlight on our progress toward reducing red tape in B.C. The commitment to a day specifically for red tape means that government formally and publicly is account- able. Th is legislation institutionalizes the accountability and transparency of regulatory reform.

Th is also marks B.C. as the only province in Canada with a red-tape-re- duction day. It also shows our commitment to small busi- nesses and the people of B.C. by streamlining initiatives and modernizing processes to make it easier for business- es and citizens to deal with government and regulations. By introducing this legislation, government is required, by law, to focus eff orts on red-tape reduction, improving the way we deliver government services and identifying and removing any outdated or unnecessary regulatory requirements.

It establishes an annual day that we can devote to highlighting our progress in regulatory reform. We can highlight how we have been reducing red tape through streamlining and modernizing the provincial regulatory framework and how we are repealing outdated and unnecessary regulatory requirements. By highlighting red-tape reduction with a day each and every year, we demonstrate to British Columbia that this is a priority of the government.

Outdated and counterproductive regulations will be removed from legislation, and it will be easier for businesses and cit- izens to understand and meet the requirements that they must comply with rather than adhering to unnecessary, outdated and frivolous regulations. Th is can save citizens and businesses time, money and frustration as they are searching for and using govern- ment services. Even the smallest changes can help busi- nesses save time and save money that they can invest in better areas.

More importantly, businesses attracted by a straightforward regulatory regime are encouraged to in- vest in British Columbia. Now, the people that use these services each and every day will have ideas and suggestions on how to make those services work even better. To include British Columbians in this process, we are launching a public engagement op- portunity in October. We invite British Columbians to share their thoughts and their ideas on how to make it easier to fi nd and use those government services. Our goal is to improve access to government servi- ces for all British Columbians.

What better way is there to do that than to hear directly from the people that use the service? Any idea that could help save people time or provide easier access to services could lead to possible changes to government policies, programs or regulations. [1425] What does reducing red tape mean for British Columbians and small businesses? Well, it means we are making improvements to deliver services that are faster, easier to access and simpler to use.

Since 2001 we have been steadily working to streamline services and elim- inate the burden of excessive and unnecessary red-tape requirements on citizens and businesses. Well, what have we done to make life easier for British Columbians? Here’s a handful of examples. For families, it is now easier to take your child fi shing, thanks to chan- ges to the Wildlife Act. Parents have more dining options, now that they can take their children to family-friendly pubs until 10 p. m. Th e new dashboard StudentAid B.C. gives students an at-a-glance view of their loan applica- tions.

Apprentices can quickly fi nd trades training spaces available at 14 institutions using the trades seat fi nder. British Columbians can now get information and as- sistance to register to be an organ donor at any of the 62 Service B.C. locations. Th is simplifi ed system could boost the number of organ donations up to four times the amount registered under the previous system. Th is saves lives. Red-tape reductions mean you can now buy local beer and wine in select grocery stores. It’s easier to apply for special-occasion licences to host parties or outdoor wed- dings.

Y ou can now simply go on line and fi ll out the form, rather than fi lling out paperwork at B.C. Liquor Stores, police stations and municipal halls. For small business owners, we have reduced the paper- work burden so owners can now quickly and easily bid for government contracts. Owners of breweries, distil- leries and wineries can now sell their products at farm- ers markets. These are just a few examples of what this govern- ment has done to reduce red tape and make life easier for British Columbians. It is abundantly clear that one side of this House supports small business and the reduction of red tape.

Th e same cannot be said for the other side. G. Heyman: First of all, let me state very clearly that I support small business. Small business plays a tremen- dously important role in British Columbians’ economy. It plays a tremendously important role in every community. Small businesses, as my colleague from Vancouver- Kingsway has pointed out, help people in the community. Th ey understand the community. Th ey not only provide

British Columbia DebatesThursday, October 1, 2015 9347 jobs and are the economic engine of many communities, but there’s a kind of direct, person-to-person assistance and aff ection and common purpose in community that gets lost as you get larger. Small businesses are import- ant. Th ey’re critical to British Columbia. Th ey deserve our support. Y es, they deserve to have any form of bureaucracy or paperwork or red tape or requirements be streamlined to be as effi cient as possible, while still maintaining the role of regulation in protecting the community at large, pro- tecting workers and protecting others.

I will talk a little bit more about small business, but before that, I want to make reference to what I consider to be a shameful ac- cusation by the member for Chilliwack, with not a shred of evidence, that members on this side of the House do not support small business. That’s the kind of irresponsible, reckless, unsub- stantiated allegation that leads to the failure of British Columbians to have any confi dence whatsoever in the ability of Legislatures to work, in any sense of collabora- tion for the common good of this province. It is cheap politics, and it is beneath the dignity of this chamber.

It continues the tone that was set yesterday to simply, recklessly misrepresent the positions of members of the opposition. Th at is not how we should be building this province. It is not how we can build this province. Within my constituency of Vancouver-Fairview, there are distinct areas and communities that are defi ned and made lively by the small businesses that exist within them.

Whether it’s the new developments along Main Street, the plethora of stores and restaurants, the Cambie vil- lage, South Granville or the Broadway corridor, you can- not walk two blocks without coming across a handful of small businesses that have been there for years, small businesses that are new. [1430] All of them have talked to me when I go in and meet with them, whether it’s as their MLA for the area in which they do business or simply as a patron, about the chal- lenges they face every day to keep people employed and to make their businesses successful. I do — we all do — have respect for small business.

We do not take for granted how diffi cult it is for small businesses to thrive, for small businesses and owners of small businesses to deal with any number of govern- ment requirements, any number of government forms, any number of regulations about which they’re required to be knowledgeable. I take those seriously. While I have not run a small business, I have been re- sponsible for a small non-profi t.

Without meaning any disrespect whatsoever to the owners of small businesses, I think I understand something of what it’s like to worry every week about meeting payroll when cash fl ow is not what we would like it to be, when the challenge is to try to create some form of small surplus or, hopefully, a lar- ger surplus at the end of every year and when, along with all of the challenges of recruiting and hiring and training and meeting needs, one has to deal with requirements of government in order to fi ll out forms or respond to questions or be knowledgeable of and live by regulations. I know that’s diffi cult.

I’ve had to do it. My colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway has had to do it. Others in our caucus have had to do it. We do take it seriously. We take the reduction of red tape seriously — unnecessary red tape. Red tape is a bit of an unfortunate acronym, because it has been used to mean any kind of regulation. But what it really refers to, I believe, is redundancy and unneces- sary requirements that do not serve any useful purpose.

When I look at Bill 34, I see two sections: one nam- ing which day in every year will be red-tape-reduction day and when the bill will commence, when it will come into force and eff ect. [R. Lee in the chair.] I don’t know how anyone on the other side of the House or this side of the House could say that this bill has anything whatsoever to do with reducing the burden on small business — or anyone else, for that matter. It doesn’t do that. It creates a day.

What reduces the burden on small business is con- crete action that makes their lives easier and makes the ability for them to conduct business, employee people productively and provide services to the community easier and better. Th ere’s nothing in this bill that does that. Th ere’s nothing in this bill, when it becomes

an act, that will do that. What there is in this bill — this simple, two-section bill with a handful of words — is a cheapening of the im- portance of this Legislature and what we could create and what we could do together. When this chamber is used simply to lay traps, to try to create a forum in which to throw baseless allegations at hon. members on this side of the House in order to curry favour with some seg- ment of the electorate, it is a misuse of this chamber, in my opinion. It is wrong. It does nothing to make the lives of small business people easier.

It does nothing to build the economy of British Columbia. It does nothing to serve our commun- ities. It does nothing whatsoever to make this Legislature more meaningful, important, signifi cant or useful to small business people or anyone else.

It is simply cheap, political posturing of the worst kind, and it is beneath the dignity of this Legislature and the many people who have sat in this chamber before us, trying to create a good environment for business in Vancouver and trying to create useful laws and useful statements of leadership. [1435] It’s the kind of communities and the kind of tone in society that brings us closer together, that makes us bet- ter human beings, that makes us aware of things that

British Columbia Debates9348 Thursday, October 1, 2015 have been done in the past that have been both worthy of praise and not so worthy of praise. We have here today an opportunity to stand up in the House and…. Instead of actually making lives better for small business, we simply have an opportunity for the government to try to convince people that they think are their friends that the opposition are not their friends. Let me say once more that I am committed and my colleagues are committed to reducing any redundancy or unnecessary red tape that stands in the way of small busi- ness or anyone else.

But let me also point out that, while members on the government side talk about reducing red tape for small business, there’s nothing in this bill that refers to small business. Th e words “small business” are not contained within it. Th at’s an important point to note. It’s important to note because, in a moment, I am going to revisit some history.

Before I do that, I simply want to say to the mem- ber for Chilliwack and to the Minister for Jobs, who has been in this House since this Liberal government was fi rst elected in 2001: if there is so much red tape that it’s an impediment to business large and small in this prov- ince, what have they been doing for the 14 years they’ve been in government? In 2002, Kevin Falcon, as minister responsible for de- regulation, introduced two acts that were intended to cut red tape.

Th is morning in this House, the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour stated: “While I very much appreciate the mem- bers citing a number of health and safety issues, we have been clear from the very beginning that this is not about removing regulation that protects the health and safety of British Columbians. Th is is about unnecessary, redun- dant regulation. As we move forward, we want to make sure that we are responding to industry and to changes in technology. ” Th is minister was a minister of govern- ment in 2002.

She was in the cabinet that brought for- ward the bill. Let me read some words from Minister Kevin Falcon when he was introducing the Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act, (No. 2), 2002 — Bill 35. Kevin Falcon, the minister responsible, stated at the time: “Bill 35 re- moves almost 250 unnecessary regulatory requirements and cuts red tape by eliminating duplication, providing greater fl exibility for regulated groups… ” and he went on. Th ere is a fair amount of similarity in those remarks. If we are to trust this minister today, presumably we could have trusted Minister Falcon in that day.

Perhaps the cur- rent Minister of Jobs, Skills Training and for Labour felt the same way at the time. So let’s take a bit of a look at what sorts of things were deregulated under the fi rst two bills introduced in the early years of this Liberal govern- ment, in 2002. Deregulation of addiction and recovery houses. In 2002, the Liberal government deregulated recovery homes, removing licensing requirements for most recov- ery and drug rehab homes.

Other of my colleagues from Surrey may speak about some of the tragic consequences of those deregulations. [1440] There was the deregulation of child death reviews that removed the requirement for the coroner to com- plete child death reviews by changing the word “must” to “may. ” It’s worth noting that one of the ways in which the previous minister, Kevin Falcon, toted up numbers of regulations that he deemed to be unnecessary was to do a word check, and every time the word “must” showed up, it counted as a regulation.

Th e word “must” may show up several times in the paragraph, sometimes more than once in a sentence. I’m not sure that makes it a regulation. Farmworker safety was deregulated with tragic, tra- gic results. Changes were made to the Employment Standards Act in 2002 as part of the deregulation drive led by Minister Kevin Falcon. It reduced legal protection of workers. Farmworkers were excluded altogether from regulations related to hours of work, overtime and statu- tory holiday pay.

Th ere were also, as we all know in this House, tragic accidents from the fl agrant refusal by farm labour con- tractors to honour the most simple and straightforward of transportation safety requirements. And farmworkers died. Th ey died. We have had signifi cant discussion in this Legislature about Mount Polley. Th ere has been debate back and forth about whose responsibility it was and about wheth- er it was a simple mechanical failure or a failure of over- sight and regulation.

Th e record shows that from 1994 to 2002, before Minister Falcon introduced the deregulation act, there were 93 safety inspections at Teck’s Elkview mine, for example. From 2003 to 2014, there were less than half that number. Th ere were 40. In a few minutes, I am going to cite some fi ndings from the University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre about what the meaning of professional oversight and voluntary compliance may be with respect to both im- portant public safety and environmental concerns, with respect to mining as well as forestry. But there’s one other example I want to bring up before I move there.

Th ere are actually two. First of all, we know that part of deregulation was a deregulation that changed the requirements about who could and couldn’t administer very important eye exam- inations. Not vision, per se, and not what sort of prescrip- tion you might need for a contact lens or a set of glasses but the range of other things related to eye health that relate to personal health. Th e B.C. optometrists have spoken for a long time and compellingly about the risks to the public of that sort of deregulation.

I was in the chamber this morning when the minis- ter responsible for jobs, skills training, labour and, by extension, the Workers Compensation Board — which is still its legal name — said that this had nothing to do

British Columbia DebatesThursday, October 1, 2015 9349 with health and safety. I was in this chamber when we were discussing the tragic explosions at the Babine and Lakeland mills, where she said it had nothing to do — nothing whatsoever to do — with a failure by this gov- ernment to set a tone of concern for workers’ health and safety. In 2001 and 2002, early when this government was elected, I sat on the board of directors of the Workers Compensation Board. I know the kind of rigorous and detailed research that we reviewed before we ap- proved regulations being set. Sometimes we would spend months.

Sometimes we would spend a whole year. Sometimes we would look at well over 100 pages of sum- maries, of research that had been conducted around risks to workers’ health, around the level of compliance — vol- untary or otherwise — by diff erent categories of business- es that had high claims records. I know that when we introduced new regulations, we took them very seriously. We worked very hard to achieve consensus. Th ere was both a labour representa- tive and an employer representative on the board.

We understood that the decisions we made needed to be rooted in evidence and science. [1445] I still remember, aft er a year of study, introducing the environmental tobacco smoke regulation to protect workers from exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke. I also remember that we received a message from the Minister of Labour at the time, Graham Bruce, saying that that regulation was not acceptable to government and asking us to not bring it forward. We refused.

We told the minister that he had the power under the act to overturn our regulation himself, if he wanted, and substitute whatever he thought was appro- priate, but we were not going to participate in an exercise that was completely unfounded in any sort of evidence or science. He took our advice. He fi red us fi rst, and then he took our advice. Eventually the regulation was introduced. Eventually the government and municipalities around the province understood that this would not be the death of bars. It would not be the death of restaurants.

But it would, quite possibly, be the diff erence between life and death for a lot of working people. I off er that not because it’s the most compelling or im- portant example. I off er that because it is my very per- sonal experience about what a mindless approach to deregulation can produce. Not an approach that looks for true redundancies, for truly unnecessary impediments to small businesses being succes sful — or larger ones, for that matter — but an approach which simply says: “We’re going to count the numbers, and we’re going to set a tar- get.

At the end of that, we’re going to meet that target, and we are going to wrap ourselves in the fl ag of reducing red tape and hang the consequences to anyone else. ” There was a sustained attack on the Workers Compensation Board. Regulations regarding fi rst aid were eliminated. Regulations regarding fall protection were changed. I know from my time that fall protection was one of the most important regulatory changes that we made, because so many workers were killed or perma- nently injured from falls that could have been prevented by proper safety measures that we attempted to bring in.

Instead, in the interests of parading around the prov- ince and talking about their commitment to getting gov- ernment out of the way of business and reducing red tape, those regulations were eliminated in order to meet a target of one-third. Even such simple matters as the re- quirement for workplace washrooms and change rooms were eliminated. In addition, while not directly related to the regula- tions on paper themselves, the budget was reduced by 12 percent, there were offi ce closures, and there was a 30 percent reduction in site visits by prevention offi cers.

Th at’s important, because when you’re dealing with regu- lations that have to do with the safety, the health and, ul- timately, in many cases, the lives of workers, if there are no inspections, you’re relying entirely on the goodwill of employers. If employers, in fact, have goodwill, they will pass an inspection, and they likely will not be visited very oft en.

When they are, if something is amiss, the inspector will likely take them aside and say: “Y ou should be doing this. ” We have seen the tragic results at Lakeland and Babine when there aren’t enough inspections, when the regula- tions and the requirements of science with respect to controlling dust from the hazards of ignition are not fol- lowed. Th is government can say it has nothing to do with them — that it was a failure of WCB, of WorkSafe B.C., to act appropriately, to protect workers from dangers in the workplace, from following the procedures that would support a prosecution in court.

Th e truth is this government set the tone. Th is govern- ment set the tone by calling worker safety regulations — along with any number of other regulations — redundant red tape and slashing them by a third. [1450] Th at is the climate and the context that led to those deaths, and no amount of denial on the other side of the House will change that fact. Th ey created the climate that had tragic results. We should never, ever forget that.

We talked in this House about the tragedy of the Mount Polley tailings pond failure and what it meant to the community, what it meant to First Nations, what it meant to fi sheries. A study was conducted on profes- sional reliance and environmental regulation in British Columbia by the university’s Environmental Law Centre, led by Mark Haddock, who is a lecturer there. Th e conclusion is that “much of B.C. ’s deregulation goes too far in handing over what are essentially mat- ters of public interest to those employed by industry. Proponents should not be decision-makers for matters

British Columbia Debates9350 Thursday, October 1, 2015 involving the weighing and balancing of multiple, oft en competing, environmental and social values. Th is raises irresolvable confl icts of interest and a lack of democratic accountability for many resource management decisions. ” It is important to streamline safety regulations. It is important to streamline environmental regulations. Nobody on this side of the House believes that making things as complex and diffi cult in terms of compliance guarantees a good result or that it’s the best way to go.

But there is a diff erence between streamlining, between eliminating redundancy and blindly cutting so that, for political purposes, a government can say they’re cutting red tape, and streamlining redundancy for the advantage of the economy of British Columbia. People in British Columbia, the public in British Columbia, deserve better. People need to know that the government is there for them when the chips are down. Th ey need to know that the government takes appropriate regulations seriously and doesn’t simply think of public protections and workers’ safety as one more form of red tape.

Th ere is a diff erence. Let me close by saying there is a role for regulation, but that regulation should be eff ective. It should be evidence- based. It should be science-based. It should be as effi cient and eff ective as possible, and it should not create onerous requirements on business, large or small. Let me say very clearly once again: I support small business. I support making lives easier for small business people and their employees. I support the elimination of red tape and redundancy where there is no evidence to support a useful purpose, and there’s never a useful pur- pose for redundancy.

We all understand that. I wish I was standing in this chamber today in some sort of collaborative dialogue with members on both sides of the House about how we can honour small busi- ness people appropriately. How, in Small Business Week, we could celebrate British Columbia’s small business people together. How, when representatives of the small business community come to this chamber, we could collaboratively show them how much the MLAs elected from every corner of this province value their contribu- tion to the economy.

Instead, we have yet another example of “let’s set a trap” politics from a government that appears to be out of new ideas, that appears to not be able to take responsibility for anything — whether it’s the death of a child or whether it’s their failure to eff ectively deal with regulation over their 14 years in power. [1455] Instead, we get baseless accusations that members of the opposition do not support small business.

We get the introduction of a bill that has no substance whatsoever, will not make a whit of diff erence to small business in this province and is designed solely so the Premier can get on her soapbox and talk about the diff erence, the perceived diff erence, between an absolute support of business on the government side and a supposed lack of support on the opposition side, which is not substantiated by any fact, by any evidence, by any actions we’ve taken, by any statements we’ve made in this Legislature, by anything, in fact, at all.

As my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway said very eloquently, we had a red-tape-reduction week in January. Cabinet proclaims many weeks and many days, as it appropriately should, and we attend oft en, in the rotunda of the Legislature, the celebrations of those days or those weeks. We think they’re important. But we also think that

an act that proclaims a day in perpetuity as some- thing that people on both sides of the Legislature think is important enough to recognize has happened only fi ve times in British Columbia history. I participated in the Terry Fox Run a little over a week ago, as some other members of the Legislature may well have and as many people in communities around British Columbia and the world did. We all understand the cour- age of Terry Fox. We understand the ongoing legacy of Terry Fox.

We understand that having a Terry Fox Day shows that we understand how signifi cant and import- ant he was in raising awareness, as well as raising money for cancer research. I sat next to the member for Vancouver-Langara in the rotunda of the Legislature on Holocaust Memorial Day. It is shameful that we are putting business, red-tape re- duction, on the same basis as Holocaust memorial. I say that as the child of Holocaust survivors. It is shameful. Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. D. Bing: Hon.

Speaker, this is my fi rst opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment as the Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. I wish you well in serving the people of British Columbia in your new role. On behalf of the good people of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill 34, the Red Tape Reduction Day Act. Everyone throughout their lives has heard of and has had to deal with “government red tape. ” Red tape is that clump of burdensome and oft en unnecessary government processes and regulatory re- quirements that oft en frustrate us.

Since 2001, our government has reduced regulatory requirements by more than 43 percent. We have re- moved more than 155,000 outdated and unnecessary requirements. It is very accurate to say our province is a recognized leader in cutting red tape. For proof, you needn’t look further than the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which has given B.C. an A grade in red tape reduction for four years in a row.

To emphasize our government’s commitment to a net- zero increase in regulatory requirements to 2019, we will be annually recognizing red-tape-reduction day on the fi rst Wednesday in March, starting in 2016.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, October 1, 2015 9351 Reducing red tape streamlines and simplifi es processes to make it easier and faster for citizens to deal with gov- ernment. It means fast, easy access to services, saving British Columbians time. For small businesses, it means simplifi ed processes, saving them time and money that can be reinvested in their business. We understand that red tape can create unnecessary confusion and increases the costs and time of doing business or accessing govern- ment business. What is the rationale for red-tape-reduction day?

Red- tape-reduction day will make our government formally and very publicly accountable to our commitment to reduce red tape and to continually review and improve the provincial body of regulations. Knowing that we will shine a spotlight on our work in the past year is a strong incentive to keep red tape a priority. [1500] True, there are some minor housekeeping costs as- sociated with this legislation.

From this year forward, our government is required by law to focus eff orts on red-tape reduction by improving the way we deliver government services and identifying and removing any outdated or unnecessary regulatory requirements. The benefits of this legislation are expected to far outweigh the minor costs.

The benefits for British Columbians include the removal of outdated and counterproductive regulations; the saving of time, money and frustration on behalf of citizens who are searching for and using government services; streamlining and modernizing the regulatory environment so it can keep pace with the needs of citizens and businesses; making it easier for business to understand and meet the require- ments they must comply with, instead of adhering to out- dated and unnecessary regulations that remain “on the books;” and encouraging investment from businesses at- tracted by a straightforward regulatory regime.

Our government wants to save people time, money and frustration. We also want services to be consistent across government and, whenever possible, to be digital, to ensure citizens can access the digital services they need 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Our government is planning on using this day on an annual basis to highlight government’s eff orts to reduce red tape and reduce regulatory burden. We are working with our colleagues across government to identify out- dated regulations that can be repealed or removed when we have our fi rst red-tape-reduction day in March.

We know that streamlining how British Columbians interact with government and improving how we deliver services to the public reduces frustration. Th at is why our government continues to make it a priority. Red-tape- reduction day is an eff ort to keep our priority in the pub- lic eye: making sure we continue to keep streamlining as a top priority for business and for citizens. V . Huntington: Well, I’m not very happy to be rising today to add my comments to this silly Bill 34.

Th is is a waste of parliamentary time, and it’s an indication to me that calling us back to session a week early was nothing more than making a play date. I really do have to think that whoever thought this up should be nominated House jester. We need one at this rate. Th e whole thing would be funny if it weren’t so sad. I have to say, look how seriously the members opposite are taking the whole thing. Th is bill has done nothing more than create another opportunity for the govern- ment members to pat themselves on the back for a pro- gram that’s been around for 15 years.

I’m the fi rst one to support a reduction of useless laws and unnecessary complexities in regulation and govern- ment policy. But one would think that aft er 15 years of reducing red tape, the government would actually have managed to put the red-tape-reduction program out of business — 15 years. Maybe the government should be looking at the program itself to see if it could reduce its own complexities and make it more effi cient. Th ere shouldn’t be much more red tape to remove. Why am I so annoyed about this bill and having to speak to it? And why did I vote against even the intro- duction of this bill?

Because this bill didn’t have to be a bill. Th is bill didn’t have to be a waste of our time. We’re not creating a statutory holiday with this piece of legis- lation. Th is piece of legislation is the stuff more properly of proclamation. Th e member for Vancouver-Kingsway illustrated that very, very well. We have 148 active proclamations on the books for this year alone, and this bill ought to have been the 149th. It’s nothing more than a way of engaging the entire Legislature in a PR debate. I think what concerns me most of all is that we’ve all fallen for it.

Th e issue here is reducing costs and complexities for small business. Well, I’ d like to read recent correspond- ence from a small business in my riding, correspondence that was sent to the Minister of Finance with a genuine thought that the issue could be looked at and straight- ened out. [1505] I’ d like to read this correspondence into the record. “Minister, my small business, like many others, is having tre- mendous problems administering the current version of PST.

We are sure it’s not your administration’s intention, but recent reinter- pretations of the act by your ministry are making compliance even more complicated and expensive for small business than it was pre-2010. Perhaps you would take the time to read my attached letter with a view to simplifying the system for us again during your current administration. ” Th e letter contained a couple of interesting comments.

It said: “Like most businesses, we were supporters of the harmonized sales tax but accepted the administration’s promise that the prov- incial sales tax would revert to the earlier system, whereby manu- facturers and retailers would be exempt PST on purchases and levy PST on the selling price. Th is was initially the case, but revisions contained in bulletin 501 have greatly complicated the admin- istration for my small business. I won’t go through the litany of

British Columbia Debates9352 Thursday, October 1, 2015 revisions that bulletin 501 has indicated. For some reason or other, when I read them, they’re so complicated I can’t understand them. “However” — the writer says — “this is all clear enough. But in practice, these revisions require small businesses like ours, which do all of these things, to maintain three separate PST accounts, three separate purchase order systems and three separate inventory streams.

Th e revisions also make it virtually impossible for us to do business in the United States, Manitoba or Saskatchewan, ad- ministrations where we have no authority to levy taxes. Th ese PST changes are a considerable setback to our small enterprise and not at all in line with the administration’s promise to reinstate PST to pre-2010 status, to simplify administration and to be sympathetic to the concerns of small B.C. business. ” What did this correspondent get in return?

Not any indication that people in the ministry wanted to work with them or work with small business to reduce the complexities of the system that they were having trouble with. Th ey got back a letter that reiterated the rules. So this constituent of mine sent another letter to the Minister, saying: “Our question for you was not: ‘What are the rules?’ We have one overworked accountant, and your ministry has 100 employees who can recite the rules from memory.

But the rules have become vastly more complex and ambiguous since the reintroduction of PST than they already were pre-2010, as the length and the lengthy disclaimers contained in your response confi rm. Our question — respectfully asked but not answered — was: ‘Can or will the min- ister introduce legislation or instruct the ministry to simplify and clarify the PST rules for small business?’” Well, if the red-tape-reduction program isn’t going to look at the issues that small business really need it to look at, then what’s it doing?

If anybody on that committee, or perhaps the minister herself, who is talking with another member in the House at the moment…. If any member on that committee in this House really cared what it wanted to do for small business, it would take that correspondence letter and it would work hard with the Ministry of Finance to try and reduce the com- plexity of the administration of the PST on small busi- ness. That’s where reducing cost makes sense. That’s where reducing complexity really will assist small busi- ness.

But there is another area where I think the govern- ment’s red-tape-reduction program has utterly failed the British Columbian public. Th at’s where complexities and red tape and administration and paperwork involve the very citizens of this province that need assistance and help from government in the most dire of circumstances. I’ d like to read a couple of the issues here. First of all, did members of the House opposite know that there’s a Treasury Board master list of fees — 2,332 fees that are posted for British Columbians and business in this prov- ince to pay?

On top of everything else that they have to pay in the tax structure, a master list of fees. [1510] Has the regulatory red-tape committee ever taken a look at that master list of fees to determine how much it costs British Columbians? How complex is it? What does it cost other small business to administer on behalf of the government? Everything from fi shing licences to camping fees are on that list. Th at list is something that should be gone over with a fi ne-tooth comb by this red-tape-reduction program. Take a look at what you’re doing to the public. Take a look at what you’re costing the public.

Make sense of fees that have been on a list for years and may no long- er be modern enough to bother with, that may be dupli- cated or redundant, that are costing the taxpayers more than they should be paying this province. Th en, when we take a look at the delivery of social as- sistance in this province, it makes you want to tear your hair out. If there’s anywhere where a red-tape-reduction committee should be taking a good, hard look, it’s the de- livery of social development and social assistance. I’m going to read you a few examples.

I hope the min- ister takes note of these, because this would help people in this province more than anything else that this govern- ment can do with their reduction-in-red-tape program. A woman applied to the Ministry of Social Development for temporary crisis assistance — crisis assistance, mind you — to pay for a damage deposit and her fi rst month’s rent. She was on WorkSafe and was scheduled to return to work later in the month. Th e assistance was approved, but my goodness gracious, the monthly payment didn’t get forwarded. Th is woman needed assistance from her father.

Th ey made several phone calls, 13 trips to the Richmond offi ce in two weeks — 13 trips over a two-week period — and still couldn’t get the situation resolved, even though the payment had been approved. On one occasion when they went to that offi ce, there were 11 people standing in line and one wicket only. When the clock reached 12 o’ clock, everybody was told that they were shutting down the offi ce for lunch. Th at was two and a half hours of standing in line to speak to somebody to get a payment that had already been ap- proved and that 13 phone calls hadn’t resolved. Something is wrong.

Th ere is a red-tape glitch in your delivery of assistance. Y ou could really help the people of this province if you took a good, hard look at those areas. For the people who need to apply for disability and who need the help of our offi ces because they are, per- haps, illiterate or have tried so many times to access computer, on-line assistance…. If they are illiterate, they can’t do it. How do people access government if gov- ernment requires them to do it through the computer? Government doesn’t have staff that will help them.

Did you know that when we try and help people, we found out that a disability application form has 90 screens of information for an individual to fi ll out? What if that individual is illiterate? It took us, in our offi ce, two hours to fi ll out those 90 pages of screen for an individual. What is that if not red tape that is absolutely unnecessary and is crippling? Nobody in this government has taken a look at that issue for a long time. One more example — again, of disability. Th e doctor, when he initially saw the lengthy questionnaire, those 90

British Columbia DebatesThursday, October 1, 2015 9353 pages, refused to sign it. Th e individual had been work- ing on his application for four months. Finally, we get the application sent in, and he’s told the fi le won’t be looked at until December because of the backlog. Where is this government concentrating on the prob- lems you have with delivering assistance in this province? Interjection. V . Huntington: Th is bill is about a bunch of nonsense. Th at’ s what this bill is about.

Th is bill is nothing more than an eff ort to create a PR process for this government to operate on. [1515] Th is bill is an embarrassment. Th e program isn’t an embarrassment. Red-tape reduction has been done very well, and I’ll give the government all the credit it deserves for the awards it’s taken in that area. But to do something like this is an insult to this institution. It’s an insult to the people of this province. It isn’t pointing in the direction that the people want to see. Th ey want easy access. Interjection. V . Huntington: Well, your press release isn’t your bill, is it, Madam Minister?

At any rate, I’ll sit down. What I think should be done by this government is taking a good, hard look at how they really do deliver services to people so that people can access them in an easy fashion without the complex- ities that embarrass them and make it impossible to feel that they have the rights of a citizen, which they deserve. M. Morris: It’s amazing just listening to the banter and the input coming from members opposite and from the independent members.

Th is bill is already achieving suc- cess, when we hear the input that the member for Delta South has put into reducing red tape and how we can streamline some of the processes out there. Really ap- preciate the input. Also, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head was reading out some input that he has received from the public about the reduction in red tape. Th is is exactly what we were hoping for. We are bringing to the fore- front that this government does take the reduction of red tape very seriously. It’s a never-ending process.

If the members opposite think that we have reduced all the red tape that we can and we’ve streamlined all the processes that we can, then they’re living in a diff erent world. We still have a lot of work to do. We see the processes that are out there that some people are struggling to get through, and they let us know — either through their MLA, wherever they might be in the province, and they, in turn, will bring it up in this House, like they have this aft ernoon. Or they contact our constituency offi ces and deal with our constituency assistants in trying to work through some of those pro- cesses.

Th at’s what this procedure is all about. We will never achieve 100 percent success in reducing red tape unless the public is aware of the seriousness with which we take that and has an avenue to bring it forward to our attention. Th is bill, since it was introduced — we are starting to see some results of this. We’re going to see some continued results of this.

All of us can think of examples where we’ve gone through a bureaucratic process that has appeared to be with all kinds of impediments in the particular process to achieve a licence or a permit or some other avenue or some other device that we needed in order to do our job or to go hunting or go fi shing or whatever the case might be. With the introduction of technology, that has made some processes even more complicated. Again, this is what the bill is for.

It’s to bring this to the attention of the folks that are out there working with the technology, working on line to try and get those permits or licences or whatever they might have. Th ey come up against some of these encumbrances that make it a little bit more dif- fi cult to achieve the results that they want.

Th at’s what we want to hear from the public so that we can make sure — so FrontCounter B.C. and all the diff er- ent ministries that use the on-line processes or have per- mits and certifi cates, or whatever they have in place that the public needs to achieve in order to do the job they need to do — that we streamline that as much as possible. It’s not just getting rid of some obscure regulation that hasn’t been used in 100 years.

Th is is about streamlining processes so that we can meet the demand that the public is putting on us every day and that changing demand that technology has imposed on us over the years. [1520] Th is is something that I fully support. I’m glad to see that it’s achieving the results so far. Even though some of the members opposite are scoffi ng at this, this is some- thing that this government is doing to fi ne-tune things to make sure that we’re operating as effi ciently as possible. R. Fleming: I just want to say a few words on the Red Tape Reduction Day Act.

I don’t want to add unduly to the debate this aft ernoon. But I do fi nd it interesting that…. I think everybody understands what red tape is and what it isn’t. I printed out a defi nition of it from that much used source out there on the Internet, from Wikipedia. I think people understand the bureaucratic, unnecessary regula- tions and approvals, the stifl ing of entrepreneurship that can happen when regulations are craft ed badly, when they unnecessarily burden the lives of business people, be they a contractor, a retailer, an entrepreneur with a start-up business. We understand that.

Everybody, I think, in this House understands that. Everybody in this House deals with

British Columbia Debates9354 Thursday, October 1, 2015 constituents who come from that walk of life, who know self-employed people, who know small business people and who bring real problems into their constituency of- fi ce that they wish us to raise with government and to fi x. In the definition that Wikipedia provides, which I think is a very comprehensive one, one of the defi nitions about what constitutes red tape is that it is considered an irritating waste of time. Now, I think that’s quite in- teresting.

Th is is an aft ernoon on a Th ursday, on the fourth day of a fall legislative sitting that we are never going to get back in our lives. We’re going to lose this entire aft er- noon, and it’s all thanks to the brand-new Minister of Small Business and her bill. She could have done some- thing quite diff erent for her maiden piece of legislation. I’ll let her think about what she could have done instead of what she has tabled before us today. It could have been something that actually made a dif- ference.

Th ere are numerous legislative gaps out there on the landscape where government meets the private sector in our communities, where we have a diversity of indus- tries and activities that have to be regulated in our com- plex economy. Th ere are some areas where regulatory and policy-making have failed to keep pace with changes in business practices. Th ere are some areas where business practices have changed and laws lag dreadfully behind and have an unnecessary weight upon the health of an industry or business activity. Pick one of them.

Pick dozens of them and put them in a bill of substance before the House that, instead of enshrining platitudes, actually shows law-making intent to deal with real problems that real people have in their lives in the small business sector. Th at would have been a good use of time. Th at would have shown that govern- ment actually has an agenda beyond just words around what red tape means and what it does to hamper business, wealth creation and job creation in our communities.

Instead, we have a symbolic day being enshrined in a piece of legislation here as the fi rst item of business for the new minister in charge of this fi le. I mean, of all the things that could be done, pick anything. Maybe there are some taxidermy regulations out there that are com- pletely useless. Th ere used to be all kinds of tanneries in Victoria that don’t exist anymore. Maybe there are some statutes on the books that are unnecessary — something. But nothing, except a two-line bill that we’re debating here on the fourth legislative sitting day of the fall session.

I mean, this is the most urgent item of business that this government could come up with? Is that how great the dearth of ideas is on that side of the House that we have a piece of legislation, such as it is, like the bill before us? [1525] I’ll make this point in a minute. But I think members on this side of the House, particularly the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, made a very good point about how infrequently this Legislature has declared distinct and special days to commemorate or to memorialize histor- ic events in our province’s history. I think that point has been well made.

Th e fact that this is the sixth such occasion, should this bill pass, which I expect it will…. Why wouldn’t it? I think you have to stack up the intent of this bill against those rare occasions previously when people who oc- cupied the seats that we now hold on behalf of our con- stituents created united, bold and strong statements on things that happened in our province’s past we might not be proud of. We’ve been reminded of some of those oc- casions this aft ernoon. Th is is something completely diff erent. I don’t know how I’m going to actually explain this.

Th e member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head said one of his constituents on his Facebook page thought that this was an Onion article, from the satirical magazine. I don’t know how I’m going to get some of my friends who are entrepreneurs and small business people to be- lieve me, too — that this is what we did on Th ursday with your tax dollars in the Legislature. We actually had a government create a new law on the statutes, on the books of British Columbia, that bemoans the presence of too many laws in our lives. I honestly don’t know how I’m going to explain that to them. I can’t tell you what they’re going to say.

I suppose that I can, at the very least, assure my con- stituents that they shouldn’t fear that they’re ruled in their lives by an out-of-touch, intellectual elite — maybe the out-of-touch part, maybe that point alone. Th is bill says just how bare the cupboard is on the ideas front on the government side. If this is some kind of carefully laid trap, as we’ve heard hypothesized in this debate already and, I think, as we’ve read in the minister’s press release, it’s pretty transparent. It’s not a very care- fully laid one, in fact.

I mean, I have never met a person and I don’t know any political party represented in this chamber that is pro–red tape. I have never heard anyone speak in fa- vour of impediments to businesses operating effi ciently. Nobody has a consensus for that or a position for that, I should say. Nobody actually wants a job, a career, where their day-to-day activity is enforcing useless and ineff ect- ive regulations. Nobody wants that for themselves. Th ey’ d rather live in a Groundhog Day scenario than do that day in and day out.

If we all understand this, and I know that we do, why is this government legislating a day instead of proclaiming it? Wouldn’t proclaiming it be the effi cient way to go about raising awareness for the small business community about the impacts of red tape on our economy? Wouldn’t pro- claiming it be the effi cient way to use our scarce legisla- tive time in the calendar year? Wouldn’t proclaiming it be what we do for hundreds of other days that seek to raise awareness on public policy issues that are important, too, in our economy and our society? Wouldn’t that have been

British Columbia DebatesThursday, October 1, 2015 9355 the best way to do it? I think it is. I think that’s been dem- onstrated in this debate pretty clearly. I look forward to hearing the minister extol the vir- tues of legislating and law-making in the interest of act- ing against red tape as opposed to proclaiming things in the interest of effi ciency. I hope she’ll make that point, because it’s lost on me at this point. Interjection. R. Fleming: If I’ d read the press release. Well, that says it all. Don’t tell me. [1530] Was this a media stunt?

Was this about a press re- lease, or is this about good law-making? I thought this was about good law-making. I guess not. It’s about the press release. Members of the press who haven’t turned off your television sets, please direct your attention to the press release, to the importance of this bill before this august chamber right now. Please do that. Now, I have to wonder, though, what members on the government side of the House are actually think- ing, members on the back bench who don’t sit in cab- inet, who weren’t privy to the strategy-making session around this bill.

But presumably, in such a democratic party as the B.C. Liberal Party, they at least had the priv- ilege of being briefed on the bill. I’m just wondering how that briefi ng went. Were they told that this was a cunning plan, that this would ferret out red-tape lovers on the other side of the aisle in the chamber? Is that what it’s about? To fi nd out who in the opposition party, deep down, loves red tape, and create a wedge issue between those who are pro–red tape against those who stand against it? I mean, who dreamt this up?

Who is the strategist over there who is fi nding salient political wedge issues like needless bureaucracy? Who is it? And what’s next on the legislative agenda for this mystery-fi lled fall session that we were recalled for? Are we going to have the “Reduced crime and public safety day” act that doesn’t do anything to reduce crime or increase public safety but proclaims a day that is for those things? Maybe. Are we going to have an “ Air and water pollution reduction proclamation day, ” saying that clean air and clean water are good for us and we should promote this every year? We need a law for that. No.

Actually, what we need is good environmental regulations and laws that are eff ective in British Columbia. Th at’s what we need. We need substance. And that’s what we need for small business owners out there. Well, look, maybe it’s going to be the “Talk about Miley Cyrus on her Twitter accounts day” act, for all I know, but this is pretty close to that. Again, I don’t mock the issue of how oppressive and ri- diculous the examples of unnecessary red tape are in the lives of my constituents and people in diff erent regions of British Columbia.

I’ve heard the stories fi rsthand about how off -putting it can be to do business with diff erent levels of government, where they hit a snafu in the regu- latory environment, where they are at the whim of arbi- trary authority, and all of those nightmares where people are at risk, actually, of losing their business and their in- vestments because bad regulations exist — I get that — for entrepreneurs and retailers and other business people. What I criticize is the need to legislate a calendar day in our law-making chamber, when a proclamation was available to government. It can be proclaimed. Th e gov- ernment….

If they have a resolve against red tape, 14 years on, if they want to revive this issue again because they

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20151001pm-Hansard-v28n14
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20151001pm Hansard v28n14
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	cabcee406b02aaaac9fa290b3bbb651ec7a75564

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