British Columbia Hansard — 19 May 2021, p.m., Issue 75 (42nd Parliament, 2nd Session)

20210519pm-Hansard-n75

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session, 42nd Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Wednesday, May 19, 2021 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 75 THE HONOURABLE RAJ CHOUHAN, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Janet Austin, OBC Second Session, 42nd Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Raj Chouhan EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Training...........................................................................................................Hon.

Anne Kang Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries......................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Housing .............................................................................................Hon. David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................................Hon.

Mitzi Dean Minister of State for Child Care...................................................................................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Citizens’ Services.....................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Education .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Jennifer Whiteside Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation ........................................................................................Hon. Bruce Ralston, QC Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy............................................................................................. Hon. George Heyman Minister of Finance .......................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Selina Robinson Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Lands and Natural Resource Operations................................................................................. Hon. Nathan Cullen Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs.............................................................................Hon.

Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation .......................................................................................... Hon. Murray Rankin, QC Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation....................................................................................................... Hon. Ravi Kahlon Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon.

George Chow Minister of Labour ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.............................................................................................................. Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Minister of Municipal Affairs ............................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Josie Osborne Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................... Hon. Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction........................................................................................... Hon. Nicholas Simons Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport .................................................................................................................. Hon.

Melanie Mark Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................... Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of State for Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Bowinn Ma LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition...................................................................................................................................................Shirley Bond Leader of the Third Party .......................................................................................................................................................... Sonia Furstenau Deputy Speaker..........................................................................................................................................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Assistant Deputy Speaker..............................................................................................................................................................Norm Letnick Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole .......................................................................................................................... Ronna-Rae Leonard Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ...........................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel.............................................................................................................................. Seunghee Suzie Seo Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services........................................................................................................................... Artour Sogomonian Clerk of Committees.......................................................................................................................................................................

Jennifer Arril Clerk Assistant, Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..............................................................................................Susan Sourial Senior Research Analyst ................................................................................................................................................................... Karan Riarh Acting Sergeant-at-Arms..................................................................................................................................................................Greg Nelson

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Alexis, Pam (BC NDP) ............................................................Abbotsford-Mission Anderson, Brittny (BC NDP) .........................................................Nelson-Creston Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal Party) ............................................................... Penticton Babchuk, Michele (BC NDP)...............................................................North Island Bailey, Brenda (BC NDP).................................................. Vancouver–False Creek Bains, Hon. Harry (BC NDP).........................................................

Surrey-Newton Banman, Bruce (BC Liberal Party) ............................................ Abbotsford South Beare, Hon. Lisa (BC NDP) .......................................

Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (BC NDP).................................................................Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal Party) ...............................................Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal Party).................................Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (BC NDP) ................................................................Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal Party) .............................................

Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (BC NDP).................................Vancouver–West End Chant, Susie (BC NDP) ..............................................North Vancouver–Seymour Chen, Hon. Katrina (BC NDP) ............................................... Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Hon. Raj (BC NDP).................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon. George (BC NDP) ..........................................Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal Party)........................Columbia River–Revelstoke Conroy, Hon.

Katrine (BC NDP) ....................................................Kootenay West Coulter, Dan (BC NDP) .......................................................................... Chilliwack Cullen, Hon. Nathan (BC NDP) ................................................................... Stikine Davies, Dan (BC Liberal Party)................................................. Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal Party)....................................Abbotsford West Dean, Hon. Mitzi (BC NDP) ...............................................

Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (BC NDP) .........................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon. Adrian (BC NDP) ................................................ Vancouver-Kingsway Doerkson, Lorne (BC Liberal Party) ........................................Cariboo-Chilcotin Donnelly, Fin (BC NDP) .......................................... Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Dykeman, Megan (BC NDP)............................................................... Langley East Eby, Hon. David, QC (BC NDP).......................................

Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (BC NDP) ..................................................Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (BC NDP) .................................................Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (BC NDP) ...............................................

Victoria–Swan Lake Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) .............................................Cowichan Valley Glumac, Rick (BC NDP) ..................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Greene, Kelly (BC NDP) ........................................................Richmond-Steveston Halford, Trevor (BC Liberal Party) .........................................Surrey–White Rock Heyman, Hon. George (BC NDP) .........................................Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon. John (BC NDP) ......................................... Langford–Juan de Fuca Kahlon, Hon.

Ravi (BC NDP) .............................................................. Delta North Kang, Hon. Anne (BC NDP) .................................................. Burnaby–Deer Lake Kirkpatrick, Karin (BC Liberal Party) ........................West Vancouver–Capilano Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal Party)....................................................................Shuswap Lee, Michael (BC Liberal Party) ..............................................Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (BC NDP)...............................................

Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal Party) .................................. Kelowna–Lake Country Lore, Grace (BC NDP)........................................................... Victoria–Beacon Hill Ma, Hon. Bowinn (BC NDP).....................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Hon. Sheila (BC NDP)........................................................Nanaimo Mark, Hon. Melanie (BC NDP).................................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Mercier, Andrew (BC NDP) ........................................................................

Langley Merrifield, Renee (BC Liberal Party)......................................... Kelowna-Mission Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal Party) .......................... Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal Party) ................................. Prince George–Mackenzie Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal Party).................................................. Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)............................ Saanich North and the Islands Osborne, Hon.

Josie (BC NDP)........................................Mid Island–Pacific Rim Paddon, Kelli (BC NDP) ................................................................Chilliwack-Kent Paton, Ian (BC Liberal Party) ............................................................... Delta South Popham, Hon. Lana (BC NDP)........................................................ Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce, QC (BC NDP) .............................................Surrey-Whalley Rankin, Hon.

Murray, QC (BC NDP) .............................Oak Bay–Gordon Head Rice, Jennifer (BC NDP) ...................................................................... North Coast Robinson, Hon. Selina (BC NDP)...................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal Party)......................................................................... Skeena Routledge, Janet (BC NDP) .............................................................Burnaby North Routley, Doug (BC NDP)...........................................

Nanaimo–North Cowichan Russell, Roly (BC NDP).................................................... Boundary-Similkameen Rustad, John (BC Liberal Party)......................................................Nechako Lakes Sandhu, Harwinder (BC NDP) .................................................Vernon-Monashee Sharma, Niki (BC NDP)..........................................................Vancouver-Hastings Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal Party) .................................................... Kootenay East Simons, Hon. Nicholas (BC NDP).........................

Powell River–Sunshine Coast Sims, Jinny (BC NDP) ................................................................. Surrey-Panorama Singh, Aman (BC NDP) .............................................Richmond-Queensborough Singh, Rachna (BC NDP)...................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Starchuk, Mike (BC NDP) ......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal Party) .......................................................

Kelowna West Stone, Todd (BC Liberal Party) ...............................Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal Party) ............................. West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal Party)....................................................... Fraser-Nicola Walker, Adam (BC NDP) ....................................................... Parksville-Qualicum Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal Party) ....................................... Richmond North Centre Whiteside, Hon. Jennifer (BC NDP) .........................................

New Westminster Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal Party)......................Vancouver-Quilchena Y ao, Henry (BC NDP) ..................................................... Richmond South Centre LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission................................................................................. Pam Alexis Abbotsford South...............................................................................Bruce Banman Abbotsford West......................................................................

Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen........................................................................ Roly Russell Burnaby–Deer Lake....................................................................... Hon. Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds......................................................................Hon. Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North .................................................................................

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin ..........................................................................Lorne Doerkson Cariboo North.................................................................................... Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ...............................................................................................Dan Coulter Chilliwack-Kent .................................................................................... Kelli Paddon Columbia River–Revelstoke .........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain...............................................................Fin Donnelly Coquitlam-Maillardville ...................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox................................................................... Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley ............................................................................. Sonia Furstenau Delta North................................................................................... Hon.

Ravi Kahlon Delta South ..................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin .................................................................... Hon. Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola .........................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Kamloops–North Thompson .............................................................Peter Milobar Kamloops–South Thompson..................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country .....................................................................Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission ...........................................................................

Renee Merrifield Kelowna West ..........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East.......................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West........................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca .............................................................. Hon.

John Horgan Langley .............................................................................................Andrew Mercier Langley East....................................................................................Megan Dykeman Maple Ridge–Mission.............................................................................. Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows............................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim............................................................ Hon.

Josie Osborne Nanaimo.............................................................................Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Nanaimo–North Cowichan............................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes........................................................................................ John Rustad Nelson-Creston ............................................................................. Brittny Anderson New Westminster.............................................................. Hon.

Jennifer Whiteside North Coast ........................................................................................... Jennifer Rice North Island................................................................................... Michele Babchuk North Vancouver–Lonsdale......................................................... Hon. Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour...................................................................Susie Chant Oak Bay–Gordon Head..................................................Hon.

Murray Rankin, QC Parksville-Qualicum........................................................................... Adam Walker Peace River North ................................................................................... Dan Davies Peace River South ................................................................................ Mike Bernier Penticton ................................................................................................. Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam...................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam.......................................................................Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast..............................................Hon. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie....................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ..................................................................

Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre..........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough..................................................................Aman Singh Richmond South Centre .......................................................................... Henry Y ao Richmond-Steveston ............................................................................

Kelly Greene Saanich North and the Islands .............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South .............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap...................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena........................................................................................................... Ellis Ross Stikine........................................................................................ Hon.

Nathan Cullen Surrey-Cloverdale .............................................................................. Mike Starchuk Surrey-Fleetwood.....................................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers........................................................................Rachna Singh Surrey-Guildford......................................................................................Garry Begg Surrey-Newton ..............................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ...................................................................................... Jinny Sims Surrey South ................................................................................ Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Whalley ................................................................. Hon. Bruce Ralston, QC Surrey–White Rock .......................................................................... Trevor Halford Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek...................................................................... Brenda Bailey Vancouver-Fraserview...............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings ..............................................................................Niki Sharma Vancouver-Kensington....................................................................... Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..................................................................... Hon.

Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara................................................................................ Michael Lee Vancouver–Mount Pleasant..................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey ............................................................Hon. David Eby, QC Vancouver-Quilchena........................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Vancouver–West End .....................................................Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee .....................................................................

Harwinder Sandhu Victoria–Beacon Hill............................................................................... Grace Lore Victoria–Swan Lake.................................................................... Hon. Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano...........................................................Karin Kirkpatrick West Vancouver–Sea to Sky................................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC NDP 57; BC Liberal Party 28; BC Green Party 2

CONTENTS Wednesday, May 19, 2021 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members..................................................................................................................................................... 2063 Statements ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2063 B.C. Family Doctor Day S.

Chandra Herbert Statements (Standing Order 25B) ......................................................................................................................................... 2063 Tamil genocide remembrance M. Elmore Cardiovascular health and Ride for Heart event S. Bond Political studies class at Brookswood Secondary School A. Mercier Child care providers K. Kirkpatrick Surrey Food Bank G. Begg Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue G.

Kyllo Oral Questions......................................................................................................................................................................... 2065 Government transparency and application of freedom-of-information legislation S. Bond Hon. J. Horgan Hon. R. Kahlon T. Stone P . Milobar International Energy Agency report and status of LNG industry S. Furstenau Hon. B. Ralston COVID-19 response for tourism attractions and community events C. Oakes Hon. M. Mark M. Lee Hon. J. Horgan T. Halford Hon. R. Kahlon T. Wat L.

Doerkson Tabling Documents................................................................................................................................................................. 2070 Office of the superintendent of professional governance, annual report, 2020-21 B.C.

Utilities Commission, annual report, 2019-20 WorkSafeBC, annual report, 2020, and service plan, 2021–2023 Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 2070 Bill 13 — Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021(continued) G. Kyllo Hon. H. Bains Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 2074 Bill 5 — InBC Investment Corp. Act(continued) T.

Stone Hon. R. Kahlon S. Furstenau Reporting of Bills..................................................................................................................................................................... 2082 Bill 5 — InBC Investment Corp. Act

Third Reading of Bills ............................................................................................................................................................. 2082 Bill 5 — InBC Investment Corp. Act Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 2082 Bill 7 — Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2021 Hon. D. Eby C. Oakes M. de Jong S. Furstenau B.

Bailey Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 2097 Bill 13 — Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021(continued) Hon. H.

Bains Report and Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................................................... 2097 Bill 13 — Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021 Third Reading of Bills ............................................................................................................................................................. 2097 Bill 5 — InBC Investment Corp.

Act(continued) Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 2098 Estimates: Ministry of Education Hon. J. Whiteside J. Tegart S. Bond S. Cadieux R. Merrifield D. Ashton L. Doerkson T. Stone P . Milobar K.

Kirkpatrick Proceedings in the Birch Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 2112 Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation(continued) T. Shypitka Hon. B. Ralston S. Bond A. Olsen

WEDNESDAY , MAY 19, 2021 The House met at 1:35 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Prayers and reflections: Hon. S. Malcolmson. Introductions by Members A. Singh: I rise with great pride as I introduce to this House a proud resident of Richmond and a constituent in the area that I represent, Arjan Bhullar. He’s wrestled for Canada in the Olympic, Commonwealth and Pan Americ- an Games. But Richmond’s Arjan Bhullar is celebrating his greatest win yet.

On Saturday, the B.C.-born fighter was crowned ONE Championship’s Mixed Martial Arts World Champion, after defeating reigning heavyweight king Brandon Vera at the second-round TKO. He’s made Richmond, B.C. and, indeed, Canada proud. Please join me in congratulating Arjan. Statements B.C. FAMILY DOCTOR DAY S. Chandra Herbert:Well, today is B.C. Family Doctor Day. I just wanted to thank all of our family doctors across B.C. for keeping us so safe and well. Many of them are watching today, if they’re not too busy. As we know, they’re very busy these days.

Please join me in giving thanks to them for what they do for so many of us in our communities. Happy Family Doctor Day. Statements (Standing Order 25B) TAMIL GENOCIDE REMEMBRANCE M. Elmore:On May 18, Tamils around the world came together to commemorate Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day. In Canada, the National Council of Canadian Tamils, along with other organizations, will be holding events dur- ing the month of May to bring awareness to the genocide. Y esterday there was an event at the Vancouver Art Gallery. The Tamil community in Canada is one of the largest con- centrations of Tamils outside of Southeast Asia.

Genocide by the Sri Lankan state was perpetrated against the Tamils during a civil war from 1983 to 2009. At least 150,000 Tamils lost their lives, and over one million Tamils left their country. This year marks 12 years since the height of the Tamil genocide that took place in Mul- livaikkal, Sri Lanka. The United Nations estimates that at that location, 75,000 innocent civilians were murdered. Genocide is the deliberate and organized killing of a group or a group of people, with the intention of destroy- ing their identity as an ethnic, cultural or religious group.

Despite the end of the conflict in 2009 in Sri Lanka, the human rights environment continues to deteriorate in a climate of impunity due to the lack of an independent judi- ciary and ongoing human rights abuses. By recognizing the Tamil genocide, we affirm our col- lective desire to maintain awareness of this genocide and other genocides that have occurred in world history, in order to prevent such crimes against humanity from hap- pening again. Until such time that these crimes are invest- igated and prosecuted and there is accountability for these wartime atrocities, there will not be justice.

I ask all members of the House to stand in solidarity with the Tamil people for long-term peace, justice, ac- countability and reconciliation on the island of Sri Lanka. CARDIOV ASCULAR HEALTH AND RIDE FOR HEART EVENT S. Bond:Did you know that every five minutes someone in Canada dies from heart disease, stroke or vascular cog- nitive impairment?

Here in B.C. and across the country, Heart and Stroke is leading the fight to ensure that people have the information and support they need so that fewer people lose their lives or their quality of life as a result of heart disease or stroke. [1:40 p.m.] Now, I’m sure that many members in this House have actually participated in the original Big Bike Ride to raise funds for heart and stroke. But like most things in our lives, as a result of COVID-19, this year’s Manulife Heart and Stroke Ride for Heart on June 6 will be very different.

Teams are being asked to ride, walk or run a heart-shaped route and to be sure to do it safely. There’s even a Ride for Heart mobile app to help enhance your virtual experience. Y ou can earn achievement badges and rewards and even create your own virtual heart map for event day. Every- one who participates becomes a partner by raising funds to support world-class research that will save lives right across Canada. Team Bond will be doing their part again this year.

We are very grateful for team captain Shawn Rice and his wife, Lisa, who are passionate about the ride because their son has had two open-heart surgeries. Our family has received a great deal of support from Heart and Stroke, and we will be participating again this year to show our gratitude for the care we received on Bill’s journey, with both heart and stroke. I am very proud of the dedicated team members who have ridden with us for many years. They are truly difference-makers. I want to encourage all MLAs to consider getting in- volved in the virtual Ride for Heart. It is a chance to share 2063

your heart with thousands of other Canadians. It’s not too late to plan your own heart-shaped route and run, walk or ride to help beat heart disease and stroke. POLITICAL STUDIES CLASS AT BROOKSWOOD SECONDARY SCHOOL A. Mercier:Recently I had the opportunity to attend Katie Glover’s political studies class at Brookswood Sec- ondary School in my constituency of Langley and speak to grade 11 and 12 students about politics and about government. It’s the second time I’ve been to Ms. Glover’s class.

The first was during the election, when she hosted an all-can- didates forum for myself and my fellow candidates for the students ahead of the students’ vote. I remember thinking at that time, during the election, that the questions that were asked at that all-candidates forum were some of the best and most insightful questions that were put to me during the campaign. This last visit lived up to that standard. I was asked great questions by a group of incredible students — Aarne, Jessie, Logan, Kaydence, Jorri, Emma, Bob and, of course, my friend from Twitter, River.

They asked, I think, questions that are on every young person’s mind. If you think back to being a student, the main preoccupation of most students is moving out of their parents’ house. They were concerned about housing affordability, the cost of rent, making sure there’s student housing, tuition. They were concerned, as young drivers, about gas prices. We had a great conversation about all of those things.

They also asked me a question I get asked everywhere I go in Langley — and no, it’s not about my hair, although one student, Bob, did have some questions — about SkyTrain and how excited they are about the SkyTrain to Langley. They also asked a host of insightful questions about what it means to be a public representative and the ma- chinery of government. I think that is a testament to the leadership of Katie Glover and the work she is doing at Brookswood Secondary with those students. She is an example of civic leadership and community engagement for, I think, all of us.

I’ d like to thank them for the invitation. It was nice of them to extend an invitation to a proud LSS grad, and I’m hoping they’ll invite me back. CHILD CARE PROVIDERS K. Kirkpatrick:May is Child Care Month, and tomor- row, May 20, is Child Care Provider Appreciation Day in British Columbia. Children are an integral part of soci- ety, and those who look after them are also an integral part of society. Child care providers, daycare operators, early childhood educators and other daycare workers play a crucial role in our children’s development.

They help lay the foundation for education and discovery for the rest of a child’s life. [1:45 p.m.] I’m going to borrow parts of a poem I found by Steph- anie Staples called “ A Tribute to Early Childhood Educa- tors. ” Dear child care worker, forgive me. I’ve been very neglect. Y ou see, I’m wrapped up in my own world, and it’s a bit of a wreck. Forgive me for grabbing my child and not stopping to say how many things I should thank you for each day. For taking my child, leaving me guilt-free, for instilling the values that are important to me.

For cleaning up spills and wiping up messes, for cleaning the boo-boos and bearing my stresses. For putting up with the sneezes, the dribbles and cries, for staying here late when I get stuck in traffic. I know your job is quite undervalued, quite underappreciated and quite undersalaried. My only guess is you do what you do for the love of the kids who also love you. Thank you for being my daily right arm and keeping my children away from all harm. For caring and loving and sharing and more. For all that you do, I thank you some more. So the poem is light, but the job is not.

Investing in a system that values and supports its child care providers is critical to high quality and accessible child care systems. Caring for children can be exhausting as well as rewarding. But with many caring professions, we sometimes rely too heavily on a person’s altruistic commitment to their job. I’ d like to thank all of the dedicated people of British Columbia who are committed to the care and safety of our young people. SURREY FOOD BANK G. Begg: “We pride ourselves in supplying nutritious food in a respectful and dignified environment.

In addi- tion, we believe it is our responsibility to connect our cli- ents to other community services as a means of helping them become self-sufficient. We take pride that we invite, inform, involve and inspire our community. ” That’s part of the vision statement of the Surrey Food Bank, which last week held their annual Breakfast with the Bank. It was an amazing success, with over $57,000 and counting raised. I, along with other supporters, joined vir- tually to celebrate, donate and to support this vital com- munity organization that has served Surrey and North Delta for 38 years.

In June 1983, the Surrey Food Bank Society was formed and opened in a dilapidated building on what was then the King George Highway. The location and the society itself were seen as temporary measures that would only be required until the economy turned around and people could get back on their feet. That temporary solution to a temporary problem has now grown to a 23,000-square-foot facility in Newton, three community depots, a fleet of five vehicles, three lift trucks, more than 200 active volunteers and a core staff 2064 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, May 19, 2021

of 15. The Surrey Food Bank currently distributes food to approximately 1,200 families each week and has expanded its reach by providing food and household items to the schools, shelters, missions and transition houses that are serving the vulnerable population. This type of growth doesn’t happen overnight and cer- tainly doesn’t happen without the support of a community that truly cares about its residents. It is clear that there is a crucial need for the Surrey Food Bank services, especially in these uncertain times.

But it’s also clear that those who drive the organization, namely donors, staff and volun- teers, are all committed to meeting this need. For that, I applaud and thank them. Pope Francis said it best: “Y ou pray for the hungry. Then you feed them. That’s the way prayer works. ” I know that every member in this House will join with me in acknowledging and celebrating the Surrey Food Bank for providing nourishing food for thriving com- munities free of poverty. ROYAL CANADIAN MARINE SEARCH AND RESCUE G.

Kyllo:We all hope that we’ll never need to rely on them for their services, but we are sure glad that they’re there when we head out onto the water and an emergency arises. I’m talking, of course, about the Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue, RCMSAR. On Shuswap Lake, RCMSAR 106, based out of my hometown of Sicamous, has been providing around-the- clock rescue services for nearly a decade. Since 2012, they have undertaken over 300 missions totalling over 851 hours, 731 training exercises and 299 classroom training sessions.

In all, nearly 1,500 activities have been under- taken by RCMSAR volunteers, representing over 4,200 hours of selfless contribution to the region.

Station 106’s commitment to the Shuswap region also includes hosting school programs, boating safety displays and inspections, stocking life ring stations and manning the Shuswap’s Kids Don’t Float kiosks, which loan personal floatation devices to tourists and residents. [1:50 p.m.] Out of all of these statistics, I think that the most im- pressive number by far is the 26,731 person-hours that station 106 volunteers have contributed to the Shuswap, exemplifying the amazing work and protective services our marine search and rescue operations offer to our region.

For those of us who do manage to get out onto the water this summer, please don’t forget that the water can be a dangerous and unpredictable place. Take the appropriate precautions, ensure you have the appropriate PFDs and safety equipment for all occupants, and practise good, safe boating sense at all times.

While I hope that I never require the assistance of the professional team of RCMSAR volunteers, it gives me great comfort to know that station 106 is always ready to search out and provide assistance to those in need, both those who are out on the water and to those many water- front residences and communities around Shuswap Lake. Please join me in thanking station leader Rob Suther- land and his incredible team at RCMSAR station 106 for their incredible work that they have done and continue to do each and every day. Oral Questions GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY AND APPLICATION OF FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION LEGISLATION S.

Bond:The Premier and his government have a trans- parency problem. There was a buried report on long-term- care failures — COVID data that was hidden until it was leaked. The Premier has refused to provide a full public accounting for the delay in declaring COVID-19 out- breaks in long-term care. Now we learn that his government is attempting to shroud a half-billion-dollar investment fund in secrecy. Y esterday the Jobs Minister refused to commit to subject- ing the InBC Crown corporation to FOI legislation, so the pattern continues.

Will the Premier fix this obvious blunder, and direct his minister to include InBC in

schedule 2 of the FOIPPA act? Hon. J. Horgan:I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her question. Just before we give the field to the min- ister responsible, of course, this is a bill that’s before the House, normally not the subject of question period. But that’s fine. I want to correct a couple of the points that the hon. member made. First and foremost, she talked about hiding reports. No such thing happened. A report was commis- sioned by the Ministry of Health, and when it was received by the minister, it was made public.

Secondly, when it comes to the issues of outbreaks in long-term-care facilities, I think the member has to re- member that at that time…. As with all times over the past 15 months, we have been working with the public, working with families, working with public health officials, working with independent officers of the Legislature, working with people like Isobel Mackenzie to try and find that balance between compassion for those in long-term care who are looking at the latter days of their life, and their families who want to spend time with them.

At the very moment we were trying to put in place restrictions to protect and keep people well in long-term care, others were saying we needed to open up the doors so that families can spend quality time together. I agree with that. Everyone in this House would agree with that. But public health has to make those tough decisions. These were not decisions made by the minister. They Wednesday, May 19, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2065

were not decisions made by me. They were made by pub- lic health in the best interests of protecting our seniors and making sure that we kept the transmission of COV- ID-19 suppressed. Mr. Speaker:The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental. S. Bond:Thank you for the Premier for getting up. But the fact of the matter is he carefully skipped over the fact that the report on long-term-care failures was actually buried, until the media pressured the minister to release it. When it comes to decisions, a policy decision was made, and 192 people, after that decision was made, lost their lives.

This government promised a review, and it’s up to the Premier to deliver so that those families have some degree of comfort. I’m sure that the Premier is aware that the Information and Privacy Commissioner today not just wrote a letter but, in fact, did a media release about this government’s latest lack of transparency. It’s related directly to the min- ister’s refusal to make InBC subject to FOI legislation. So let’s be clear. Mr. Speaker:Member. S. Bond: The questions today are about a news release that was actually — and an unprecedented one…. Mr.

Speaker:Member, we can only ask these kinds of questions in a general way. We can canvass it, but not in detail. We can’t have debate on the issue, which is already in front of the House. I just advise you to be careful. [1:55 p.m.] S. Bond:Thank you, hon. Speaker. Let me refer directly, then, to the media release that my question relates to. In fact, the B.C. Information and Pri- vacy Commissioner is urging the provincial government to do something very specific. In fact, it’s so that the minis- ter responsible could actually do it this afternoon. It’s with- in her regulation-making authority. Mr.

Speaker:Again, Member…. I will caution members again that we’re getting into the details of the issue, which may be in the House later on. Okay? S. Bond: Mr. Speaker, the question relates to a news release issued today. The question goes to the Premier. Will the Premier com- mit to responding to the recommendation in the news release issued today, made by the Information and Privacy Commissioner? Hon. R. Kahlon:The member may be aware, because she was in the House when they created the B.C. Immig- rant Investment Fund.

In fact, when they created the Im- migrant Investment Fund, they decided not to put it under FOI regime. The member will also know that fund has about $180 million. Kensington Capital, in fact, notified the government at the time that this would have a chilling effect. The possibility of sensitive information being made public could have a chilling effect. The government at the time decided that they were not going to put it under FOI, so the legislation in front of the House is a continuation of the immigration fund, to make it into the InBC corporation.

The members can explain why, at that time, they chose not to include it in FOI. What we have done is we’ve engaged with the ministry…. Mr. Speaker:Let’s not go into details of the issue, Min- ister. Hon. R. Kahlon:Okay. T. Stone:Well, the questions that we are trying to can- vass here relate to a very strong statement that was put out by the freedom-of-information and protection-of-pri- vacy commissioner earlier today. He didn’t just write and release a public letter, but he actually put out a news release on this topic.

The reality of what we’re asking for here is: will the gov- ernment ensure that, in the best interest of the taxpayers of British Columbia, the minister responsible for the Free- dom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act uses her regulatory powers to add InBC to

schedule 2 of the act? That’s the question. Interjections. Mr. Speaker:Members. T. Stone:In the commissioner’s letter, in reference to statements that have been made by the Minister of Jobs and the minister responsible for FOIPPA, the commis- sioner says: “It would be no answer to say that FIPPA coverage is unnecessary because InBC will be required to release annual reports and will be subject to external reviews.

Its annual reports are to be in a form and manner specified by the minister, and external reviews will occur only every five years. ” This is the important part. “These accountability me- chanisms fall far short of what is needed and lack the ongoing transparency afforded through the access to information regime. ” The question to the Premier is: will he direct the minis- ter responsible for the Freedom of Information Act to in- clude InBC in the coverage that is afforded by the import- ant transparency measures that are afforded through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act? 2066 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, May 19, 2021

Mr. Speaker:Again, Members, the Chair would like to caution that any discussion regarding the proposed amendment — the best place is at the committee stage, not in the question period. If ministers still wish to answer, be it. P . Milobar:Mr. Speaker, with respect, we are asking the minister responsible for freedom of information about her regulatory powers. Hon. J. Horgan:Rare is it that I take advice from the minister responsible for the triple-delete scandal on free- dom of information and privacy, but I will say this. We take this very seriously on this side of the House.

I am not aware of the comments from the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner. I will take it up after question period. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to sit down with me. We can have a full discussion about this issue while the bill that is in question is before the House. [2:00 p.m.] Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental. T. Stone:The government has a plan to risk half a bil- lion dollars of taxpayers’ money through InBC. The B.C.

Investment Management Corp., which manages hundreds of billions of dollars of assets, is covered under the Free- dom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The commissioner actually references that in his letter and his news release that he put out only hours ago today. He says, in closing: “I therefore urge the government to support the minister responsible in adding InBC as a pub- lic body under

schedule 2 of FIPPA, using her regulation- making powers. ” Again to the Premier, will he commit today to the peo- ple of British Columbia that he will ensure that the trans- parency that they’re entitled to — not that the government feels may or may not be necessary but that the public is entitled to…? Will he direct the minister responsible to include InBC under the coverage of the Freedom of Infor- mation and Protection of Privacy Act and do so immedi- ately? Hon. J. Horgan:Again, I don’t know. I’ve not seen the document that’s being referred to.

If the member is reading it all, not just every third word, then maybe there’s some- thing to be said about it. The challenge we have here, hon, Speaker, as you know full well…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker:Members, let’s have some order, please. Hon. J. Horgan:The challenge we have is that there is a bill before the House. That is a fact. It’s undeniable. The debate can take place, I believe, shortly after question peri- od is terminated. That would be an ideal opportunity for the members to raise this question.

I have committed to the Leader of the Opposition to re- view the material from an independent officer of the Legis- lature and sit down with her and have a discussion about how best to manage the issue. If that’s going to wreck the question period for the Liberals today, I apologize for that. This is an issue that’s just come up. It’s before the House. I’m happy to talk about it after question period. INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY REPORT AND STATUS OF LNG INDUSTRY S. Furstenau:Y esterday the International Energy Agen- cy released a report laying out the world’s energy road map to achieve net zero by 2050.

This landmark report shows a clear decline in the North American natural gas industry. It says that private finance will now need to recognize that these heavily subsidized megaprojects are at risk of becoming stranded assets. Energy commentators are talk- ing about the systemic risks, including stranded asset risk, of over-investment in gas. We already knew that this government’s plan to give bil- lions of dollars in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry is bad for the climate. The IEA report shows that it’s bad for our economy too.

It is reckless for this government to invest billions in LNG, which clearly represents a serious climate and financial risk. My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. How does the minister justify spending billions of taxpayer dollars on LNG, which in- creasingly looks like it will become a stranded asset? Hon. B. Ralston:Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for her question. The study came out, the International Energy Agency report, just yesterday. We will be reviewing how its key findings apply here in British Columbia.

The report is focused on the global energy market, and it will take a little while to decide and analyze it as to how it applies in British Columbia. We are committed, as a government, to strong climate action through CleanBC, which includes actions across sectors to reduce emissions and build a clean economy for everyone. We have ambitious targets, including an interim target and sectoral targets, and leading policies to help us make progress towards our goals to cut pollution and sup- port people.

We are currently developing a road map to meet our greenhouse gas emission targets and put us on a path to meeting net zero by 2050, which will be released later this year. Emissions from LNG Canada’s first phase in B.C. ’s Wednesday, May 19, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2067

natural gas production forecast is already accounted for in the greenhouse gas modelling for CleanBC. [2:05 p.m.] Mr. Speaker:The Leader of the Third Party on a supple- mental. S. Furstenau:I’m increasingly feeling like we’re in an Orwellian universe here, where strong climate action from this government includes the largest point source of green- house gas emissions and a massive uptick in methane emissions from fracking in northeast B.C. Meanwhile, the rest of the world seems to be getting on board with net zero. We are going in the opposite direction.

The International Energy Agency is the most authorit- ative energy body in the world. This isn’t a report from an environmental group. This is not the Green Party that is saying this. IEA scenarios drive global investment strategies and government policy. They’re warning that there will be a deep decline in global demand for oil and gas and that we do not need any new LNG projects, includ- ing those that are already in construction. They have killed the idea of LNG as a transition fuel, saying that countries must transition directly to clean energy.

Y et against this backdrop, this NDP government is doubling down on fracking and LNG and pouring billions of dollars of taxpayer money into this folly. My question, again, is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. What will it take for this gov- ernment to admit that they made the wrong gamble on LNG and to walk away from this environmentally and eco- nomically disastrous project? Hon. B. Ralston:Thank you very much for the ques- tion. The report, which is a very comprehensive one, which is being digested globally, came as a bit of a surprise, I think, to many observers.

Certainly, that’s the view in many of the financial papers around the world as they ana- lyze this report. We have a strong climate action plan, and we are pur- suing it. Any decision to make further investments in the LNG sector is largely a private sector decision. The one project that’s proceeding, the LNG Canada project, is already accounted for in the greenhouse gas modelling for CleanBC. That’s where the situation is in British Columbia. The private sector will make its own decisions and its own eval- uation of that report.

But here in British Columbia, any future LNG project that’s proposed must meet our four conditions. One of those conditions is fitting within our climate commitments. COVID-19 RESPONSE FOR TOURISM ATTRACTIONS AND COMMUNITY EVENTS C. Oakes:Well, after 15 months of waiting, the Premier has bungled it again. Another flashy announcement and more confusion. After 15 months of begging for help from the sector, the Premier promised to save major attractions.

But the fact is that it’s simply not enough — not enough to save attractions like the PNE, and no support for fest- ivals, events and locations that don’t operate year-round, like Billy Barker Days or the Quesnel Rodeo. Regional factors that didn’t matter when it came to pandemic restrictions, now do matter for pandemic supports. Why did the Premier draw an arbitrary line that says: “Y ou are treated differently and only eligible for half the support simply based on your geography”? Hon. M. Mark: I appreciate the question from the member opposite.

Y esterday the Premier and I did res- pond with a significant investment, $50 million. It’s a grant. It’s not a loan. It’s not repayable. It’s a call to action from the sector. The sector has told us that they can’t have large groups of people, large groups of visitors, going through their turnstiles to gather. This is has been a call to action from the sector. I mentioned it in my budget debates last week, that an announcement was coming this week. [2:10 p.m.] This is good news. It’s a call to action. It’s being respons- ive to the needs, to help.

Some in urban areas receive up to $1 million, half a million dollars in rural communities and up to half a million dollars for tour operators to help visit- ors to get to these destinations of choice. I believe it’s a good-news announcement. The Premier and I stand behind this announcement, because it was a call to action from the sector who has told us what they need to sustain their tourist attractions once we get out of this pandemic. Mr. Speaker:The member for Cariboo North on a sup- plemental. C. Oakes:Let’s take, for example, one of the most iconic anchor properties in British Columbia.

Barkerville attracts 70,000 visitors and represents $25 million in tourism activity. They face a nearly $700,000 shortfall but can’t access the full support simply because of where they are located. If Barkerville, Fort Steele or the B.C. Northern Exhibition were located in the Premier’s riding, they would be eligible for twice the support, not deemed second-class attractions under the Premier’s two-tier sys- tem of supports. Why isn’t the Premier providing support based on what these attractions need to survive, instead of an arbitrary criteria and lines on a map? Hon. M.

Mark: I don’t really appreciate the member opposite’s innuendo around this being partisan. We’ve worked with the tourism industry. We’ve sought counsel on how to support the sector. We work closely with the 2068 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, May 19, 2021

sector. I know the members opposite kind of laugh at this idea of listening to the sector, but we’re listening and responding. Y esterday was the $50 million announcement to support sectors. Now urban communities and urban attractions are go- ing to have a higher threshold of visitors. In rural com- munities, they’re going to have a lower threshold. The urb- an is 75,000; the rural is 15,000. There is a consideration to acknowledge that all the money can’t go to the city, because then the members opposite would be complaining that this is all about the city. We are taking a whole-of-government approach.

We are supporting the provincial tourism ecosystem. I welcome the member opposite to encourage folks to apply. This is a grant. It’s not a loan. It’s to support these really vitally important attractions so that they’re there to welcome vis- itors when it’s safe to do so. M. Lee:It took 15 months for this Premier to get his act together, but it’s not enough to make ends meet. The Pre- mier has failed to meet the call to action and has clearly bungled it again. The PNE has been closed for two years. They lost $46 million in 2020 and will lose $40 million this year.

The PNE urgently needs $8 million just to survive. We’ve been asking this government to save the PNE for more than a year. Just last week in estimates, the Tourism Minister said she knew that the PNE had been deeply hit. But yesterday the Premier claimed he needed to “have a better understanding of the challenges that they face. ” Everyone knows the challenges they face. Will the Pre- mier step up to provide the $8 million or not? Hon. M. Mark:I appreciate the member opposite rais- ing the question, considering that I know that he grew up in East Vancouver.

I know how important the PNE has been to me and my family. I know how important it is to British Columbians. Y esterday we made an announcement to allow people like the PNE, organizations like the PNE, to apply for a million-dollar grant. This is to help provide relief. I want to go back to the member opposite’s statements around the city of Vancouver. It is owned by the city. We are working with the city. We are working with the federal government. I’ve raised the issue numerous times with Minister Joly. The federal government’s budget announced relief for festivals.

We just announced relief yesterday about supporting organizations like the PNE. We’ve got to work together on this. Governments must come together to support the PNE. That is how govern- ment works. I appreciate that this is an iconic institution, the first job for many young people. It’s going to be there for generations to come, as long as we continue working together. But for right now, I would encourage the PNE to apply. This is the signal to them — when I met with the PNE last Friday. [2:15 p.m.] Mr. Speaker:The member for Vancouver-Langara on a supplemental. M. Lee: This government just can’t get it right.

Even the mayor of Vancouver was shocked at how the NDP has bungled relief funding. This is what the mayor said: “I’m pretty gob-smacked about getting shafted over this…. The province decided to renege on the federal agreement. ” Now the mayor is saying the Premier has left the PNE “critically short of the funding they need to continue oper- ating as we’ve known and loved for over a century. ” Will the Premier reconsider and provide urgent aid re- quired, or will this beloved provincial institution in East Van have to close forever? Hon. J.

Horgan:I’m glad that the member from Van- couver did figure out that the ownership of the PNE re- sides in the city of Vancouver. They have a responsibility to work with other orders of government, the province and the federal government, to come up with a solution for the PNE, and that is in process. We announced yesterday that our part as a first step is $1 million in grants. I’ve worked with the Prime Minister on other tourism-related issues in British Columbia. The city of Vancouver is going to have to step up a little bit here. The three orders of government will figure it out.

I have to say we’re going to figure it out with no help from the member on the other side, because he’s too focused on running for the leadership of a moribund polit- ical party. T. Halford:Since the Premier is quick to get on his feet, maybe he can help us with this one. The Premier and this government does not consider major festivals like the Vaisakhi to be anchor attractions. Vaisakhi has been can- celled twice now. We all agree that we need to ensure that it comes back stronger than ever after this pandemic. We have seen enormous support for this community. They’ve raised money. They’ve driven food banks.

But now they need us. This government has again, as of yesterday, come up short. My question to the Premier: why aren’t major events like Vaisakhi considered as anchor attractions? Hon. R. Kahlon:I appreciate that they have a line of questioning today. I’ll encourage the member to maybe visit one of the gurdwaras, and he’ll learn that the Nagar Kirtan is not an event in that forum. It’s not a business operation. It’s not trying to make money. This is a reli- gious…. I suggest they do their homework.

I appreciate now they don’t have any members from the South Asian community in their caucus any more, so perhaps they don’t have that contact in the community. But they should take an opportunity and learn about the religious significance of this event. They’ll find that the temples do this as a service to the community, not to make Wednesday, May 19, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2069

money, not to run a profitable business. Those temples will continue to do that important work. I appreciate the question, but I think he needs to do a little more homework before he asks it. T. Wat:The NDP MLA from Richmond continues to fail to advocate for the Richmond Night Market. I have repeatedly asked the Minister of Tourism about what sup- ports anchor attractions like the Richmond Night Market could get. They are on the hook for over $585,000 in leases since they asked for help.

The minister kept on telling me to “stay tuned for an announcement. ” Due to this Premier’s incompetence, he excluded festivals and events like the Night Market from the major anchor attractions program. I hope the Premier can get up and respond to my fol- lowing question. Why is the Premier denying support to festivals and events? Hon. M. Mark: Y esterday we made a significant an- nouncement: $50 million in grants — not loans — targeted to anchor attractions. In urban communities, in rural communities and for tour bus operators.

This is a signific- ant investment to support our tourism ecosystem. [2:20 p.m.] There is relief through the tourism grant, the small and medium business grant that is available. It was a call to action from the Tourism Task Force for organizations to apply. I’ve suggested to the member to encourage the night market to apply for the grant. That is what it’s available for. Y esterday’s targeted funds are to support those anchor attractions that rely on large groups of people and a turn- stile to gather. I encourage our organizations to apply. That is what the announcement’s about.

It’s about investing in the critically important tourism ecosystem. I want to reiterate that the federal government announced, just one day before our budget, $200 million that is going to events and festivals, $200 million to com- munity festivals. Those are investments that we’ve advoc- ated for, and we’re going to do our level best — relentlessly, as advocates — to make sure that that money comes to British Columbia. L. Doerkson: The Williams Lake Stampede listened intently to that announcement yesterday and felt that they don’t qualify, or at the very least, they were very confused.

In March, the Williams Lake Stampede announced that they would be cancelling their event for the second year in a row. This year would have marked 95 years for the world-famous Williams Lake Stampede. They contribute more than $3 million to the local community and to the economy of the Cariboo-Chilcotin. But apparently, unlike the PNE, they’re not able to get a single dollar from the major attractions program because they’re an event. To the Premier, why are events like the Williams Lake Stampede left out of these funding opportunities? Hon. M.

Mark: Y esterday’s announcement was to invest in major anchor attractions. It’s a grant. It’s not a loan. We are going to continue doing our advocacy with the federal government to ensure that B.C. gets its fair share for events. But I would encourage the member to work with his constituents to apply for this grant. We will do our level best on our side to ensure that we support these important institutions across the province. That is what our min- istry’s mandate is to do. We’re here to help. Work with me, Member.

Knock on my door, and I will do my level best to support a lot of these institutions that are important to our ecosystem. [End of question period.] Tabling Documents Hon. D. Eby: I have the honour to present the annual report for the office of the superintendent of professional governance for 2020-21 and the British Columbia Utilities Commission annual report for ’19-20. Mr. Speaker:Attorney General will continue. Y ou have another report? Hon. D. Eby: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did them both in one very compact and efficient announcement there. Hon. M. Farnworth:I rise to table a report.

I have the honour to present the 2020 annual report for WorkSafeBC. Orders of the Day Hon. M. Farnworth:In this chamber, I call continued committee debate on Bill 13, Employment Standards Amendment Act. In the Douglas Fir Room, I call Ministry of Education estimates. In the Birch Room, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innova- tion. Committee of the Whole House BILL 13 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2021 (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 13; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair. The committee met at 2:25 p.m. 2070 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, May 19, 2021

On clause 2(continued). G. Kyllo:It is good to be back and to continue commit- tee stage debate on Bill 13. There’s a reference in

section 2 that identifies under “a prescribed circumstance. ” I just wonder if the minister can provide some clarity. I looked in the

definitions of the Employment Standards Act, and the term “prescribed cir- cumstance” does not seem to appear in the definition table at the front. I’m just wondering if the minister could share with this House what the term “prescribed circumstance” references and how anyone would be able to determine what, spe- cifically, a prescribed circumstance would be. Hon. H. Bains:I think the member may remember that we passed a similar bill that deals with a vaccination leave of up to three hours. [2:30 p.m.] What this means is calculating an employee’s wages. I think if you look at….

In that same section, it talks about how to calculate an employee’s wages so they reflect the money that person would lose when they take that day off. Now, we tried to capture every possibility that is there in order to ensure that every worker will receive the wages that they are entitled to for the day that they take. But there may be circumstances…. It is in other parts of the legislation or the employment standards that I mentioned earlier.

In the event that we missed out any real situation where an employee, based on the formula, may not receive the full wages and there is a dispute, then the regulations can be drafted to address that issue — for example, employees whose earnings fluctuate daily, weekly or monthly, such as a commissioned sales- person. A regulation could be considered that provides a formula that calculates an average day’s pay over a longer period of time. It’s just to come up with a formula through regulation if the situation isn’t captured under our current situation.

Then we could draw up a regulation to ensure that the worker doesn’t lose my money. G. Kyllo:Specifically, the clause reads: “ An employer must pay an employee in a prescribed circumstance who takes leave under subsection (1) (

a) an amount in money equal to at least the amount calculated in accordance with the regulations. ” The term specifically, prescribed circumstance, is not included in the

definitions under the current Employment Standards Act. Prescribed circumstance — I have no idea what that specifically references. The importance of a new piece of legislation, or bills before this House, is to provide certainty and specificity. One more time to the minister: can the minister please provide some form of rationale or definition on what spe- cifically a prescribed circumstance is or is not? Hon. H. Bains:Let me try that one more time. I tried to make it clear.

First of all, this exact language exists elsewhere, in situ- ations that are not contemplated at this time, in order to calculate someone’s salary to be paid in those circum- stances. Now, the legal meaning behind it, I’m advised, is to be set up through regulations. So it is enabling language that in the event that specific regulations may not be con- templated at this time…. This enabling language will give the employment stand- ards branch authority to come up with a formula to reflect the true salary or the wages of the person that we’re talking about in this bill for that particular day. [2:35 p.m.] G.

Kyllo:Well, that provides absolutely no clarity what- soever. There is no clarity with respect to

section 2, with respect to the number of days of sick pay that workers may be eligible for when the permanent sick pay legislation comes into place, which we have identified. The self-iden- tified date for implementation, as imposed by this govern- ment, is January 1, 2022. So there is no certainty around the number of days. There is no certainty — and certainly no certainty for busi- nesses — with respect to the amount of pay that would be required to be paid.

There is no indication whatsoever with respect to whether the full costs will be straight onto the backs of already struggling B.C. employers, or if gov- ernment will provide any assistance with a sick-pay policy that is yet to be developed. Now, when it comes to the terminology with respect to how government is going to determine what that pay rate is, yet again, there is no clarity with respect to this legislation. Mr. Chair, with all due respect to the minister, I, and I think, many businesses across the province are increas- ingly concerned of the lack of information that is actually pertaining within

section 2. It’s certainly not lost on myself or employers around the province that even five days of paid sick leave is the equivalent of about 2 percent pay. We all, I think, recog- nize that holiday pay in this province at 4 percent equals two weeks — the average employee in the province works about 50 weeks. So 4 percent of 50 is 2. Two weeks — 4 percent. There is certainly the potential…. And I know that the minister has indicated: “Hey, trust us.

We’re going to go out and consult with the business community and just leave it to the Premier and the cabinet to make the determination on what businesses will actually have to pay and what the cost burden that will be transferred onto employers will be down the road some time. ” Mr. Chair, businesses require certainty. Many business organizations around the province have indicated, espe- Wednesday, May 19, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2071

cially in light of COVID: “Do no further harm. ” Do no more harm. But nothing could be further from the truth. Even the temporary paid sick leave provisions under this legislation will put considerable cost burden on the backs of B.C. businesses. The minister has actually agreed with that comment. Any employer that’s paying an employee over the $200 a day of the additional cost of paid sick leave will be borne by the employer.

I tried two days ago to ask specific ques- tions of this minister with respect to additional cost bur- den that will be transferred through this legislation onto the backs of already struggling B.C. businesses — if those costs will be reimbursed, or any portion of, for a business that already has a partial paid sick leave program? And the minister refused to answer. The specific example I gave was a small clothing shop that has had their revenues decline by over 45 percent. They have consumed all of their life savings to try and keep the business afloat.

They have a paid sick leave pro- gram available for full-time, year-round employees. They do not have a program that currently provides sick pay for their part-time employees. But this particular business that I referenced a few short days ago, where they have two permanent full-time employees and seven part-time employees, the additional cost burden by that business for those additional seven employees could equate to as many as 21 days, even under the temporary provisions of this program.

When I asked the minister if he could provide some clarity, some certainty for B.C. businesses that are already struggling — if the reimbursement program would pro- vide extended coverage to businesses for the additional cost burden that these businesses will now incur on account of this new legislation — the minister refused to answer that. It is absolutely paramount that in this chamber, in this House, when government has the opportunity to provide clarity and confirmation to businesses with the specificity with respect to what they’re proposing….

But clause 2 gives government free rein to do whatever they choose. Whatever they choose. That is scary. [2:40 p.m.] There are specific provisions that do not allow govern- ment to set tax policy through regulation. If government chose to increase the provincial sales tax by 1 percent, they are forced and obligated to come to this chamber, which allows the scrutiny of this House, allows opposition mem- bers the opportunity, in the people’s House, to ask specif- ic questions about the true impact — what data has been derived, what the potential costs may be.

But when it comes to the opportunity for government to put upwards of $2 billion to $4 billion of additional tax burden on the backs of B.C. employers, they choose to throw their hands up in the air and say: “Hey, it’s all good. Don’t worry. We’re going to consult the Premier and his cabinet. We’ll sit around a cabinet table and make our own determination about the success or failure of many busi- nesses, going forward. ” It has been shared in this House that 8,000 B.C. busi- nesses have closed and shuttered their doors on account of COVID.

There are an additional 25,000 businesses, repres- enting 300,000 workers, that are at risk of closure. In a time of a pandemic, when businesses are struggling and busi- nesses look to their government for support, direction and clarity with respect to cost impositions that government is giving consideration to, this is the way this government responds? “Nothing to see here, folks. We’ll figure it out. ” Businesses don’t know how many days. They don’t know the percentage of costs that they will bear. There’s no certainty for those businesses. In my view, that is ab- solutely offensive.

This piece of legislation, the minister has indicated, has been in the works for 15 months — 15 months. As recently as last May, when WorkSafeBC came out with clear dir- ection to businesses around a COVID safety plan, gov- ernment was fully aware that there was a need to provide interim protection for workers. The minister has said repeatedly how workers should not have to choose between a paycheque or potentially going to work sick. And for 15 months, what did this government do? Zero. Nada. Nothing. Not a thing. They knew there was a prob- lem.

They had the financial ability to act, and they did nothing, absolutely nothing. I know it’s not just businesses that are concerned. Workers across the province are concerned about the delay and the stalling of this government and moving forward with the provisions, even of the temporary pro- vision, of this legislation, which provides partial funding for sick pay for workers for up to three days between now and the end of this year. This legislation was so rushed out the door that there has been no real, solid consideration of the true impacts.

I raised in this House, just two days ago, the inequity that exists within this legislation. The legislation that is put before this House identifies that the three days of paid sick leave is available to both part- and full-time employees.

When I asked and canvassed the question of this min- ister if it was the intention of the minister to create an inequity by providing the opportunity for a part-time employee that works for three different employers to be eligible for three days from each of those three employers, for a total of nine days — if it was the intention of this min- ister to provide nine days of paid sick leave for an employ- ee working three jobs, yet only three days for an employee that has full-time employment with a single employer — the minister refused to answer.

When I provided the minister with the opportunity to provide further clarity to this bill, to provide an annualized cap between now and the end of the year, which would provide equity — clarify the fact that, whether you’re a part-time employee or a full-time employee, each of those employees would be only entitled to three days of paid 2072 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, May 19, 2021

sick leave under the provisions of this bill — the minister refused to take that initiative. The provisions of this bill create not just inequity; it’s discriminatory. A full-time employee is only entitled to three days where a part-time employee, working for two employers, is entitled to six. A part-time employee that might provide part-time services to three businesses is entitled to nine. [2:45 p.m.] I fail to understand how this government, this minister, with the support of 30,000 paid bureaucrats that I know are intelligent, that are able to provide the level of detail and information….

I can’t for the life of me believe for a second that this minister actually relied on many of the services that are available to government — Treasury Board analysts or otherwise. This bill appears to be thrown together on the back of napkin. It creates inequity and certainly no clarity, no cer- tainty for businesses. That causes me great concern. Under this government, we have seen the competitiveness of B.C. businesses continue to erode. I’ve shared in this House the corporate income tax rate in B.C. is now 50 percent higher than our neighbouring jurisdiction of Alberta. In Alberta, it is 8; in B.C., it is 12.

That is just the provincial portion. Now, people listen- ing from home might think: “ Ah, 4 percent is not a lot. ” Most businesses operate on the anticipation of net profits between 4 and 7 percent. Y et this government chooses to have a corporate tax rate that is a full 50 percent higher than our neighbouring jurisdiction of Alberta. Since com- ing into power, they put an additional $1.9 billion of new taxation on the backs of B.C. businesses, through employer health tax. I agree with and support the need to provide sick pay for workers across the province.

However, the manner in which it’s being undertaken by this secretive and back- room-dealing government causes many extreme amounts of concern. I just don’t know where to start. It is extremely, extremely unfortunate that we are at this juncture at this time. Government is currently sitting on a $3.1 billion COV- ID surplus. That’s $3,100 million. The minister, in his own estimation, estimates the cost of this temporary program at $320 million. That’s barely over 10 percent of their COVID recovery. Government could do more. Govern- ment can do more. They have the opportunity to do more.

They certainly had the opportunity to act many months prior to now. When posed with the opportunity to provide a tempor- ary paid sick leave program in the summer, we didn’t see anything. When provided with the opportunity to bring something forward in the fall in the typical fall legislative session, nope. What did government do? Called a pan- demic election. Put their own self-serving political interests ahead of the health and well-being of British Col- umbians. And when we reconvened the Legislature in December, a bill as simplistic as this — nope, we didn’t see it then.

Then when we sat for the second sitting of the 42nd par- liament on March 1, where was this piece of legislation? Nowhere to be seen. And we sat, and we waited in March and in April. Not until May, two months into the sitting of this Legislature, do we finally see this ramshackle bill that creates inequities within it. I am extremely concerned with where this government is going.

The Retail Council of Canada — I’ve seen a letter that was just penned today — raised many of the same concerns that I raised with the minister in this House, seeking clarity, seeking some form of confirmation from this minister that as they look to develop the reimburse- ment program — to provide those additional supports for small businesses that will bear a significant cost burden in association with this legislation. But what did we hear from this minister, who had an opportunity to provide some clarity, some confirmation to businesses? Crickets.

I am extremely, extremely concerned. [2:50 p.m.] Back to the question that I had posed. Can the minister please provide a bit of clarity with respect to who will actu- ally identify and determine what the definition of “pre- scribed circumstance” will actually entail? Hon. H. Bains: I could answer his rant with another rant. A nonsensical speech that he made, not backed up by facts and full of errors. It’s such a level that I will not go there, in order to respond to the way he was ranting. But I will try to do this again. Let me read it to the member once again so that he will understand.

Subsection 49.1(4) allows for regulations to cover employees for whom the formula for permanent paid leave, basic leave, in subsection 49.1(3) does not fairly represent an average day’s pay. Okay? A similar provision is included in the Employment Standards Act for paid domestic or sexual violence leave and is also set out in

section 3 of this bill, regarding paid COVID-19 sick leave. For domestic and sexual violence leave, no regulations have been enacted to date. [2:55 p.m.] So it is just to cover a scenario, a situation, that may have been missed — how to calculate someone’s wages so that we could, through OIC, come up with a regulation to reflect the true loss of wages or calculate the true wages for that day for that employee, to be fair to the employer and to be fair to the employee. It is in the Employment Stand- ards Act, in other parts of it.

We had that debate before when we were debating those bills here in this House not that long ago. Obviously, the member is likely to just drag it out with the speech that he made a little earlier without any sensible questions. That’s his prerogative. I think what is offensive…. He talked about…. The of- fence is to the employer who is looking at a situation where Wednesday, May 19, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2073

when one of their employees is sick and would be able to afford to stay home so that they don’t bring the illness to work and help transmit the virus in the workplace. It will help to keep those operations open, and it will help to keep those workers healthy. That’s the purpose be- hind it. I think it’s in line with our focus all along and ever since this pandemic hit us — to make sure we keep our population healthy, to make sure we keep our workplaces healthy and safe and to make sure our workers are safe in the workplace. It’s in that spirit that this bill is here.

Workers all across Canada are asking for action. We have been working for the last 14 months. We worked with the federal government and took a number of initiatives on our own to help the workers, to fill the gaps and to help the employers at the same time. If he’s really looking for meaning…. We’re not reinvent- ing the wheel here today. It is already there. This language already exists in the employment standards. All this mem- ber has to do is a little bit more homework. They’ve got a research department downstairs. If he doesn’t know how to do it, he could just go there and ask them.

They’ll tell him that this language exists all over in the employment standards. I tried to do the best I can to explain to the member. I will try to continue to answer the questions that the mem- ber wishes to have, but I will not match his political rhet- oric with political rhetoric. The Chair:Shall clause 2 pass? Division has been called on clause 2. There will be a vote on that tonight pursuant to the sessional orders. Tonight is Wednesday. So that means it’ll take place around 6:30. Thank you, Members, on clause 2. Shall the title pass? Interjection.

The Chair:We will deal with the title after we deal with clause 2. Of course, that’s appropriate. Thank you to our Clerk’s staff for that. Hon. H. Bains:I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. Motion approved. The committee rose at 2:58 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Hon. R. Kahlon:I call the committee on Bill 5. Committee of the Whole House BILL 5 — InBC INVESTMENT CORP . ACT (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 5; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair. The committee met at 3 p.m. The Chair:Thank you, Members and Ministers. I would like to call a short five-minute recess so that we can pre- pare for the next bill. The committee recessed from 3:01 p.m. to 3:08 p.m. [S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.] On clause 7. T. Stone:I wanted to ask one question here in this sec- tion, and then we’ll be able to move on. I’m wondering if the minister could confirm that the board of directors positions, which he has announced….

Were those posi- tions actually posted on the board resourcing office web- site, which is typically standard practice? [3:10 p.m.] Hon. R. Kahlon:Y eah, I think we canvassed this yes- terday. The BRDO has a standard process, which is that anyone can apply, and even apply and say that they want to apply for a specific board. Anyone can apply for any position, obviously, and people can post their résumés as per the CABRO process, and that’s the process that was used here. T. Stone:I think the question that I’m trying to get at is….

I’m well aware people can just proactively submit a résumé and reach out to the BRDO office. But the board resourcing and development office also posts…. It’s a typical practice that they actually post descriptions of vacant positions or positions that the government will be looking to fill. So my question is: did the ministry actually have a post- ing, irrespective of whether people proactively applied for a director position with InBC? Did the government actu- ally have a posting for these director positions up on the BRDO website?

And related to that, was there any compet- itive process whatsoever insofar as going out there to try and find the best people possible for these positions? Hon. R. Kahlon:My answer is still the same, which is: we followed the standard BRDO process, which is that people can apply. My assumption is that BRDO went out and actually found people. In fact, they must have, because 2074 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, May 19, 2021

many of these board members I’ve never met with and don’t know them. But their résumés are quite impressive. As the member will know, they often do the work of searching for people with these unique skill sets to serve on the board, and that’s what’s happened here. Clauses 7 to 10 inclusive approved. On clause 11. T. Stone:This is the

section that deals with the duties and powers of the board, so I’m just wondering what type of influence the board will have over investment policies. I think that’s a pretty critical piece that British Columbians, I think, would like the minister to walk through. As part of that, can a board terminate the CIO’s employment? [3:15 p.m.] Hon. R. Kahlon:I’ll go backwards with the questions from the hon. member. The CEO, with consultation of the board, can terminate the chief investment officer. The CEO, with consultation of the board, can hire a chief investment officer.

But it’s done through the CEO so that the board doesn’t have to directly speak with the CIO. The question the member had around the role of the board…. The board has responsibility of selecting and approving a CEO and a CIO and monitoring performance accountabilities, reviewing and approving annual corpor- ate financial statements, having oversight of policies that relate to InBC’s mandate and holding the executive to account for their accountabilities with respect to InBC’s mandate, oversight of InBC’s operation, and selection and appointment of InBC’s auditor. T.

Stone:Well, if the board can provide advice to the CEO, who has the rights to hire and fire the chief invest- ment officer, that means that the board actually can exert some influence. We have asked many questions and had lots of discussion around the minister’s assertion that there is true independence at play here. I would suggest this is another example of that not being the case.

The board, which we canvassed yesterday, has a majority of people on it that are aligned with this government, and they actually will have the ability to influence the selection of the chief investment officer and that person’s termin- ation. So I would suggest that that doesn’t qualify to the standard of independence, certainly not that’s been put out there. The minister can respond to that if he wants, but I don’t have any further questions on this section. I’m ready to move on to the next one. Hon. R. Kahlon:I’ d just say that, of course, I disagree with the assessment from the hon. member.

Again, as per our conversation yesterday, all the board of directors…. Certainly, we highlighted the two deputy ministers who served the people of British Columbia for over 20 years in different governments. Some of them worked with the hon. member asking the question. We have a CEO that’s the chair of the largest credit union in North America and one of the largest credit unions in the world, who has incredible impact investment experience. We’re proud of the board, and we do think that they will do a good job of ensuring the accountability.

But again, there is independence from the board, from the chief investment officer, for making decisions. Clause 11 approved. On clause 12. T. Stone:Clause 12 deals with board remuneration. I’m wondering if the minister could advise the House how much each board member will be paid on an annual basis. What would the total compensation be for the board on an annual basis?

And thirdly, and importantly, with respect to one of the board members, Carole James…. [3:20 p.m.] Unless this is no longer the case, and the minister can indicate as such, my understanding is that she’s acting as an adviser to the Premier, the Premier’s office, at the cost of $1 per year. I think it’s a relevant question here to ask: will Ms. James be compensated as per all other directors? What’s the total compensation for each director — total com- pensation for the entire board of directors together?

Is Carole James still at the $1 per year that she had signed on with the Premier’s office, or is she going to be paid as all other directors are paid? Hon. R. Kahlon: The provincial Crown corporation board remuneration levels are prescribed by Treasury Board directive. Remuneration levels for each Crown are assessed against these directives and authorized by the government’s appointee remuneration committee, which is chaired by the Minister of Finance. The board members from outside the public service will be remunerated for their service.

The board chair receives $30,000 a year, and the directors, except for the two public service employees, will receive a retainer of $15,000 a year. The board chair and directors will receive meeting fees for full-day meetings if they have full-day meetings. The question around Carole James. I don’t see why she wouldn’t be remunerated for the work that she does for this agency. I’m not directly sure of where he’s going with that question, but she is a board member and will be receiving the fees. Clauses 12 and 13 approved. On clause 14. Wednesday, May 19, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2075

T. Stone:The question I have on clause 14 is this. In act- ing in the interests of the corporation, are directors bound by government policy, as laid out in

section 4? If a govern- ment-policy-related investment is not in the best interest of taxpayers or the corporation, are directors bound by a government policy that would urge them to act otherwise? Hon. R. Kahlon:Section 4, which we canvassed yester- day, clearly sets out the purpose of the corporation. Obvi- ously, the

section that we’re on now is about the duties of the officers: “(

a) act honestly and in good faith, with a view to the best interests of the corporation; (

b) exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent indi- vidual would exercise in comparable circumstances, and (

c) act in accordance with this act and the regulations. ” Clause 14 approved. On clause 15. [3:25 p.m.] T. Stone:I would like to ask a few questions about the chief executive officer that’s contemplated in this section. I would like to know first if a CEO has been chosen yet. Secondly, can the CEO and the CIO be the same person? That has been the case in other investment companies that I’m aware of. It doesn’t happen very often, but I would like to know what the government’s plans are around that — if there is a hard line that that cannot be the case. How much will the CEO of InBC be paid?

What does the minister believe the total compensation will be for the CEO of InBC? Hon. R. Kahlon:So three questions there. I can confirm that the search for a permanent CEO has not started yet, so no CEO has been chosen. No, the CEO and the CIO can’t be the same person as the structure is laid out here. And currently, the work around compensation for a CEO and a CIO is still under development. We don’t have all those things finalized yet. T. Stone:In response to the minister’s response, I would ask this: has the minister got any sense of a timeline as to when the CEO search would begin?

Much has been made about a $500 million fund here that the government says it intends to see deployed as quickly as possible. If the CEO can’t be the same person as the CIO…. I mean, the organ- ization can’t function without that chief executive in place, as per the minister’s previous response. So when is that search going to begin, and what is the timeline that the minister has in mind for the actual selec- tion and announcement of a chief executive officer? I have one more question after that. Hon. R. Kahlon:An RFQ process has begun.

There are four executive search firms that have been sourced to help find the potential CEO. [3:30 p.m.] T. Stone:In a previous response, the minister indic- ated that he wasn’t available at this time to provide any details on the compensation level for the chief executive officer and that that work is under development, I believe were his words. [N. Letnick in the chair.] I just want to know how the minister squares that with the service plan, which actually does provide for a line item called salaries and benefits for InBC. This is page 13 of the service plan.

Presumably, we’re talking about a cumulative expenditure of the CEO compensation costs, the CIO and whatever team of supporting individuals there are in InBC. But we’re talking about how the service plan lays out $1.5 million for the ’21-22 fiscal year; $3.37 million for the ’22-23 fiscal year and then $3.98 million for ’23-24. So it’s actually a cumulative cost of $8.88 million over those three fiscal years. Having been to Treasury Board many times in my car- eer, previously, in government, and understanding how these service plans work, these numbers weren’t pulled out of thin air.

They’re not rolled-up numbers that might suggest that they’re estimates. They’re very specific num- bers, so that would tell me that the ministry actually has done some work to provide an allocation, a number that it believes is a reasonable cost estimate for salaries and benefits. Again, with that context in mind, I’ d ask the minister to please share with us what he contemplates the compensa- tion to be for the chief executive officer of this corporation. Hon. R. Kahlon:The member referenced the service plan, page 13. That reflects the staffing costs over a three- year period.

It’s a broad-brush estimate of those costs. The compensation plan is still under development. T. Stone:Broad-brush. Again, I think this is another reason that we would be concerned that the government is moving forward with this $500 million risky invest- ment fund scheme — that they can’t even, to this point, provide a clear statement of numbers in the service plan for InBC. These are very specific numbers that are con- templated here.

Is the minister not prepared today to provide us with the component of the salaries and benefits line item for each of the three fiscal years as noted on page 13 of his service plan or the service plan he’s responsible for at InBC.? Is he not prepared to break out for us today what component por- tion of the salaries and benefits line item for each of those three fiscal years relates to the compensation of the chief executive officer? 2076 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, May 19, 2021

[3:35 p.m.] Hon. R. Kahlon:In terms of pay, we’re working with an external HR consultant to develop the compensation plan that will balance, obviously, attracting a strong, qualified candidate with the principles of public sector compensa- tion. I’ll say that it’s vital that we secure the right talent for InBC. InBC executive salaries will be publicly reported on an annual basis, consistent with Crown corporations, to disclose their salaries. Clause 15 approved. On clause 16. T. Stone:Clause 16 deals with the chief investment of- ficer, arguably the most important individual that will be associated with InBC.

Again, similar to the questions I just asked about the chief executive officer, I’m just wondering if the minister could confirm whether or not a chief investment officer has been selected or if there is a search process underway for that position. If a search process hasn’t initiated, as per his comments on the CEO position, for the CIO, would he please advise when the search process for the CIO position is set to start. How much will the CIO be paid at InBC? Hon. R. Kahlon:No, the chief investment officer has not been hired. The HR consultants that we will bring in will run a parallel search for talent.

Then the last question the member had was…. Again, InBC executive salaries will be publicly reported on an annual basis, consistent with how other Crown corpora- tions disclose their salaries. Clauses 16 and 17 approved. On clause 18. T. Stone:The minister has said in comments: “For ex- ample, if someone sitting on the InBC board of directors came across a good investment opportunity and they wanted the chief investment officer to consider it, that dir- ector cannot call them up and ask them to look at it. ” I’m well aware that this

section provides for there being no direction provided to the chief investment officer. But I’m wondering if the minister could point to where in sec- tion 18 it actually forbids suggestions. [3:40 p.m.] Before I’m accused of splitting hairs here, there is a big difference between directing someone to do something, especially if you’re on the board of directors or you’re the CEO…. I understand the minister’s comments around…. Independence is provided for here because no one can dir- ect the chief investment officer to do one thing over the other. What’s preventing, in this

section or anywhere else in this bill, anyone from making suggestions to the chief investment officer? Hon. R. Kahlon:There will be a single stream, a single process for any business that’s looking for investment. There will be clear directions on the website of the process. So there will be no special entries. It’ll be one process set out, and everyone is required to follow that one process. T. Stone:Well, with all due respect, I’m not referring to the formal process, which the minister has referenced a number of times now. And fair enough.

There’s a process, presumably, for companies that are seeking investment through InBC to submit their requests or applications for consideration for investment. What I’m talking about is that this

section specifically uses the phrase “not subject to direction. ” It uses that phrase in three different places in subsection (2) and subsection (3). It does not provide for, anywhere in this

section or anywhere in the bill, any pro- tection from other types of interactions which this chief investment officer might have. I think it’s a fair question — not the formal application process, but where influence will take place. If it takes place, its going to be around the water cooler. It’s going to be over…. When we can get back to having meals with each other, it’ll be in a restaurant during lunch. It won’t be documented in a formal application process. Again, where in this section, and if not in this section, where in the bill, does that independence that the minister speaks about actually exist?

Again, I’m talking about that…. For the minister to essentially say, “Well” — wink, wink — “there’s not going to be any influence here because it’s going to be done all through an application process, ” I think is a pretty weak response here. This, to me, seems to be a significant hole, a significant flaw in this legislation that cuts right to the core of what we’ve been saying around independence — independence of investment decisions. Again to the minister, where in this

section or else- where in the bill is there protection against the chief in- vestment officer being influenced through suggestions and conversation and whatnot? How is that prevented from happening? [3:45 p.m.] Hon. R. Kahlon:I’ll say to the member that people will need to be extremely careful. Within the legislation, on

section 18(3), it says: “For certainty, in making investment decisions on behalf of the corporation, the chief invest- ment officer and an external fund manager are not subject to direction from any of the following: (

a) the government; (

b) a minister; (

c) the board or a director; (

d) the chief executive officer; (

e) any other public officer. ” At any point, the chief investment officer can point to this specific legislation as proof of their independence. Wednesday, May 19, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2077

Again, the people we have on the board are of the highest integrity. We expect them to live by the rules within the legislation. T. Stone:Well, I don’t share the minister’s enthusiasm for the independence which he is suggesting is in place here. I don’t believe the independence is there. There are a myriad of other words that could have been chosen for this section, but they went with the word “dir- ection. ” Direction is a very deliberative act. There is no provision here for the wink, wink and nudge, nudge that takes place at water coolers or at lunches and that goes undocumented. Furthermore — I’ll deal with it at this point instead of later on —

section 29 of this act, which deals with the Offence Act, basically says: “Section 5 of theOffence Act does not apply to this Act or the regulations. ” That would tell me that there are actually no penalties for any contra- vention of this investment independence that is addressed in

section 18. Could the minister, in light of the fact that there appear to be no penalties…? The Offence Act doesn’t apply. He’s opted to go with the word “direction, ” which is very delib- erative. It doesn’t capture those more casual interactions. [3:50 p.m.] When there are no penalties and there’s no provision in this

section for those other types of interactions from tak- ing place, how are British Columbians supposed to believe that this corporation is truly going to operate in an inde- pendent fashion, with independent investment decisions being made, independent of influence from the board of directors and others? Hon. R. Kahlon:Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. I think the member, maybe offline, has to explain to me what he means by wink, wink, nudge, nudge. What I will say is that we did an extensive market sounding.

In the market sounding, the CPPIB and the BCIMC both recommended this type of structure and to put it in legislation in this clear way so the chief investment officer has the certainty that they have that independence. A chief investment officer, at any point, can point to legis- lation — that it’s in legislation that they have that inde- pendence and clearly in writing for all the officials that cannot give any direction to a chief investment officer. [3:55 p.m.] S. Furstenau:This clause talks about independence, and I think the official opposition critic has asked a number of questions on that.

But what I’m wondering about is just clarifying of the reporting structure generally. So the chief investment officer is independent from direction from the board. But who is this person ac- countable to? How are they held to account for invest- ment decisions? And what is that structure of account- ability in this legislation? Hon. R. Kahlon: The chief investment officer is res- ponsible for carrying out all the duties related to the man- agement of the funds and overseeing the work of the investment team.

Now, while the chief investment officer is independent in investment decision-making, the chief investment officer is accountable to the board for compli- ance with the requirements of both the mandate letter dir- ection, provided by the government, and the investment policy statement. The investment policy statement will be developed by the board in collaboration with the chief investment officer. It will serve as an accountability document for the board to hold the chief investment officer respons- ible for the chief investment officer’s execution of the investment policy. S.

Furstenau:Just some clarity on that. Is that typical that an officer and a board would work together to decide on the accountability of the officer? I’m thinking about local government — for example, a board and a chief administrative officer. That seems a bit unusual. Is that a typical approach to accountability structures? Hon. R. Kahlon:Through the market sounding, this was suggested to us — that it’s typical for a chief invest- ment officer to be engaged in the investment policy which, ultimately, they will be held accountable on. Clause 18 approved. On clause 19. [4:00 p.m.] T. Stone:On

section 19 here, I wanted to ask this. When the government launched InBC, it made some very strong statements — and has continued to this day — relating to InBC having “the highest standards of transparency and accountability to the public. ” With that in mind, I would like to know if the minister is going to ensure that the business plan that was deve- loped and that led to the decision to move forward with InBC, the business plan that really speaks to the operations and the expectations of this corporation…. Will he make that business plan available to the public? Hon. R.

Kahlon:Over the last few days, we’ve been con- sulting with staff on the process to make the business plan available. That work is ongoing, and my hope is that some- time in the near future, we will make that plan available. T. Stone:Can the minister be a bit more precise than that he’s hopeful that at some point in the future he can make this plan available?

I think there is a public expect- ation that naturally flows from a government decision to invest $500 million of public funds into what, by the gov- ernment’s own admission in their service plan, will be very 2078 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, May 19, 2021

high-risk venture capital investments. I think there’s an expectation from the public that the business plan that underpins the decision to move forward with this scheme will be made available and made available soon. I’ d ask the minister again: if he truly believes what the marketing material wrapped around the announcement on this said — that InBC will have the highest standards of transparency and accountability — when will the public of British Columbia be able to access an unredacted version of InBC’s business plan? Hon. R.

Kahlon:I think it would be important to note here that when the official opposition were in government, and they had a tech fund — $100 million — no business plan was released. In fact, we couldn’t get any answers on where the investments were going. The now Attorney Gen- eral had to go through estimates several times to try to get answers on where investments were going, to whom, which companies were benefiting from that. We were not given any answers.

Multiple transparency measures are put in place with this legislation — yearly reporting, annual reporting, five-year audits — so that the public has a sense and understanding of where these investments are going. That being said, the member also knows that there is a process, when this type of disclosure happens, for reviewing documents prior to disclosure. That work of proactively releasing that is ongoing, and there’ll be more on that in the near future. S.

Furstenau:I’m listening to this exchange with some interest, but just noting that it is disappointing to hear a minister try to suggest that because a previous government behaved in a certain way…. That doesn’t preclude better transparency and accountability from his government. [4:05 p.m.] I think that always striving to be more transparent and accountable, particularly when it comes to half a billion dollars, is something that we should be hoping and expect- ing to see from this government and indeed from any gov- ernment in this place.

I just find the rhetoric around using past practices of the opposition, when they were in gov- ernment, as a way to deflect from a legitimate question from the critic, about transparency, doesn’t build the kind of confidence that we want to have in government, their actions and activities. I hope that this minister actually will commit to the highest level of transparency and to releas- ing the business plan, as has been suggested by the official opposition critic. Hon. R. Kahlon:Maybe I didn’t articulate my answer clearly enough.

I was highlighting to the hon. member from the opposition that they also had a tech fund which had no public accountability, had no transparency on where the investments were going, who the investments were going to. The Attorney General questioned them sev- eral times to try to find that answer, to no avail. I was just highlighting to the member the different ap- proach we’re taking here. In legislation, InBC will be re- quired, yearly, to put out a report; will be required, every five years, to have an independent audit, which will be made public.

Everything will be made public here in this Legislature, and I confirm that we’re going through the process right now on a proactive disclosure of the business plan. It’ll be coming in the coming weeks. With all respect to the member and the Leader of the Third Party, I was just articulating that we are building in transparency, and we do aim to be much more transparent than perhaps this chamber has seen in the past. Clauses 19 and 20 approved. On clause 21. T. Stone:I could have picked, I guess, any

section to ask this next series of questions, so there’s no particular rhyme or reason for this one. The minister has talked at great length about the transparency and accountability of this corporation and that that will be are reinforced and under- pinned with independent investment decisions. I think we’ve canvassed that in debate yesterday and today. As the official opposition, we have some very serious reservations around just how independent those investment decisions are going to be.

This relationship between the chief investment officer and the board of directors is not clear and, we believe, affords a tremendous amount of opportunity for undue influence and lack of independence. The minister keeps pointing back to requirements for annual reports and for a review. The first big, independent review won’t be done for five years — conveniently after the next provincial elec- tion. All of this we take great issue with and, we think, is far from the highest standards of transparency and accountability that you can get.

It’s not just our sense on this that there are glaring holes in terms of accountability and transparency. The freedom- of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner wrote a letter that was delivered to the minister and his colleague the Minister of Citizens’ Services. The letter was written and delivered today. It was accompanied by a news release that was published by the commissioner’s office.

The letter is quite pointed, and it’s very clear as to how the commissioner feels about InBC and the lack of accountability that’s built in or lack of transparency that’s been built in, insofar as this government’s decision not to make InBC applicable to the requirements in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. [4:10 p.m.] The minister said, in answer to several questions yes- terday — I’ll just quote one of them; there were several questions on this topic: “In the legislation, there are many Wednesday, May 19, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2079

pieces that are important for transparency. Every year a report has to be made public, here at the Legislature, on the investments being made…. Every five years an inde- pendent audit needs to be done. ” We get that. But the commissioner, in his letter, again, dated today, says this: “It would be no answer to say that FIPPA coverage is unnecessary, because InBC will be required to release annual reports and be subject to external reviews. Its annual reports are to be in a form and manner specified by the minister, and external reviews will occur only every five years.

These account- ability mechanisms fall far short of what is needed and lack the ongoing transparency afforded through the access-to-information regime. ” I’ d like to ask the minister why the decision has been taken, presumably by him and in conjunction with his col- leagues, to not ensure that InBC falls under the purview of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Why was that decision not made? He can point back as many years as he wants about suc- cessive governments and what different governments did and didn’t do, and so forth. He’s the minister.

This gov- ernment has been in power for four years now. He’s the minister bringing forward this InBC legislation. He’s the minister that’s asking taxpayers to feel okay — in fact, feel good — about $500 million of their funds being invested in high-risk venture capital investments. These are his decisions. The public deserves to have access to InBC documents.

The public has the right, or should have the right, when it comes to InBC, to access this material when the public sees fit, not when the gov- ernment determines that they’re going to push some infor- mation out in a glossy annual report or wait for a five- year independent review. When the public wants to see the information, the public sh

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20210519pm-Hansard-n75
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20210519pm Hansard n75
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	df39940c66cfbb0c798e1e43d678a9d985ef8e8d

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