Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, November 5, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 178

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 51 — Environmental Assessment Act

Hon. G. Heyman

Bill 52 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. L. Popham

Presentation of Amendments by Message

Proposed Amendment to Bill 45 — Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018

Hon. C. James

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Film and television industry

B. D’Eith

Sea to Sky community hospice

J. Sturdy

Down syndrome awareness

A. Kang

Pipeline explosion and natural gas supply

L. Throness

Metro Vancouver Crime Stoppers

G. Begg

Film and television industry

J. Thornthwaite

Oral Questions

Trans Mountain pipeline and transport of oil by

rail

T. Stone

Hon. G. Heyman

L. Throness

Biodiversity and protection of species at risk

S. Furstenau

Hon. G. Heyman

Government recordkeeping policies

M. Stilwell

Hon. J. Sims

J. Thornthwaite

P. Milobar

Investigation of government recordkeeping

G. Kyllo

Hon. J. Sims

Tabling Documents

Guarantees and indemnities report, fiscal year ended March 31, 2018

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

D. Davies

T. Stone

S. Cadieux

T. Redies

N. Simons

S. Thomson

D. Ashton

G. Kyllo

C. Oakes

Reporting of Bills

Bill 39 — Poverty Reduction Strategy Act

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 39 — Poverty Reduction Strategy Act

Second Reading of Bills

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

D. Clovechok

J. Sturdy

M. Bernier

On the amendment

M. Bernier

M. Morris

P. Milobar

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 39 — Poverty Reduction Strategy Act

Hon. S. Simpson

M. Hunt

S. Furstenau

R. Sultan

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

Hon. C. James

S. Bond

T. Redies

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2018

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Horgan: I have two sets of introductions today. Firstly, I want to welcome

employees from Flight Centre who are in the gallery today. Why it’s so

important that I say thank you to them is that I don’t know how many times

in a day you can change one flight, but I think we’re on a world record.

Tamra Bartilucci, Miriam Cloutier and Kate Smith are here. Would the House

please make them all very, very welcome.

Secondly, it is my great honour to introduce in the gallery three

Indigenous leaders who really don’t need any introduction, but I get the

opportunity to do it anyway. Joining us in the gallery today for the

introduction of legislation is Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, the president of

the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs; Grand Chief Ed John from the First Nations

Summit; and Regional Chief for the Assembly of First Nations Terry Teegee.

Would the House please make these three distinguished gentlemen very, very

welcome.

[1:35 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: It’s always great to rise in this House and welcome a constituent of

Shuswap. We’re joined today by June deDood, a close friend, strong

supporter. Her and her husband, John, have been in the dairy business for 35

years in the Shuswap and recently opened a new facility, including Farmer

John’s Market. They’ve got robotics to actually milk their dairy cows. A

great agricultural entrepreneur from the Shuswap. Would the House please

make June feel very welcome.

Hon. L. Beare: I have the great pleasure of introducing 16 members from the Motion

Picture Industry Association. Here today we have Peter Leitch, who’s

currently the chair, from the North Shore Studios. We have Rob Simmons from

Canadian Media Producers Association; Phil Klapwyk from IATSE Local 891;

Peter Mitchell from Vancouver Film Studios; Scott Evans from MBS Equipment

Co.; Paul Klassen, the B.C. Council of Film Unions; Gemma Martini from the

Martini Film Studios; Sue Brouse from Union of B.C. Performers; Jackson

Davies, the Union of B.C. Performers; Ellie Harvie, Nitha Karanja and Debbie

Santoro, also of the Union of B.C. Performers. We have Spencer Kent from

Industrial Light and Magic, Zee Salehian from WesternOne, Kevin Gamble from

Titmouse and Rob Larson from the Directors Guild of Canada.

Would the House please join me in making them feel very

welcome.

Hon. J. Darcy: It gives me great pleasure to welcome two special guests to the

Legislature today. They are two sisters. The first is Susie Lar-Son, who has

worked as an addictions counsellor and youth worker in New Westminster and

is now a counsellor at Watari Counselling and Support Services in Vancouver.

She’s here today with her sister Jessica Lar-Son, who is my new constituency

assistant. She has previously worked in Surrey-Panorama and in

Burnaby-Edmonds constituency offices, and is a former student leader from

Kwantlen and from the association of B.C. Students. I’d ask the House to

join me in giving them a very warm welcome today.

I. Paton: I’d like to welcome today to the House a longtime friend of mine, a

gentleman named Jack Bates — pretty much the same vintage as me. We’ve been

hanging out together since we were about eight years old. Jack and his

brothers are farmers in Ladner. They have a dairy farm. They also produce

potatoes and blueberries. Jack is the current president of the B.C.

Blueberry Council, past president of the Canadian Horticultural Council and

past president of the Delta Farmers Institute, so a great farming history in

the Bates family. Please welcome my friend Jack Bates.

E. Foster: I have three guests in House today. As you all know, in this business,

we don’t make it without strong support at home. My wife Janice, of over 34

years, is in the House with us today.

Also joining us today is Peter von Hahn. Peter has the distinction of

being the master distiller at Okanagan Spirits craft distillery, winner of

many, many international awards, a distiller of the finest single malt in

all of Canada. He’ll probably be around a little later, if you want to talk

to him.

My third guest today is a gentleman who’s a constituent of mine. I’ve

got to read off the accolades, because I can’t remember them all. There are

so many. The Leo Club, which is a junior organization representing the

Lion’s Club — he was the charter president there. He was the Leo of the

Year. He was on the district governor’s council. He’s been in 63 Kalamalka

Royal Canadian Sea Cadets; received the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, presented

by the Lieutenant-Governor; the Lord Strathcona Medal; the Royal Canadian

Legion cadet medal; the Navy League Medal. He sailed on the tall ships, one

of only 50 cadets in Canada to be able to do that. He had a Row of

Distinction service distinction award in his high school. He is on my riding

executive; he’s my membership chair. And what makes this all the more

amazing: my friend Simon Dufresne is only 17 years old.

Would the House please make them welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

G. Begg: I would like the House today to join me in welcoming Linda Annis and

Steve Elson from the Metro Vancouver Crime Stoppers Association. They’re

both in attendance today. Linda, as it happens, is the newest member of

Surrey city council as well. Crime Stoppers, of course, is very valuable to

policing in this province. This past year they’ve generated over a thousand

tips that helped in the arrest of over 100 people. Would the House please

make both these persons welcome.

Hon. S. Robinson: I have two constituents who are here visiting today from

Coquitlam-Maillardville, James and Fredelle Copeland. These are amazing

constituents who are always there to lend a helping hand whenever needed.

They are visiting Victoria, and they are being hosted by their friend Rick

Lanori from Saanich. They’ve decided to come here and take a look at what

work we do here in the Legislative Assembly and what we do in the chamber,

and I want everyone to make them feel very welcome.

Hon. G. Heyman: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a number of other guests in

the gallery who have come here today to observe. Jaime Sanchez is special

adviser at the B.C. Assembly of First Nations. Andrea Glickman is a policy

director with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. Lisa Matthaus is the

provincial lead for Organizing for Change, a grouping of environmental NGOs.

Jessica Clogg is the executive director of West Coast Environmental Law.

Bruce Fraser was the co-chair of the ministers’ environmental assessment

advisory committee.

It also gives me pleasure to introduce, not all of them by name, 19

staff who work at the environmental assessment office, who have been working

very hard at the project to revitalize our environmental assessment process

and act. They’ve put in long hours of consultation. I won’t name them all,

but special recognition goes to Assistant Deputy Minister Scott Bailey;

executive director Paul Craven; manager Kate Haines; Fern Stockman; Nathan

Braun; Ricardo Toledo; Raluca Brix; Josh Thompson; and of course, the

executive director, Kevin Jardine.

I hope the House will join me in making all of these guests very, very

welcome.

D. Ashton: I would like to follow the Premier in recognizing Grand Chief Stewart

Phillip. I had the incredible honour of being at the city of Penticton at

the regional district when the Grand Chief was the chief of the Penticton

Indian Band. He did an incredible job and does an incredible job in striving

forward for the rights of the people that he represents.

M. Hunt: Every community has their local families that are just the network and

part of the network of every community and part of building it. We certainly

have that in the Surrey-Langley area in the Martini family.

In that long list that the Minister of Tourism introduced is Gemma

Martini from Martini Film Studios, a local family doing local things but

involved in the film industry. We certainly want the House to help make them

welcome.

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce one of the most hard-working,

passionate and committed CAs in Burnaby-Edmonds, Amber Keane. She’s here

today. Please join me to welcome the most hard-working, passionate CA from

Burnaby-Edmonds, Amber Keane.

Hon. D. Donaldson: It’s going to be a very healthy week for me. I’m going to be running

every day and eating well. That’s because there are two people very dear to

me visiting: my wife, the runner, and my son, training to be a chef. They’re

in the gallery today. Would the members please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Simpson: I’m very pleased with the long list of important and distinguished

people that we’ve introduced today. To add to that list, my wife, Cate

Jones, is with us today. Please help me make Cate welcome.

B. Ma: I’m looking up in the gallery today, and I see Nicolas Bragg has

joined us today. Nicholas served as a constituency assistant in my office

over the summer. I share him generously with the member for Vancouver–Point

Grey and Attorney General as well.

I’d also like to take the opportunity to pre-introduce 33 grade 10

students from St. Thomas Aquinas Secondary School, who will be in the House

shortly. They are here with their teacher, Mr. Jerome Francis.

[1:45 p.m.]

I’d also like to note that Andrea Gilmour and Stephanie Gilmour will

also be in the House today. Their introduction was specifically requested by

their father and grandfather, Mr. John Noonan.

S. Thomson: I’m looking up into the gallery as well and see a former staff person

who worked in my office in the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource

Operations, Laura Tennant. She did a wonderful job. I’m sure she’s here to

enjoy question period. It’s probably a little easier for her when she knows

that I might not be the minister up responding today. I’d like the House to

make her welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 51 — ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT

ACT

Hon. G. Heyman presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Environmental Assessment

Act.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

This bill seeks to repeal the Environmental Assessment Act, 2002,

and replace it with the new Environmental Assessment Act. A new act is

necessary to ensure that the legal rights of First Nations are respected

and that the public’s expectation of a strong, transparent process is

met.

Positive changes identified through extensive Indigenous, industry

and public consultation are reflected in the new act. These are focused

on enhancing public confidence, transparency and meaningful

participation; advancing reconciliation with Indigenous nations,

including supporting the implementation of the United Nations

declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples in the act through

environmental assessment processes; and protecting the environment while

offering clear and efficient pathways to sustainable project

approvals.

Practically, this will mean a defined purpose for the

environmental assessment office that includes sustainability and

reconciliation; an early engagement phase to ensure community engagement

and identify both areas of concern and issues to be addressed; a clearly

defined process for seeking consensus with participating Indigenous

nations and opportunities for them to provide notification of consent

for minister’s consideration at major decision points throughout the

environment assessment process; a newly established dispute resolution

process; new mandatory public comment periods in support for public

participation; clear criteria for environmental, economic, social,

cultural and health effects, including climate impacts and impacts on

vulnerable populations, which must be addressed in decisions; modernized

compliance and enforcement tools; enhancing the independence of the

process through experts and peer review; and enabling of regional

assessments to address cumulative effects.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 51, Environmental Assessment Act, introduced, read a first time

and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

BILL 52 — AGRICULTURAL LAND

COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. L. Popham presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Agricultural Land Commission Amendment

Act, 2018.

Hon. L. Popham: I move the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2018, be

introduced and read for a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce today a bill that is an important step

to realizing government’s commitment to revitalize the agricultural land

reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission. The amendments contained

in this bill show we have heard, loud and clear, that citizens support a

much stronger approach to protecting and preserving the ALR for

agricultural purposes.

[1:50 p.m.]

This past year an independent advisory committee led an extensive

stakeholder and public engagement process that included nine in-person

stakeholder consultation meetings with local governments, UBCM, farm and

ranch associations and agricultural associations; over 2,300 electronic

surveys; and over 270 letters and emails. This process revealed the

public’s concern over the use of the ALR for development and

non-agricultural purposes, including housing, all of which are

challenging the resilience of both the ALR and the ALC.

Citizens in the farming and ranching community are strongly

supportive of limiting non-farm uses of the ALR to those that do not

permanently damage and degrade the soil and land surface. To this end,

the amendments in this bill will: (1) eliminate the arbitrary two-zone

division of the ALR, ensuring that a consistent set of considerations is

applied to all land in the ALR; (2) introduce new restrictions on

residences in the ALR to stop the proliferation of mega-homes and estate

mansions on prime agricultural land; and (3) require a person to notify

the ALC and receive permission before removing soil or placing fill on

the ALR land so as to reduce the large volumes of illegal fill being

accepted by landowners, which degrades the productivity capacity of the

land.

This bill also creates new offences related to the changes above

and provides a suite of new regulation-making authorities that will be

required to bring the change into effect.

These amendments are necessary to unify the ALR as one zone worthy

of preservation for agriculture and to stop its use as a reserve for

mansions or construction waste.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. L. Popham: I move that Bill 52 be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 52, Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2018,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Presentation of Amendments by Message

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO

BILL 45 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION (SPECULATION

AND VACANCY TAX) ACT,

Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: proposed amendment to Bill 45 intituled Budget Measures

Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018.

Hon. C. James: The amendment to Bill 45 is in response to the amendments that

have been proposed by the Leader of the Third Party to facilitate the

amendments proceeding as required.

This amendment creates a requirement for the Minister of Finance

to conduct an annual consultation with the mayors in affected areas to

review the speculation and vacancy tax.

This amendment directs that revenues raised by the speculation and

vacancy tax will be spent on affordable housing projects in the regions

that the revenues are raised in. And further, this amendment sets the

tax rate for Canadian citizens and permanent residents who reside

outside of British Columbia and who are not members of a satellite

family at 0.5 percent.

Accordingly, I am providing a notice of motion to the table to

refer the message and amendment to the committee of the House in charge

of Bill 45.

Motion approved.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRY

B. D’Eith: I’m very pleased today to rise to talk about the British Columbia

film and television industry. This industry brings $2.5 billion per year

in production and has over 60,000 well-paying, skilled, knowledge-based,

equitable jobs, and it stimulated over $1 billion in private sector

infrastructure development. It’s the cornerstone of the second-largest

industry in British Columbia, which is the creative economy.

I was very lucky to have worked closely with MPPIA and CMPA

associations in the film industry dealing with the sector while I was

the executive director of Music B.C.

[1:55 p.m.]

Together with other industry partners — the book publishers, the

magazines at DigiBC — we worked together to create what is now called

Creative B.C, and Creative B.C. is working very hard to ensure that our

creative economy thrives in this province.

B.C. is now the third-largest centre for screen production

excellence in North America, after Los Angeles and New York, recently

surpassing Ontario. How about that? I am proud of this amazing screen

production sector, a sector that continues to grow and

diversify.

Some things that we should be really proud of: B.C. is North

America’s largest visual effects cluster, with over 80 animation and

visual effects studios; we boast 32 post-secondary institutions offering

internationally recognized industry education and training; and the B.C.

industry is very green-conscious, with their Reel Green initiative. Some

of the shows include The Flash , Riverdale , Arrow,

The Good Doctor, Supernatural , Supergirl , and the list

goes on.

In addition to the big U.S. television studios, B.C. is now the

go-to location for year-round streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon

Prime and others.

We know how important this industry is to our prov­ince, and

we want to see this success continue. We need to continue to support and

nurture the creative industries in this province. I want to thank the

film industry for being here today.

SEA TO SKY COMMUNITY HOSPICE

J. Sturdy: I’d like to acknowledge the outstanding work by the volunteers of

the Sea to Sky Community Hospice society to support the development of

hospice services in serving the entire Sea to Sky region.

In 2016, the province announced operational funding, along with a

capital contribution, for the establishment of hospice beds at Hilltop

House in Squamish.

While most hospice care takes place in the home and some 30

volunteers are active in the corridor, when conditions require more

complex services, patients must currently leave the community for

Vancouver. Volunteers with the Sea to Sky community hospice and the

board of Squamish Hospice Society were elated at the announcement and

the potential to realize a long-held dream.

The projected cost to renovate the unused area in Hilltop House at

Squamish Hospital was $1.7 million, and the community was tasked with

raising $1.3 million. Undaunted, community volunteers stepped forward.

The capital campaign team of Nancy Edwards, Judith Fothergill, Andrea

Galius, Greg Gardner, Hazel Geise, Gloria Healy, Sue Lawther, Wendell

Moore, Marnie Simon and Bill McNeney left no stone unturned. They even

anticipated a cost increase. All together, they were able to put

together an astounding $2.35 million — truly a tremendous community

effort.

Unfortunately, that’s not the whole story. Final bid prices came

in almost $1 million more than VCH’s initial estimates, in part due to

procurement barriers for local and small businesses. Only Vancouver

companies submitted bids. One can only wonder at the potential

cost-savings and opportunity if local contractors had better access to

these opportunities.

As a result, the community must now consider the option of

reducing the scope of the project, even while the need is so great.

Regardless, I think it’s very important to acknowledge the incredible

work done by so many in the Sea to Sky and acknowledge that the goal of

expanded hospice care in Squamish is within reach.

DOWN SYNDROME AWARENESS

A. Kang: November 1 to November 7 is Down Syndrome Awareness Week in

British Columbia. It is estimated that approximately 3,500 men, women

and children in our province have Down syndrome. They are our family,

our friends and our colleagues.

Down Syndrome Awareness Week is our chance to celebrate the

contributions they make to our lives and to our society. Through the

work of partners such as Down Syndrome Research Foundation, people’s

understanding of and attitudes about Down syndrome have been shifting.

However, people with Down syndrome continue to face barriers, including

discrimination, stereotyping and exclusion, which limit everyone from

reaching their full potential.

That is why this week is so important. We want to build a better,

more inclusive B.C., and this week it’s time to focus on what diversity

and inclusion truly means. It means dispelling myths and stereotypes

about people and seeing the ability in everyone.

[2:00 p.m.]

The true strength of our province is in the recognition of each

person’s talents and potential. This is the goal of Community Living

B.C., a Crown corporation which connects individuals with disabilities,

including those with Down syndrome, to the communities, and it provides

support that helps them to fully participate in community

life.

I’d like to thank the people and partners throughout the province

who work every day to destigmatize and to educate people about Down

syndrome. We must all work together — government, non-profits, community

groups, health organizations and families — to ensure that people with

Down syndrome have the opportunities to grow, develop and connect with

their communities. This week, let’s show the world that B.C. is a place

where all people are celebrated and valued. Let us all

#seetheability.

PIPELINE EXPLOSION AND

NATURAL GAS

SUPPLY

L. Throness: On October 9, Fortis suffered an explosion in the largest of its

twin natural gas pipelines near Prince George, leaving a smaller line to

carry the load for 85 percent of our province. Although the rupture has

already been repaired, for technical reasons, the twinned line will not

be up to speed until the spring. Meanwhile, residents are being given

top priority for service. This means that B.C. businesses will be short

of natural gas during the winter by as much as 50 percent.

This is particularly ironic in B.C., which boasts some of the

world’s largest natural gas reserves. The shortage will affect my riding

directly when it comes to greenhouses. Agriculture under glass enables

very intensive production — ten times more than can be produced in the

open fields in the same space. Greenhouses growing vegetables alone

account for $700 million in value every year and support 3,500 jobs in

B.C.

Producers invest millions into every crop, purchasing and growing

plants which take months to mature. All of these plants will die without

warmth, and natural gas is the only viable heating solution at the

moment. Growers throughout the Fraser Valley are rightly worried about

their production. Other natural gas–dependent businesses like pulp and

paper mills are also vulnerable.

I would encourage my constituents, who live in the warmest part of

B.C., to continue to restrain their use of natural gas so that the

health of our local economy will not be jeopardized. However, there is,

in my view, a greater problem of supply, given that one incident on one

line can have such a significant impact on the entire

province.

I urge Fortis and the BCUC to examine the vulnerability of supply

of this basic commodity, which is so key to our economy, human comfort

and safety in a province where winter reigns for much of the year. We

need to build in redundancy, welcome competition and diversify sources

of natural gas to minimize the impact of a future threat to

supply.

METRO VANCOUVER CRIME STOPPERS

G. Begg: Hon. Speaker, 169 arrests, 279 charges, almost $100 million in

property and drugs seized and over 100 guns recovered are very

impressive statistics, in anyone’s estimation.

I speak of the work of Vancouver Crime Stoppers, and all of those

stats are the by-product of over 6,000 tips to Metro Vancouver Crime

Stoppers in 2017. They also processed 680 tips related to suspected gang

activity. Metro Vancouver Crime Stoppers is an independent, non-profit

organization which receives anonymous tip information about criminal

activity and provides it to the police and government investigators in

communities from Powell River to Boston Bar.

In 2016, the province of British Columbia awarded Metro Vancouver

Crime Stoppers with $450,000 in civil forfeiture funding over three

years to support a campaign to raise awareness on the escalation of gun

use and gang activity and to promote their anti-gang and illegal gun

program. The grant was provided for a public outreach campaign to

encourage public reporting of suspected gang or illegal gun activity

through the Crime Stoppers anonymous tip line.

In Canada, a Supreme Court of Canada decision has ruled

unanimously that police do not have to disclose any information they

receive from this internationally recognized crime prevention program.

Their 2018 program will target girlfriends of gang members, highlighting

the consequences of getting caught carrying a boyfriend’s gun. This

campaign will appear on approximately 500 billboards, transit shelters,

restaurants, bars, radio PSAs and posters in select locations, as well

I’m proud and pleased today to promote and salute the work of this

valued organization and their work in keeping our communities and all

British Columbians safer.

[2:05 p.m.]

FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRY

J. Thornthwaite: I rise today to speak about British Columbia’s motion picture

industry. This industry is a major job creator and economic driver on

the North Shore, the Lower Mainland and across our province. The film

industry is the fifth-largest sector in our provincial economy and

generates in excess of $2.5 billion for B.C.’s economy and 60,000 jobs,

and that’s not including the spinoff activity of hospitality, tourism

and any other of the hundreds of small to medium-size businesses that

supply the industry here in this province.

There has been over $1 billion in B.C.-based private sector

infrastructure investment, with the industry utilizing more than 2.5

million square feet of stage space, and extensive digital picture and

sound production, visual effects and animation facilities. Today at

lunch, Ellie Harvie from the Union of B.C. Performers talked to me about

Snowpiercer. It employs 60 stunt people alone in a brand-new studio in

Langley. It’s a big budget, with Amazon and Netflix

involvement.

Our province is also home to North America’s largest video effects

clusters, with more than 80 animation and visual effects studios. Rob

Simmons, chair of the Canadian Media Production Association, said today

that B.C. is successful because of our entrepreneurs, our storytelling

and our risk-takers.

Our province has 32 post-secondary institutions that offer

internationally recognized industry education and training, including

Capilano University’s Nat and Flora Bosa Centre for Film and Animation,

right in my riding. There are eight regional film commissions, in

addition to the provincial film commission at Creative B.C.

All of this is making an impact on British Columbia. More than 80

percent of them say that film and television production has become an

important part of the economy of British Columbia, and a like number

would like to see it even bigger.

We truly are Hollywood North. I’d like to thank British Columbia’s

film industry for their huge impact on British Columbia’s

economy.

Oral Questions

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND

TRANSPORT OF OIL BY

RAIL

T. Stone: Over 229,000 barrels of oil are shipped via rail every single day

in Canada. That’s up from just under 93,000 barrels of oil shipped every

single day back in July of 2017. The International Energy Agency further

suggests that the volumes will double again over the next couple of

years. We all know that oil shipped via rail is inherently riskier than

via pipelines.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Can she explain

to the people of Kamloops how they’re supposed to feel safe when there’s

an ever-increasing volume of oil being shipped via rail, as opposed to

being shipped by the much safer pipeline?

Hon. G. Heyman: Of course, it’s curious to us on this side of the House that the

opposition is suddenly interested in the risks of bitumen by rail, after

they ignored it while they were in government.

That’s precisely why this government brought in regulations to

protect the public interest from the deleterious impacts of a bitumen

spill, whether it’s through a pipeline or whether it’s by rail. That’s

why we’ve asked, through our powers under the Environmental Management

Act, for rail companies to tell us the volumes, to tell us the routes so

that we can protect British Columbians from the impacts of a bitumen

spill, whether it is by tanker, by pipeline or by rail.

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

T. Stone: The NDP government has been so focused on pleasing their activist

friends that apparently they have forgotten about the dozens of B.C.

communities that will be affected by a spill of oil when it’s being

shipped on rail — communities like Valemount and Blue River, like

Kamloops and Ashcroft, like Abbotsford and Langley. These are

communities that would actually be affected.

[2:10 p.m.]

As reported by CBC, “Crude-by-Rail Exports Surge in Canada as

Pipeline Restraints Squeeze Oil Industry,” CN Rail has also recently

reported a 50 percent increase during their third quarter to date,

compared to the same time last year. Their CFO has said that the Trans

Mountain delay has “added years to crude by rail.”

Of course, we know that Alberta Premier Notley is urging Ottawa to

further boost the volume of oil that is shipped by rail. I think we can

again all agree that shipping oil by rail is much riskier than shipping

that oil in a safe pipeline.

My question to the Minister of Transportation is this. How is the

Transportation Minister protecting those dozens of B.C. communities

which are now at greater risk of a rail spill due to this government’s

reckless war on the much safer Trans Mountain Pipeline

project?

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s interesting that the official opposition continues to blame

the British Columbia government for the decision of the Federal Court of

Appeal, but I’ll go on to say that we’re protecting the interests of

British Columbia in protecting our environment, coast and economy in all

the ways they refused to do when they were in government. As I

mentioned, we introduced new regulations governing oil by rail as well

as by pipeline to increase spill preparedness and response, including

requirements for contingency plans, drills, exercises and plans for

recovery.

The member opposite really should get his facts straight before he

attempts to fearmonger with British Columbians. The vast majority of

shipments of oil by rail do not go through B.C. They enter the U.S.

through Montana or North Dakota, and according to the Washington state

Department of Ecology, shipments of oil by rail through the Lower

Mainland actually dropped by 76 percent in the first half of this

year.

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–South Thompson on a second supplemental.

T. Stone: Again, thanks to this NDP government, British Columbians now own a

pipeline that they didn’t want to buy. And British Columbia is at much

greater risk than ever before for the very spills which this government

said they were going to make sure didn’t happen. We’re talking about the

Thompson River here. We’re talking about the Fraser River here. This

increased risk to public safety, this increased risk to communities like

Valemount and like Abbotsford, this increased risk to public safety

falls squarely at the feet of the NDP government.

B.C.’s Transportation Minister….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

T. Stone: The Transportation Minister has been silent about the increased

safety risk posed by this increase in oil by rail, aside from on March

6, when she said: “…we are talking about a federally regulated system.

The line is federally regulated. I’m not in a position to talk yes or

no.”

The actions of the federal government are pretty clear. The

actions of the Alberta government are pretty clear. When is this

Transportation Minister going to actually do something on this

file?

Hon. G. Heyman: The actions of the official opposition are entirely clear. They

refuse to stand up for British Columbians, for our environment, for our

coast or for our economy. We’ve been clear. We said that we were

concerned about the impacts of a spill on B.C.’s coastline. We said that

the National Energy Board had failed to adequately consider that risk.

We said that the federal government, therefore, had not adequately

considered that risk or adequately consulted with First

Nations.

The Federal Court of Appeal agreed with us. As much as the

opposition would like to overturn that decision in this Legislature, it

is simply not in their purview. We will continue to defend British

Columbians’ interests.

[2:15 p.m.]

L. Throness: I think the point we’re trying to make on this side is that oil

should not be transported by rail. It should be transported by pipeline,

because rail is five times more risky than by pipeline. That kind of

risk should not be acceptable to this government.

The Transportation Minister said in estimates: “I’m not in a

position to talk yes or no, whether the federal government should be

allowing certain products on the line. There is a federal

regulation.”

How much more oil by rail is the Minister of Transportation

willing to accept?

Hon. G. Heyman: As everyone in this Legislature knows, interprovincial

transportation of products, including diluted bitumen and oil, is a

federal decision, but the province has important rights and

responsibilities in terms of regulating the impacts. That’s exactly why

we’ve taken a reference case to establish our rights to do just

that.

It’s also why we’ve introduced new regulations, which were not

as well as by pipeline, to increase our ability to protect against a

spill and to be ready for one in the unhappy event it should

occur.

I’ve detailed the measures that are contained in these

regulations. We’ll continue to stand up for British Columbians against

the negative and adverse impacts of a spill of diluted bitumen, whether

it’s by pipeline or whether it’s by rail. I would invite the official

opposition to stand with us for once to defend British Columbia’s

economy and environment instead of picking holes in federal court

decisions.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack-Kent on a supplemental.

L. Throness: I think it’s obvious to everybody that oil should be sent through

pipelines, not by rail. Last July a CN train derailed right into Gates

Lake, north of Pemberton. It’s just a matter of time before a train

carrying oil derails, perhaps in my community, because the main CN Rail

line runs through the middle of our city — 28 trains a day, up to 80

kilometres an hour. I see oil tankers all the time. This presents a real

risk to my community every day.

How much oil is coming through Chilliwack, and how much more risk

to my community and B.C.’s environment is this government willing to

accept?

Hon. G. Heyman: The member correctly points out that the people he represents have

a right to know exactly how much oil is transiting through their

community, and when and how. That is precisely why we’ve asked the rail

lines to give us that information, why we’ve passed regulations

requiring that information: so we can ensure that we protect the

interests of British Columbians — whether it’s on the coast, whether

it’s in the Interior, whether it’s in Kamloops — from the negative

impacts of a spill, whether it’s by pipeline — and we all know pipelines

have leaked — or whether it is by rail.

The issue is that we need environmental regulations to protect our

environment, our economy and our coast. We’re moving ahead with those.

If the official opposition wants to join us in supporting us on

introducing those, we would welcome that. If they want to continue doing

nothing, as they did for 16 years, that’s their choice.

BIODIVERSITY AND

PROTECTION OF SPECIES AT

RISK

S. Furstenau: B.C. has the greatest biodiversity of any Canadian province, and

it also has the most species at risk. The SFU biodiversity report

released last week cited alarming numbers: 1,807 species are in decline;

278 species are at risk of extinction.

Scientists have been sounding warning bells for decades that we

must protect habitats, but they have gone unheeded. Let’s highlight some

of what we’ve done instead.

We have sedated pregnant caribou and flown them in helicopters to

a breeding pen surrounded by armed guards, rather than mitigate our

logging impacts. We have sunk millions into breeding programs for

spotted owls — there are only six left in the wild — and simultaneously

approved logging in their last remaining habitats, such as the Skagit

watershed.

[2:20 p.m.]

We have fed orca whales medicated salmon because they are sick and

starving. Now DFO is thinking about pumping hatchery chinook into B.C.

rivers that are too hot, too polluted, too developed and too overfished

to support wild populations.

My question is to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

We’ve gone to extremes and extremely expensive measures to protect

species in B.C. Would it not be more effective to focus efforts on

protecting their habitats and the ecological systems that support

them?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the Third Party House Leader for her question. It is

an important question. It’s an important question for government policy

and also for British Columbians, who have a deep attachment to our

incredible biodiversity in B.C., to nature and to our environment.

Whether it’s orcas, whether it’s grizzlies, whether it’s caribou, people

in B.C. know that they have irreplaceable biodiversity that’s important

not just for us in our identity but for Canada.

That’s why we have begun to take measures in consultation with

communities, with Indigenous people and with British Columbians to

reverse the many, many years when the former government had an

opportunity to bring in species-at-risk law and simply failed to do so.

By failing to do so, they created instability for Indigenous

communities. They threatened the food supply of Indigenous communities.

They created instability for industry. That creates instability for all

of us.

We have begun the consultation with communities and British

Columbians. We look forward to working with all members of this

Legislature and all members who wish to work with us to protect species

at risk in doing just that in the months to come.

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

S. Furstenau: Actions speak louder than words. As last week’s report points out,

B.C. has been repeatedly criticized for prioritizing resource

development over the needs of species in our province. We are all

complicit in the sixth mass extinction as it unfolds in B.C.

Species extinction and loss of biodiversity have a human impact.

It impacts the health of ecosystems and the infrastructure of life that

we also depend on, and it impacts our complex social, cultural and

emotional identities.

To the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, we have the

responsibility to act as stewards not only for animal species but for

future generations, some of whom are in the gallery today. With so much

on the line, beyond consultation, what immediate steps is the minister

taking to prevent further species decline in B.C.?

Hon. G. Heyman: Again, I thank the member for her passion on this issue, for

raising this important issue in this Legislature. I have outlined some

of the reasons that protecting species at risk is important to all

British Columbians, why it’s important to Indigenous communities, why

it’s important to the biodiversity that we’re trying to protect for the

planet.

It is important, when we take measures — whether it’s habitat

protection, whether it’s protecting a species from predators or

industrial activity, whether it’s protecting a species at risk from

simply winking out because they can no longer reproduce — that we target

our dollars in a way that is most effective. That is part of the

consultation we’ll be undertaking.

We’ll also be consulting, through an intentions paper, on a range

of measures to protect species at risk through a new species-at-risk act

while, at the same time, ensuring that we work with communities around

the province to ensure that the jobs they depend on for the health of

their communities and their families can be maintained without

threatening the loss of species.

GOVERNMENT RECORDKEEPING POLICIES

M. Stilwell: In May of 2018, the Premier said he was profoundly disappointed

with the mass deletion of emails from several NDP staff, yet no one has

been held accountable.

[2:25 p.m.]

The official opposition has made a freedom-of-information request

for all of the messages sent in the month of June 2018 by the

ministerial assistant in the office of the Minister of Energy. In

response to that request, the government replied that no records exist,

none. So the ministerial assistant to the Minister of Energy deleted

every single email and text message that he produced.

Perhaps the Minister of Citizens’ Services, who is responsible for

the Freedom of Information Act, can explain why all the records were

deleted.

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

It is important for the public to have confidence that their

government is managing records properly. It’s also a policy that has

existed for a long time that those records pertaining to government

decisions are kept, and those that are transitory are

deleted.

I will look into the situation raised by my colleague across the

way, and I will get back to the House.

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

M. Stilwell: I hope the minister truly understands the act and the difference

between the transitory messages and those that need to be

kept.

We know from the Energy Minister’s calendar that the staff member

participated in a Utilities Commission meeting, a briefing on the review

of B.C. Hydro that was launched that month, and at least 14 other

meetings with the minister. I know from experience that a minister’s

calendar is very busy, and you have your assistant with you.

To the Minister of Citizens’ Services, did this ministerial

assistant really not produce one single iota of useful information in

all those meetings that he attended with the minister for the entire

month of June?

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

Let me say that government takes pride in managing records

properly. Government policy is very clear, and this policy existed when

people sitting on that side of the House were sitting on this side of

the House — same policy. Some records must be kept, but many are

transitory and can be removed. That means keeping records that are

essential to understanding the business of the government — for example,

how a decision was reached.

If there is an indication that records were not appropriately

stored, the civil service will follow up on this matter. As I said, I

will look into the situation, and I will get back to the

House.

J. Thornthwaite: Under pressure, this Premier was forced, in May, to concede that

the NDP practice of deleting all sent emails was inappropriate. But even

after this practice was uncovered, there have been more “no records”

responses for the sent emails and text messages from a further 17

individuals.

How does the Minister of Citizens’ Services explain the continued

NDP practice of deleting all emails?

Hon. J. Sims: Government policy and the recommendations from the OIPC are very

clear. Some records must be kept, but many are transitory and can be

removed. That means keeping records that are essential to understanding

the business of government — for example, how a decision was

reached.

Many emails that go back and forth between ministers and staff are

transitory. Basic hygiene for our email is to go through that and get

rid of the transitory emails, because otherwise, they get in the way of

us responding to FOI responses. Civil servants advise us that keeping

every transitory record actually slows down the FOI process.

As I said, records that are meant to be kept are kept, and those

that are transitory are deleted.

[2:30 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a

supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you to the minister for reading off government policies on

basic hygiene.

Multiple NDP staff and ministers are systemically deleting every

email they create. There are no records available for multiple staff in

ministers’ offices, in GCPE, by the Minister of Public Safety, the

Minister of Municipal Affairs nor the Minister of Tourism. These

examples are just as egregious as those that the Premier called

profoundly disappointing.

Again to the Minister of Citizens’ Services, where are all those

records?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for her question, and I’m always

impressed when my colleagues across the way show an interest in freedom

of information — after all, a government of “triple delete” and “win at

all costs.” Let me say again that I will take this on notice and get

back to the House.

P. Milobar: It’s good to hear the minister say she will take these on notice,

but let’s reflect back on something that presumably she has already

taken on notice and presumably had already provided direction

to.

In May, the Premier announced that his deputy minister would

investigate the mass deletion of records. At that time, there was

evidence that at least eight members of the Premier’s office staff had

conducted themselves in this manner. Since then, we’ve actually received

889 pages that have been recovered from within the databases. But

there’s a notable exception: that’s only from seven of the eight staff

involved. There have not been any documents from the special adviser to

the Premier, Marie Della Mattia.

The question is: can the Minister of Citizens’ Services explain

why, when there was an obvious attempt to recover from eight staff, only

seven staff were able to provide any of those emails, and none of the

mass-deleted records of Ms. Della Mattia have been recovered?

Hon. J. Sims: Let me say again, I will take this on notice and report back to

the House.

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

question.

P. Milobar: The question to the minister, then, from her lack of answers,

would have to….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, continue.

P. Milobar: It’s very disappointing. Here we have a minister that’s in charge

of the freedom-of-information documents, who has had this brought

forward through the last year, who had assured this House that she would

look into it over the last year…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

P. Milobar: …and has answered today that she will further look into

it.

I guess the question out of all this is: seeing as we’ve been

waiting now for the better part of six to eight months for an answer,

when can we expect the minister to provide us a proper answer to the

questions she had in June that she still cannot answer today?

Hon. J. Sims: As I said previously, the questions that have been raised today….

I will look into that, and I will report back to this House. That is the

responsible thing to do.

INVESTIGATION OF

GOVERNMENT

RECORDKEEPING

G. Kyllo: It’s a serious offence to improperly destroy government records.

The Don Wright investigation….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, the member for Shuswap has the floor.

[2:35 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: The Don Wright investigation, which was launched back in the

spring, was supposed to get to the bottom of the mass deletion of emails

by the NDP. Judging by the examples heard today, the minister obviously

has learned nothing.

To the Minister of Citizens’ Services, where are the results of

the Don Wright investigation?

Hon. J. Sims: I actually thank my colleague for that question, because it gives

me a chance to explain that when we did the review, we recovered the

emails for seven staff who sent “no records” responses. With this

complete, we reprocessed past freedom-of-information requests. We

reprocessed them. Where applicable, final responses to these requests

were published to government’s Open Information website.

Extra training sessions have been provided to all staff and

ministers to ensure that they understand their obligation to properly

identify and appropriately store government records. We are committed to

holding ourselves to a higher standard, and we are proud of the work we

are doing.

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

G. Kyllo: Well, Minister, that’s just simply not good enough.

When you launch an investigation and it’s been identified that

eight senior staff have been mass-deleting emails and text messages and

you complete that investigation and find out there’s one individual who

has nothing to report, I would think that the investigation is not

completed.

I think that members on this side of the House, as well as the

general public, would like to know what efforts she undertook to

actually find out and come to the bottom of why one individual has zero

records to report during the period in question.

To the minister again, will she please share with the House today

the outcome of that investigation?

Hon. J. Sims: To a question that was just repeated from a question that was just

asked, let me give an answer. I’m hoping that this time it will be

heard.

We have recovered and then reviewed the emails for seven staff who

sent “no record” responses. With this complete, we reprocessed — let me

repeat, reprocessed — past freedom-of-information requests. Where

applicable, final responses to these requests were published to

government’s Open Information website. Extra training sessions have been

provided to all staff and ministers to ensure that they understand their

obligation to properly identify and appropriately store government

records.

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

have done just that.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. James: I rise to present the Report of Guarantees and Indemnities

Authorized and Issued for Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2018 , in

accordance with the Financial Administration Act.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 53, Recall

and Initiative Amendment Act. In

section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call

committee stage on Bill 39, Poverty Reduction Strategy Act.

[2:40 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 53 — RECALL AND INITIATIVE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

D. Davies: I rise today to take my place to continue speaking, and certainly

representing the good residents of Peace River North. I’m happy to

continue to speak on the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, Bill 53. I

also call it the CYA act.

Before I go on to that, I was just handed a note. I’ll just take

two seconds to recognize a couple of the constituents of my riding who

live in Fort St. John. Jay and Elizabeth Morrison just had a new baby

girl. I’d like to congratulate them and their families for this

wonderful day, certainly for them.

As I continue on with this discussion around Bill 53…. I stated in

the House, the last time when I was speaking, about how proud we are as

British Columbians, as Canadians and how proud I certainly am to be

standing in this place — and having such an incredible democracy that we

can have these kinds of debates.

This system we have that we all work within has delivered peaceful

transitions of power since Canada’s inception in 1867 and, of course,

since British Columbia joined Confederation in 1871. We have

continually, for the most part, elected governments that generally

reflect the will of people. We’ve built, over these years….

We could lay this template over top of our country, but certainly,

talking about British Columbia, we have built a place that is the envy

of the world, a place that is peaceful, a place that has one of the

strongest economies, certainly, in the country, if not in the world, a

resilient province. I know and I’ve talked to many, many people that

have moved to this province — a place that people are absolutely proud

to call home.

Yet we keep hearing about policies about fixing our democracy. I

find it really strange that we are trying to change things completely

from something that effectively works very well. Again, as I mentioned a

moment ago, people are coming to Canada to observe our democracy. People

come here from around the world to observe our elections, to bring best

practices back to their countries.

So when I hear these promises from across the way….”We’re going to

fix our broken democracy. We’re going to fix it. We’re going to make it

right.” We’re talking about the…. Of course, we have the referendum on

electoral reform and this bill, Bill 53, that we’re debating right now —

all in the name of fixing our broken democracy.

[2:45 p.m.]

Well, every step that’s been taken or that is being taken or

worked toward is actually an erosion, a whittling down of our

democracy.

As I mentioned a second ago, British Columbians are voting on a

referendum on proportional representation which proclaims to bring a new

and improved — 5.2, 2.0, whatever model you want to look at — democracy

to town that somehow is going to make people’s voting better, that

somehow is going to have better results and make Canada this incredible

place in the world.

Well, we already have that. There are examples upon examples

throughout Canada, throughout British Columbia, that demonstrate that.

Instead I believe that our democracy that we cherish in this province is

being threatened by the government across the way and its friends in the

Third Party that are doing the exact opposite — taking this power,

taking this pride in what we have as a democracy and handing it over to

parties.

For all the talk of making every vote count…. Again, just this

morning it was debated in this place, talking about how we are going to

fix our broken democracy. The reality is — and we’ve seen this

throughout the many months of debate that we’ve had on proportional

representation, and now we’re hearing it on this recall legislation —

that these choices that are going to be made or will be made under this

new legislation are going to be happening well before election day, well

before a recall takes place.

It’s going to be happening behind closed doors. It’s going to be

happening with the gangs inside the parties and not in the public

domain, not in the hands of the citizens of British Columbia, which is

really worrisome. What that side of the House calls more democracy, I

call an erosion of our democracy. Our democracy, I believe, is under

fire.

With MLAs selected and appointed from party lists, the power of

political parties will be entrenched. Party insiders will choose who is

on the list. They might even choose themselves. People will see their

democratic rights fade and that the choices they made are preselected.

That is less democracy, not more democracy.

The very bill that we are debating here, Bill 53, is yet another

case of the government eroding the very democracy that we have stood

behind, the very democracy that many, many men and women from Canada

have fought for in world wars, in other conflicts around the world —

this very democracy, the very democracy that that government is

pretending to enhance.

That side of the House is claiming that they’re cleaning things

up. They’re bringing in rules. They’re bringing in these new rules in

line with all the other changes that they have made. In fact, it’s kind

of like how they got rid of big money while letting union and paid

activists work on municipal campaigns — having kind of two

standards.

British Columbians are proud of our present Recall and Initiatives

Act. Every British Columbian in this province has the right to challenge

an MLA and have them removed from their position after 18 months, if

enough people in their constituency agree with them. It’s a bit of a

safety net that citizens in this province have. It’s a great

initiative.

Someone across the way said the NDP brought it in. I’m not

debating who brought it in. I’m saying it is a great act. It is

something that British Columbians are proud of. If an MLA is in there,

they run on a campaign, they get elected, and all of a sudden, they

start doing this or that which goes against the wishes of their

constituents, it is the right of citizens, if they should sign 40

percent ever the electorate up, to have that individual

recalled.

[2:50 p.m.]

Again, that is an extremely important piece of our democracy here

in British Columbia. In fact, it has been used. The recall legislation

has been used. There have been 26 petitions, as we have heard previous

speakers mention, launched since 1995. It has only resulted in having

one MLA leaving their spot.

The recall actually never fully came to fruition. The MLA in

question resigned the post prior to everything happening. But I’m not

debating the legislation. In fact, it is a great piece of legislation

and one that is being threatened right now by this government. This

government is restricting some of the pieces of the legislation that

have been laid out. The worst part — and I’m not repeating anything new

— is this has been tabled by a minister who is presently being targeted

by a recall.

We can talk about…. While the official campaign hasn’t begun,

this, that and the other thing. But in reality, I can look at a very

active campaign that’s happening in that riding right now. There have

been multiple protests that have been held in the riding. Hundreds of

people have shown up to these protests. There’s a very active recall

campaign around the minister on Twitter. There’s a webpage that is in

place that has a lot of activity. For someone to say, “Well, there isn’t

a recall campaign at play,” I find that a bit absurd.

We hear some comments about: “Oh, the official campaign. It’s not

going.” It is happening. There are hundreds of people that are engaged

in this. Whether or not the official date is being called, which I

believe the official date is this Friday, there are people right now

working to have this initiative, this piece, this very powerful and very

important piece of our democracy being challenged right now.

It’s unfortunate that he’s using his powers as the Attorney

General to introduce these changing rules in the middle of this

campaign. Well, not in the middle of this campaign. It’s in the middle

of the pre-campaign, moments before the launch of the official

campaign.

I kind of look at this…. When this legislation was being written,

I’m imagining this work is happening and you’re writing all of this

stuff down. I cannot for one second believe that there wasn’t a moment

when this legislation was being written that it never crossed the mind

of the Attorney General that: “Hmm, I wonder if this pertains to me. I

wonder if…. Gee whiz, is there anyone talking about me on this? Is there

a campaign going on?”

I’ll guarantee that the Attorney General is well aware that

there’s a campaign going on. He’s had people out in front of his office

in his riding. He’s had people carrying signs and protesting in the

park. I’m sure he’s had people calling and phoning and tweeting. Maybe

the tweets aren’t getting through. I understand that they’re

disappearing and emails are disappearing. I’m not sure what’s going on

there. We’ll figure that out later — as I digress — maybe Morse

code.

I don’t know, but I’m sure the Attorney General is extremely aware

that there is a campaign against him. So when he was writing this bill,

he had to have had this going through his mind somewhere. To me, if that

is the case, I can’t see there not being a conflict. That is what really

doesn’t sit well with me. This is why I call this the CYA

act.

Interjection.

[2:55 p.m.]

D. Davies: It would be unparliamentary of me to spell out the acronym. Cover

your butt. Yes, the cover-your-butt legislation. So it’s to be expected

that this same minister has been portrayed as the government’s

squeaky-clean independent arbiter of electoral reform while, at the same

time, acting as this fierce proponent for scrapping our current

electoral system. There are so many different pieces, you know. One

acronym…. I was trying to find some others. It’s like asking Colonel

Sanders to be an independent arbiter of voting on imposing

vegetarianism. I mean, it does not make sense.

There are other pieces of this bill that are in here. MLAs are

only able to be subject to a single recall campaign. Once a recall

campaign is attempted, there can be none other during that term in

office. Well, again, why? I have to beg the question. Why? I mean, it’s

the citizens’ right under recall legislation that if they’re not happy

and they can canvass the support of 40 percent of the voters, they

should be able to initiate recall any time they want, as in the

past.

Constituents that have legitimate concerns are being cut off and

told: “You know what? You get one chance at this. You can never, ever do

it again.” That is a complete erosion of our democracy, like we’ve seen

in a couple of other bills that have come through this legislation

recently. It scares me, quite frankly. It scares the residents of my

riding, and I’m sure it scares the residents of many in British

Columbia.

Another piece of this is looking at the first couple of folks that

walked through the office to state that they do have a legitimate recall

campaign. Right now many people who are upset, many organizations who

are upset can walk into Elections B.C., state their case and launch a

recall campaign against any MLA who sits in this House. Now that is

being changed, and, again, we’ve got to start thinking about

why.

Limiting it to two people — two or three; I can’t remember now. I

think it’s the first two people that walk in. The first two or three.

Nonetheless, the first two or three people that walk into Elections B.C.

are the only people that are able now to launch a campaign. Well, that

just screams for some hanky-panky — if I might use — to happen. “Well,

jeez, I know that there are people mad at me, because I’ve got webpages,

Twitter accounts, Facebook accounts. I’ve got people rallying out in

front of my office. I’ve got people marching through the parks and up

and down the street. I know that there’s something out there, and I know

people are upset at me. I know organizations in my riding are upset at

me. I know businesses in my riding are upset at me. Boy, I’d better

limit it to only a couple of people — the first two people.”

It’s like a door-crasher on Boxing Day. I can just imagine the

first two best friends lining up: “Don’t worry. I’ve got you covered.

I’ll come in, and I’ll get this campaign going. I’ll be the first to

register, and we don’t have to worry about a campaign against you.” It’s

not right. It should be left the way it is. There should be no change.

As many people who want to recall a campaign should be allowed to

continue with a campaign.

The bill also seeks to take off six months, another additional six

months of actually trying to set up this campaign. No campaign can be

launched six months prior to a scheduled general election. Well, I

wonder why that rule might have been in place. If people are really

upset at their MLA in their riding — and let’s presume that this keeps

going on and the recall is unsuccessful — well, we don’t want anybody

coming out with their voices on a recall campaign when I’m trying to get

elected. Well, that is stifling people. That is stifling our citizens,

making sure that they can’t have another venue to voice their

concerns.

[3:00 p.m.]

To me, it’s quite worrisome when we start looking at pieces of

legislation that are just…. Well, it’s voter suppression in my…. In

fact, I happen to have here a definition of “voter suppression.” It’s a

strategy to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or

preventing people from exercising their vote or exercising their

voice.

Hmm. You’re not allowed to exercise your voice in a recall

campaign six months prior to an election. Well, if that is not

suppression, I’m not too sure what is. Again, this is just another

erosion of our incredible democracy that we have in British Columbia,

that we have here in Canada. I cannot believe that we are moving forward

with legislation like this on the eve of Remembrance Day.

So citizens have this right to recall. At the end of the day, true

democratic power rests with every single British Columbian, every single

voting British Columbian. As I’ve said throughout my entire time here

talking, I can see nothing that does what the members on the other side

of the table are trying to say — as strengthening our democracy. All I

can see happening here is the exact opposite — whittling away at

people’s rights to demonstrate against their MLA, their rights to come

out and say they are displeased, and limiting people’s rights to recall

their MLA.

I put it as…. You know, all of us here in this room ran election

campaigns. It seems like an eternity ago, but I think it was about 18

months ago. Yeah, I guess it was. It was 18 months. Hence, we’re right

on the heels of a possible recall campaign. All of us know too well that

we need to go out and garner support from people, to have a

campaign.

Of course, things have changed with limits in place, with folks

that now are not allowed to do corporate donations. But one of the

pieces in this bill is limiting the amount of money that you are allowed

to raise for a recall campaign.

I want to make sure that I get the number right. I think it’s

$5,000 that is the limit. But again, by imposing limits on a recall

campaign, I can only help but to wonder what the reasoning for that

is.

Well, $5,000 is not a lot of money. I live in a small community

with a couple of small local newspapers. I take a business card ad out

in my newspapers, and it costs me $500. If we’re moving and looking at

larger centres — maybe here on the Island, Victoria, the greater area,

or Vancouver — well, the costs are exponential. If we want to buy any

kind of media time, the costs are huge. Even just getting signage made,

the costs are enormous for people to get out and do that

that.

Imposing, in this legislation, a limit of $5,000 on a recall

campaign is nothing but another step of suppressing people to voice

their opinions. Hon. Speaker, $5,000 isn’t a lot of money, and $5,000 is

hardly going to do anything in allowing citizens to go out and enact

their democratic right of trying to set a recall campaign up against

their MLA.

I’m arguing this as general legislation. I don’t care if it

happens on this side or that side, this Legislature sitting or future

Legislature sittings. I think the rules need to remain as they are in

place now. I think that it’s absolutely appalling already that these are

even being opposed, that we’re even debating these four days before

recall campaigns are set to go in place. It’s absurd that we’re here

debating it. I’m just absolutely amazed.

[3:05 p.m.]

A $5,000 cap. It’s maybe a little easier in a small riding that

you can bike across, which many ridings in this province are. But there

are many of us in here that represent large ridings, diverse ridings.

Powell River–Sunshine Coast — a riding that you’ve got bodies of water

you have to jump across. You’ve got diverse range.

In my riding, it’s 12 hours to drive from one side to the other.

Madam Speaker, $5,000 is nowhere near enough money for a recall

campaign. I certainly don’t agree with that being enforced here in this

piece of legislation.

Just a neat little piece here. I guess probably most of us know

Jon McComb. He’s one of the speakers on CKNW. On Friday, I guess, he was

on the radio. The Attorney General was talking about — and this is a

little piece that I just talked a moment ago about — having these

false-flag recall campaigns, from preventing…. Jon McComb asked the

Attorney General about having these people lining up at the front doors

and having the first two in there registering and setting up this

fictitious campaign so nobody else can come in.

The Attorney General stated that: “Theoretically, it’s possible, I

guess, to have supporters launch a recall campaign against their own

candidate that they might otherwise support.” And Jon McComb, myself,

others certainly on this side of the House…. Jon McComb said: “This is a

major flaw in this piece of legislation.”

As we move forward, as this is debated, I’m certainly not going to

be supporting this bill — this bill that challenges our democratic

rights and whittles down our democracy that has been built up and that

I’m very proud to call my own. I’m sure all of us are proud to call this

great democracy our own. A bill that erodes this…. To me, it’ll be an

extremely sad, sad legacy for the government of the day if this bill

passes.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Kamloops–South Thompson.

[Applause.]

T. Stone: We’ll assume that that applause was for my colleague, or jointly,

for my colleague from Peace River North and for myself. I appreciate

that.

I’m very pleased to rise and speak to Bill 53, the Recall and

Initiative Amendment Act. And, oh, what a tangled web that we weave when

we first practise to deceive. Bill 53 — this government’s latest attempt

to manipulate democracy for the sake of their own self-preservation. The

word “outlandish” comes to mind.

British Columbians are hearing about this latest move on the part

of this government. Frankly, I share the reaction that most British

Columbians are having, which is that I’m not sure whether to laugh or to

cry upon learning, in more detail, what the intent is behind this

legislation. In fact, the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act before

this House might be causing gales of laughter if it wasn’t so serious,

so brazen, so hypocritical, so wrong on many, many levels.

Historically speaking, in our parliamentary tradition, out of

respect for the office, the role of Attorney General has been somewhat

above partisan politics. An Attorney General has a very different, a

very unique, role to fill. He or she is called upon very often to remain

above the fray for the good of all members of this chamber, for the good

of British Columbians.

Today we have an Attorney General, the member for Vancouver–Point

Grey, who I would suggest is arguably and shamelessly the most partisan

Attorney General that this province has seen in decades. He is a man who

has no shame in doing whatever it takes to preserve his government’s

precarious hold onto power.

[3:10 p.m.]

This is yet another brazen attempt to manipulate our democratic

processes. This time, it’s through Bill 53. There is seemingly no limit,

no boundary, to curb what this Attorney General will do to advance his

interests and the interests of his party.

This bill is designed to constrain democracy and the rights that

British Columbians have today related to initiating or participating in

a recall campaign. Of course, the government is attempting to make these

changes only days before the existing recall rules allow for members of

this, the 41st parliament, to become subject to recall campaigns. It’s

all about keeping the NDP-Greens in power.

Now, in terms of the highlights of this legislation in and of

itself, the contents, I will say this. The bill does add a pre–general

election blackout period of six months to apply a start to a recall

petition. The existing 18-month blackout period after general elections,

that provision which has always been there, stays there. But I will

point out that this addition of this pre–general election blackout

period does reduce the window for a recall campaign by another six

months.

Secondly, this bill removes the possibility that an MLA might be

subject to more than one recall petition at a time. Apparently, once the

Chief Electoral Officer approves a recall campaign application, no other

recall campaign can occur against that same MLA. Whoever files first

gets to launch the campaign and the only campaign.

This clearly opens the door for false recall campaigns to prevent

a real one from being launched. This opens up the entire recall process

to manipulation. One can only imagine that members of this House could,

theoretically, have friends or insiders or party members launch a

fictitious recall campaign to prevent any further recall campaigns from

being launched. Then, of course, nothing happens with that first

campaign, and the recall campaign fails.

Now, I’m not just surmising that that is what could happen. The

Attorney General, just the other day on the Jon McComb Show in

Vancouver, on November 1, said: “Yes, theoretically, it’s possible, I

guess, to have supporters launch a recall campaign against their own

candidate that they support.” That’s the Attorney General acknowledging

a fundamental flaw, an opportunity that exists in these amendments to

allow for manipulation of the recall legislation. That is

wrong.

This bill also applies to recall campaigns the same spending and

advertising rules that the NDP introduced to the Election Act for

general elections. Again, that’s a ban on corporate and union donations.

It also provides for the $1,200 cap to recall campaigns. That,

obviously, will make it much more difficult for recall campaigns to have

the resources that are often necessary to have a chance at

success.

The bill requires third-party advertisers to register and disclose

their funding sources. It establishes a $5,000 value cap for the

petition recall period, and third-party advertisers need to register as

well.

The bill brings in significantly more disclosure requirements for

spending. This actually creates another way to rule a recall campaign

unsuccessful if the CEO finds a spending or disclosure violation that

materially affected the outcome, thus setting that outcome

aside.

I would be remiss if I didn’t highlight that, once again, the

government has chosen very deliberately not to include third-party

contributions or volunteer contribution limits in these amendments. Why?

Well, this follows a pattern.

We warned in this House last year that changes to the local

campaign financing legislation that did not provide for limitations to

third-party contributions would allow for abuse in the recent municipal

elections. Lo and behold, there were reports of all kinds of said abuse

taking place.

[3:15 p.m.]

We had emails from unions that clearly indicated that, much to

their bemusement and their surprise, there was a loophole in the

legislation that you could drive a truck through — that allowed for

canvassing, for telephone phone banks, for polling, for leaflet drops

and all kinds of other third-party contributions that the unions can

make to support the union’s chosen candidates. Well, those same

loopholes exist in this bill before us today, and that is a

shame.

Make no mistake about it; it’s no accident that this Recall and

Initiative Amendment Act is being announced now — again, just days

before recall campaigns can be initiated. And surprise, surprise — a

government member who is facing an increasingly frustrated and an

increasingly angry electorate chomping at the bit to exercise what is

their democratic right, which is to initiate and to participate in a

recall campaign of their MLA…. Surprise, surprise. This foment of

dissent is taking place where? In the riding of Vancouver–Point Grey.

And who is the MLA for Vancouver–Point Grey? Well, none other than the

Attorney General. This smells.

This is a matter of principle. It’s a matter of principle that

represents this attitude: win at all costs. Of course, the NDP is

supported by the ethically challenged Third Party members, who have also

abandoned virtually every single principle that they ran on, every

principle that they have stood for, in order to contribute their parts

to the self-preservation of this NDP-Green government.

Now, the recall tools that are available to British Columbians

have been there for a number of years now — for a number of decades,

actually. Since 1995, in fact, British Columbians have had the ability

to fire their MLA or at least try to express their discontent with the

service being provided by their MLA. If an MLA received 40 percent of

registered voters asking for that MLA to be recalled, then that MLA

would be recalled.

It’s not like this is easy. Since 1995, 26 processes were

initiated utilizing the existing recall legislation, yet not once has it

actually been successful anywhere in British Columbia. It’s a very high

bar to achieve. The number of voters that must support the recall,

within a very tight time frame, makes it very, very difficult. But some

have come close. There are some members that have come close.

I do note, back in the day, in Parksville-Qualicum — this is going

back to 1998 — where the number of signatures required to recall then

MLA Paul Reitsma was 17,020 votes. That’s what was required. Guess how

many eligible voters were confirmed to have signed that recall petition?

Well, 25,430. It didn’t succeed. Why? Because the MLA in question

resigned before that recall process could go through.

It has also come close in a number of other ridings. I mention

Delta South where just under 10,000 valid signatures were achieved

against a requirement of 13,000 and change. That was back in 2002. And

there are a few other examples.

So it hasn’t actually worked, but it’s come close, and it’s been a

tool that British Columbians have had at their disposal, from a

democracy perspective, to hold their MLA to account and to express their

displeasure. But it is very, very, very difficult to achieve.

Nonetheless, the concept of placing restrictions on expenditures

for recall campaigns is indeed worthy of debating. No argument from the

opposition on that point. But the timing of this bill is very

interesting. Why would the government introduce these amendments now?

Why would they introduce these amendments only a week ago? Why is there

suddenly interest in amending the Recall and Initiative Act

today?

The government could have moved forward with these amendments at

the same time as they were moving similar amendments with respect to the

local elections campaign finance reforms that were brought in and that

were supported by all members of this House.

[3:20 p.m.]

They could have moved these amendments at the same time as the new

spending and contribution limits that were brought in with respect to

provincial election campaigns and that were supported by all members of

this House. But no, they opted to wait and bring these amendments

forward now. Why? Well, let’s look to the neighbourhood of

Vancouver–Point Grey, where there appears to be some uncomfortable

unrest in the tony neighbourhoods of this constituency, where the sounds

and the sights of unrest are bubbling up to the surface. There actually

have been signs placed along many roads, many of the streets, in

Vancouver–Point Grey expressing displeasure with the local

MLA.

Again, who’s the MLA for Vancouver–Point Grey? Who is that MLA?

That MLA is the Attorney General of British Columbia. The man who’s

riding into town on his white horse to save us once again is the very

man subject to a recall campaign in his own riding and who is

introducing legislation here in this chamber with respect to recall

campaigns. That is wrong.

The man who stands the greatest chance of being recalled, only

days before a recall campaign can be formally initiated, has personally

introduced Bill 53, legislation which places new and significant

limitations upon the recall process itself. This is a move breathtaking

in its brazenness, as the Attorney General takes sanctimony and

arrogance to a whole new level. A move that reeks of self-serving

manipulation to ensure his own self-preservation and the

self-preservation of the members opposite. It’s outlandish, it’s

desperate, and it’s shameful.

It’s serious enough to smack of a personal conflict of interest.

We have rules that govern how we perform our duties in this House and

how we perform our duties outside of this House. There are expectations.

There are standards to ensure that one’s personal conduct does not

interfere with one’s official duties, especially when you’re a member of

the executive council.

What does the act actually say? Sections 2 and 3 of the Members’

Conflict of Interest Act state the following.

Section 2(2): “For the

purposes of this Act, a member has an apparent conflict of interest if

there is a reasonable perception, which a reasonably well informed

person could properly have, that the member’s ability to exercise an

official power or perform an official duty or function must have been

affected by his or her private interest.”

Section 2(1): “For the purposes of this Act, a member has a

conflict of interest when the member exercises an official power or

performs an official duty or function in the execution of his or her

office and at the same time knows that in the performance of the duty or

function or in the exercise of the power there is the opportunity to

further his or her private interest.”

Section 3: “A member must not exercise an official power or

perform an official duty or function if the member has a conflict of

interest or an apparent conflict of interest.”

I will regale the House with further details from the

conflict-of-interest act.

Section 11 of the conflict-of-interest act

sets out the requirements that a member of the executive council must

follow in circumstances where a conflict of interest or apparent

conflict of interest may arise.

Section 11(1) says: “If, during the exercise of any official power

or the performance of any official duty or function by a member of the

Executive Council, a matter arises with respect to which the member has

a conflict of interest or apparent conflict of interest, the member must

(

a) refrain at all times from attempting to influence the matter, and

(

b) at any subsequent meeting of the Executive Council or a committee of

the Executive Council at which the matter is considered, disclose the

general nature of the private interest and withdraw from the meeting

without voting or participating in the discussion.” Madame Speaker,

taken directly from the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act.

There are many reports indicating that the MLA for Vancouver–Point

Grey, the Attorney General, could be targeted and is being targeted by a

recall campaign by the voters in his riding. Surely he knows that he’s

in a personal conflict by participating in the debates, by participating

in the votes, let alone actually having the audacity to be the person to

bring in front of this House legislation that actually significantly

restricts the ability of people to engage in successful recall

campaigns.

What does the Attorney General do? Well, press on, of course.

There’s too much at stake to allow local constituents to exercise their

displeasure with their local MLA and with this government. In a recent

interview, the Attorney General said the timing of the legislation was

designed to land before recall campaigns could officially begin. He

mentioned his own potential recall campaign, noting: “I don’t want to be

in a situation where supporters fundraise to defend me by accepting the

kinds of donations from unions and corporations that I have fought to

eliminate.”

[3:25 p.m.]

Give me a break. What an absolute load of garbage. The anger being

expressed at the Attorney General by his constituents is palpable.

That’s what’s going on here. The evidence is everywhere, with one-time

supporters in Vancouver–​Point Grey having turned 180 degrees as

they now see that NDP political interests trump sound government, sound

policy and fairness in this province. Don’t worry about keeping

promises. Don’t worry about that at all. “We’ll just buy back your

support later.” That’s the NDP’s game plan here, and it’s

wrong.

Now, for the sake of diving a little deeper into why the

constituents of Vancouver–Point Grey would not be happy with their

member, well, there are quite a few reasons, quite a few items that one

could point to that people might be upset by and that might be causing

this rise of frustration and anger and concern with their MLA. Maybe

it’s the 18 new taxes which the NDP have brought in. Maybe it’s the

so-called school tax, which has absolutely nothing to do with schools or

education in British Columbia. You think that maybe could have something

to do with why people in the Attorney General’s riding are upset with

him at the moment?

Perhaps it’s the phony speculation tax or the MSP replacement tax.

Or maybe it’s the carbon tax that’s no longer revenue-neutral and still

going up. Maybe it’s the gas tax. Maybe it’s the increase in parking

fees. Maybe it’s all the development cost charges which are fuelled by

decisions made in this House by the NDP-Green government. But it’s not

just taxes. Perhaps people in his riding are still wondering: where is

the $10-a-day daycare? Where is the $400 renters rebate that renters

were supposed to have received on an annual basis? Where’s the tuition

rebate that students around British Columbia were promised in the last

election? Again, another critical promise missing in action.

Maybe voters in his riding are actually not very happy that he’s a

member of a government which has done more to cement the infrastructure

legacy of the former B.C. Liberal government, in moving forward with

Site C, moving forward with LNG. Oh, it can’t be. Oh yes, it’s

happening. As the Leader of the Opposition said on the weekend: “Even

the NDP can’t screw up the LNG opportunity that is now in front of

British Columbians.” Maybe it’s because the NDP have done nothing on

housing affordability, despite all their vaunted promises and

commitments. Maybe it’s because life is not getting any more affordable

under the NDP. It’s actually getting less affordable. Maybe that’s a

reason why voters in Vancouver–Point Grey are not happy with their local

MLA.

Maybe it’s this ridiculous sham of a referendum that is being

shoved down the voters’ throats — proportional representation. I was

very interested, as I’m sure many members of this House were, to learn

that to this point, there have been three weeks of voting, a period for

people to send in their ballots — three weeks from the middle of October

to November 5. Elections B.C. reported out today that in this move to

replace our electoral system — because it’s the number one most burning

issue on the minds of British Columbians in communities across this

province — out of 3,288,908 eligible voters in this referendum, an

astounding 22,342 have voted as of November 5, in three weeks of voting.

That’s fully 0.7 percent voter turnout to this point.

It gets even better. In Kamloops–South Thompson, my riding, only

696 people have bothered to send in their ballot. In Kamloops–North

Thompson, only 771 people have bothered to mail in their ballot. But

forget about my riding and the riding of my colleague from

Kamloops–North Thompson. How about the Premier’s riding, Langford–Juan

de Fuca? There are 43,000 eligible voters in that riding. The number of

ballots received by Elections B.C. as of November 5: three — three

ballots.

The members opposite can chirp about people not having received

their ballots yet. Elections B.C. confirmed that half of British

Columbians were to receive their ballots within the first two weeks that

they were mailed out, by the end of October, and the balance were to

have their ballots by November 2. The lack of turnout reflects a lack of

interest which reflects a lack of belief on the part of British

Columbians that any time in this parliament should be focused today on

this ridiculous sham of a referendum.

[3:30 p.m.]

This referendum…. We’ve talked about all the different aspects of

it, why it’s a fraud being perpetrated on the people of British

Columbia. Again, maybe the Attorney General’s constituents are upset

about his overseeing what is proving to be a highly manipulated process

— all of the details of this referendum being determined in the secrecy

of cabinet.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

No citizens’ assembly, despite the gold standard that’s been

replicated in many other countries around the world with a citizens’

assembly, where it’s recognized that the citizens are at the heart of a

democracy, which means that citizens should be at the heart of any

change to that democracy — including electoral reform change — so you do

that through a citizens’ assembly.

“No. We’re not going to do that here in British Columbia. We’re

going to reduce the threshold for approval from 60 percent plus one to

50 percent plus one. And we’re not done yet,” says the Attorney General.

“We’re going to do away with the regional threshold. There’s not going

to be a 60 percent voter requirement for all the ridings in the province

— 60 percent of ridings to approve. That’s gone as well.”

Why? Because that probably would have killed the referendum, and

that’s not what the Attorney General wants. So we’ll get rid of that. No

minimum turnout requirement. I sure as heck hope they impose some kind

of minimum turnout requirement if 0.7 percent turnout to November 5 is

any indication of what we are likely to expect overall when all the

ballots have been received and counted.

We were promised a very, very simple question — a yes-no question.

Instead, we got a confusing, two-part question. “Let’s make sure that we

make this as difficult as possible for people to participate, so let’s

hold the referendum right on top of the municipal election campaign.

Let’s do that. Let’s not have any advance polls. We’re not going to make

it easy for folks who have to leave the province for some reason to

actually participate in this before they go. Let’s not bother providing

military personnel overseas with a ballot either. Their vote doesn’t

matter much at all either.”

How about the ridiculous spending rules that have been wrapped

around this referendum, which essentially has served to muzzle MLAs in

being able to effectively communicate with our constituents? Absolutely

unacceptable. Not to mention that there are no riding maps and that, in

total, 29 details — critical details — to this referendum are still not

known today and won’t be known until after the referendum is over. That

is absolutely unacceptable.

But it doesn’t end there, because the Attorney General is one

crafty fellow. He’s crafty. He brings in Bill 40, which bestows upon

British Columbians this promise of a second referendum, a do-over.

“Don’t worry about it. We can do this all over if it ends up being a

train wreck.”

Elections B.C., apparently, was even directed to include in their

booklet that was sent out to British Columbians that that second

referendum guarantee was written in stone. “You can take it to the

bank.” No, you can’t. That hasn’t passed this House yet. That is still

before this House, and the last time I checked, there were only nine

sitting days left in this session before we adjourn for the winter. But

let’s just put that in there. Again, another brazen attempt to

manipulate the process.

I mentioned the local election campaign finance reform, where you

can drive a truck through the third-party contribution limits — because

there aren’t any. “Let’s not put those in. That might constrain the

ability of our union buddies from being able to fund and support their

chosen candidates. We’re not going to put that in there.”

How about the fact that this government hasn’t taken any action….

They won’t even acknowledge that foreign money, particularly from the

United States, is playing a huge role now in influencing and

manipulating politics and public discourse here in British Columbia.

U.S.-funded election activism is, apparently, in vogue if you’re a New

Democrat in British Columbia.

These are organizations like Leadnow, Tides Foundation, Dogwood,

the World Wildlife Fund, Corporate Ethics International, Environmental

Defence, the Polaris Institute — I could go on and on — whose sole

objective is to ensure that there are no roads, there is no logging,

there’s no mining, there’s no hydro development, there are no pipelines,

there’s no oil and gas development. “Let’s make sure pipelines don’t get

built in this province. Let’s destroy the aquaculture industry while

we’re at it.” And they do this by raising all of the….

Deputy Speaker: On Bill 53, Member. Bill 53.

[3:35 p.m.]

T. Stone: They do this by raising all of the negatives associated with

everything that I’ve just talked about. But do we see any action from

this government, from this Attorney General? Where is he when you need

him to ride in on his horse to save us from all this foreign influence

of money? It just goes on and on.

We’ve canvassed the union-only requirements in public

infrastructure projects. Let’s just take away the democratic rights of

workers in this province to actually work for the union of their choice

or, God forbid, to actually not work with a union — choose not to

actually be a member of the union. Let’s just take those democratic

rights away.

Deputy Speaker: On Bill 53, Member. On Bill 53.

T. Stone: How about the fixed election day? One of the very first things

that the government did in partnership and cahoots with the Greens was

to give themselves another six months in power by moving the fixed

election date out. Unbelievable.

There is so much this Attorney General has done and is wanting to

do to shape and influence British Columbia’s democracy in, I would

suggest, dark, shadowy and unseemly ways. In talking about the growing

list of examples of this, it almost feels like the Attorney General’s

“shenanigans greatest hits tour.”

There’s so much going on that represents an attack on our

democracy. Each and every one of them is a brazen attempt to manipulate

long-established and tested democratic processes. And this is, of

course, all coming from a gentleman who used to head the B.C. Civil

Liberties Association.

Bill 53 comes down to principles. I have the utmost confidence

that British Columbians from Vancouver to Vanderhoof, from Cranbrook to

Kitimat and from Delta to Dease Lake will see this legislation for what

it is — unparalleled political gall and a shocking display of covering

one’s backside.

That the members opposite would think that it makes sense, let

alone that it’s appropriate and that it’s right to introduce amendments

to recall legislation and to have those introduced by a member, the

Attorney General himself, who will be and is subject to a recall

campaign, is the epitome of arrogance in this chamber from this

government.

I would say that this manipulation of democracy…. I’ve walked

through many examples: these changes to recall, throwing our electoral

system out the window for prop rep, banning big money from politics

except when it suits the government’s purposes, turning a blind eye to

all of this foreign money coming into our province and now wanting to

impose serious restrictions on the rights of British Columbians for the

recall act. This is wrong, and British Columbians deserve so much

better.

S. Cadieux: I’m pleased to take my place on Bill 53. Well, maybe pleased isn’t

exactly the word, considering I’m absolutely appalled that it’s being

introduced at this time. But regardless, I am here today to speak to

it.

The question I have, primarily, with this legislation is: why now?

We reformed the election financing rules back in the spring. This

legislation has been on the books since the early ’90s. Everybody knows

it exists. There are no surprises here. So why wasn’t this fixed in the

spring?

Now, this legislation is rarely used. Only one of 26 recall

petitions have even come to a remotely successful conclusion. With that,

the MLA chose to resign. What’s the rush? It’s not like this is being

abused. It’s not like citizens are willy-nilly deciding they’re going to

recall an MLA and go out and have success in that endeavour.

The bar set by this legislation when it was introduced in the ’90s

made sure that wouldn’t happen. It was crafted carefully. The thresholds

were set to ensure that there had to have been an egregious circumstance

that riled up enough — in fact, 40 percent — of all of the voters in the

previous election that they would sign a petition. It has to be done in

60 days.

[3:40 p.m.]

We know, and I know you know, Mr. Speaker, that in an election

campaign, it’s impossible to reach every voter, every doorstep, and we

know when elections are coming. So 60 days is a very short time period

in which to create the knowledge of and to drive the signatures required

for a successful recall campaign.

Even back in 1995, the financial spending limits set for these

recall conditions were so stringent that it would be impossible to spend

enough money to let enough people know that this was

happening.

I understand the government’s position on getting big money out of

politics and, in fact, support the effort. But that is not what this is

about. There’s no big money in recall campaigns. There’s no evidence

that there’s big money in recall campaigns. Again, I support the general

effort to…. Or I would support legislation that would align this

legislation with the legislation we already passed, but it doesn’t do

that. In fact, what I think this looks like is more about getting

people, getting the voters, out of recall campaigns than getting the

money out.

We are in the middle of the referendum on electoral reform. Right

now citizens are deciding how we will or will not be elected to this

place. If there is a change, then this legislation, this Recall and

Initiative Amendment Act, would need a wholesale rewrite. Why right now

is it so essential that we go in and rewrite all the rules related to

recall in situations where we’ve never seen a successful one tabled to

this day? What’s the rush?

There’s plenty of time and there’s plenty of legislation currently

on the docket that we need to run through. In fact, we saw three new,

hefty bills introduced today. So there is lots to discuss, and the same

level of scrutiny should be given to those bills. Instead, we’re having

to give scrutiny to this one.

Let’s see why. Could it be because there are already a number of

groups apparently organizing to launch and be ready to launch recall

campaigns? Could it be that one of those campaigns is very, very openly

targeting the Attorney General himself? Could it be that such a

potential effort could be very embarrassing to a government in the

middle of a referendum campaign?

Could it be that the government is nervous that a recall campaign,

under the Recall and Initiative Act without amendment, could actually be

successful against the Attorney General? Could it be that the Attorney

General’s constituents are so upset with him and the government’s

decisions that he’s nervous about that? Because I just don’t see the

rush.

Could it be that the Attorney General knows that there is this

potential campaign against him that is being organized? Otherwise, why

do we need to bring this here now?

The member for Chilliwack-Kent made a good point. I’m going to

quote what he said. He said that the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act

contains within it this little amendment that “once the Chief Electoral

Officer approves a recall campaign application, no other recall campaign

can start against that MLA.” What a giant change in just a few words —

taking away the ability of a citizen to independently launch a recall

campaign should they deem that to be necessary against their

MLA.

[3:45 p.m.]

Wasn’t the whole purpose of the recall act to give to the voters

the right to say, “I am not satisfied with my representation. I am so

concerned that I am willing to take the incredible time and energy

required” — not to mention the personal sacrifice in putting themselves

out there to talk to their neighbours — “to say: ‘I want you to sign

this recall for our MLA because I don’t believe they’re doing what they

said they would do for us’”? Isn’t that what this was about?

I believe it was. But with the addition of just a few words in

this act, the Attorney General seeks to limit that ability. Well, that,

indeed, looks incredibly self-serving at this moment in time.

I would agree with the member for Chilliwack-Kent, when he says

that none of this makes for more accountable government. If the

government, for some reason, is seeking to choke out a recall campaign

under their watch, it is particularly suspicious that they’re doing it

when numbers are so close in this House.

Government cannot afford to lose a member, even if that member

does not represent his or her constituents, even if they’re not doing

what their constituents want, even if they’re doing the very opposite of

what their constituents want, even if the MLA does something egregious.

The NDP are going to make sure that an MLA is safe by setting in place a

huge number of practical barriers to a recall. The member for

Chilliwack-Kent hit this on the head.

You know, it could be that government is trying, with this

legislation, to hit a nerve with the opposition, to try and deflect from

the other pieces of contentious legislation that they’ve got on the

books today.

The employer health tax that double-dips — maybe they didn’t like

the conversation that was happening in this House on that. Maybe they

were tired of the conversation being had in this House on the

speculation tax that doesn’t deal with speculation. Or maybe they were

tired of having a conversation in this House about the referendum

amendment act — the act designed to give government just a little bit of

insurance on the referendum.

It’s certainly easy to see why the government would be nervous.

But let’s be clear about a few things. It absolutely makes sense to

align reforms on election financing with the Recall and Initiative Act

at some point in time, absolutely, and I don’t think a $1,200 limit is

unreasonable in that context.

However, this legislation goes too far. It suggests that an

individual citizen who wants to recall their MLA, regardless of party

affiliation, can only donate $1,200 a year to any such endeavour. Well,

I don’t see how those two things should be connected.

What if a member of the B.C. Liberal Party, who, in the past or

even in the year, has donated the maximum to my party in support of me,

and then I do something that they really find egregious? Why should they

not be able to donate $1,200 to an endeavour to recall me? I would think

they should be able to do that. I don’t think they should have their

hands tied by the party that normally they would support, or any other

party. I think this goes too far.

The municipal elections just happened. With that, we saw numerous

examples of a giant loophole that we pointed out to the government

during the discussion around the electoral finance reform legislation in

the spring that they refused to close.

[3:50 p.m.]

What did we see? Well, lo and behold, people saw fit to use that

loophole, a loophole that allowed unions the big money we’re trying to

get out of politics. According to the Premier, corporate and union

donations are what we were trying to fix, yet unions were paying staff

members to work on campaigns.

Well, that’s big money in politics. I don’t know about you, Mr.

Chair, but I know in my campaign, one of the things that was the biggest

part of a campaign was the volunteer labour. Now, in my campaign, it was

volunteer. It was my parents. It was my friends, on their own time, on

the weekend, working hard to help me get elected. That’s how it should

be.

People should not be there because their employer tells them: “No,

don’t come to work today. You’ll keep getting your paycheque, but you go

work on this campaign. We need to get this person elected, because

they’re friendly to us.” That is exactly what we were trying to prevent

with election finance reform, yet the NDP left that giant loophole

there.

And whoa, to our surprise, that giant loophole is right here in

this attempt to fix the Recall and Initiative Act. It’s such a rush that

we must do this right now in case a recall is launched at the 18-month

mark against someone in this Legislature, perhaps the Attorney General.

“We must fix this legislation, but we mustn’t close the loophole that

allows for unions to donate staff to campaigns.” Well, I think that’s a

pretty big oops.

Again, I understood this legislation, it being on the books —

understanding that it was there and it was an option for constituents.

For me as a voter, prior to being elected, I understood that this Recall

and Initiative Act was there to provide voters with more opportunity to

engage in democracy. I believe that the government actually believes

what they say about wanting to improve democracy and improve engagement

in democracy, but with this act, I believe they’ve taken a giant leap in

the wrong direction.

How is it that this act is ensuring that independent citizens are

the power behind local campaigns? It isn’t. It certainly doesn’t seem to

be in keeping with the spirit of the legislation of getting big money

out of politics. For the government to now put forward yet another bill

that fails to deal with a loophole that everyone is aware of is either

completely incompetent or completely self-serving. I would believe that

it is probably the latter.

I think we should just hold on to this bill and say no to it for

now. I believe that we should come back to it and align it, properly

align it, with the election finance reforms that were made earlier and

with the ones that — we, again, have seen evidence — need to still be

fixed. So we’re going to have to do that.

I certainly think we should wait until after a referendum that is

currently underway, with an incredibly dismal turnout so far, but that

could potentially — even with a potentially dismal turnout — change the

way we elect members to this House.

[3:55 p.m.]

If that happens and a move to proportional representation passes,

then we certainly know that we will need to make significant changes yet

again to the Recall and Initiative Act.

At this point in time, neither the Attorney General nor any member

of government that I have heard has been able to stand in this House —

or in the hallway — and give any sense of how the Recall Act would work

under proportional representation under one of the three proposed

systems. I mean, how would it work?

If MLAs are appointed from lists, then how do you recall one of

those? Perhaps the process would be similar. But if no one actually

voted for that member, and they were appointed from a list, even if the

recall was successful, how would you fill a vacancy? No one has been

able to answer that question either, and it’s fundamental to removing a

member from the House — how one would then be chosen to replace them.

These are legitimate questions with no answers.

Clearly, should the electorate vote for change, this act would

need to be amended to deal with those issues. So clearly, we are going

to need, potentially, to come back in as little as six months and amend

this. What’s the rush today?

I haven’t heard, from any member on this side of the House, a big

concern about changing the way recall works because any of us are afraid

that we could be recalled. It’s equally as big an opportunity for a

member of this side to be recalled. And because there have never been

any successful recall campaigns, we’ve never heard about big money being

a problem. We’ve never heard about money being a problem, considering

you can only spend $25,000. What is the rush?

I’ll tell you another thing that’s problematic about this and

what’s making me skeptical about why it’s being introduced now. It’s why

it’s so necessary right now to deal with third-party advertising beyond

the restrictions and to make it more difficult for third-party

advertisers to participate in a recall campaign beyond the restrictions

imposed for by-elections that only last 28 days when a recall session is

60. It would stand to reason that, over 60 days, one would be able to

spend a little more money. You have a little more time; spread it out a

little bit. But there’s no rationale for this change. There’s no

argument for why this threshold was set.

I just really believe that consistency between legislation

surrounding elections — how people do or do not get elected to this

place and how people do or do not get unelected from this place — seems

like a reasonable request. That’s why I really see this coming to the

House now as self-serving and, frankly, based in fear. I don’t see how

limiting participation increases democracy.

Right now, we’re in the middle of the referendum. Now, it’s a

flawed process, or a rigged game. As people have started to tune in and

get informed about the referendum, they’ve said to the Premier: “Jeez.

You reneged on that promise. You told us it was a yes-or-no question,

and it’s not.”

[4:00 p.m.]

As they get informed, they see that the question is: would you

like to keep first-past-the-post, or would you like to switch to

something else? Then they get asked to choose from three vaguely

described — two almost hypothetical — systems. People have started to

realize that some of these systems could include closed lists. It’s

right there in the report from the Attorney General. So now, right now,

in the middle of the referendum, we see a Premier and cabinet scrambling

to tell us that they don’t support closed lists.

Interjection.

S. Cadieux: Perhaps the minister would like to take a chance responding to the

legislation, when she has her turn, instead of shouting little quips

from the other side.

N. Simons: “Bill 53” is what she said.

S. Cadieux: I heard what she said. My comments are very much related to Bill

53, because it’s questionable why Bill 53, the Recall and Initiative

Amendment Act, is important right now in the middle of a referendum

campaign. These things are all tied together. They’re tied together,

because we don’t have answers to how this act would be affected by the

outcome of a referendum.

And we now hear, in the middle of a referendum: “Oh no, the

Premier and cabinet don’t support closed lists.” But it’s right there as

an option in the same document that was approved by cabinet, laying out

the referendum.

So the government must be feeling the heat. Instead of rushing

this process for their own benefit and the benefit of the other folks

keeping them in office, they could have had a citizens’ assembly to keep

the question non-political. But they chose a political route to define

the question, and now they’re backtracking on the content of

that.

Deputy Speaker: Member, let’s talk about Bill 53.

S. Cadieux: I am, Mr. Speaker, talking about Bill 53. I’m talking about how

the two pieces of legislation are inextricably linked and why I can’t

support the amendment of the Recall and Initiative Act when I don’t know

the outcome of a referendum.

The ballots haven’t been counted; we don’t know the outcome. Maybe

we will change; maybe we won’t. Maybe there’ll be closed lists; maybe

there won’t. But we don’t have any of the answers to those questions.

All of that has implications for how a recall campaign would or would

not happen and how a member’s seat, should they be recalled, would or

would not be refilled.

It’s all too convenient — this legislation, the Recall and

Initiative Amendment Act, with its selective amendments that make recall

even more difficult than the rules that exist today and that haven’t

seen one success in over 20 years. In over 26 attempts, not one success.

Why? Because it’s difficult. Not one complaint about the interference of

big money, but it’s urgent on the part of the government that this be

done right now, today. That is why we’re seeing this here today, as a

part of a suite of changes.

This is an attempt to block the efforts of citizens to recall the

very person who has introduced the bill. It reeks, and it’s as simple as

that. The timing is suspect. The amendments are overreaching. It’s

another attempt to sway the rules in favour of an outcome, and it’s

infringing on democracy. It’s doing the exact opposite of what the

government professes to be doing, which is making positive changes for

democracy and having more voices included. This is going to include less

voices, by the very nature of the amendments. Less voices.

[4:05 p.m.]

While I support amendments to limit financial contributions, to

make amendments that line the legislation up with the previous changes

made to election finance reform, that is not what we have here

today.

This House has lots of work to do, and we are constantly told why,

by ministers, “We can’t possibly see the change to this or the change to

that,” like pay equity or amendments to ensure that people have access

to accessible housing. No, those things…. The government is just too

busy with legislation to do those things. So why would we waste this

House’s time on this legislation when we have, at minimum, a realistic

prospect of needing to come back and fix it again in six

months?

The voters own the right to elect all of us, and we have the

privilege, if elected, to serve here and discuss and debate legislation

that should serve the best interests of all British Columbians. This

legislation to me looks to serve the best interests of a very few.

Because of that, I will not be supporting it.

T. Redies: I rise, like my colleagues, to speak to Bill 53, the Recall and

Initiative Amendment Act. While a relative newcomer to this House, I

think I’ve been around long enough to smell a rat. Mr. Speaker, I have

to say that I smell a rat with this Bill 53 legislation.

The fact that this legislation was introduced eight days before

the recall of the Attorney General was to begin, I must say, smacks of

self-serving intent. Whether it’s pretending that he’s a so-called

neutral arbiter of the proportional representation referendum or now

introducing legislation that seems to be designed to save his political

seat, this Attorney General appears to be acting out of self-serving

interest. The cynical among us can’t be blamed for thinking this might

be a last-ditch effort to make sure the Attorney General isn’t

successfully recalled in his riding.

Some with any background in conflict-of-interest matters might

actually think the Attorney General is not acting with the public’s best

interests in mind. Instead, some might think he is demonstrating a

remarkably blatant and self-serving predilection to preserve

himself.

It wouldn’t have taken a rocket scientist to figure out that the

housing tax measures contained in Budget 2018 would cause serious

concern to constituents in the Attorney General’s riding. The Attorney

General is a smart man, so it would certainly be surprising that he

didn’t make that connection almost immediately. His riding, along with

West Vancouver, is the hardest hit by the government’s housing taxes in

the province. Many of the Attorney General’s constituents are facing a

doubling or a tripling of property taxes, mostly from the ill-conceived,

surreptitiously named school tax on homes worth over $3 million. And the

Attorney General’s constituents