First Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, March 4, 2021

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 20

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Insurance Corporation Amendment Act,

Hon. M. Farnworth

Bill 10 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2021

Hon. S. Robinson

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Kelowna General Hospital

R. Merrifield

Chamber of commerce business award recipients in

Maple Ridge, Mission and Pitt Meadows

B. D’Eith

Delta Hospital Auxiliary Society

I. Paton

COVID-19 impact

R. Russell

Work of Saanich North and the Islands constituency

office

A. Olsen

Marcelina Perdido Agulay

M. Elmore

Oral Questions

Delay of COVID-19 vaccine second dose for seniors

and staff in long-term-care facilities

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

R. Merrifield

Disaggregated data collection and use

A. Olsen

Hon. D. Eby

COVID-19 vaccination plan approach and

priorities

J. Tegart

Hon. A. Dix

B. Banman

M. Bernier

M. de Jong

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. J. Osborne

D. Ashton

J. Sims

C. Oakes

M. Starchuk

THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2021

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. S. Malcolmson.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — INSURANCE CORPORATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. M. Farnworth presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Insurance Corporation Amendment Act,

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 5, the Insurance Corporation

Amendment Act, 2021. This bill amends the Insurance Corporation Act to

provide for an ICBC fairness officer, who will be appointed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. This new officer will have a legislative

mandate to review and make recommendations to ICBC to resolve individual

customer complaints as well as with respect to policy and process

related to customer fairness.

As a government appointment, the fairness officer will have

greater independence from ICBC and be independent from ICBC’s claims

arm. This is intended to increase transparency and trust in

ICBC.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for the

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

Bill 5, Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2021, 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 10 — SUPPLY ACT (N o . 1),

Hon. S. Robinson presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 2021.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 10, Supply Act (No. 1), 2021, be introduced and

read a first time now.

Bill 10 provides interim supply for ministry operations and other

appropriations for approximately the first three months of the 2021-2022

fiscal year.

Bill 10 also provides interim supply for a portion of government’s

anticipated financing requirements for the 2021-2022 fiscal year,

including an amount equalling one-third of fiscal year 2020-21,

estimated capital expenditures, loans, investments and other financing

requirements; and an amount equalling one-half of fiscal year 2020-21,

estimated disbursements for revenues collected on behalf of and

transferred to specific programs and entities.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 10 be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 10, Supply Act (No. 1), 2021, 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.

[10:10 a.m.]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

KELOWNA GENERAL HOSPITAL

R. Merrifield: Heritage Week was just a week ago, and I enjoyed celebrating by

looking back at what Kelowna General Hospital was back in 1908. It

started with a donation of land from Kelowna Land and Orchard and only

had 19 beds when it first opened. One of the first physicians at KGH was

Dr. William Knox, who was a pioneer in medical care in the Okanagan. He

was also the only doctor in Kelowna during both World War I and the 1918

Spanish flu pandemic. Dr. Knox single-handedly treated patients during

the epidemic. Dr. Knox’s efforts were impressive, but the hospital was

losing money and was on the verge of closing when nurses, merchants and

the community rallied to help keep the hospital open.

Over the decades, KGH has changed greatly. Today it offers a full

roster of service and has thousands of employees, and with the addition

of the clinical academic campus, the hospital is raising the next

generation of doctors.

But what is KGH? What sets it apart? Well, it’s the dedication,

expertise and spirit of service of the hospital staff, pioneered by Dr.

Knox in the early 1900s and evident throughout the hospital’s history,

extending to today. While the hospital building itself has changed

through the years, that spirit still persists.

Today, a year into this pandemic, I celebrate all of the nurses,

support staff, doctors, technicians, administrators and front-line

workers who continue to serve the Interior Health Authority region and

the constituents of my riding in Kelowna-Mission. But I also hear your

fatigue. I can only imagine your sacrifices. I believe that we would not

be faring as well through this time without your efforts.

Thank you for extending a smile, a kind word, and giving us your

expertise, which continues to give us hope to get through this trying

time.

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BUSINESS AWARD

RECIPIENTS IN MAPLE

RIDGE,

MISSION AND PITT MEADOWS

B. D’Eith: This year it’s especially important that we acknowledge

businesses, organizations and individuals who contribute to our

communities. I want to take this opportunity to highlight the winners of

our recent chambers of commerce Business Excellence Awards in Maple

Ridge, Mission and Pitt Meadows.

In Ridge Meadows, Friends in Need Food Bank was recognized as

Non-Profit Organization of the Year. Paul Gurm was the winner of the

Community Spirit of the Year award for his fundraising work. Westgate

Flower Garden received the Small Business of the Year award, and Matteo

Signorelli was recognized as the Under 40 Professional of the Year for

his indoor bike and skate business park, the Air Rec Center. Lisa Craik

was honoured as Business Leader of the Year for her work with Re/Max

lifestyles realty.

In Mission, Perfect Piece Optical received the Customer Service

Excellence award. Pressland General was awarded Exceptional Business of

the Year. Studio FITRx won the Resiliency Award for their innovation in

maintaining operations while responding to the COVID-19 disruptions.

Silk Degrees home decor received the Marketing and Communication award.

My friend Michelle Puffer and the Mission Community Services was

recognized as Non-Profit Organization of the Year. Business Ethics of

the Year Award went to Excalibur Electric, and Dailey Health and

Wellness clinic was recognized as the under-40 entrepreneur of the

year.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, our businesses and organizations

have overcome huge obstacles, and they deserve our support and

appreciation.

On my behalf and on behalf of the member for Abbotsford-Mission

and the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, I wish to congratulate the

2020 chambers of commerce Business Excellence Awards for business and

non-profits and the nominees who are all very deserving in Maple Ridge,

Pitt Meadows and Mission.

DELTA HOSPITAL AUXILIARY SOCIETY

I. Paton: Today I would like to talk about a very special and dedicated

group of volunteers with the Delta Hospital Auxiliary Society. Soon

after the hospital was built in 1980, the hospital auxiliary opened a

gift shop and café inside the hospital, alongside an incredibly

successful and popular thrift shop in Ladner village.

[10:15 a.m.]

Thanks to the generosity of many in our community, the society has

done so well that they now own one of the largest storefronts in Ladner

village. Thousands of volunteers have done their part over many decades,

and currently, 450 volunteers remain actively involved with the society.

These volunteers work tirelessly to ensure our community benefits from

funding for new equipment, programs, recreational therapy and student

bursaries.

In addition, the society recently contributed just over $2 million

towards the construction and administration of the Peter C. and

Elizabeth Toigo diagnostic centre at Delta Hospital. This contribution

is just one of over $22 million the society has donated towards new

services and equipment at our hospital.

On a personal note, I am incredibly proud of my family’s close

affiliation with the Delta Hospital Auxiliary Society. It started with

my father, who was an original member of the team that helped build

community support for the construction of our own local hospital. My

sister Glenda was also a registered nurse at the Delta Hospital for many

years, and my wife Pam is the vice-chair of the Delta Hospital

Foundation. Most importantly, this brings me to my mother, Marjorie, who

was an original society member from 1969 and continued — pre-COVID, of

course — to drive into Ladner twice a week to volunteer at the thrift

shop and at the hospital’s extended care ward.

Like many societies across B.C., COVID-19 has posed unprecedented

challenges to the auxiliary society. To make matters worse, a suspicious

fire in December has left them on the hook for restoration fees and

renovations to fix this damage. Yet ingenuity has them temporarily back

up and running in a vacant storefront across the street from the damaged

building.

Despite what can only be described as a trying time, I want to

sincerely congratulate the tremendous efforts of our Delta Hospital

Auxiliary Society, our Delta Hospital Foundation as well as our

outstanding doctors, nurses and staff at our beloved Delta Hospital. Our

community is appreciative of all you do to provide excellent care and

service to those who need it.

COVID-19 IMPACT

R. Russell: Good morning. I join you today from down the hall, in the

traditional territory of the

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-​speaking

people, as opposed to the nsyilxcən-speaking people’s territory, where I

have the honour of living and playing.

Those that know me know how passionate I am about mitigating the

devasting impacts of COVID on all of us — on our happiness, on our

quality of life — whether that is because of the fact that we’re social

beings and we can’t interact how we traditionally have, or whether it’s

because we’ve lost loved ones, or whether it’s because businesses we’re

involved with are struggling. Though, as a brief tangent, I must say how

impressed I am by the great competency demonstrated by the Minister of

Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation through both his passion for

reducing barriers, his advocacy for economic recovery and his action of

delivering a diverse suite of supports for businesses to thrive and

reimagine themselves.

But back on track, I want to touch upon a different challenge that

lies ahead: how to hang on to the positive disruption that COVID has

created in all our lives. It’s not all bad, and hanging on to the good

is going to be key to our thriving in the years of recovery ahead to

ensure we actually do build back better.

For example, the uptick in appreciation of local food and the

importance of food security, both local production channels…. For

example, in my riding, a venue has seen a 300 percent increase in

transactions in volume of local food distribution as well as dramatic

increase in cash donations to food banks to meet the extreme increase in

demand. I believe our challenge is to cement those im­provements

of awareness and care in food security, going forward.

Or the agility shown by our professional public service and health

care community in implementation of telehealth services. In rural B.C.,

where the Centre for Rural Health Research at the University of B.C….

Last year they documented that remote and rural residents pay, on

average, $2,234 out of pocket for a single specialist appointment. This

matters. Creative models of care, delivery and access matter for

us.

COVID has been brutally difficult for all of us, economically and

psychosocially. But we now must have to work hard. We have to work hard

to identify the gems among the rubble of the fallout and ensure that

those facets of compassion and well-being continue to shine, as was said

in the morning reflection, to mirror and grow whatever beauty we

find.

WORK OF SAANICH NORTH AND

THE ISLANDS CONSTITUENCY

OFFICE

A. Olsen: We get thousands of emails each year into the Saanich North and

the Islands constituency office inbox. We’ve always responded to all of

those emails within a few hours of receiving them — no auto responders,

just constituent-focused service.

[10:20 a.m.]

It comes from my days working in hospitality and customer service.

I had the honour of working at Butchart Gardens. The Gardens have

trained tens of thousands of people in our community to deliver

world-class service. The values are the foundation of Butchart’s

training program, and they are the basis of my commitment to the people

of Saanich North and the Islands.

I’m humbled that they have again chosen me to occupy their seat in

this chamber. I’m motivated by the trust that they put in me to serve

their interests, to speak as their voice and to act as their advocate in

this parliament.

As provincewide advocacy goes, there is no single greater issue in

our email in-box than the protection of old-growth forests.

The lack of primary care providers tops the lists of local issues.

Thousands of seniors in my riding are still unattached.

A close second is transportation — rapid bus transit on the

Saanich Peninsula, roads, highways and ferries on the Gulf Islands. I’m

thankful to have already had an excellent conversation with the new

Minister of Transportation, and I look forward to the good work to

come.

However, today I’m asking the powerful voices of Saanich North and

the Islands to participate in two public consultations currently

underway in our riding. The provincial government wants your input on

the Keating Cross Road flyover project, and B.C. Ferries is seeking your

input on a new

schedule to serve the southern Gulf Islands.

Please have your voice heard. You can find the links to these

consultations on our constituency office website,

saanichnorthandtheislands.com.

MARCELINA PERDIDO AGULAY

M. Elmore: Our dear friend Marcelina Perdido Agulay was looking forward to

her retirement and spending more time with her husband and

grandchildren. Instead, her life was cut tragically short when a drunk

driver hit her car in North Vancouver Tuesday night. She died soon

after, and her husband, Leo, remains in critical condition.

Lina, as she was fondly called, was kind, caring, principled and

fearless. She was a doting mother and grandmother, an active union

member, a community organizer and a part of our B.C. NDP

family.

In order to provide for her family, she made the difficult

decision to leave her young son Leomar and husband behind in the

Philippines to work in Hong Kong and then Canada as a caregiver in the

1990s.

Her daughter-in-law Jovy recounts how Lina was a very devoted and

loving mother and grandmother. Her granddaughter Pia says she will miss

Lina reading to her every day. She will also be terribly missed by her

grandson Pio.

Jovy recounts how Lina’s passion was the community. Jovy says that

the family is overwhelmed and moved with so much support from people

contacting them to tell them how Lina changed their lives.

Lina was an active BCGEU member of Local 303 and an early

childhood educator. She was also part of Filipino community groups like

the Sanchez-Mira and Grupo Ilocano Association of B.C., where her

husband, Leo, is the director. She was an organizer with Migrante B.C.,

a community group that works to empower migrant workers.

Lina was a Sunday school teacher, a part of a community of faith

and also a very gifted crafter and enjoyed making crafts.

But she was more than a member of these and other groups. Lina was

a community leader in the kindest, truest and best sense. She

volunteered in local, provincial and federal campaigns, and she was a

member of the executive for the B.C. NDP in Burnaby North.

She sided with the oppressed and with workers and migrant workers.

Her love for them lives in our hearts and in our commitment to also

continue in the struggle for a just world. She encouraged all of us to

follow her legacy.

We are all better because she was in our lives, and she touched us

all in different ways. She made our communities and our world better.

She will be forever missed and forever loved.

Paalam Manang, Lina. Goodbye, Sister Lina. May you rest

in eternal peace.

Oral Questions

DELAY OF COVID-19 VACCINE

SECOND DOSE FOR SENIORS AND

STAFF

IN LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITIES

S. Bond: Every member in this House knows that some of the most tragic

outcomes of the pandemic have been in long-term-care facilities. We’ve

all seen the heart-wrenching photographs, the stories of separation and

people losing their loved ones, who may have died alone.

[10:25 a.m.]

Staff and families in long-term care were extremely relieved, and

they felt a glimmer of hope that they were a priority for phase 1

vaccination. Many long-term-care residents in British Columbia have

received two doses of the vaccine. I think it’s fair to say that staff,

residents and families expected that everyone in phase 1 would be

receiving two doses.

You can imagine how concerned Wendy Bingham was when the second

dose appointment for her mother was abruptly cancelled yesterday. It was

cancelled on the very day that it was scheduled to take place. Wendy

writes for her mom. This is what she said it means: “Another two months

of being locked in their facility with no interaction with the outside

world.” Well, I’m sure the Premier and everyone in this place can

understand how upsetting a last-minute cancellation of a second

vaccination would be.

Can the Premier explain why that scheduled second dose was

cancelled on the very day it was to have been given, causing additional

anxiety and stress for that resident, for the staff, and for their

family?

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you very much to the hon. member for her

question.

The member will know — and she acknowledged that, I think, in her

question — that long-term-care and assisted-living facilities have been

the top priority in our immunization plan. It’s extraordinary that 97

percent of staff members targeted…. Of our target, 92 percent of

long-term-care residents have received their first dose. You can see the

impact of that. We went from 42 active outbreaks in long-term-care homes

on January 15 to six today.

The effectiveness of the dose was laid out in detail in the

presentation by Dr. Penny Ballem and Dr. Bonnie Henry on Monday. The

member will also know that British Columbia and, indeed, all

jurisdictions in Canada, it would appear, have changed their position

with respect to second dose and the immediacy of the need for the second

dose, which has now been extended to 16 weeks.

That decision, which has been put in place this week, is intended

to provide more protection for people across the province to allow us to

deal with the pandemic better. I agree with the member, and the member

knows this. We’ve talked about it on a number of occasions personally —

the impact of the pandemic on people in long-term care. We will be

proceeding. People will not have to wait for changes in activity and

access in long-term care based on the science and the

evidence.

Provincial health officers and our public health team have made

decisions about vaccinations. We will now be moving to improve access

for seniors in long-term care — something, to my way of thinking, that

is of course long overdue for people living through this pandemic in

long-term care and in assisted living.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, thank you very much. I appreciate the Health minister’s

response. There has certainly been a great deal of debate across the

country about the extension of the second dose. The theme of the

question today is about the fact the minister just said that we will be

“moving to.” Then perhaps there should be a discussion with the very

people that are still expecting a second dose, some of the most frail,

vulnerable British Columbians.

That situation wasn’t the only one. If this government is going to

move to a new protocol, the very people who are expecting a second dose

— and they were expecting a second dose — should at least have been

told. They were promised. They believed it.

Let’s look at what else happened. People were anxious. They were

waiting. They fully expected a second dose. If this government is making

a conscious choice to move away from that protocol, they forgot to tell

the very people who believed they were going to get a second

vaccination. There is inconsistency in British Columbia. Many

long-term-care residents have received a second dose. There is confusion

and inconsistency.

On Tuesday, about 200 residents, essential visitors and staff were

scheduled to receive their second vaccination at Orchard Manor and

Hawthorn Park. They were scheduled to receive it. Diana Chappell was

confused as to why this long-term-care home didn’t get its second dose,

saying: “There is an absolute letdown on a human level, and also the

fact that these facilities were one of the last facilities in the area

to get the second vaccination.”

[10:30 a.m.]

Again to the Premier, if the government is moving ahead and making

a decision to extend the period of time, the very people, the most

vulnerable, frail British Columbians, should at least have been told,

and, more importantly, this government should have delivered on the

promise for phase 1 residents. Will the Premier commit to doing that

today?

Hon. A. Dix: In British Columbia to date, in thousands of locations around

British Columbia, the public health officials have delivered doses to

British Columbians — 300,000 doses, roughly, today. The majority of

those doses, of course, are first doses, and all of the people who

received first doses will receive second doses — all of them.

The decision that was taken based on the evidence, evidence that

was presented last week, evidence that has been presented to British

Columbians, evidence that was an­nounced publicly, in a decision

that was announced publicly on Monday…. All of those people received

them, but the delay between first and second doses has been extended.

The decision that was taken was straightforward, based on the science

and based on an effort to protect people across British

Columbia.

I am very proud of the effort to protect people in long-term care

and its impact. I ask the member to review the presentation given both

to our caucus and to the people of British Columbia on Monday, which

lays out in detail the impact of the first dose and why British Columbia

and other jurisdictions are proceeding with this approach. We’re doing

so to help keep people safer given the supply of vaccine in Canada.

We’re doing so to ensure that people who are suffering from other

aspects of the pandemic — the effect of the pandemic on all aspects of

our life in British Columbia — can receive relief sooner. We are doing

so in a way that absolutely protects those in long-term care and

assisted living.

I know that the member is correct to advocate for people who have

already received their first doses and to make that case on their

behalf. They will receive second doses. But to proceed with this and to

allow us to expand our immunization campaign based on the science was a

decision taken by public health officials and a decision, of course,

that I support. It’s supported by the National Advisory Committee on

Immunization, supported by provincial health officers in every

jurisdiction in Canada.

I think it’s the right decision for all of us, and I ask the

member to consider supporting it.

R. Merrifield: People understand the government has updated its vaccination plan.

This isn’t really about the updating. This is about promises. This is

about expectations.

See, people don’t understand why some vulnerable seniors who were

expecting to receive a second dose had that promise broken. Kyla Coates

said her family was so relieved when her 92-year-old grandmother, who

suffers from dementia, was given her first shot. And now she’s upset as

to why her grandmother’s home was excluded or singled out from the

completion of phase 1 after she authorized 42 days consent.

The Premier told us that we should “know the difference between

phase 1 and phase 2 and phase 3.”

To the Premier, can he explain to Kyla why some vulnerable seniors

in phase 1 received the second dose while the promise was broken to her

grandmother?

Hon. A. Dix: I would say this: I think the priority that British Columbia has

given to people — especially in long-term care, to vulnerable seniors,

to vulnerable communities — is clear from the data we release every

single day. That has been our priority from the beginning, and that

effort is working. Look at the evidence to show the impact that it’s had

and the quality of life already in long-term care and will have in the

coming weeks as we make changes to improve that quality of life in

long-term care. We are, of course, adapting, as we have and as every

person listening to us has in the course of this pandemic, our plan to

the evidence. That is what I think everyone would expect us to

do.

[10:35 a.m.]

The idea that you would make a decision to extend the period

between first and second doses and then delay that for weeks and weeks

and months, if that is the opposition’s plan, is not the correct

approach. The correct approach is to follow the science, to follow the

guidance of public health, to make decisions that are in the interests

of people, the interests of our most vulnerable and the interests of

people around the province. That’s what Dr. Bonnie Henry has done with

this decision, and I encourage the member to support it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kelowna-Mission on a supplemental.

R. Merrifield: I appreciate the minister’s points. But appointments were made,

promises were made, and promises were broken.

It’s not just seniors who are concerned about this change. Let’s

talk about Ailene, who is a health care assistant in long-term care.

This is her experience. She says: “I received my first COVID-19 vaccine

on January 11 and was to get my second dose today, 50 days later. I took

the day off work, because I also work as an education assistant. My

appointment was for 11:25 a.m. I went to the appointment early. There

was no one waiting at the screening station. If Fraser Health was able

to notify me by text to make an appointment, could they not also have

easily sent one out cancelling it?”

Does the Premier think it’s fair to have health care workers

arrive to an empty room when they were expecting to get a second dose?

Can he promise to do better for health care workers?

Hon. A. Dix: I think it’s fair to say that our commitment to supporting health

care workers is a matter of public record. The member will know, in this

House…. This came before the pandemic, and it has been in place since

the pandemic. It’s the reason why essential health care workers have

been immunized in such large numbers: 56,000 front-line health care

workers, 20,000 community workers, 39,000 workers in long-term care and

thousands more in assisted living and in the community and throughout

British Columbia.

It indicates our priority in immunization, but it’s not just in

immunization. When we implemented the single-site model in B.C., more

effectively than in any jurisdiction in Canada, it was because we

recognized the fundamental inequality that health care workers had faced

for a decade, and a decade before that, as a result of policies that had

explicitly targeted them.

Of course there are challenges in managing an immunization

campaign of this nature. Of course we feel for everyone involved. I wish

everyone in B.C. would have all their shots right now. But we are

dealing with the vaccine supply that’s provided by the federal

government, with the limitations that our federal government is facing.

We are delivering that based on the evidence, directed by public health

officials — not by politicians but by public health officials — in order

to keep people as safe as possible during a pandemic.

I am proud of those health care workers. I am proud to be in a

government that has always backed health care workers, and we’re going

to continue to do it.

DISAGGREGATED DATA

COLLECTION AND

USE

A. Olsen: For my question today I’d like to start with a quote from Dr.

Alicia Sasser Modestino, who is a public policy professor at

Northeastern, PhD in economics from Harvard University.

This week on CBC she stated: “It’s no secret that unless you

measure something, you can’t really talk about it and you can’t fix it

as an issue. Throughout our society, as we are collecting data, there’s

bias in who we are collecting that data on, how it is interpreted and

who gets studied. If you are excluding groups from your field, then

you’re going to have that bias creep in, and you’re not going to be able

to fix the problems that face vulnerable populations.”

My question is straightforward and to the Premier. Does the

Premier agree with this statement?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the thoughtful question. We, as a

government, and the parliamentary secretary who is leading this work

around the importance of data to inform government decisions, to inform

our policies and the importance of disaggregated race data to understand

our blind spots and to understand whether the initiatives that we have

put in place are disadvantaging a particular group or are not addressing

underlying concerns….

I agree with the quote — that what we measure and how we measure

it is critically important. I’ll put a caveat on it. We asked the Human

Rights Commissioner to advise us about how best to move forward in this

area.

[10:40 a.m.]

She cautioned us, and this is the second and third sentence of her

executive

summary: “By making systemic inequalities in our society

visible, data can lead to positive change,” as the member is suggesting.

“But the same data used or collected poorly can reinforce stigmatization

of communities, leading to individual and community harm.”

So we need to collect this data, but we need to be in partnership

with communities that are affected to make sure that we avoid the

caution that’s been given to us by our Human Rights Commissioner to

avoid individual and community harm in our efforts to do

that.

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

supplemental.

A. Olsen: I thank the Attorney General for that thoughtful response. I

appreciate the agreement with that statement.

There is a cost to delay. There’s a cost to every moment that

there is a delay. While the government sits on the sidelines with this

issue, we have to ask the question: who is paying that cost? Certainly,

there is cost to this government, no doubt. There is going to be

increased cost by not fully understanding the picture that is in front

of us.

However, the real cost of inaction is on those vulnerable

populations that my colleague and I have been talking about for weeks,

the vulnerable populations that Sasser Modestino refers to being

negatively impacted by bias creep and exclusion from decision-informing

data sets.

As the Attorney General pointed out in his response to my first

question, in June of last year, the Premier wrote to the B.C. Human

Rights Commissioner and requested her advice on how to move forward with

the collection of race- and ethnicity-based data. As the Attorney

General pointed out, there was a response from the Human Rights

Commissioner. Yet nine months has passed. Nine months has passed, and

every day that’s passed since then, there have been negative impacts on

British Columbians.

I ask my question again to the Premier. What substantial progress

has your government made in nine months that puts us in a different

place than when that letter was drafted back in June?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you, again, to the member for drawing attention to this very

important issue. The member asks what steps our government has taken,

and he quotes a human rights commissioner who didn’t exist before we

were elected into government. I thank the member and the agreement that

we had that re-established a human rights commissioner so she could give

us advice on important issues like this.

We’ve worked with communities across the province to re-establish

a Resilience B.C. Anti-Racism Network. We’ve almost doubled funding for

that program to provide even more support for community groups

responding to racism.

The member knows we’re working to reform the Police Act. Fighting

anti-Indigenous racism in health care. We’re stepping up even further

with the COVID-19 rise in hate-related incidents that we’ve seen,

especially anti-Asian racism, with $1.9 million in new recovery money to

support important community work around that. We’ve increased

multiculturalism grants. We have upcoming anti-racism public education

programs.

I understand the member wants to move quickly. Everybody wants to

move quickly on this. But I also want to emphasize the challenge of

moving quickly by yourself and the importance of going a long distance

in partnership, which is slower but necessary and critical in this

realm.

Again from the Human Rights Commissioner: “As experts in their own

lives, community members are the ones best equipped to identify

priorities and risks in potential data collection projects.” This will

happen, but we will take the necessary time to ensure the affected

groups are direct, involved partners in this.

I know the member agrees with that, and I know he understands

that. Thank you again for raising this issue.

COVID-19 VACCINATION PLAN

APPROACH AND

PRIORITIES

J. Tegart: B.C. teachers and education staff have kept our schools open and

are on the front line every day. They’re stressed and afraid. But this

government has failed to listen for their calls for additional layers of

protection in our schools.

Front-line essential workers in our schools need to know if they

are being prioritized and when and how they will be vaccinated.

AstraZeneca is arriving in British Columbia. We know it must go to a

younger cohort, and it comes with an expiration date.

[10:45 a.m.]

To the Premier, on what priority basis will teachers and other

educational workers be vaccinated?

Hon. A. Dix: We were informed, of course, last Friday of the decision by the

vaccine — as our third vaccine in our immunization efforts in British

Columbia and across Canada. We were informed earlier this week — or on

the weekend, in fact — that some Astra­Zeneca would be coming next

week. Initially, that AstraZeneca will be used to deal with outbreaks

and issues around the province that require immediate attention of

vaccination.

Our public health officials are putting together a plan based,

again, on evidence as to how AstraZeneca and, potentially, Johnson and

Johnson — once that vaccine is approved, and we expect it to be — are

used in British Columbia. It will be, again, based on evidence — not on

a discussion of politics between one group or another but based on the

evidence as assessed by public health officials. And as always, those

officials and all of us will go out and present what that evidence is

and what the basis for those decisions is. That will come in the coming

weeks.

B. Banman: This pandemic has been with us for a year — a year. There is no

excuse for this government not to give clear answers and detailed

information about the order and the criteria for vaccinating priority

groups. Our dedicated police and firefighters put themselves at risk of

exposure to this virus every single day.

We know that AstraZeneca is arriving in British Columbia, and it

comes with an expiry date. First responders deserve clarity and a plan

for when and how they will be vaccinated. The problem is that they and

we have just seen this government break its word, break its promise to

the most vulnerable, our seniors. So essential workers do not trust this

government.

To the Premier, on what priority basis will first responders be

vaccinated?

Hon. A. Dix: For today, I’m going to ignore the unbelievably disrespectful

statements made about our provincial health officer and our public

health team embedded in that question. I’ll ignore it today because

these issues are so important to people in B.C.

On January 17, we presented our detailed immunization plan, a plan

that we have followed effectively and to the letter. Earlier this week,

on March 1, having briefed the opposition and many other groups, we

presented the next phase of our immunization campaign.

Our focus — and we have been clear from the beginning — is to

protect those most vulnerable to COVID-19 first, by vaccinating them

first. That’s why in long-term care, for example, more than 70,000

people have received their first immunizations, and you’ve seen the

effect of that. We said we’d do it; we did it. With respect to assisted

living, the same: we said we’d do it, and we did it. With health care

workers in our acute care settings, the same. For Indigenous people in

rural and remote communities, the same. We did it by following public

health and by the extraordinary work of public health professionals and

health care workers around our province.

That continues now. We have laid out our age-based approach with

respect to Pfizer and Moderna, meaning that we’re going to protect those

most vulnerable first, because those who are older are the most

vulnerable to severe outcomes from COVID-19. That is the plan we’re

going to continue to do.

We have a relatively small amount of AstraZeneca coming into the

province. We are going to use it to effectively deal with situations in

communities, in the initial stages. We are, of course, going to use all

of it. And then we’re going to present a plan that’s, again, systematic,

follows the advice of public health, addresses those who are most

vulnerable to COVID-19 and addresses those who are most likely to spread

COVID-19.

[10:50 a.m.]

That’s the way you would expect a competent, thoughtful province….

An immunization campaign based on the people who do immunization

campaigns every day, who do this work every day — public health

officials across B.C.

I am so proud of them. I am so proud of the work we’re doing in

this campaign, and I’m so hopeful about its positive impact for people

in British Columbia.

M. Bernier: Let’s be clear. This is not about being disrespectful to any

health leaders at all. This is about asking questions that the people of

British Columbia have because there have not been clear direction and

clear answers given by this government. All we’re asking for are clear

criteria and the order that the vaccination priorities will be for

groups in British Columbia. These people are asking.

We all know the pandemic has been here for a year. We’ve had lots

of time to put together a better plan and better priorities and to

communicate that to the people and to the groups, especially now, as

we’ve been hearing, with the AstraZeneca vaccine coming. It has an

expiry date. We’re told that it could expire within just a few weeks. So

to be told that we’ll have a plan in a few weeks, when that vaccine

expires in a few weeks, is cold comfort to many people.

What I want to know is: which industries will this government

actually consider essential? What about those in transportation of our

much-needed goods; maybe the workers in camps, or those in the energy

sector; what about our agriculture and food-processing workers? Will the

Premier today answer that simple question and let these groups know when

they will be prioritized?

Hon. A. Dix: The basis of our immunization campaign throughout has been to

protect those most vulnerable first. That fundamental ethical principle

has guided us and has been, I believe, given the amount of vaccine we’ve

received from the federal government, extraordinarily effective. We’ve

seen the effectiveness of these vaccines and what they can do in

communities.

We got word this past weekend about the amount of vaccine in

British Columbia. The opposition has now mentioned hundreds of thousands

of people that they believe should get priority. Of course, we have

right now…. In the month of March, we’re going to have probably around

60,000 doses of AstraZeneca — doses that we will use, of

course.

The approach here is to lay out an immunization response that’s

based on the science, that protects those most vulnerable, that takes

the most action we possibly can to reduce community spread. That is the

approach that has been recommended by our provincial health officer, Dr.

Bonnie Henry, and the team at the BCCDC, and we’re going to continue to

follow that approach.

One can play politics in trying to pit groups against groups. I

don’t think that’s where British Columbians are at. I think they

overwhelmingly support our approach to protect those most vulnerable

first. They are happy that people in long-term care have received doses

across this province — more than 90 percent. They’re happy about that,

even if it means they don’t get their dose yet.

We are going to move forward in the same way with this

immunization campaign. I continue to be proud of our public health

officials who are putting the people of B.C. first. If you want to know

the principles of this campaign, go back to January 17, go back to

December, and see what we said and what we did.

M. de Jong: The problem the minister doesn’t want to seem to acknowledge — in

fact, seems to take great offence at the opposition pointing out — is

that when you pull the rug out from under a 90-year-old at the very last

minute by denying them the vaccine they were promised, people lose

confidence. They stop trusting you.

Stephanie Smith of the BCGEU says this: “It’s a matter of clarity.

Our members work in corrections, supportive housing, child care. They

want to know when their turn will be.” Now, the Premier has said

nothing, and nothing the minister has said, quite frankly, provides

anything approaching clarity, despite the passage of time.

[10:55 a.m.]

If the Premier and the minister are prepared to unilaterally

change the rules on vaccinations for a 90-year-old in a long-term-care

facility, how can a child care worker or a corrections worker have any

faith in any of the assurances that the minister purports to make

today?

Hon. A. Dix: I guess the hon. member wishes that we engage in immunization

politics by some sort of political popularity contest. That’s not what’s

happening here.

We are protecting those who are most vulnerable first. We laid out

our plan on January 17 for phase 1. When we announced our plan on March

1 for the next phase of immunizations, we made a significant change

between first and second dose, one that was supported by the

science.

If the opposition disagrees with the National Advisory Committee

on Immunization, if the opposition disagrees with Dr. Bonnie Henry, if

the opposition disagrees with Dr. Réka Gustafson, if the opposition

disagrees with public health officials, they, of course, have every

right to make that disagreement clear. You can have it your way; you

can’t have it both ways.

We support public health. We support an immunization campaign that

protects our most vulnerable first. I’m proud of the officials who have

put it together, and I’m proud of the effort that’s been made by

everyone in British Columbia — public health officials and the people of

B.C. — to deal with this pandemic over the last year. I know they will

show the same courage and the same determination in the coming

months.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 9, Local Elections Statutes

Amendment Act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 9 — LOCAL ELECTIONS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. If you wouldn’t mind taking your business

outside of the chamber if you’re going to have chitchat, that would be

great, so we can get on with the orders of the day.

Hon. J. Osborne: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

I’m pleased to rise in the House today to speak to this important

piece of legislation which continues the work that was started when many

of my colleagues were sworn in, in 2017.

The proposed amendments to the Local Elections Campaign Financing

Act, otherwise known as LECFA, will build on the landmark changes our

government made in 2017 to help put an end to big money in politics and

put people back at the heart of provincial and local

elections.

Bill 9 continues the ongoing work to strengthen

ac­countability and transparency in local elections. In 2018, we

saw the first wave of general local elections under the full suite of

campaign financing rules. Bill 9 responds to the analysis and

consultation following the 2018 elections, including consultation with

Elections B.C., First Nations that use LECFA, local governments and

boards of education.

These changes will more closely align the campaign financing rules

for local elections with those established for provincial elections in

the Election Act while continuing to account for the unique nature of

local elections. Specifically, the proposed amendments will enhance the

regulatory framework for elector organizations, increase the time period

during which election advertising is regulated before an election,

clarify what activities fall under election advertising, implement

sponsorship contribution limits, enhance enforcement tools by

establishing additional investigations tools and administrative monetary

penalties and make minor changes to help ensure the local elections

financing framework is effective and works as intended.

[11:00 a.m.]

The work undertaken to bring forward today’s amendments was

significant, and I would like to thank ministry staff as well as the

governments and organizations who made Bill 9 possible. These amendments

address specific issues identified by ministry staff as part of

monitoring work undertaken during the 2018 general local elections, and

they respond to recommendations made in the B.C. Chief Electoral

Officer’s report on the 2018 general local elections.

We developed this bill following consultations with key

stakeholders, such as Elections B.C., boards of education, First Nations

that use LECFA and the Union of B.C. Municipalities, which represents

B.C.’s 189 local governments and the Islands Trust.

As local elections also include board of education elections, the

Ministry of Education and the B.C. School Trustees Association were also

consulted. Consultations were held with the Sechelt Indian government

district, as LECFA applies to elections of the Sechelt Indian government

district advisory council members. Notice was also provided to all

modern treaty nations in relation to amendments to permit canvassing in

condominium and similar buildings.

Central to this legislation are changes that will enhance the

regulatory framework for elector organizations. Over 64 elector

organizations participated in the 2018 general local elections. They

were primarily active in communities in the Lower Mainland, but where

they are active, they can have a significant influence on local

elections. They participate in elections by endorsing and campaigning

together and on behalf of their endorsed candidates. Elector

organizations are increasingly being recognized as civic political

parties.

Many of the changes we are proposing respond directly to the B.C.

Chief Electoral Officer’s recommendation from their report on the 2018

general local elections. As part of the B.C. Chief Electoral Officer’s

role in administering LECFA, they are required to provide a report on

their experience administering LECFA in each general local election and

may make recommendations for legislative change.

This new framework will result in elector organizations being

treated more like provincial political parties under the Election Act

but continues to accommodate the elements that make local elections

unique from provincial elections. Bill 9 will create a new centralized

registration framework that will be administered by Elections

B.C.

Currently the registration of elector organizations, also known as

civic political parties, is overseen by each local government. Elector

organizations register with a local government by filing endorsement

documents for each election in which they intend to endorse a candidate.

Elector organizations will be required to be registered in order to

accept campaign contributions, endorse candidates or incur election

expenses. As part of being registered, they’ll need to file an annual

financial report with Elections B.C. This report will provide greater

transparency into the financial activities of an elector organization

outside of an election year.

In addition, elector organizations will be prohibited from

receiving non-campaign contributions that have been used to fund

operational expenses in non-election years, meaning elector

organizations will be required to fund all expenses through campaign

contributions. This change will remove the ability of organizations,

such as businesses and unions, from supporting these elector

organizations indirectly by providing funds for operational or

administrative use in non-election years.

These changes will also increase the period of time during which

election advertising is regulated before an election. Election

advertising is currently only regulated during the 29-day campaign

period. The proposed amendments will extend the length of time that

election advertising is regulated by creating a pre-campaign period that

will precede the campaign period by 60 days, consistent with the

provincial Election Act.

Changes to the rules governing election advertising will enhance

the transparency of advertising by making it clear who is sponsoring

advertising during the pre-campaign period. This will also provide

greater consistency between election advertising rules under LECFA and

the Election Act.

The types of activities that are captured as election advertising

will be clarified. This will ensure that paid canvassing activities,

such as door-to-door canvassing or canvassing by telephone and mailing

election materials on a commercial basis, will be subject to election

advertising rules.

[11:05 a.m.]

Establishing sponsorship contribution limits will limit the amount

that can be contributed to third-party advertising sponsors, consistent

with changes made in 2017 establishing a $1,200 limit on campaign

contributions. Sponsorship contribution limits will track with the

campaign contribution limit, approximately $1,200 a year but adjusted

each year for inflation, and are consistent with the provincial

contribution limits — again, $1,200. Sponsorship contribution limits are

important to limit the potential influence of large donors on discourse

during an election. Sponsorship contribution limits will work to further

level the playing field in local elections and reflect the

recommendations of the B.C. Chief Electoral Officer.

Creating new investigative powers and establishing a more robust

administrative monetary penalty framework will greatly improve the

ability of the B.C. Chief Electoral Officer to conduct investigations

and make compliance and enforcement decisions under the act. Currently,

the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act only includes monetary

penalties in relation to exceeding election expense limits or the amount

allocated under a campaign financing arrangement and in relation to

exceeding election advertising limits.

The new administrative monetary penalties generally mirror those

found in the provincial Election Act, and they allow Elections B.C. to

also issue monetary penalties for additional violations of LECFA, which

are more effective than offences that must be prosecuted through the

courts. Examples of the violations Elections B.C. will now be able to

issue include failing to register as an elector organization or a

third-party sponsor, advertising that fails to include sponsorship

information, and for accepting prohibited campaign contributions,

sponsorship contributions and loans.

New investigative tools also include the authority for the B.C.

Chief Electoral Officer to seek court orders for information from third

parties, such as financial institutions, and to request records from

identify who is sponsoring advertising. This builds on the existing

enforcement framework to ensure the B.C. Chief Electoral Officer has the

tools they need to conduct effective investigations of potential rule

contraventions, and it will create greater consistency with the tools

available for conducting investigations under the Election

Act.

Minor changes to the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act are

being proposed to facilitate the administration of campaign financing

requirements in local elections. They are intended to ensure that the

Local Elections Campaign Financing Act functions as intended and that

the B.C. Chief Electoral Officer has the necessary authorities to

continue to effectively administer the campaign financing rules under

the act.

These minor amendments include expanding the B.C. Chief Electoral

Officer’s authority to make minor corrections to disclosure statements

and supplementary reports, to include annual financial reports and

extending late filing timelines for supplementary reports and annual

financial reports, consistent with the existing timeframe for disclosure

reports; changing the current three-day requirement to allow candidates

and elector organizations to modify a campaign financing arrangement,

known as a CFA, up until general voting day; and specifying that an

administrative monetary penalty applicable to an en­dorsed

candidate or an elector organization in relation to exceeding a CFA

allocation between a candidate and an elector organization would only

apply if both the CFA limit and the candidate’s or the elector

organization’s overall expense limit is exceeded.

Finally, proposed amendments to the Local Government Act, School

Act and Vancouver Charter to address concerns raised by local

government, administrators and the public regarding specific aspects of

local elections administration. These changes will ensure candidates

have access to residential properties, such as strata properties, to

canvass voters and distribute candidate information. They’ll address the

disenfranchisement of some individuals by removing the requirement that

individuals must have been a resident of their community for at least 30

days in order to vote. And they’ll ensure consistency among the choices

that a court has when declaring an election invalid to improve

efficiency for local governments.

Together, these changes will enhance the elections

ad­ministration framework for future local elections in

B.C.

In conclusion, these proposed changes to the campaign financing

rules for local elections will further build up the comprehensive

framework already established in the Local Elections Campaign Financing

Act to ensure people are at the centre of government

decision-making.

[11:10 a.m.]

The amendments will strengthen the transparency and accountability

in the campaign financing activities of local elections participants,

particularly elector organizations, and provide the B.C. Chief Electoral

Officer with more tools when investigating potential contraventions of

LECFA in making compliance and enforcement decisions.

The proposed amendments will first apply to the 2022 general local

elections. This delay in application is to ensure the smooth transition

of the new rules and so as to not impact any ongoing or scheduled

by-elections between now and the next general local

elections.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you and the members of the

House. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues in the continued

debate today on the second reading of this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Recognizing the member for Penticton.

D. Ashton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I greatly appreciate that.

First of all, I would like to recognize the Minister of Municipal

Affairs. I congratulate her on her win in the last election and

congratulate her on her appointment. I look forward to working with her,

in conjunction, for the best interests of all people in British Columbia

that people like her, myself and my peers in the Legislature have the

opportunity to administer.

For me, it is something that I do not take lightly. I know that

each and every one of my peers in the House do the same. We know we are

entirely privileged to have this opportunity, and I just want to ensure

that it carries on in an appropriate way and a continual way, because we

can never forget where we come from.

I’d also like to say to the minister that I have the incredible

pleasure of coming out of municipal politics and regional politics,

similar to her. And I also come from an area, similar to her, that

relies an incredible amount on tourism. I look forward to some return to

normality, where both of our areas again can host the world in the

entire vistas that we are so privileged to have in our respective areas

that make a huge difference.

Again, Minister, I look forward to working with you.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for the opportunity today

to address Bill 9, the Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act. The

electoral process is a foundation of our democracy, whether it’s

federal, provincial or local government. As we know, many of us have

arrived from local governments and some actually from the federal

government. I’m glad to hear their input into provincial politics. But

once again, I say that we have to represent the people from where we’re

elected, and that is most imperative.

Any electoral process should never be written in stone, and this

legislation is intended to reinvigorate how we choose our elected

officials at a local level. In this case, the bill particularly amends

the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, Local Government Act, School

Act and the Vancouver Charter. Furthermore, Bill 9 will closely align

with the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act rules for those

established for provincial elections within the act.

This is one of the reasons why I, and I hope my fellow members in

the B.C. Liberal caucus, will be supporting this legislation in

principle only after a thorough discussion with the minister and her

staff at the committee stage, as long as no issues are discovered that

would affect ad­versely the citizens who we represent. In the

meantime, it is worth noting that a great deal of this legislation

pertains to campaign financing at the local level. And because this

reform is necessary in an advancing digital era, we have to take a hard

look at this.

In

summary, as the minister has said, the legislation establishes

a pre-campaign period for election advertising regulation from 29 to 89

days, includes paid canvassing activities as election advertising,

requires civic parties to register with Elections B.C., file annual

financial reports instead of just during an election year, bans civic

parties from accepting non-campaign contributions to pay for operational

expenses in non-election years, provides Elections B.C. with new

investigative tools to support investigations and to ensure that the

processes are fair and equitable for every individual that puts their

name forward.

It provides Elections B.C. with additional penalties to fine

people who do not comply with the rules and the process, and it also

removes the 30-day local residency requirement in order to vote, as that

has pros and cons. That is something that I’m quite sure will be

discussed during the committee process. It allows access for strata

properties and other properties for canvassing. That has always been an

issue.

[11:15 a.m.]

I look upon my peers that are from the Lower Mainland and look at

all those large towers inhabited by residents and wonder how they have

the opportunity to be able to show those residents what they want to do

for them. That’s a difficult process, and I hope that that also comes

into consideration in the future.

It also removes a requirement of a ministerial order to trigger a

by-election if the courts declare the election invalid. And by moving

forward, it applies, 2022 and beyond, to all local elections and

by-elections. In regards to the pre-campaign period, in the spirit of

fairness…. Again, in a rapidly advancing digital era, it is necessary to

establish a pre-campaign period for election advertising regulation from

29 to 89 days.

While this bill does cover electronic advertising, it also covers

traditional mediums such as billboards and television commercials. More

importantly, this legislation will require the sponsor to be clearly

identified — who will have to say who is sponsoring and what during the

pre-campaign period. That is very, very important today — that people

actually know who the person that is asking for their support represents

and who the people or the organizations are behind them in their

possible support of that individual who is running for

office.

As advertising continues to develop at the digital level, this

legislation covers paid canvassing activities also as election

advertising. This includes paid individuals who go door-to-door and

support a candidate or a party. They will, thankfully, be subject to

election advertising rules. For me, again, this is incredibly important,

especially during COVID. Not many of us appreciate somebody knocking on

our door that we don’t know. Unfortunately, it may be a sign of the

times in the future, and we just want to ensure that everybody that is

in support of a local candidate is recognized as so and ensure that that

is documented and handled properly.

One feature, the way I look at it, that is a long time coming is

the third-party contributions of up to $1,200 a year matching the

donation cap. Third parties have pros and cons in the way they support

and how they support, and I’m very glad to see that something like this

is being brought forward.

On that note, I would also like to see, and I will be asking the

minister…. Because there are entities out there that train and give

advice in many ways, and some are more efficient at doing it. My

understanding is there are actually schools, and I am hoping that they

will also come under the auspices of Elections B.C. and have to report

how and what they are doing.

Under civic partnerships, to keep up with the modern era that

we’re all in right now, Bill 9 requires civic parties to register with

Elections B.C., to file an annual financial report instead of just

during the election year, and that, again, is very important. This is a

feature of the legislation that recognizes that people do take

part in

the local democracy on an ongoing basis. I think that’s very important,

not only for them to be registered but for the general public to know

who and what so they’re supporting the candidates of their

choice.

I mean, it effectively bans civic parties from accepting

non-campaign contributions to pay for operational ex­penses in

non-election years. Again, this is long overdue. With staff salaries and

office supplies and etc. that some campaign and some parties carry on,

even not in election years…. That all has to be funded through election

campaigns. I really think that this is long overdue.

The bill also provides Elections B.C. with new investigative tools

to investigate the following, and it can request the records from

companies that deal with online advertising to understand who is

sponsoring that advertising and how much was spent. It can also request

a court order seeking records from financial institutions.

In addition, this legislation provides Elections B.C. with

additional penalties to fine people who do not comply with these rules.

Again, politics in a democracy…. The best democracy level, as far as I’m

concerned, has always been the local level, and it’s good to see these

rules coming in. There are new violations as failing to register a party

or failing to include sponsorship information on electoral advertising

and accepting prohibited contributions and sponsorship contributions and

loans. These are violations that should be looked at.

[11:20 a.m.]

I hope that the Chief Electoral Officer uses his discretion wisely

on all of these, and I look forward to the opportunity to have the

opportunity again during the committee process to speak directly to the

minister, to speak to her wonderful staff that I’ve had the pleasure of

dealing with over the years, and let’s make this better for everybody in

the province that runs, whether it’s at the local level and/or the

provincial level. When I say local, that is municipal politics or school

boards and/or regional politics.

Hon. Speaker, I would like to wrap up at this point in time and

once again thank the minister for this opportunity and thank you for the

opportunity. I look forward to coming up ASAP in committee stage, and I

can assure the minister that we’ll have lots of good questions for her

and her staff.

J. Sims: It is a pleasure today to rise — well, not rise; I’m going to sit

— and speak on this motion today. I remember when I first got elected in

2017 and the kind of finance rules that existed for provincial elections

at that time. Having come from being an MP to that, I was amazed at the

unlimited bounty that could be given by businesses, by unions and

individuals. At that time, I also remember the many articles, not only

national and provincial but international, that were written about the

wild, wild west.

I’m very proud of the work that the Attorney General did at that

time to bring forward legislation that would set limits for provincial,

and some of that work was done for the municipal at that time as well.

However, what happened during the 2018 elections…. It was realized that

there were some areas that still needed to be addressed, so this

legislation actually aims to do that.

For this legislation to be put together — just so we know, it

wasn’t written in a vacuum. It was written in consultations with

Elections B.C., with their input; the Union of B.C. Municipalities,

which represents every one of B.C.’s 189 local governments and the

Islands Trust; First Nations that utilize the Local Election Campaign

Financing Act; and the B.C. School Trustees Association, which

represents all the boards of education. So input was sought from all of

these groups, and then this legislation was put together.

I always think that when legislation is introduced, it’s always

worth finding out what the partners or those who participated in the

input have to say about it. I have a quote here that I will have to read

out because I didn’t memorize it, from UBCM president Brian Frenkel, and

this is what he has to say. “These changes strengthen the rules

governing local government election finance by increasing transparency,”

said Brian Frenkel, president of UBCM. “Local governments endorsed a

call for these changes in 2020, and we appreciate the government’s

response well in advance of the next local government general

election.”

It is so good to see that this legislation does have overall

support. Hearing my colleague from the opposition, I think there’s a lot

of consensus to be found from the comments he made, and I want to thank

him for the comments he made acknowledging that we do need to have some

guidelines and that these things do need to get addressed.

[11:25 a.m.]

I want to thank, once again, our minister for the work she has

done on this, and I want to now start to highlight some of the changes

that we are going to be seeing.

One of the first things in here is going to be…. There will be

improvements in the regulatory framework for elector organizations. We

have provincial parties. We have federal parties. And I know this is

going to come as a surprise to some of the smaller municipalities around

the province, but in many of the larger municipalities, medium-sized and

maybe even small, there have been parties or pseudo-parties often called

elector organizations, but they basically operate like a civic

party.

That’s why these rules are…. There will be requirements now for

these civic parties, elector organizations or groupings of people who

get together to work together for an election — because that’s what they

become when they group together — to register with Elections B.C. so

that they can accept contributions, endorse candidates or incur election

expenses. Currently, elector organizations register with each local

government or jurisdiction where they endorse a candidate. So this is a

different requirement now. Now they have to register with Elections

B.C., and then they get governed by the rules that exist.

They have to be accountable for the funding they receive, not only

during the election year or for the period of the election. But every

year now, they will have to file a report on their finances — incomings

and outgoings. That’s really important as well, because if you don’t

have this going on for the full election or for the between-election

cycle, what you can get is, once again, that unfair, unfettered

fundraising that could really impact.

You know, when we start to look at fundraising and put a level

playing field out for everybody, the main goal here is to put the voter,

those who vote, actually at the centre of the decisions that are made

and to take away big business, big unions — I’ll use the same term — or

big developers with deep pockets putting in large sums of money with the

hope that they can then start influencing policy. I think this

legislation is long overdue, and I’m actually absolutely delighted that

this is here.

Also, there will be changes around election advertising. The

pre-campaign period is now going to be extended from 29 to 89 days,

which means that pre-campaign period election advertising — billboards,

commercials, how­ever it is; radios, which are very popular in my

part of the woods — spending limits will apply during the campaign

period, and there will be accountability for the pre-campaign period as

well.

And there will be now new limits on third-party advertising. So

you can’t just go to a friend with deep pockets, or an organization, and

they’ll say: “Oh, you don’t worry about it. We’ll do the advertising for

you.” Once again, they will have spending limits that are the same for

everybody. That, once again, makes it fair.

It’s good to make rules, but unless there are investigative tools

and enforcement, they are just there as guidelines. What this

legislation does is modernize our election financing for local

government. That means there are tools now for investigating and

enforcement. I’m very, very happy to see that. The Local Elections

Campaign Financing Act now has it so that the B.C. Chief Electoral

Officer can investigate and can request records from companies that deal

with online advertising to understand who is sponsoring that advertising

and how much was spent and request a court order to seek records from

financial institutions.

[11:30 a.m.]

All of us like to think that all of us are going to follow the

rules, but as we know, people will find a way. Having these enforcements

in place is really good.

Changes are also being made to help with the administration of

campaign financing, such as extending late filing timelines, allowing

Elections B.C. to make minor corrections and allowing candidates and

elector organizations to modify a campaign financing arrangement up

until election day.

There is also an improved framework for monetary penalties. There

will be penalties for failure to register as an elector organization or

a third-party sponsor, penalties if you fail to include sponsorship

information for the ads that take place and penalties for accepting

prohibited campaign contributions, sponsorship contributions and

loans.

So, basically, this piece of legislation not only closes some of

the loopholes or some of the problems that were pointed out to us, but

it also puts penalties and enforcement in place and modernizes that part

of the act. Some people are going to be saying: “Who does this act apply

to?” Local governments. That includes your municipal government, and it

includes the school trustees as well — so your local boards of

education. That’s why it is really, really important that this

legislation come in at this time.

Now, I know there will be…. I was shocked, and I know many of you

will be shocked, when I heard a colleague who ran previously as a city

councillor saying that one of the organizations in the city where he ran

spent over $4 million on a municipal election. I know that for those of

you who I’ve met as I’ve travelled in the province before, that is just

incomprehensible. But I can tell you, coming from the Lower Mainland, I

find that incomprehensible as well.

That is why we really had to look at making it more of a level

playing field. With the previous financing rules and without the limits,

what could happen is that those who had connections with people with

deep pockets, whether it be organizations or whether it was individuals,

could gather large sums of money and could then impact the local media

in a huge way by doing big buys. They had an advantage over those who

may not have had those abilities.

I think that when you run to be a school trustee, when you run to

be a city councillor or a mayor or whether you run to be an MLA or an

MP, your own financial situation, who your friends are, who is going to

donate to you and who you can persuade to give you big dollars should

not be determining who runs. Our democracy is stronger when we have an

open and a transparent system where everybody has the ability to run,

where they are playing by the same rules and where there are limitations

on the moneys that can be collected.

Now, is this going to stop some municipalities spending more than

others? Absolutely not. But what it is going to do is it’s going to

limit how much a group, a business or an individual can donate to that

company. That way, more people will actually get engaged in civic

financing — with this piece of legislation. This is not an issue that is

new — issues around election financing. I know that I’ve been hearing

about it for a long, long time, and I definitely know that other members

of the Legislature hear about it too. My colleagues from Surrey will

attest that we’re not any different than Vancouver or some of the other

bigger municipalities when it comes to the kind of moneys that have been

spent in the past.

I am hoping that this piece of legislation will encourage [audio

interrupted] to put their names forward to be able to serve as a school

trustee or to serve as a local government as well. We already have rules

for the provincial and federal.

[11:35 a.m.]

This does not stop people from donating. This does not stop people

from playing a financial role in elections. The only thing this does is

say there’s a limit of $1,200. And when there is a limit of $1,200, that

is exactly what it means.

Now, with this piece of legislation, there will be enforcement

tools at the hands of Elections B.C., but also to investigate if big

companies, those with deep pockets, are maybe finding creative ways in

order to support their candidate or their electoral slate of

choice.

As I’ve said before, for many people around the prov­ince,

the idea of civic parties at the local level may not even have entered

their world. But in the larger cities and, certainly, in some of the

middle-sized ones, people do get together as a group to run on a

platform, and there is nothing wrong with that, just as we have

provincial and federal parties that run on common platforms. For me,

having electoral organizations is what happens, and if it’s what

happens, then we need to make sure we have governance in place to ensure

that the election finance rules apply to them and can be enforced as

well.

With that, I am going to say that I would like to end my words.

Before I go, I do want to acknowledge my staff. I have a brand-new LA

here in Victoria, Pavan Sodhan, and he is stellar and getting to know

the job. I’ve really appreciated all the support he has provided me with

since I have come to Victoria — setting up the new technology and

everything else. So thank you, Pavan.

As always, thank you to Mindy Bansal and Jen Campbell back in my

riding, who do stellar work in that area.

I do want to say farewell to Naz Sabharwal, who has left us and

has gone on to work for another MLA. We will miss you, but the next MLA

is very lucky to have you.

I do support this legislation, and I’m really happy to see that

this legislation has support from across the aisle as well.

C. Oakes: It truly is an honour to have the ability to speak

today.

I would like to recognize that I’m speaking to you today from

Lhtako territory.

I haven’t had the opportunity to congratulate the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, and I would like to do that. For many of us, we come

from local government and certainly have had the privilege of working

with the minister in the past when she was the mayor and really

appreciated the thoughtful approach that she brought forward. I

certainly look forward to working with her today.

I think it’s also really important to acknowledge the incredible

work that has been done on both this piece of legislation, the Local

Elections Statutes Amendment Act, and the Local Elections Statutes

Amendment Act from 2014, because I think it’s important to know, and

maybe contrary to some of the speakers that may be speaking today, that

this piece of legislation is work that has been thoughtfully crafted

over many, many years, multiple governments, and has really engaged

local governments and various associations across this

province.

I was the minister in 2014 when we introduced the Local Election

Campaign Financing Act. I’ll provide a little bit of history and context

to that when we did that on March 26, 2014, but I really want to

acknowledge Heather Brazier, who is the public servant and incredible

staff member that was the key lead on pulling this together, and all of

her incredible team.

We can come forward as elected officials and present pieces of

legislation. I think sometimes what often gets missed is the incredible

amount of effort and work of all of our incredible public servants

behind the scenes that are working so tirelessly to support us on

bringing things forward.

[11:40 a.m.]

I am in support of this minor piece of amendments to the Local

Election Campaign Financing Act, because it’s part of a phased-in

approach that was originally talked about when this piece of legislation

was originally brought forward. Again, LECFA was first introduced March

26, 2014, in this House. I was proud to have the opportunity to have

brought that forward, because we did agree that transparency and

accountability in local elections were critically important. I was very

proud of the work that was done, and I’m proud that the work continues

today. I want to thank the government for doing that.

Back in March 2014, we did table the two bills, the LECFA and

LESAA. I think it’s important for me to go through a little bit of the

history, because it was built on an incredible amount of work from 2010

from a joint British Columbia–UBCM government elections task force that

had brought forward 31 recommendations to modernize local elections.

Part of what we’re doing today, and part of what we are discussing in

the minor changes that the minister’s bringing forward, really was built

on a tremendous amount of work and consultation that happened back in

The 31 recommendations to modernize local elections, including the

incorporation of local election campaign finance rules into one act,

which simplifies it and makes it, certainly, easier…. It was also built

on the fact that the legislation — in fact, what we are talking about

today — was built on a white paper that was brought forward in September

of 2013, with really broad consultation, as the minister has commented

in her opening remarks. But I just want to make sure we’re providing

credit to the tremendous amount of work that has been done for a

significant amount of time on recommendations and consultations

throughout a significant amount of time.

Now, I probably want to go on record, not to be a contrarian, but

perhaps more of a historian. The member for Surrey-Panorama mentioned

some of the changes that made it sound like they were new changes. They

are part of the local election campaign act, which was originally

brought forward in…. The first piece of legislation was brought forward

in 2014, of course, requiring candidates to file financial disclosures,

ensuring that candidate campaign disclosures are published online,

ensuring that the sponsorship information is published of all election

advertising, requiring third-party advertising sponsors to register and

disclose their expenditures, and establishing a new compliance and

enforcement role for Elections B.C.

Also, the LESAA, the companion piece to the campaign finance

legislation, established how election participants will transition to

the new campaign financing rules. Part of the 2014…. One of the biggest

changes that happened is, of course, extending the term of office for

local elected officials from three to four years — that was based on

recommendations put forward by UBCM — and then moving the general

election voting day from November to October, beginning in

Part of the reason why a lot of these…. Why sometimes the 2018

will be brought forward is because it was a recommendation as a

phased-in approach to the legislation that was brought forward back in

2014. Lots of feedback was given at that time. One of the things that I

think is critically important…. At the time, Rhona Martin was the chair

of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Of course, UBCM put a considerable

amount of effort into this piece of legislation. I know that they

continue to do that, so I think it’s important that they are

acknowledged in this process.

I wanted to highlight the fact that the work to ensure

accountability for third-party advertisers was part of the original

elections campaign financing act. What wasn’t a part of the original

piece of legislation, and what we are dealing with today — and that’s

why I certainly support this piece of legislation forward — is that it

hadn’t set forward the expenditure amounts. That’s part of the

conversation that we are having today.

[11:45 a.m.]

It was felt back in 2014, when a lot of this work was being done,

that a phased-in approach was the responsible thing to do to ensure that

the changes were appropriately able to be established. Elections B.C.

had come forward at the time, discussing the need to make sure any of

the changes that were being brought forward in LECFA provided the

ability for both government and Elections B.C. to be able to communicate

that appropriately out to the public, and I think the foundation remains

the same.

When I look back on my speaking notes to LECFA, they’re so similar

to the speaking notes that were brought forward today by the Municipal

Affairs Minister, so it’s good to see, certainly, some consistency

there. I think it speaks to the fact that we’ve got some incredible

staff that work behind the scenes to make sure, as ministers and as

governments, that we’re well prepared.

Of course, at the original time, the history lesson here is that

the work we did as B.C. Liberals was to ensure that transparency and

accountability were being brought forward, with the idea that to keep

democracy strong, we need to keep the rules governing local elections up

to date. This is, of course, what we’re doing here today and debating

before the House.

Consulting and having those discussions with stakeholders, looking

at what we introduce in legislation and how we modernize local elections

to maximize fairness, transparency and accountability is something that

I’m proud is being continued with today. Sometimes it’s difficult when

you move from government to opposition that important work that happens

doesn’t get forgotten and continues and improves, and I think that’s a

reflection of what excellent government is.

This is an extension of work that, certainly, I was proud to be a

part of, but so many in local government and so many organizations were

as well. I was just reviewing some of my previous notes from back when

we introduced the original piece of legislation. There was important

work that was done on what third-party contributors looked like and

taking, certainly, a phased-in approach to implementing the task force

recommendation.

UBCM, which was such a key, critical cornerstone of the original

piece of legislation — and of course, here today — talked about the

importance of having a phased-in approach and looking at how the

legislation ensures accountability of third-party advertisers, not

directed to candidates but advertising on their behalf. How do we look

at that? I’m glad that there’s more clarity that has been provided

today. That’s building on important work that was done early

on.

New rules to make third-party advertisers accountable, by making

them register with Elections B.C. and file campaign financial disclosure

statements that identify contributions received and money spent on

third-party advertising — that was a cornerstone that we looked at back

in 2014, but more work needed to happen as it evolved. I’m glad that

this piece of legislation being brought forward today looks at that. We

believed back then, as we do now, that the public needs facts about the

campaign that promote honesty, fairness and, ultimately, public

confidence in local elections to make sure that we have requirements

that are consistent with provincial rules.

I was listening to the member for Surrey-Panorama. Often, some of

the challenges early on were: what’s the difference between federal,

provincial and local election rules? That is something that…. This

particular bill pertains to local government. I think consistency was an

important cornerstone that we looked at when we originally brought

forward this piece of legislation, and education was a key

cornerstone.

On any change that needs to happen, we need to make sure that

people have the ability to understand what the changes are and why those

changes are being made. I look forward to the Minister of Municipal

Affairs…. I know that she will be going out to work closely with

stakeholder groups to look at how we educate out in the

communities.

[11:50 a.m.]

I think it is critically important that we encourage people to get

involved with local elections. You could probably tell that I’m

incredibly passionate about encouraging people to get involved at their

local level. I certainly can express my most sincere appreciation for

all of the mentors and coaches that I had when I began my foray into

politics, as many of us here in the House start in local government or

school board.

I think the more that we can encourage citizens across this

province to look at getting involved and engaged with the activity in

our communities, the better our democracy will be. I am so proud to have

the ability to go and speak to so many young people across the province

— and, more specifically, now with the critic role I have.

All of us in this House want to ensure that the next generation

feels both the opportunity and the challenge to step up, to be engaged

with and to be a part of your local democracy. I think this is just one

more step, one more tool that we’ve built on work that was done,

certainly, back in 2014. But it goes back far more than that — back to

the first recommendations in 2010 by the UBCM, in the recommendations

that they brought forward, and then later, the white paper.

I will be supporting this piece of legislation, and I want to

thank the minister for bringing it forward.

Deputy Speaker: I’d like to recognize the member for Surrey-Cloverdale. Of course,

we’re close to the hour, but we might as well get a few remarks in while

we can.

M. Starchuk: Before I get into my comments, I want to make comments about the

member for Surrey-Panorama and one of her staff members that has left

her office to come to my office. It is a great addition to have Naz

Sabharwal as part of my staff.

Bill 9 is exactly what’s needed to address the campaign spending

in what we call the municipal Wild West. Coming from that municipal

background, I’ve experienced the spending of 2014 and 2018 and the vast

differences that were there. We’ve heard some of the other members make

references to 2018’s loopholes and how this is going to change that. I

would much rather use the term “inconsistencies” in how things were

applied, and the creativeness that was around that, to kind of skirt

some of those issues. This legislation follows what the B.C.

municipalities have been asking for. It creates something that is fair

and transparent for everyone. It translates into governments that work

better for people.

When we talk about electoral organizations, I was part of one of

those for a number of years. We know exactly how that campaign spending

goes, and it does not always apply to other areas inside the province of

B.C. I believe there are only 13 of these, and this is what will make

them accountable as to how the money comes in and how the money goes

out. These civic parties will have to ensure that the money that comes

towards them as donations and the manner in which it’s spent is with the

most transparency and follows what’s inside the bill that’s in front of

us today.

With regard to transparency, when we talk about stakeholders, the

key stakeholders were all consulted. They include the people from

Elections B.C., UBCM, First Nations that utilize the Local Elections

Campaign Financing Act, and the B.C. School Trustees Association

represents the board of education.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

What Bill 9 does is it levels the playing field. No longer is the

ability there for large corporations or unions to write those cheques to

make the playing field unlevel. Bill 9 will ensure that the financial

checks and balances are inside there. Everything that’s inside this bill

is very comprehensive.

[11:55 a.m.]

It is taking a look at all of the aspects of campaign finances. It

is taking a look at how it’s spent, how it’s accounted for. The world of

operating expenses now falls into all of the categories that are there.

The accounting is there, and the registration is in place. Lastly, there

is a greater amount of emphasis placed on a penalty. The penalties are

far greater than what they were before, and they mean something. In the

past, somebody could have the ability to ignore what was there and take

the minor consequences.

Noting the hour, I reserve my right to continue in the next

sitting and move adjournment of the debate.

M. Starchuk moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

Copyright © 2021 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.