Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 71

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Provincial Summit on Aging and services for seniors

A. Kang

Jewish Community Centre

M. Lee

Eid Milad-un-Nabi

R. Kahlon

Hosting of World Para-Nordic Skiing Championships in Prince George

M. Morris

Comments on question period by Gulf Islands Secondary students

A. Olsen

Merritt Country Christmas Week

J. Tegart

Oral Questions

Referendum on electoral reform

A. Wilkinson

Hon. D. Eby

M. de Jong

Monitoring of fish processing plants and protection of wild salmon

S. Furstenau

Hon. G. Heyman

Kinder Morgan pipeline proposal and oil spill response

S. Furstenau

Hon. G. Heyman

Pattullo Bridge replacement project

J. Sturdy

Hon. C. Trevena

E&N line and commuter rail service in Victoria area

T. Stone

Hon. C. Trevena

Petitions

E. Foster

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

S. Furstenau

Petitions

S. Furstenau

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 6 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act

Hon. D. Eby

J. Martin

J. Rustad

P. Milobar

D. Clovechok

A. Olsen

D. Barnett

A. Weaver

M. Morris

S. Bond

D. Davies

M. Bernier

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier (continued)

Hon. J. Horgan

R. Coleman

S. Bond

T. Redies

E. Ross

D. Barnett

J. Rustad

J. Thornthwaite

T. Wat

L. Throness

D. Ashton

D. Clovechok

J. Isaacs

C. Oakes

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2017

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

E. Ross: Today in the gallery we have Mrs. Terri Cameron, who is a teacher from

Caledonia Secondary School in Terrace. She’s here with her grade 12 law

class, and the purpose of her visit is to encourage greater interest and

engagement in the political process and help counteract voter

apathy.

One of the students in particular, Mercedes Trigo, led the fundraising

efforts, because everybody knows how hard it is for rural and northern

B.C.’ers to come to Victoria. So a very special thanks to the students,

teachers and parents of Caledonia Secondary on this incredible

initiative.

Would the House please make welcome Mrs. Terri Cameron and her grade

12 law class.

E. Foster: In the House today, we have a delegation from Cystic Fibrosis Canada,

who are visiting the Legislature and will meet with our caucus later on this

afternoon and, I’m sure, are meeting with members of the

government.

I would particularly like to introduce one of the members of this

group. Melissa Verleg is a constituent of mine, a lady I’ve met with several

times, who is part of the group and a great advocate but who also suffers

with CF. They’re here with the group today to speak to the minister, I know,

about his attempts to hopefully make Orkambi, a drug, available under the

PharmaCare plan.

Make them very welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure today to introduce a number of individuals visiting

the gallery. One of them is a constituent of my colleague from

Nelson-Creston. That is Jim Leslie with the Canadian Association of Medical

Cannabis Dispensaries. As well, accompanying him are Kevin Adams, from

Kelowna; Jeremy Jacob and Ehren Richardson, from Vancouver; as well as their

executive director, Heather Taylor. Would the House please make them most

welcome.

J. Isaacs: It gives me great pleasure to introduce my constituent Todd Hamanac,

who is joining us in the gallery this afternoon, along with his wife,

Carrie, and family members Cassia, Eva, Peter and Sandra.

Todd is a patient advocate for Cystic Fibrosis Canada and earlier

today gave an inspirational speech at the call-for-action rally on the

parliamentary stairs of the Legislature. Todd is here to spread awareness of

cystic fibrosis and those living in British Columbia with this

disease.

Also joining Todd is Chris Black, secretary of the Campbell River

chapter; Carey, Rob, Madeleine and Alexander Kasikowski, from Vancouver;

Leona Pinsky, from Vancouver; and Dave and Heather Strange, from

Victoria.

Would the House please join me in extending a warm welcome to our

guests.

R. Sultan: Today in the House, we have Wanda Morris and Marissa Semkiw from CARP,

the Canadian Association of Retired Persons. They are meeting today with

members from both sides of the House to discuss issues relating to the more

experienced Canadians. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Robinson: I’d like the House to join me in welcoming two friends and

constituents who are joining us today. Kay Norton is a retired elementary

school teacher, and Bill Archibald is a semi-retired business instructor at

Douglas College. These are two constituents that have tremendous vim and

vigour and passion for making our community a better place and for

participating in democracy. Would everyone please welcome them to the House

today.

Hon. C. Trevena: I have three introductions to make. One is to follow up on those

introductions made by people welcoming the cystic fibrosis lobby. Chris

Black, as I hear, is in the gallery. She is a passionate and articulate

advocate for people who have cystic fibrosis. I’m very pleased that…. I’ve

had very good conversations with her very often in the

constituency.

I’d also like the House to welcome Louis Madley, who’s joining us in

the gallery today. Lou is celebrating his 96th birthday and remembering his

many hours here at the Legislature while serving 30 years of public service

with the B.C. government. Lou retired back in 1984, having worked in the

Ministry of Transportation in various roles, including as speechwriter,

legislation writer and special project officer. I hope that everyone will

make Lou feel very welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker, my third one, if I might. They are not here just yet, but

they are in the precinct and will be coming to join us in question period —

16 grade 5 students from Campbell River Christian School. They’re here with

their teacher, Cheryl Hocking, as well as a number of parents who have

joined them. I was very pleased to meet the group from my constituency down

in the rotunda earlier on today. Lots of smart, engaged questions. Very

eager to see our proceedings. Like all MLAs, I did caution them not to

behave back at school as we behave in the Legislature.

S. Furstenau: I’d like to introduce several people in the chamber today. Jenafor

Ryane works with Rivers Without Borders Canada to protect the incredible

transboundary watersheds of northwest B.C. and southeast Alaska. She’s here

to see her petition tabled today.

Tavish Campbell, captain and underwater videographer — timely, this

week. Tavish is the photographer who filmed potentially contaminated

bloodwater being pumped out of fish processing plants and into the marine

environment.

Christine Black, B.C. provincial advocate from Cystic Fibrosis Canada,

is here with a large group advocating for the provincial government to make

available effective treatments for those living with cystic

fibrosis.

Alan Cassels is a B.C. health policy analyst and a longtime friend of

my husband, Blaise.

Please make them all feel welcome today.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a remarkable young woman,

Lilia Zaharieva. She’s here with the cystic fibrosis group. Lilia, as people

will know, has been advocating for Orkambi to be available here in British

Columbia. She’s a strong, tireless advocate, a constituent and a student

leader at the University of Victoria. Would the House please make her feel

very welcome.

Hon. C. Trevena: I hope the House will indulge me for a moment. A few minutes ago I

introduced the group from Campbell River Christian School in anticipation of

their arriving. They have now arrived in the gallery. I hope the House will

once again make Cheryl Hocking, all the grade 5 students from Campbell River

Christian School and their parents who are accompanying them very welcome. I

hope that the House will make sure they enjoy the coming

half-hour.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

PROVINCIAL SUMMIT ON AGING

AND SERVICES FOR

SENIORS

A. Kang: I rise today to share the success of the Provincial Summit on

Aging, participated in by more than 100 agencies, all with the common

goals of improving quality of life for seniors, supporting

community-based social services and helping our seniors age in

place.

Held in Surrey earlier this month, the Provincial Summit on Aging

was sponsored by the raising the profile project, United Way of the

Lower Mainland, city of Surrey, active aging research team, B.C.

Recreation and Parks Association, University of British Columbia and

Ministry of Health. It was an accumulation of two years of research,

community development and provincial networking. I would like to take a

moment to recognize everyone who has put in so much time, work and

effort and to congratulate all of the hard work that has come to

fruition.

The heart of the summit is a declaration signed by over 100

organizations who all care deeply about our seniors. The declaration

recognizes the essential role of community-based seniors services in

supporting seniors independence while building social connectedness and

resilience. It is intended as a demonstration of our collective

commitment to our seniors and an emphasis that seniors issues continue

to be the top priorities of the people of British Columbia.

Ninety-four percent of B.C. seniors over 65 and 74 percent of B.C.

seniors over 85 live independently in the community, so it is extremely

important for us to build in the infrastructure of community-based

seniors services to support the healthy aging of the vast majority of

the seniors population in B.C. The Provincial Summit on Aging has

reminded us that you and I, together, can have a tremendous impact on

our seniors’ lives and aging experience.

JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTRE

M. Lee: Keeping with the same spirit of community I spoke about last week

with the Indo-Canadian Senior’s Society, I want to recognize another

cornerstone organization in Vancouver-Langara, one that has been

bringing people together to connect, learn, grow and play since

[1:45 p.m.]

Over 40,000 people use the facilities of the Jewish Community

Centre every year. That’s one of the highest attendance levels in

greater Vancouver. About half come from outside the Jewish community,

including my family. When I was three years old, my mother was working

as a nurse at Vancouver General Hospital. She needed affordable child

care. She found it at the JCC. It started as a lifeline for my parents,

but as I went on to daycare, Cub Scouts, the swim team and floor hockey,

the JCC became a major part of my early life.

My two daughters each went through ten years at the JCC’s Dena

Wosk School of Performing Arts and its exceptional summer musical

theatre program, Gotta Sing! Gotta Dance! But it’s more than

just recreation and the arts. The Jewish Community Centre has always

been a place where families can turn for help, a force for inclusiveness

and where traditions are passed on from one generation to the

next.

There’s no better example than the Vancouver Holocaust Education

Centre, located in the JCC. Started by Holocaust survivors, the centre

has worked hard to bring a lasting legacy through anti-racism education.

Each year 25,000 students visit the centre to learn about human rights,

social justice and genocide awareness. Sadly, these lessons are still

relevant in our world today.

I often reflect on the impact the Jewish Community Centre has had

on my family. It’s not just the programs. It’s where I first learned

what it meant to be a good member of a community. The work done by

organizations like the JCC can easily be taken for granted, but they

stand as pillars in our communities, promoting good citizenship, a sense

of community and, yes, a place to play a little floor hockey.

EID MILAD-UN-NABI

R. Kahlon: On December 1, many Muslims around the world and here in British

Columbia are celebrating Milad-un-Nabi, the birthday anniversary of the

Prophet Muhammad — peace be upon him. On this special day, mass

gatherings are organized to commemorate the birth, life and teachings of

the Prophet Muhammad — peace be upon him. On this day, Muslim families

will share food, peace and love with their neighbours.

To mark this celebration, on behalf of the Islamic Association of

Western Canada and Jamia Masjid Aulia Allah — the Friends of Allah

Mosque — Mr. Arjamand Tahir would like to invite all members of this

House to attend an event on December 9 in Surrey, B.C. In Canada and

British Columbia, we are known to have a society that respects,

celebrates and embraces people of all walks of life.

It is critical that we bring communities together in celebrations

because we will find that we have more in common than we know. It’s

public events like this that help us continue to build a more inclusive,

respectful and equitable society.

One of my favourite quotes of the Prophet Muhammad — peace be upon

him — is: “None of you have faith until he loves, for his brother or his

neighbour, what he loves for himself.”

On behalf of the government of British Columbia and all the

members of this House, I would like to extend my best wishes to all of

our Muslim friends and elders celebrating Eid Milad-un-Nabi. Long live

peace.

HOSTING OF WORLD PARA-NORDIC SKIING

CHAMPIONSHIPS IN

PRINCE GEORGE

M. Morris: Today I want to highlight a Nordic skiing event that’s taking

place at one of the best Nordic skiing venues in the country. The

Caledonia Nordic Ski Club, located in Prince George, has been awarded

the 2019 World Para-Nordic Skiing Championships, a pinnacle event

awarded by the International Paralympic Committee. It will be held from

February 15 to 25, providing for a full eight days of competition. It is

the first time the World Para-Nordic Skiing Championships will be held

in Canada.

National teams from 20 countries will visit Prince George with

over 400 participants, including athletes, coaches, technicians, mission

staff and others. Two sports will be involved — cross-country skiing and

biathlon — in three categories: standing, sit-skiing and visually

impaired.

Leveraging on investments made from the 2015 Canada Winter Games,

the event is expected to contribute $6.3 million to the provincial

economy — $5.3 million of that amount to the local economy.

The International Paralympic Committee is looking for a permanent

continental venue and is looking at Prince George as a choice for a

permanent North American site for the World Para-Nordic Skiing

Championships. These events recur every four years. Key legacies are

These legacies contribute just as much, if not more, to the community

and to the future of hosting recurring World Para-Nordic Skiing

Championships and other world-level events such as world Nordic masters

and the International Biathlon Union.

[1:50 p.m.]

ability to reach target Destination B.C. tourism markets with content to

stimulate international tourism, with a viewership of over half a

The event provides a unique ability to inspire and highlight

activities to draw greater awareness around making our communities more

accessible.

COMMENTS ON QUESTION PERIOD BY

GULF ISLANDS SECONDARY

STUDENTS

A. Olsen: A few weeks back I introduced students from Gulf Islands Secondary

School. I asked them to provide their feedback on what they saw in

question period. Here’s my report, and it’s just a sample.

Malia wrote: “I was definitely not expecting to see so many grown

men who are Members of Parliament speaking to each other with such

aggression and almost violence.”

Celia wrote: “It seemed like a bunch of kids fighting to see who

could get the candy first. I think it would be ideal if they listened to

each other and waited to hear the answer, instead of interrupting and

banging on desks.”

Samantha: “Unfortunately, to put it lightly, everyone’s reaction

mirrored that of a kindergarten classroom, and that is an insult to

kindergartens everywhere.”

Aremis wrote: “Behaviour which is considered beastly in public and

unacceptable in schools is openly encouraged during question

period.”

Quinn wrote: “It was depressing and disappointing that the people

in our literal government act like that. The conduct during question

period is really poor, and I find that really sad.”

Nicholas wrote: “I’ve been to a rodeo with more civility than I

witnessed in the House.”

Eve wrote: “At least half of the question period was spent calling

each other names, banging on tables, interrupting each other and telling

people to shut up and sit down. I believe it is a disrespectful way to

treat each other but also a disrespectful way to treat our

province.”

Fraser wrote: “I cannot bear to think of the precious time wasted

banging on tables and calling each other names that instead could be put

into creating a better province for all British Columbians.”

Thank you to the GISS students, our future leaders, for their

frank observations. During my first session in this House, I have heard

the theatre of question period defended regularly. I will not accept the

rationalization that this is the way it is, so it is the way it will

always be. I am committed, and I accept their challenge.

MERRITT COUNTRY CHRISTMAS WEEK

J. Tegart: Many of the MLAs in this House come from small communities, where

traditions and community events serve as a binding agent, keeping the

community together. With that in mind, it’s my pleasure to rise and talk

about the annual Merritt Country Christmas Week. This past Monday

started a week of festivities, which included the lighting of a giant

Christmas tree generously provided by Triple “G” Logging, tree

decorating, dance recitals, a craft fair, visits with Santa, a bake sale

and lots of hot chocolate.

One of the highlights of this annual event was the Country

Christmas Light Up Parade, which included over 55 floats, provided by

members of all parts of the community. It was wonderful to see the

hundreds of families who lined the streets to support and watch all of

the incredible light-covered floats. To see the little ones’ eyes light

up when they spot Santa on his sleigh reminds us what this season is all

about.

Aside from showcasing local talents, what Christmas Week serves to

do is set the tone for the community and the holiday season. For

Merritt, community events like these work to raise community spirit and

draw us all closer together. I’m so proud to be part of a community that

values local traditions and togetherness.

Thank you to everyone who helped make this week a great success.

All the best of the season, and merry Christmas.

[1:55 p.m.]

Oral Questions

REFERENDUM ON ELECTORAL REFORM

A. Wilkinson: Last week we had the experience of seeing the NDP government put a

survey up on the Internet about the prospects for electoral reform and

proportional representation. This morning, at a news conference,

representatives of the NDP and the Green Party got up and faced repeated

questions about how this survey was, in fact, skewed.

Our most senior member of the press gallery had to ask the

question six times before getting an answer, and at that point, the

member for Cowichan Valley admitted that the survey is slanted and has

shortcomings. The survey is deliberately slanted in favour of

proportional representation.

I have a simple question to the Attorney General. Does he agree

that the member for Cowichan Valley is correct and that the survey,

which is supposedly objective, is actually defective?

Hon. D. Eby: It is interesting. I hear from the members opposite that the

survey is clearly slanted in favour of proportional representation, and

then I get a press release from Fair Vote B.C. that there are

ambiguities or misleading assumptions that don’t favour proportional

representation. I hear from the Greens that it doesn’t favour

proportional representation.

I think we’ve struck the balance here between the two sides with

the survey. We have the proportional representation people criticizing

the survey. We have the first-past-the-post people criticizing the

survey. At the end of the day, it is a fair survey between the two

sides.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Quilchena on a supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: The Attorney General’s answer clearly demonstrates that there is

division in the ranks on the other side of the House. The Premier

refused to answer a question taken from the survey on Monday. This

morning the coalition member from Cowichan Valley acknowledged the

survey has shortcomings, and now we have the Attorney General saying

it’s just tickety-boo. The Green member said: “We think there might be

some shortcomings within the survey.” We now have the coalition starting

to fray.

We have to ask the Attorney General: will he admit that the survey

has shortcomings, and will he withdraw it because it’s receiving

widespread criticism as being biased?

Hon. D. Eby: The member knows that I have a unique role in this referendum

process — to be neutral between the sides as best as possible in

preparing this referendum.

If the member wants to know what widespread criticism sounds like

in terms of putting together a referendum, Angus Reid called the 2002

referendum by the B.C. Liberals “one of the most amateurish, one-sided

attempts to gauge the public will that I have seen in my professional

career.”

If the member wants to talk about fraying coalitions….

Interjections.

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

Hon. D. Eby: During the throne speech, every member on that side voted in

favour of a referendum.

Last Thursday the member for Quilchena said: “We don’t see the

need for a referendum.” But then, on Wednesday, not a week later, the

member for Kamloops–South Thompson said: “Actually, I’m okay with that.

The official opposition is okay with that. We’re okay with asking

British Columbians to vote on our electoral system. I think it’s always

a good thing to ask British Columbians what they think.”

If you want to talk about fraying coalitions, perhaps the B.C.

Liberals will get their act together before the consultation process

closes to get in a submission. I encourage all British Columbians to

visit engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote and put forward those submissions about

how the referendum should run.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Quilchena on a second

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: It’s becoming apparent that the neutral arbiter of this process

actually has a very condescending approach to criticism about

it.

Interjections.

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

A. Wilkinson: We heard this morning, from the member for Cowichan Valley, that

the coalition thinks there should be a stronger turnout measured in this

survey, that it would only be legitimate if more than 50 percent of

British Columbians voted. The quote was: “‘We saw a 50 percent turnout

in the Vancouver referendum on transit. We would like to see something

at least comparable to that,’ said the member for Cowichan

Valley.”

[2:00 p.m.]

Yet this referendum, and this act that is before the House, says

that the government must implement a vote of more than 50 percent in

favour. There’s no threshold for a turnout. Whether the turnout is 10

percent or 30 percent, a tiny percentage of British Columbians will

mandate this government to change to a proportional representation

system. This is unconscionable.

To the Attorney General, does he agree that any legitimate result

in this referendum will require at least a 50 percent voter turnout, as

suggested by the member for Cowichan Valley, his coalition

party?

Hon. D. Eby: At every step in this process, we have taken measures to ensure

the voter turnout will be as high as possible — in particular, for

example, choosing a mail-in ballot, which consistently has a higher

turnout than municipal elections do. Though, there is one exception to

that rule. That was when the members opposite held a referendum on

whether First Nations have treaty rights.

I want to read to you what happened in that one, where they did

not engage the public in the questions on the ballot, where they did not

engage the public about how to hold the referendum, which we are doing.

The CBC described what followed this way: “Native and church leaders

called the plebiscite ‘stupid,’ ‘immoral,’ ‘amateurish’ and ‘racist.’ By

the May 15 deadline, only about one-third of the mail-in ballots were

returned. Many ballots were burned. Others were turned into paper

airplanes, cut into snowflakes, even toilet paper.” We set the bar a

little bit higher than that.

M. de Jong: I’ve noticed that the one thing the Attorney General does not like

to speak about is the two previous occasions in the last 12 years that

British Columbians were asked to render an opinion on this matter. In

2005 and 2009, British Columbians were consulted directly about their

preference for electoral reform. An entirely non-political forum, a

panel, developed a recommendation, and a clear question was put to

people in a process managed by Elections B.C.

Does the Attorney General really believe that this charade of an

exercise that he and his Green pals have launched in any way measures up

to the standards of independence and non-partisanship established by

those earlier referenda exercises? And will he finally acknowledge this

for what it is — a deliberate and cynical attempt by the NDP and the

Green Party to manipulate a specific result that will allow them to

cling to power?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is incorrect. The most recent referendum was the

transit referendum that was held in the Lower Mainland, about TransLink.

Richmond mayor Malcolm Brodie described it…

Interjections.

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

Hon. D. Eby: …as “a recipe for disaster.” White Rock mayor Wayne Baldwin called

it “an absolute, utter and total mistake…a total abrogation of

responsibility.” Port Coquitlam mayor and 2005 B.C. Liberal candidate

Greg Moore said: “The hypocrisy of this policy platform proposal is

unbelievable.”

The member was there for that referendum. The member was in

cabinet for that referendum. With all due respect, I don’t think he’s in

a position to advise us on criticism about referenda.

If he has a submission, and it sounds like he does, he should

provide it — just like I encourage all political parties across B.C. to

provide those submissions and all British Columbians to participate in

the consultation process, which is what we’re doing in a fully

transparent way. There’ll be a report with recommendations going to

cabinet. We don’t even have the question yet, Member.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader, official opposition, on a

supplemental.

M. de Jong: Well, I think I understand why the AG and his colleagues are

reticent about referring to the earlier exercises in electoral reform.

They’re embarrassed that this process, this charade they have

established, won’t withstand any kind of scrutiny.

[2:05 p.m.]

The other day the NDP got together for their convention. There

they were, all hanging out, congratulating each other for all the

projects they’ve cancelled. Then they turned their attention to a matter

of grave importance: how often the proletariat were going to meet in the

future. Was it going to be annually? Was it going to be

biannually?

The big cabinet guns were called out to speak to that. The Finance

Minister was there. Didn’t see the Transportation Minister, but out they

came. Because why? They needed a two-thirds majority. The pillars and

foundation of democracy were at stake.

The Premier used to support the same notion of an elevated

threshold, the double threshold, when it came to something as

fundamental as electoral reform.

Interjections.

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

M. de Jong: Apparently, his position and the position of the government have

changed. Apparently, according to the member from the Green Party this

morning, not because he was asked to abandon that principle by the Green

Party.

My question is to the Attorney General. If it wasn’t a demand from

his pals in the Green Party, why has the government — and the Premier,

in particular — broken their word, abandoned rural B.C. and endorsed a

process that could see fewer than 20 percent of British Columbians

determine something as fundamental as electoral reform in this

province?

Hon. D. Eby: It was a pleasure to be at the NDP convention. I don’t remember

the conversations quite the way the member does, though. I remember a

conversation about transnational money laundering that exploded, under

the watch of the member opposite, at our casinos.

I remember conversations about a 9,000 percent misstatement of

ICBC’s finances. The member for Kamloops–South Thompson….

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: I remember a conversation about tent cities across our province

that took place under the previous Housing Minister.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Eby: Members, Members.

I don’t want to get into partisan political talk, but I

am….

Interjections.

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

Hon. D. Eby: I am interested in knowing what the submission is that the B.C.

Liberals will provide on proportional representation. Their previous

leader talked about the ugly realities of the first-past-the-post

system, talked about forcing politicians to compete for all your votes —

that all politicians will have an incentive to get along.

Whether they are in favour of proportional representation or

whether they are opposed to proportional representation, whatever they

decide, their submission will be accepted in the consultation process.

It will be taken seriously, with the submissions of all British

Columbians. I look forward to receiving it, whatever it’s going to

say.

MONITORING OF

FISH PROCESSING PLANTS AND

PROTECTION OF WILD SALMON

S. Furstenau: Speaking of charades, under the previous government, despite

population growth and increased resource activity, our environmental

protection in this province — monitoring and enforcement capacity — was

crippled by budget and staff cuts. They found fewer infractions because

they weren’t looking.

Earlier this session we spoke about illegal dams being built in

B.C. without government permitting or oversight, a case where a citizen

spoke up to identify problems that the government wouldn’t.

[2:10 p.m.]

This week another concerned British Columbian, Tavish Campbell,

has stepped forward — this time with videos of blood pouring out of

underwater pipes. The blood, he has told us, is coming from farmed

salmon and is contaminated with piscine reovirus, a potential risk to

our wild salmon stocks.

While I appreciate the Minister of Environment’s immediate

response to the videos, we need a government that works to proactively

protect our environment, not one that waits for the public to prove that

we’ve got a problem.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. Mr. Campbell dove

at two out of the 109 fish processing plants in B.C. Is the minister

going to expand his review to cover every plant that releases effluent

into wild salmon habitat to ensure it’s not contaminated, or will Mr.

Campbell need to keep testing the bloodwater?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. I also want to thank

Tavish Campbell for bringing this issue to the attention of the

government and the public of B.C. and Canada. It is important. To view

that video is visceral, and I had the same reaction that British

Columbians and Canadians did. What is going on here?

I looked into it, and I found out that under the previous

government, the last inspection of this fish processing plant was in

2013. Despite the fact that the plant was out of compliance at that

inspection, no further inspection took place. No further inspection took

place. So I dug a little further.

We have over 7,000 permits to inspect and a handful of inspectors

to do it. Notwithstanding that, I’ve asked inspectors to go to the

Brown’s Bay processing plant. I’ve asked them to inspect what’s going on

there. We will review the samples that were taken by Mr. Campbell, and

if we need greater certainty, we will take additional

simples.

The permits for Brown’s Bay are being reviewed. They are three

decades old. The conditions on them are three decades old. We will be

reviewing the conditions to ensure they meet the expectations of British

Columbians that nothing — nothing — goes into our ocean that has

contaminants or pathogens, that it’s clean and that we protect wild

salmon in British Columbia. We will apply those conditions to all the

permits for fish processing plants in British Columbia. We’re here to

protect wild salmon, the 10,000 jobs that depend on them and the

Indigenous people who depend on them for food.

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

KINDER MORGAN PIPELINE PROPOSAL

AND OIL SPILL

RESPONSE

S. Furstenau: I appreciate the Minister of Environment’s passion on protecting

our oceans. I share that with him.

There are so many examples of communities and individuals in our

province having to step up where the government hasn’t been there to

protect our waterways and our marine environment. The Heiltsuk Nation

feels forced to set up their own Indigenous marine response centre

because they know that the government has not been able to protect their

waters in the face of a major spill.

This week Premier Notley and Minister Carr are in town to try to

sell to British Columbians the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

The B.C. Liberals like to say that we have a world-class oil spill

response regime to deal with spills. Nothing could be further from the

truth. The so-called world-class spill response is based on near-perfect

conditions that include, incredibly, 20 hours of sunlight. These

fictitious conditions exist exactly nowhere in B.C.

My question is, again, to the Minister of Environment. Other

jurisdictions are coming here to sell British Columbians this project on

the scientifically inaccurate premise that we have a world-class spill

response. Do you agree that the spill response regime based on

conditions that don’t actually exist cannot be world-class?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you, again, to the member.

First, let me say to the members of the Heiltsuk Nation, to the

two crew members of the Jake Shearer who went onto the barge

and anchored it to prevent it from going on the rocks, to the many

Ministry of Environment staff and Coast Guard staff who prevented a

catastrophe: thank you on behalf of all British Columbians.

It was a combination of hard work, determination but also a

measure of luck. The Heiltsuk have now twice within a year faced one

real catastrophe and one potential catastrophe. Even before this

incident, I’d arranged to go and meet with Chief Slett and members of

the nation in Bella Bella in mid-December, and I look forward to doing

that.

I know one of the things we’ll be asked is whether we support

Indigenous response capacity on the central coast, and I can say that we

do. We will urge the federal government to work with the Heiltsuk and

with other nations and with the provincial government to implement

that.

As to the rest of the member’s question…. There are flaws. There

were flaws in the hearing process, we believe. That’s why we went to the

federal court to defend B.C.’s interests, to defend our coast. It

doesn’t matter if spill response is world-class if it’s not effective

and it’s not adequate. We’re here to defend B.C.’s interests and B.C.’s

coast, and we will do that.

PATTULLO BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT

J. Sturdy: In order that a new bridge be in place before the old one is due

to be taken out of service in 2022, procurement for the Pattullo Bridge

replacement needed to be in place by now. Procurement was planned to

occur just after the awarding of the Massey Tunnel replacement contract,

which we know would have secured a $900 million savings to taxpayers but

was cancelled.

Highway 99 is a mess. New problems have developed on the Port

Mann, and now the minister is creating another crisis with the Pattullo

dithering.

To the minister, why was procurement for the Pattullo…? Why has it

fallen behind schedule? Is it because it is also stuck in review

paralysis?

Hon. C. Trevena: I find it great that the opposition is now engaged on matters in

the Lower Mainland. They had 16 years when they could have been working

to fix what has become a crisis in infrastructure in the Lower Mainland.

Instead, they played partisan games. They went to war with the mayors in

the region, and nothing got done. It was gridlock.

We…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we could hear the response, please.

Hon. C. Trevena: …are working on solutions. We are moving forward, unlike the

opposition who spent 16 years wasting time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky on a

supplemental.

J. Sturdy: Well, I’ll take that as a yes from the minister.

The business case was supposed to have been completed this summer

for the Pattullo. Government should already have confirmed the

provincial contribution, which should, interestingly, now be the bulk of

$1.5 billion, as there are no other revenue streams.

Regardless, British Columbians deserve to know whether these

timelines are being met — if replacing the Pattullo is on track for the

end of 2022. We’re halfway through the federal government’s mandate, and

there appears to be a little progress over the past number of months in

securing investments from the federal government in major transportation

projects.

Again to the minister, has she confirmed the provincial

contribution for Pattullo, and has she secured a confirmation of the

federal government funding share?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I think the opposition, who were in government for 16 long years —

far too long for most people in British Columbia — had the opportunity

to realize the Pattullo Bridge needed replacing, but instead of actually

working with the mayors of the region, they went to war with the mayors.

Instead of trying to fix things, they ensured that there were arbitrary

referenda, that no solution was found.

We are working with the communities. We are working with

TransLink. We are going to find a solution and make sure people can

travel safely across the Pattullo Bridge.

E&N LINE AND COMMUTER RAIL

SERVICE IN VICTORIA

AREA

T. Stone: To the Minister of Transportation, perhaps a few words might ring

some bells in her mind from the past 16 years. How about the Port Mann

Bridge? How about the South Fraser Perimeter Road? Go take a look. How

about the investments…? I wonder if she’s ever heard of the Canada Line.

How about Evergreen? Does the minister know what that project was all

about?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may hear the question.

T. Stone: The NDP cancelled the George Massey Tunnel replacement project

because they prefer more reviews instead of actually taking action. It’s

the same story here in greater Victoria, with the E&N corridor

between Langford and Victoria, where a request for proposals to develop

a business case for light rail was issued this past spring.

Now, five bids were received. Hopes of residents were raised

really high on the prospect of light rail as an option for the thousands

of commuters who are heading in and out of downtown Victoria every

single day. These hopes were dashed last week when the minister

confirmed…. She revealed that she had cancelled the RFP, citing the need

for — wait for it — another review.

Having cancelled the business planning for light rail in greater

Victoria due to her decision to launch another review, will the minister

today table the terms of reference for this new review?

Hon. C. Trevena: For 16 years, they were government. They had the opportunity to

realize that the capital of B.C. was on Vancouver Island. They had every

opportunity to deal with the problems of congestion in the lower Island.

For 16 years, they ignored the problems of Vancouver Island.

Just before the last election, the weeks before the last election,

they suddenly decided: “We’ve got a Vancouver Island strategy. We’re

going to solve everything. We’re going to fix it. Let’s go out for an

RFP.” Just before the last election.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Trevena: Talk about crass hypocrisy. We can’t be born again.

[2:25 p.m.]

T. Stone: Hon. Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we could get on with the question.

T. Stone: I think that British Columbians, when they actually look back over

the last 16 years…. They’re going to be really, really pleased when they

see the investments that were made in this province — when they consider

the South Fraser Perimeter Road, the Port Mann Bridge, the Evergreen

Line, the Canada Line, on and on it goes, billions of dollars of

transportation investment in every corner of this province.

Right here on Vancouver Island, in greater Victoria, just in the

last number of years, the former government invested $17½ million in the

Belleville terminals. How about the $22.5 million investment in the

Westshore Parkway? How about the McKenzie-Admirals interchange — an $85

million investment this government made?

The people of greater Victoria deserve action from this

government. We need to move ahead with the business planning for light

rail, not another review.

Now, hon. Speaker, I have here with me the actual RFP…

Mr. Speaker: Member, the question, please.

T. Stone: …which was to provide for a comprehensive plan for light rail in

Victoria. But the minister has chosen to cancel this business planning

process, even though it was underway, relegating thousands of commuters

to the congestion gridlock they have to experience every single

day.

Will the minister tell commuters in the capital region what

exactly the timeline is for this new review and when her government will

stop delaying, dithering and reviewing and actually move forward with an

infrastructure project here in greater Victoria?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’ve got to say that I think that must have been the member’s

campaign speech for the south Island — well planned.

If we want a bit of clarity, maybe we should go back to their

record of 16 years. All the projects cited by that member, the former

minister, went millions and millions of dollars over budget, Mr.

Speaker. Just a little bit of clarity. It wasn’t a great 16 years. There

has been dissembling.

Just let’s talk about the time when they told British Columbians

that the net loss at ICBC, under that member’s watch, when he was the

minister, was just $11 million. The mess they left — $900 million, 9,000

percent higher than they claimed.

Mr. Speaker, they have left the province in a mess. We will fix

that.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

E. Foster: I rise to present a petition.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

E. Foster: I have a petition here signed by 175 people. The petition urges the

Ministry of Health to negotiate a fair price for Orkambi and to make it

available through B.C. PharmaCare for those who meet the conditions set by

Health Canada and the clinical criteria established by Canadian CF

clinicians.

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

S. Furstenau: Two things. I rise to reserve my right to raise a point of privilege

with respect to misleading comments made by the member for

Vancouver-Quilchena.

[2:30 p.m.]

Petitions

S. Furstenau: I rise to submit a petition of over 450 names asking the government to

establish an international framework for the governance of unprotected

transboundary watersheds in northwest B.C. and Southeast Alaska. This

petition was organized by Rivers Without Borders Canada.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee on Bill 6. In Committee A, I call the

Premier’s estimates.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 6 — ELECTORAL REFORM

REFERENDUM 2018

ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 6; R. Chouhan

in the chair.

The committee met at 2:35 p.m.

section 1.

Hon. D. Eby: The critic is here. Also with me here is Kevin Atcheson, senior

policy and legislation analyst, and Nancy Carter, executive director of

civil policy and legislation with the Ministry of Attorney

General.

We look forward to hearing the questions from the members about

section 1.

J. Martin: Thank you for being here. I understand the minister is a little

bit under the weather. I hope it doesn’t escalate into anything and wish

you all the very best there.

Thank you for this opportunity. We’re engaging in a relatively

significant piece of legislation. This is my first time, obviously,

engaging in this particular process. I hope to be able to contribute to

an informative discussion during this exercise.

The first thing I would ask the minister, dealing with the

section

definitions is…. There is no definition of “proportional

representation.” It’s a little bit out of the ordinary for most pieces

of legislation that have come forward here, at least in the four-plus

years that I’ve been around. Can the minister speak to the absence of a

definition of the very concept that makes up the bill that has been

debated and is going to be voted on?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for his well-wishes. I’m sure if I’d eaten his

barbecue, I wouldn’t have been in this situation with the food

poisoning. I thank him for his wishes.

Section 1 has a number of

definitions. What we’re doing is we’re

going through the act,

section by section, around the referendum that’s

proposed for British Columbia around proportional

representation.

The member asked the question…. He’s absolutely right. There is

not a definition of “proportional representation” in the

definitions.

There are a number of different systems that fall under the heading of

proportional representation systems. By putting a definition in the

bill, we would have limited the potential systems that could be put

forward, or the system that could be put forward to British Columbians

following the consultation process. So it is not defined in the bill, to

avoid constraining the option or options that go to British

Columbians.

J. Martin: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that.

I would like to stay on this for at least a bit longer. I assure

you I don’t want to try to be snarky or facetious, but I’m concerned.

This is kind of reminiscent of: “We have to pass the bill so we can see

what’s in it.” If we’re going to be voting on something of this

significance — that is going to have such a long-lasting effect on the

electoral system in British Columbia and how we do select our

governments, potentially, for decades and decades to come — it would be

nice to have some clarity before we get to that actual vote.

There may be a system of proportional representation out there

that I haven’t come across that I just absolutely love. That hasn’t

happened yet, but without knowing exactly what we’re doing…. Some of

these systems that all get bunched together under proportional

representation, they’re day and night. They’re as far-flung from one

another as the existing system that we’re using these days.

Again, if I can just ask for some elaboration from the minister as

to the absence of a working definition of proportional representation

before we vote on it.

Hon. D. Eby: This is enabling legislation. There are two potential policy

approaches to legislation like this. One is to predetermine the question

and the threshold and spending rules and so on, in the bill. The other

is to enable a regulatory-making power, go out to British Columbians,

consult and use that to inform. It’s a chicken-and-egg

situation.

I’ve heard criticism from the members opposite that they’re very

frustrated that the threshold is in the bill, that that is set out in

the bill. Now I hear that they think there should be a definition of a

particular proportional system in the bill. You can’t have both. You

have to make that choice.

[2:40 p.m.]

We wanted to be clear in the legislation about the threshold, that

it was a very clear policy decision, and we wanted to keep open to

British Columbians the possible systems that could be presented. So it

was a policy decision made to not define a system in advance in order to

permit British Columbians to provide their feedback on which system or

systems they would like to see on the ballot.

J. Martin: Moving on, still with the issues around the

definitions in

section

1, referring to the “financial agent.” The financial agent for

opponents’ and proponents’ organizations — is this the same working

definition and the same legislation that governs a financial agent

during a regular campaign? Is this a different type of financial agent

that may have other accountability processes that a typical financial

agent we all may have used during the general election may not have?

Just kind of looking for some clarity — if this is a financial agent in

the sense of what I’ve always understood a financial agent to be in

British Columbia.

Hon. D. Eby: This is a consistent approach with previous referenda in British

Columbia.

Two parts to the member’s question. The first is, yes, this is the

financial agent that would receive…. If British Columbians say, “We

think you should be funding proponent groups to go out there and do the

work to advocate for first-past-the-post or to advocate for a

proportional system. We think you should go out and do that to encourage

debate,” this would be the person that would receive that funding and be

accountable for it. There will be additional obligations placed on

financial agents, more detailed obligations placed under the

regulations, which is consistent with the approach of other referenda in

the province.

J. Martin: Moving on in

section 1, we have the opponent group. We have the

proponent groups. Can you tell us, please, Minister, the process by

which these are going to be…? Applications will come in to be

identified. How will they actually be selected and authorized to be an

opponent or a proponent of the legislation? How will that decision take

place?

Hon. D. Eby: There are a couple of different models of doing this, should

British Columbians advise us they think that yes, groups should be

funded to advocate for the current first-past-the-post system or to

advocate for a change to a proportional system.

If they tell us that that’s what they’d like to see, there are two

models that have been used in the past in B.C. In 2009, on the

proportional representation referendum, the Chief Electoral Officer of

British Columbia administered the funds. He received funding from

government and then administered it. In 2011, for the HST referendum, it

was a different approach. The CEO was not involved at all. There was a

referendum-funding decision-maker, who was Stephen Owen.

It’s to be set by regulation, but I can advise the member that

subject to feedback from British Columbians, it seems preferable to have

the Chief Electoral Officer do this work.

J. Martin: Are you able, Minister, to give some assurance that cabinet will

not be the decision-maker about who does and does not get

funded?

Hon. D. Eby: The member knows that the Premier and the government have taken a

position in relation to this referendum. They are taking the position in

favour of a change to proportional representation. They’ve asked me to

take on the role of, as best as possible, administering this referendum

in a neutral way. The member can certainly be assured that when it comes

to deciding if groups receive funding….

First of all, if groups receive funding, it will come from British

Columbians, their recommendations in the consultation process. There

will be a report. The member will be able to see the feedback from

British Columbians and the recommendation based on that.

[2:45 p.m.]

Cabinet will not be deciding who gets the funding, given the fact

that they have a position in the referendum. So whether it’s the

Chief-Electoral-Officer model or the referendum-funding-decision-maker

model…. As I’ve advised the member, the preference is the Chief

Electoral Officer, subject to consultations with that office and British

Columbians. That is our preferred approach.

J. Martin: There’s been a fair bit of commentary and coverage in the last ten

days regarding four academics from four different universities in Canada

that will be advising the government through the process. The commentary

has suggested that three of them are strongly in favour of proportional

representation and one of them is a proponent of the status

quo.

There’s a 3-to-1 ratio in the advice coming in to the government.

Can we have some assurance that we will not have a skewed opponent and

proponent lineup and that there will be an equal amount of funding for

both sides?

Hon. D. Eby: The simple answer to the member’s question is that if proponent

and opponent groups are funded, they would be funded equally.

In relation to the experts, the member is right. There is a member

who’s explicitly in favour of a first-past-the-post system. Other

members have made statements in favour of different proportional

systems, but the unifying characteristic of all these experts is that

they have experience with these kinds of consultative processes with

large groups of citizens, around ensuring that we get feedback from a

large group of people on how to prepare that.

They are not designing the referendum. They helped us to prepare

for the questionnaire that’s on line now at engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote.

I encourage people to log on and share their feedback.

I note that in some ways — it’s a bit of the paradox — we are

being criticized by both the first-past-the-post side and the

proportional supporter side for the questionnaire. So I think that, in

the nature of politics, we have achieved the goal of everybody being

grudgingly accepting of the questionnaire, and no one side being

overwhelmingly happy and one side being overwhelmingly unhappy. To the

extent possible, I think we have achieved the goal of having a

questionnaire that elicits from British Columbians their feedback about

this process.

J. Martin: Will there be an appeal process for a group that has applied for

recognition as an opponent or a proponent and been denied?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Previously, in 2009, in the referendum regulations, there were

criteria for whether or not groups might be funded. There were criteria

that set out certain positive requirements. You had to be a

not-for-profit, members and directors couldn’t be compensated,

membership had to be voluntary and open to all and at least two-thirds

of the directors of the organization had to have been residents of B.C.

for at least six months.

There were negative requirements. You weren’t eligible for funding

if you were a political party or a constituency association, if any of

the directors were candidates in the general election or were election

officials, or if more than one-third of members were not ordinarily

residents of British Columbia.

While I think that people who are interested in this level of

detail about who is eligible for funding…. It would be a good idea to

look at the 2009 regulation and provide comments on whether they thought

that that was an appropriate structuring of who receives funding —

assuming that British Columbians are, in fact, in favour of these groups

receiving funding, which is not a foregone conclusion.

J. Martin: To the minister, is he prepared today to give — or, at least,

speculate — to the House the funding amount that will be

available?

Hon. D. Eby: Unfortunately, no. Even the decision about whether or not

proponent groups should be funded has not been taken yet. It’s based on

feedback from British Columbians. It will be in the regulations. If they

provide the feedback that, yes, they think these groups should receive

funding, there will be allocation of funding.

I would encourage the member and any interested British Columbians

to provide submissions on that issue if they think that there should be

funding and the amounts of funding, similar to previous referenda —

additional money to increase outreach. That would be helpful

information.

J. Martin: Moving, in the

definitions, to the “voting package.” Some of the

models of proportional representation would dramatically change the map

of B.C. in terms of where the boundaries are today. There may be ridings

still kept intact, but those ridings would also be identified by a

particular region.

If the question on the ballot, or one of the questions on the

ballot, is a reference to a system that would change the electoral map,

as a voter, I think I would like to see what that actually looks like

and where the government has decided what they’re going to call my

jurisdiction or my region.

To the minister: can you tell us…? Will Elections B.C. be willing

to provide such a map in that voting package?

Hon. D. Eby: Depending on the voting system or systems that are put forward by

British Columbians, in terms of what they want to see on the ballot,

there may be no change to existing boundaries or there might be

significant changes, as the member says.

If there is a need for a redrawing of boundaries, as always, that

wouldn’t be done by cabinet or by Elections B.C. It would be done by an

electoral boundaries commission, independent of government, in order to

avoid some of the excesses we’ve seen in the United States and ensure

fairness to rural communities, and so on.

It will be very much dependent on which systems British Columbians

want to see on the ballot, and then, ultimately, if they do choose a

system that requires revisiting some or a significant number of

boundaries, that would be done by an electoral commission. But we

wouldn’t do that work in advance.

J. Martin: I raise that with some concern. I do recall the federal

government, at one point, deciding to simply lump British Columbia into

the west, while giving Quebec and Ontario and the Maritimes their own

particular regions. It wasn’t particularly well received.

[2:55 p.m.]

I know that a lot of the polling that goes on in British Columbia

has me in Chilliwack and everyone else in the Fraser Valley lumped in

with the Lower Mainland. Them’s fightin’ words from time to time. I

would encourage the minister to be very cognizant that this would be

something that, particularly outside of the more populated areas of the

province, would be of considerable concern to many. And my colleague has

some inquiry on this section.

J. Rustad: I just need, if I may, two points of clarity. The first one. If

what the minister had just said with regards to maps and if there are

changes, obviously, there’d be an electoral boundary commission that

would have to be struck to go through a process around that.

Is he really suggesting that he expects people in the province of

British Columbia to vote on a potential electoral reform without

knowing, seeing or understanding what the ramifications would be for the

boundaries and the areas that they would have a representative to be

elected to?

Hon. D. Eby: After every second provincial election in British Columbia, the

Electoral Boundaries Commission revisits the boundaries of

constituencies. They do it by consulting with communities. They do it by

looking at major arterials and, sort of, divisions between towns or

communities or neighbourhoods, depending on rural or urban areas. This

is not an unusual thing, that the Electoral Boundaries Commission would

do this kind of work, and especially if there was a change in the voting

system that had implications for that, which is not a foregone

conclusion.

J. Rustad: Respectfully, that wasn’t the question. I understand the role of

the Electoral Boundaries Commission and the work that electoral boundary

commissions do.

The question is…. We’re going to be asking people to vote in a

referendum no later than November 30, assuming this piece of legislation

passes. There may be one or multiple options. We don’t know that at this

particular point. Those options, obviously, have ramifications in terms

of riding boundaries, in terms of not just the way people vote but the

way people will be represented in this Legislature.

Once again to the minister, is he honestly going to go forward

asking people to be able to vote and decide on a voting system without

understanding or seeing the ramifications of any particular boundary

changes for a particular voting system?

Hon. D. Eby: The member understands, I know, that there are different

proportional systems that may or may not require a change in electoral

boundaries. The voting package that will be provided to British

Columbians will have information about the implications of any

particular voting system with respect to, for example, boundaries — how

people would be represented in the Legislature and so on.

The goal is to get clear information to British Columbians about

the systems so that they can vote in an informed way. So they will have

that information.

J. Rustad: Will the minister ask Elections B.C. to draft tentative electoral

maps that would then be distributed as part of the electoral package so

that people can see the difference between the various voting systems as

to what it would mean for their representation within a particular

area?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s not the responsibility of Elections B.C. to draw boundaries

for electoral districts in the province. It’s the responsibility of the

Boundaries Commission. Any individual that receives a voting package

will understand very clearly whether a particular option or options on

the ballot requires the convening of an electoral boundaries commission

to redraw boundaries.

[3:00 p.m.]

I’m not sure how else I can assist the member on this line of

inquiry.

J. Rustad: Depending on the system, in the case of Surrey, it could be the

entire community that is one electoral region. It could be several. For

a case of the north, it could be one across the whole north. It could be

multiple.

Many people are visual. They like to be able to see things as

opposed to just reading what a description is. Once again, given that

this change, particularly for large geographic areas, has potential

significant impact — as well as for urban areas — in terms of how people

relate to their representative, will the minister commit to making sure

that there is a visual representation of what the proportional

representation options will look like for them?

Hon. D. Eby: There are many different considerations that go into determining

electoral boundaries, and the Electoral Boundaries Commission has served

British Columbians very well in trying to strike a balance on what is a

very fraught issue for some communities. I don’t think, frankly, that it

would be of assistance to people to put together a map that did not go

through that process, especially knowing that it would have to go

through that process if a system was chosen that required

redrawing.

I do take the member’s point, though, that people need to have

this important information, and the member should be assured that the

comments and questions during this session, as well as the second

reading speeches and so on, will be incorporated as part of the

consultation process. So we’ll take that back. I have the member’s

point.

J. Rustad: I hope that the minister will take that seriously. It is a very

important component, especially for many people throughout the

province.

A quick question to the comment that the minister made earlier

with regards to potential funding to both the yes and the no side of

various campaigns. The minister seemed to indicate that it may or,

potentially, may not be provided. I’m wondering if the minister can

provide some clarity. Is the minister honestly considering not funding a

yes and a no campaign to be able to get independent or prospective

positions and information out to the public?

Hon. D. Eby: This is one of the questions that we’re asking British Columbians:

should proponent and opponent groups be funded? I definitely take from

the member’s question that he believes that they should. There may be

individuals who believe that they shouldn’t.

There are benefits to funding these kinds of groups. They can help

advance the debate and discussion in communities. There are

disadvantages in that public money is expended, and people might not

feel that that’s the best use of expenditure of public money. We’ll hear

what people have to say about that, and we’ll make a decision based on

that feedback.

J. Rustad: That’s a very troubling statement that I’ve just heard. To think

that we will be asking people to make a decision on changing the way

democracy works in British Columbia…. We’re not going to necessarily be

able to provide them with a map or a visual as to what that may look

like, and there won’t be, potentially, public resources available to

campaigns on the both the yes and no side to be able to get information

out to people.

I know that the minister has said that he is going to remain

neutral, although it’s pretty clear, through the answers of the Premier

and others, that that is not the case in the desires of government. Does

the minister honestly believe that…?

In the last go-round of the electoral reform that happened through

the citizens’ assembly, there was an extensive process that went out

and, even with all that extensive process, only 15 percent of the people

were aware of what the option meant. Does the minister honestly believe

that people will be able to make an informed decision without the kinds

of resources made available by the government so that people can learn

both the pros and the cons of any particular option that’s

available?

Hon. D. Eby: I take the member’s point. I think we can agree that there are

ways to improve on previous processes that have taken place. One of the

ways is to ask British Columbians how they feel that this should be

held, and that is what we are committed to do. I take the member’s point

that he has a position on this. I encourage him to provide that

feedback. I’m not sure what else I can say.

[3:05 p.m.]

This bill that’s in front of the Legislature does not require

funding. It enables the possibility of funding if British Columbians

want to see that happen.

J. Rustad: One last question — potentially one last question, I suppose. It

depends on the minister’s answer. Does the minister believe that if

public funds are not made available to the yes and no side of the

campaign, his expectation is that third-party groups will be left with

the entire burden to be able to inform the public with regards to the

virtues and values of proportional representation versus single-member

plurality or the first-past-the-post?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s our intention that British Columbians will be receiving

factual information about different voting systems so that they

understand what they are, they understand what the implications are of

choosing them and they’re able to make an informed decision. That will

be part of a voting package, which is here in this

definitions section,

and it will be funded by government to ensure that that information is

available to British Columbians as part of the overall referendum

funding process.

I don’t know. I feel that the member is trying to get to the

conclusion of a process that has just started, which is consulting with

British Columbians about how this referendum should be run — what the

financing rules should be, whether a group should be funded, what the

questions should be, what systems should be put forward, and so on. This

is enabling legislation that creates the possibility of regulations that

set out those matters through a public consultation process that’s

currently underway.

J. Rustad: He’s expecting the members of this Legislature to vote on a

package that may or may not include funding, that may or may not include

information and that may or may not include biased information It’s

pretty hard for us to be able to make an informed choice in here, let

alone being able to go out and explain it to our

constituents.

With regards to this, the minister has stated that a package will

be put together. I’m assuming that’s a package that will be put together

by government — a government where the Premier has said that he is in

favour of electoral reform going to proportional representation — and

through a partnership, obviously, with the lesser party with regards to

the agreement that they have, which is in support of proportional

representation going forward.

How can the minister ensure that there will be a neutral or fair

prospective on the package of information that would be out and

available to voters in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for his question. He does need to understand

that materials will be assembled by public servants in the Ministry of

Attorney General — government lawyers who do not have a dog in this

fight and will be putting together a package to inform British

Columbians.

The member can vote for the bill or not vote for the bill. That is

his choice. The policy decision that was made here was enabling

legislation to assist in a consultation process and then regulations

based on that consultation process that inform the voting

process.

The member should also know that it’s not a foregone conclusion in

referenda in B.C. that proponent and opponent groups are funded. In the

TransLink referendum, for example, the government did not fund proponent

and opponent groups and, similarly, in the 2002 referendum on First

Nation treaty rights. So it’s not automatic that that happens in British

Columbia under the previous government, and we didn’t think it should be

automatic here. We wanted to hear from British Columbians.

J. Rustad: The difference, of course, being vastly different between funding

of a project or asking of opinion, as opposed to changing the electoral

system and the way democracy works in the province of British Columbia.

So I would argue that those two examples are not fair or relevant to

this debate that we’re having in the Legislature here today.

[3:10 p.m.]

With regards once again to this, can the minister commit to…? Or

maybe I should just take one quick step back. Obviously, this material

will be produced by a professional civil service that does the job at

the direction of ministers, at the direction of government. They will

then provide that information, I’m sure, to the minister — or to

cabinet, depending on which it is — to approve that information before

it would be sent out.

To at least bring in some level of unbiased and neutral

perspective to what the minister is proposing, will the minister commit

to having an independent officer, or a number of independent officers,

of the Legislature review this information and provide commentary prior

to it going out, to assure the public that the information to be

provided is truly neutral and is truly unbiased in the package that is

put together?

Hon. D. Eby: In 2005, the proportional representation referendum proponent and

opponent groups were not funded, just to correct the member on the

record. It’s not unusual for government to produce neutral material,

non-partisan material.

I mean, there were some issues, frankly, with the previous

administration that the Auditor General identified. But generally

speaking, government, all the time, produces neutral information for

British Columbians to inform them about their rights, obligations, and

so on. This is not an unusual thing, and I have confidence our public

servants will be able to do this this.

J. Rustad: Given the significance of what is being proposed here through

this, is it something that the minister would consider, to add that

layer of neutrality and independence to information being provided —

that the independent officers of the Legislature be provided with an

opportunity to review and comment, particularly the Chief Electoral

Officer, but also, potentially, others in the suite of independent

officers that we have?

By doing so, it would provide a layer of independence and quality

to the people and reassure the people of British Columbia that this

government is serious about being able to provide neutral and unbiased

information with regards to such an important decision for the future of

democracy in this province.

Hon. D. Eby: I think the member has a suggestion that is definitely worthy of

bringing forward in terms of making recommendations about how the

referendum should be held. I encourage him to do so through the

consultation process.

J. Rustad: I’m assuming that this debate is part of that consultation

process. I’m assuming that when the minister says that, it wouldn’t be

required to re-record or rewrite all of these things that I brought

forward but that this information that’s being brought forward as part

of this debate will be part of the package that the minister will

consider in terms of what’s being brought forward.

Hon. D. Eby: Just to put it on the record, yes, the member is correct. Also,

I’m joined by members of the Ministry of Attorney General staff who are

taking notes and keeping track as well. So on two levels.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

P. Milobar: Thank you, Minister. We’ve got a few questions here around the

public consultation aspect of this bill. I’m just wondering…. I’ll try

to burn through them fairly quickly. You answer right back nice and

quick, as well, so that’s nice to see.

I do notice this Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act…. I know

it’s a mouthful, and in government, we like to get down to acronyms. I

notice that it comes down to ERRA. That seems to be a fitting bit of

slang there, I think, towards some of these things. But I

digress.

To the minister, prior to the confidence and supply agreement,

which was signed at the end of May, when did the government consult the

public, if at all, on Bill 6?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: It’s an interesting question. When you’re talking about that kind

of proximity to an election where proportional representation in a

referendum was part of the discourse and debate among the public,

generally speaking, the election would be considered quite a definitive

process around that. This bill, though, I should note for the member, is

enabling — recognizing that there is more consultation work to be

done.

We have a consultation process that’s underway right now at

engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote. I encourage members, political parties in

and outside of the Legislature, and British Columbians to participate in

that to inform, for example,

section 2 here that we’re talking about.

That is: what should the question or the questions be?

P. Milobar: Thank you for that, Minister. I do recognize that there’s ongoing

consultation, but this is really meant to try to find out the

consultation that’s taken place between the election and where we are

today, so bear with me.

I’m wondering: who did the government consult with, if at all,

before the confidence and supply agreement?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member about consultations that were done in

preparing this legislation for the House.

Elections B.C. was consulted. The Chief Electoral Officer. Staff

in Municipal Affairs and Housing were consulted because initially we had

been thinking about holding this at the same time as the municipal

election.

Actually, I understand it was in 2009 when the previous

government, on their proportional representation vote, had the same idea

— that it should be held with the municipal election — and moved away

from it for the same reason that we did. The costs were huge, and the

turnout was less. That consultation assisted us in informing the

decision to do a mail-in ballot as opposed to pairing up with the

municipal election.

Ministry of the Attorney General staff were also consulted on

administration and legal issues to ensure that the legislation conformed

with laws in British Columbia and Canada.

P. Milobar: Back to the minister, was that consultation that was just listed

off done prior to the confidence and supply agreement, or was it done

post the confidence and supply agreement?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is testing my chronology here, but I understand that

the confidence and supply agreement was key to the government forming

government. It was a prerequisite to forming government, so by

definition, any activities that were undertaken by me as minister or by

our government were after the confidence and supply agreement

negotiation, because before that we were not in government.

The member might remember that there was a limbo period of an

extended period there where there were Liberal ministers and Liberal

government, still, and a throne speech that ultimately was voted down.

I’m not sure if that helps the member. I don’t quite know what

information he’s seeking here, but if that’s helpful.

P. Milobar: I guess, based on the previous answers, what I’m looking for is….

Recognizing that you were in opposition officially at the time, as the

minister and now government colleagues were trying to form an agreement

with the confidence and supply agreement…. Were there discussions with

any of those departments — the Elections B.C. staff, others that you

referenced — while the negotiations around the confidence and supply

agreement were being negotiated?

Hon. D. Eby: There were a lot of times in opposition when I wished I could’ve

gone and spoken to staff from the Ministry of Attorney General or

Municipal Affairs and Housing or Elections B.C. to get the straight

goods on what was going on, but unfortunately, opposition members did

not have that kind of access. The member will realize that

now.

[3:20 p.m.]

The ministries report to ministers, to the executive committee, to

cabinet, so by definition, no, these consultations couldn’t take place

because we didn’t have access to these staff until we formed

government.

P. Milobar: Thank you for that. Yes, I do recognize that. It’s been made

abundantly clear that it’s a little bit harder, even in my short time in

this House. It was a very strange time of transition back in the spring,

so you never know what conversations were enabled that maybe wouldn’t

normally happen.

We’ve covered off pretty good what happened up until the signing

of the confidence and supply agreement. I’m wondering. Could the

minister could let me know: once they became government, who did they

consult before introducing Bill 6? Is it more than that previous

list?

Hon. D. Eby: As a side note, I would encourage the member that if there’s ever

a briefing that he requires that he’d like to talk to staff about, I

don’t believe that there’s a single case where we’ve turned down a

briefing for a member. To the credit of the opposition, it’s my

recollection, actually — and I spoke too quickly — that whenever I asked

for a briefing, I did get a briefing from staff. I can’t remember a time

when I was turned down. It’s a good tradition, and we should encourage

it.

After we formed government and we had access to staff, we

consulted with Elections B.C. and with Municipal Affairs and Housing in

relation to particularly tying this in, potentially, with the municipal

election cycle. And we consulted with the Ministry of Attorney General

on administration and legal obligations.

P. Milobar: It sounds like there was a fair amount, understandably, of

interdepartmental governmental conversations and discussions that

started to take place between the confidence and supply agreement and

the introduction of Bill 6. Were there any stakeholders that were

consulted that would have been maybe considered more outside of

government between the confidence and the supply agreement and the

introduction of Bill 6?

Hon. D. Eby: We’re racking our brains over here, but Elections B.C. is the only

group, and they’re arm’s length from government but would still probably

be considered part of government broadly. So, no.

P. Milobar: Just to make it abundantly clear with the minister, then. So other

than the NDP and the Green parties, was there anyone else, other than

the previously mentioned governmental agencies, that would have been

assisting in the drafting of Bill 6 in terms of comments and assists

there?

Hon. D. Eby: I don’t believe there are any. If the member could give me

examples of what he’s thinking of. I’m not sure, aside from the groups

that I’ve already listed here, how I can assist.

P. Milobar: Well, it would have been groups like Fair Voting B.C. or any of

those, but it doesn’t sound like that. I’m sure that the minister could

wrap that into the next answer, too, then, on this next question, so

I’ll move forward a little bit here.

We know that there have been quite a few of the civil servants in

different departments, as well as the Green Party and, one would assume,

the secretariat assisting in the drafting of Bill 6. Will the government

be willing to provide to the public a full listing of all the civil

service departments and others that assisted in the drafting of Bill

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for clarifying. I can read for the member

from a November 29, 2017, release to their membership from Fair Voting

B.C. “The bad news: because of ambiguities or misleading assumptions

built into the survey, there are some potential traps that could cause

reform supporters to inadvertently give opponents ammunition to use

against reform.” So this is not a group that was…. They, like some of

the first-past-the-post proponents, have some concerns and questions

about the survey, because it’s balanced between the two different

systems.

[3:25 p.m.]

But, no, Fair Voting B.C. was not consulted by the government

before, in the drafting of the legislation. I can also advise the member

that the Greens were not involved in the drafting of this bill. The

drafting is done by Ministry of Attorney General staff, and it goes

through a legislative process within government.

P. Milobar: Maybe just to seek some clarification, then, if there was not

direct help in drafting of the bill from the Green Party, our

understanding from this side of the House is that within the confidence

and supply agreement, there’s supposed to be a no surprises rule

discussion ahead of time, making sure that things are lining up within

the bill. Is the minister saying that those discussions did not take

place with the Green Party prior to the introduction of Bill

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that staff gave a briefing to the Greens on the bill,

but staff took direction from me and from cabinet in preparing the

bill.

P. Milobar: I’m wondering, then, if the list is not going to be made public,

or if it will be, but more around that, then…. Is there the opportunity

for the draft of that brief, which was presented to the Green Party, to

compare and contrast it versus the bill that we now see in front of us

so that the public can fully understand whether or not there were any

changes post-briefing before it became a public document in the

House?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that there were no changes resulting from

that briefing. The process of briefing is…. Generally, I know that the

members on the other side have taken advantage of briefings before. I

know that I have, when I was in opposition. It’s not a written document.

It’s a Q and A with staff about issues.

P. Milobar: I fully understand what a briefing is and how they work. However,

I also understand that when they take place under the provisions of a

confidence and supply agreement in a secretariat office, we don’t

necessarily have the assurance, without asking, that changes aren’t made

post-briefing based on the questions that may have been presented or

concerns expressed by members within that secretariat, either by the

Greens or by the NDP.

As perhaps…. I won’t say “annoying.” As much as these questions

maybe don’t seem to make a lot of sense — or maybe make one question

whether or not we even understand how the process of government works —

I think the public is wanting to get a good sense of the process that’s

been used to develop this legislation within the context of a supply and

confidence agreement that was designed and predicated greatly, one could

argue, on this whole piece of legislation around proportional

representation and the need for a vote or not the need for a vote and

the shifting sands that we’re seeing from the Premier in terms of the

statements he’s made.

That’s really the goal here — to try to find out what exact

consultation was done and what changes may have been made based on that

consultation. To that end, I’m just wondering: can the minister let us

know if there was any public consultation whatsoever from the time that

they became government to the introduction of Bill 6 around Bill

Hon. D. Eby: The public consultation process is going on right now. If people

are interested, they can go to engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote and

participate in that consultation process. There’ll be a report prepared

from that with recommendations that will inform regulations around how

this will be held.

[3:30 p.m.]

The public consultations were not in relation to this bill. The

consultations were with Municipal Affairs and Housing, which informed

our decision to do a mail-in ballot instead of tying it in with the

municipal election, with Elections B.C. to ensure that they were in the

loop of what was going on, and the Ministry of Attorney General staff on

the administration and legal obligations with respect to the

bill.

P. Milobar: Given that there was some consultation that happened from the time

that this government took office to the introduction of Bill 6, will the

government be providing a list of all of the public and private

consultation meetings that took place prior to the introduction of Bill

Hon. D. Eby: The member has the list. He can print the Hansard if he

wants. It’s a very short list: Elections B.C., Municipal Affairs and

Housing, Ministry of Attorney General staff.

P. Milobar: By that answer…. I appreciate that, and yes, we will make sure we

jot it down out of Hansard . I must admit we were somewhat

hoping that maybe the answer would be a little bit lengthier and that

there was actually, perhaps, a bit more consultation undertaken by this

government to even get us to where we are today.

I’m just wondering…. One last question that I have around the

whole consultation mandate of this bill and moving forward with the

consultation. Is the intention, as we move forward, to make sure that

all of those consultation pieces will be provided and make sure that

everyone can have access to see what the final consultation submissions

were throughout this next process being undertaken by the

province?

Hon. D. Eby: A report will be prepared from the consultation materials. There

will be recommendations in the report. This will be a public report,

available to the public to see, for all to see, and it will go in to the

cabinet. They will make regulations based on those recommendations, and

the public and the opposition will be able to evaluate whether the

regulations reflect the recommendations of the report.

D. Clovechok: To the minister: thank you for your time. I can see that you’re

not feeling well, so I won’t be that long. It shows, and that’s not a

good thing. All the best with that.

Just a quick question.

Interjection.

D. Clovechok: You should have.

Your leader had, at one point, promised, on the referendum…. My

question is more about process. Your leader had promised a yes or no on

proportional representation, on the referendum itself.

To the minister: could you confirm that there will be a yes-or-no

question on that?

Hon. D. Eby: To the member and to all the members who are asking questions

about what the question will be on the ballot, there’s a consultation

process that’s underway right now. If people are interested, they can go

to engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote and provide their submissions about what

they think the question should be. It’ll be considered with the other

submissions from other political parties in British Columbia and people

from across the province. The member may be interested to know that we

had 1,700 submissions on the first day. So it’s been well taken up by

British Columbians.

D. Clovechok: To the minister: thank you very much for that answer. It didn’t

really answer my question, though. Is the referendum itself going to be

a yes-or-no question? Not the content….

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: It’s not clear to me what the member’s submission to the

consultation process would be — that it should be a yes-or-no question

or that it should be something else — but it doesn’t particularly matter

if he doesn’t provide a submission. If he wants to influence the

question on the ballot, he should provide a submission at

engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote. That will be the process by which

recommendations are solicited from political parties and people from

across British Columbia, and the question will be based on those

consultations. So I encourage the member and all political parties, both

inside and outside the House, to participate in that process.

The Chair: Columbia River–Revelstoke.

D. Clovechok: Welcome. Good to see you.

The Chair: Thank you.

D. Clovechok: It’s an unfortunate answer, and it’s an answer that I personally

have to disagree…. What I’d like to do is propose an amendment to Bill

SECTION 2 by deleting the text shown as

struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

(2) For the referendum to be conducted, the Lieutenant Governor

in Council must, by regulation,

(

a) state the question or questions that will be put to the

electorate at the referendum,

(

a) state the yes or no question that will be put to the electorate

at the referendum,

(

b) specify the date on which distribution of the voting

packages must commence, and

(

c) specify the date on which voting in the referendum closes,

which must be no later than November 30, 2018.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll wait to see a copy of the member’s proposed

amendment.

The Chair: We’ll take a moment while they’re distributed.

On the amendment.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll be opposing the proposed amendment for the simple reason that

we’re engaged in a consultation process with British Columbians about

what the question should look like. The member wants to substitute his

view for the view of British Columbians about what the question should

look like.

We have 8,328 questionnaires complete as of today, and 6,522 have

done the full questionnaire and 1,806 have done

part 1 only. So with all

due respect to the intent behind the member’s proposal, and I understand

it, there is a consultation process with British Columbians going on. I

don’t understand why the member wishes to short-circuit that

consultation process with his own personal view.

Deputy Speaker: The amendment is in order.

D. Clovechok: I’m certainly not trying to shortchange anything. I think it’s

admirable that British Columbians are already responding, and that’s a

good thing, But my point to this amendment is it’s not through the

consultation process to British Columbians. It’s actually that the

leader, the Premier, actually stated before that there would be a

yes-or-no question on this. So what I’m saying to the minister is: is

that statement that was made by the Premier false?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s challenging. If the member’s proposal had been in the bill,

he’d be proposing an amendment to remove it to say we shouldn’t

predetermine what the question should be. We should base it on the

consultation.

There are 8,328 British Columbians who, in good faith,

participated, to date, in a questionnaire and a feedback process on

line. I don’t agree with the member that he should substitute his own

views. Or with respect, he says that he’s substituting someone else’s

view on their behalf. I don’t agree with that. I think British

Columbians should be the ones who have the say about their voting

system, about the ballot and that that’s a preferable process. That’s

what this bill reflects in its current state.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for your answer. It’s not that I’m inserting my personal

opinion. Actually, just as a sidebar, the neutrality that he spoke of….

I believe I just heard the word “we.” That’s not so neutral, but I just

put that onto the record. I’m not inputting my own personal opinion into

this. I believe that British Columbians should have the opportunity to

make choices. But what I’m saying is that the leader himself said that.

A yes-no vote was what he wanted. I’m just looking to the minister to

see if that still is holding.

Hon. D. Eby: Just for the record, this is a government bill. This is bill that

I understand is supported by the government. So I’m not sure what the

member’s point was about suggesting that there might be more than one

member in this House that supports this bill. The intent behind the bill

is to talk to British Columbians about what they’d like to see on the

ballot. I oppose it. I won’t be making any more comment on

it.

J. Rustad: I just want to pursue this one more time, if I may. During the

previous election campaign, the party in power, the NDP, and the leader

of the NDP promised very clearly in the platform and in public that

there would be a vote on a referendum and that it would be a clear

yes-or-no question. Is that promise and is that campaign platform

irrelevant to the confidence and supply agreement that formed this? Or

does the minister believe that a party should put forward their ideas

and stick to their ideas that come out of an election?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I encourage the member and all members and also parties both in

and outside of this House to provide submissions through

engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote in particular, because that is the

consultation process that 8,328 British Columbians have participated in

to date to provide us with their advice about what they think the ballot

question should be. I’m not sure how else I can help the member in terms

of getting what he thinks the question should be on the

ballot.

A. Olsen: I think that it’s important to also state that what this amendment

is proposing is to actually circumvent a public consultation process,

which is underway. It seems like a rather silly amendment, one that

should have been put on the order paper. Perhaps we could have had a

discussion about how it is, in fact, circumventing a process which is

underway and one which I, personally, and my Green colleagues are not

going to support because it’s important for the people of British

Columbia….

Consistency doesn’t seem to be a principle which is guiding here

at all. It’s kind of shocking — this amendment. But anyway, it’s not

something that we can support.

[3:45 p.m.]

The Chair: Hon. Members, the division is on

section 2 of Bill 6, as

proposed by the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 37

Cadieux

Rustad

Bond

de Jong

Coleman

Wilkinson

Stone

Bernier

Wat

Johal

Lee

Hunt

Barnett

Tegart

Martin

Throness

Davies

Sullivan

Polak

Morris

Ashton

Oakes

Thomson

Sturdy

Ross

Isaacs

Milobar

Thornthwaite

Clovechok

Yap

Redies

Paton

Gibson

Sultan

Shypitka

Letnick

Foster

NAYS — 44

Chouhan

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Krog

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Glumac

The Chair: Members, we’ll await the arrival of staff for the

reconsideration of

section 2.

[3:50 p.m.]

D. Barnett: To the minister, does the government agree that rural communities

and their ridings will be impacted in a PR system?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s not necessary that rural voices be impacted. Over 8,000

people have participated in the survey. I can almost guarantee the

member, based on what I’m hearing, that one of the concerns of British

Columbians is ensuring that rural voice is protected. I certainly heard

that in the second reading speeches. That will be part of the

information going into the consultation process around the question and

the process related to the referendum.

For the member’s constituents that are interested…. They should

visit engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote if they’re interested in providing

feedback on systems that they feel should be put on the ballot that

might better represent and enhance the rural voice in the

Legislature.

D. Barnett: Does the government agree that rural communities may lose

representation in a PR system?

Hon. D. Eby: Just to the member and to any other members that are advocating

particular systems or have concerns about safeguards in relation to any

systems that are put forward on the ballot…. Their constituents should

visit engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote to provide that feedback to the

government to inform what system or systems are put forward to British

Columbians on the ballot and what values in particular they would like

to see reflected in those systems for the debate and the

vote.

D. Barnett: Is it not government’s responsibility in a democratic society that

all members of this province and country have fair and equal

representation?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s a very interesting question. I’m not sure quite the

connection to this enabling legislation that creates the ability to set

a question on the referendum ballot.

If the member feels that there is a system or systems that more

accurately reflect the value that she’s putting forward there, which is

a very good value, then she should participate in the consultation

process at engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote and encourage her constituents to

do the same.

D. Barnett: Can the government provide a list of all the stakeholders in

meetings that took place in rural communities prior to Bill

Hon. D. Eby: For the member, there is a short list of consultations in

preparing Bill 6, which is enabling legislation. The consultation is

taking place right now, and if the member has constituents that want to

participate, they should visit engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote.

The internal consultations that were done were with Municipal

Affairs and Housing, and that was about whether we should pair it up

with municipal elections or do a freestanding mail ballot.

I went through this earlier, but for the member, the advice that

we got was roughly the same that the government must have gotten in

2009, when they were doing a similar process, when they thought they

would tie in with the municipal election. The costs were significantly

higher and turnout was lower than a mail-in ballot.

We consulted with Elections B.C., with Municipal Affairs and

Housing on that municipal election issue, and with the Ministry of

Attorney General on administration and legal obligations in preparing

this legislation.

D. Barnett: Minister, some rural and remote communities and citizens do not

have Internet. So my question is: how can these people participate and

get the information should they wish to participate in this

process?

N. Simons: On a point of order, Madame Chair. I’ve scoured the bill, and I

don’t see reference to the consultation process herein. I believe

questions around the consultation process are not part of the bill, and

I wonder if the Chair agrees.

The Chair: Hon. Members, in the opinion of the Chair, the questions are

on point.

Please continue.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There are a couple different ways for the member’s constituents to

become involved. The website is engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote. For those

that don’t have Internet access…. I’m very excited about the work of my

colleague, the minister for citizenship and technology. She’s looking at

how we increase Internet access in rural communities across the

province. But for those who don’t have Internet access, they can send

their feedback to PO Box 9049, Station Provincial Government, Victoria,

B.C. V8W 9V1.

In addition, packages will be distributed to libraries across

British Columbia. The member can advise her constituents that if they

seek to access that information, they can do it through their local

public library in the new year. I’ll make sure the member gets notice of

that when it’s available.

A. Weaver: To follow up on that, I have a question with respect to the

availability of questionnaires on paper. There are constituents not only

in rural B.C. but in my riding and others where people have sought

access to fill in the questionnaire on paper. Will that be available to

constituency offices, or is it available already for constituency

offices across British Columbia?

Hon. D. Eby: To the extent that members can make Internet access available to

constituents, perhaps in their constituency offices, to complete it on

line, I’d really be grateful if they did that, because paper copies take

a significant amount of staff time and labour to compile and put

together.

It’s a necessary thing that we offer paper copies as well, as the

member notes, for good and clear reasons, but if there’s a way for

people to do it on line, we really encourage them to do that. Paper

copies will be made available as part of a larger package at local

libraries in the new year. I’ll make sure all members have notice of

that so they can advise their constituents about how to get paper copies

at a local library.

J. Rustad: The minister has talked about consultation in many of his answers,

and the process. Out of curiosity, a simple question. This particular

referendum that’s being proposed here has the potential to change

democracy, or change the way we vote, for all the people of British

Columbia. Can the minister please confirm that?

Hon. D. Eby: This is a referendum on whether to keep our current system or move

to a more proportional system. That is the core of the bill that’s in

front of the Legislature, and it would be a subjective measure whether

someone feels that that’s an improvement or that is not an

improvement.

That is why we’re encouraging feedback from people of all

different perspectives on this issue at engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote if

they have feedback on particular systems that they feel would have more

impact or less impact, depending on whether they feel that more impact

or less impact on our current system is needed.

J. Rustad: Sorry. Maybe the minister didn’t understand the intent of the

question. I’m just simply asking if the electoral system changes, is

that a change for all the people equally in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Eby: There is no decision yet on the system or systems that will be put

forward on the ballot. I direct the member’s attention to the bill

that’s in front of us.

Section 2(2) talks about “state the question or

questions that will be put to the electorate at the referendum” and that

there must be “a referendum” — sub (1) — “respecting a proportional

representation voting system throughout British Columbia.” Those are the

requirements.

In terms of which system is put forward in the ballot, not decided

yet. There is a consultation process going on. In terms of whether or

not that vote will be successful or that British Columbians will vote in

favour of keeping our current system, that has not been determined.

There will be a vote across British Columbia on that.

The member’s question, though important, is but one aspect of the

system or systems that might be put forward. What is the level of impact

this change would have on the current system? I’d encourage the member

and his constituents to provide feedback through the feedback

system.

J. Rustad: I’m sorry. I mean, I’m just asking a simple question. The reason

why I’m asking…. Obviously, if there’s a change in the way of votes, it

changes…. It doesn’t change the fact that somebody is eligible to vote.

It doesn’t change the fact that they participate in

democracy.

[4:00 p.m.]

It changes the fact — potentially, if the electoral system changes

— the way in which they can access or receive services through

representation — whether it’s that suddenly the boundaries change, the

ridings are larger, they’re smaller, it’s all from lists, or it’s all

direct.

The reason for the question is just to confirm that if the

electoral system changes, it would be a change that would impact, to

whatever degree is relevant, various people that live in the province of

British Columbia.

Hon. D. Eby: The member is asking me to go down a road of speculation. The bill

that’s in front of us is a very straightforward bill. It is enabling

legislation that enables, following public consultation through

engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote, a question or questions to be put forward to

British Columbians with good and helpful information to assist them in

deciding whether to keep our current system or change to a proportional

representation voting system.

The system or systems that’ll be put forward have not been

decided, the ballot question has not been decided, and the member’s

question is just four steps down the road further than that.

J. Rustad: To the point, did the minister or any members of government or any

members of the professional civil service engage with First Nations

prior to the writing of Bill 6?

Hon. D. Eby: The member raises a very important question. In terms of the bill

itself, which is enabling legislation, which will be informed by public

consultation with the member, with his party, with the NDP party, with

the Green Party, with parties in and outside the Legislature…. That

consultation process that’s underway right now has an Indigenous

component to it. My colleague the minister is currently in the process

of designing the engagement with First Nations, and when I have more

information about that, I’ll share it with the member. It’s an important

question, and we should absolutely be engaging First Nations on this

important question.

J. Rustad: I seem to recall reading — and perhaps I’ve got this wrong in

terms of the precise wording of this — in the UN declaration on the

rights of Indigenous peoples, which this government has put, I believe,

in every minister’s mandate letter…. One of the clauses in there refers

to the fact that any legislation brought forward that would have an

impact or potentially affect First Nations, whether it be their rights

or title or otherwise…. They have the obligation to be consulted and

engage and seek consent or consensus with regards to it.

I can look up the precise

chapter of the UN declaration on the

rights of Indigenous peoples, if the minister would like. But given

that, that’s why I’m asking the question as to whether or not, prior to

writing this legislation that potentially has an impact on First

Nations, First Nations were consulted.

Hon. D. Eby: As I’ve advised the member and several members on the other side,

this is enabling legislation. This section, in particular, enables the

writing of a question, the date of the distribution of voting packages,

the date on which the referendum closes, which must be no later than

November 30, 2018 — and that there must be a referendum. That’s

it.

The member and other parties and other individuals can go to

engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote if they want to provide feedback on what the

question should be, and so on. But I agree with the member that it’s not

enough, with respect to First Nations. So that is why we will have a

separate process where First Nations communities are directly

engaged.

These are very important obligations that are put on us by our

mandate letters and our commitments around UNDRIP and the Truth and

Reconciliation Commission, and we will honour those, and we will talk

with First Nations and get their feedback on this process.

J. Rustad: I am happy to hear that there will be engagement with First

Nations after this bill is passed, assuming this bill passes this

Legislature. However, that is not the intent of the UN declaration on

the rights of Indigenous peoples in terms of being consulted prior to

legislation that may have an impact on First Nations people.

[4:05 p.m.]

Was this issue raised at all during the gathering of all chiefs in

early September as part of comments or speeches made by either the

minister or the Premier or others to that assembly?

Hon. D. Eby: To the extent that I recall, various conversations with First

Nations on critical issues around infrastructure, housing, economic

opportunity for various First Nations, legal issues related to

over-representation in the criminal justice system and the child and

youth system came up, but I don’t recall that proportional

representation was high on the list of the First Nations communities who

set the agenda for those conversations.

J. Rustad: Over the past number of many years, we have had the fortune of

signing a number of treaties. Clearly, in those treaties, whether it’s

the Nisga’a treaty or the Tsawwassen treaty or Maa-nulth treaty or now

the Tla’amin treaty, there is a requirement in there to consult with

regards to legislation that may impact on their rights. Were those

treaty nations consulted prior to Bill 6 being introduced into

Legislature?

Hon. D. Eby: With all due respect to the member, it’s a bit difficult to sit

here and take this from this member, when his party held a referendum on

whether or not First Nations people have treaty rights. And that process

was described as “one of the most amateurish one-sided attempts” to

engage the public will that I’ve seen in my professional career. Native

and church leaders called it “stupid, immoral, amateurish and racist.”

It’s a bit much to hear from this member that he doesn’t think the

consultation is adequate.

I’ll leave it at that. We will be engaging with First Nations

communities on this process, and we will be engaging across British

Columbia. Members who are interested, parties inside and outside the

Legislature and people in the community can go to

engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote to provide feedback.

First Nations will be engaged according to a process that my

colleague the minister is working on as we speak.

J. Rustad: Although I appreciate the minister’s lecture on the follies of

former processes, the reality is that there is legislation. There are

laws that need to be followed. There are commitments under UNDRIP today,

not 15 years ago under many different iterations of

governments.

The reality is that there are obligations to do that work, to

consult. I take it from the minister — and maybe he can just answer it

as a simple yes-or-no question — that there was no consultation with

treaty nations and that the spirit of UNDRIP was not upheld prior to the

introduction of Bill 6 in this Legislature.

Hon. D. Eby: We are following a process that will not result in ballots being

burned, turned into paper airplanes, cut into snowflakes, even toilet

paper, which is how the CBC described that particular

referendum.

We’re following a process. We’re engaging with British Columbians

across the province, parties inside and outside the Legislature, members

of the public at engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote. In addition, we are also

engaging directly with First Nations. I hope that assists the member in

understanding what we’re doing.

J. Rustad: It’s very disappointing to hear that the minister dismisses this

important obligation and requirement that was signed in good faith

between governments.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: I appreciate the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast and his

heckling — the heckling, which is not very parliamentary and standard or

acceptable in the committee process.

Having said that, it is welcome to have a fulsome debate with

regards to this. Now, having pointed that out….

Interjections.

J. Rustad: I respect that the member would like to get up, and he has an

opportunity to stand up and ask some questions of this process, as

opposed to just heckling and not being very democratic on something

important….

The Chair: Members.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: To the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast: I am doing my job,

and it’s unfortunate that you’re not.

The challenge here, of course, is that there are those

obligations, and that is why I raise them. They are serious, and having

been the former minister for what was then Aboriginal Relations and

Reconciliation, which is now Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, we

took those commitments that we made under those agreements very

seriously.

[4:10 p.m.]

It was an important component of what was required to be done when

we passed any kind of legislation. With any legislation that did come

forward, we had to make sure, before it was brought to the floor — and I

made sure of that — that those consultation components were undertaken

if they were required to be brought forward. It’s unfortunate to hear

that the minister hasn’t undergone that.

Can the minister please now explain the process that they’ll go

through in terms of the consultation and engagement with the treaty

nations as well as all nations across British Columbia in regards to

this Bill 6?

Hon. D. Eby: Ministry of Attorney General staff reviewed the bill to ensure

that it complies with our legal obligations. But I really do want to

take the member back to the actual text of the

section that we are

looking at here. It says: “For the referendum to be conducted, the

Lieutenant Governor in Council must, by regulation, (

a) state the

question or questions that will be put to the electorate at the

referendum.” That is the core of the referendum — what question is put

to British Columbians. It’s not determined.

This is enabling legislation. If we’re going to consult, that’s

the way it’s got to be written. In fact, we just had an amendment from

the other side that tried to restrict what the consultation could be by

requiring it to be yes or no, based on the whim of a member on the other

side and not through the consultation process.

With respect, we’ll be consulting with First Nations and

consulting with British Columbians on what the question should be, what

the system or systems should be that are put forward to British

Columbians. We look forward to doing that. I hope the member will

support the bill in that spirit.

J. Rustad: It’s a simple question in terms of what the engagement process

will be with First Nations. The minister has stood up on many occasions,

gave a website that people across the province can go….

Does the minister believe that that process of consultation meets

the test and requirements of engagement and UNDRIP through the treaty

nations as well as non-treaty nations in the province of British

Columbia?

Hon. D. Eby: I feel like a broken record here. There is a process that the

Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation is engaged in right

now around consulting with First Nations on this very question, which is

additional to the website at engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote. It is an

additional process to engage First Nations. I’m not sure how much

clearer I can be on that point.

J. Rustad: I appreciate that answer from the minister. It’s very helpful. Can

the minister explain what that process is that is being undertaken by

his colleague?

Hon. D. Eby: I should note that this is separate. The consultation with First

Nations is a separate piece, which is additional to our engagement with

First Nations across the province through the Ministry of Indigenous

Relations and Reconciliation.

It’s a separate and additional component, and First Nations will

be consulted. Here I am, saying the same thing.

M. Morris: Just a couple of basic questions before I get into some of the

detail on

section 2 here as well. I just want to go to the statement

that the Premier made with respect to the government supporting this

proportional representation. Both he and the government support

proportional representation. In fact, the Attorney is supposed to be

neutral on this.

Did the Attorney have the option to recuse himself from

introducing this bill and from participating at the committee stage

here? Why did he choose to take the route that he’s taking if he is to

remain neutral in this whole conversation?

Hon. D. Eby: The bill is a Ministry of Attorney General bill that came through

the bill approval process. All government bills do. It is supported by

the government, and it is enabling legislation. What it does is…. I feel

like I’m saying that, and maybe the members don’t know what I

mean.

Enabling legislation means that it creates a regulation-making

power. The specific regulation-making power that’s created by this

section, which I’m sure the member’s question relates to, is what the

question should be on the ballot that’s put to the electorate at the

referendum.

[4:15 p.m.]

There is a consultation process underway across the

province. Over 8,300 people have participated

in that process. We expect more to complete that before it closes on

February 28. I encourage the member and all members and people across

B.C. to participate at engage.gov.bc.ca/howwevote and inform what the

question should be, what the system or systems that are put forward to

British Columbians are. I look forward to those submissions.

M. Morris: Again, I ask the question: did the Attorney have the option of

recusing himself from the process and having some other minister take up

the role in presenting this bill and going through the committee

stage?

Hon. D. Eby: I just literally have no idea what that has to do with

section 2.

Beyond that, what that process would look…. How would that even

work?

M. Morris: I’m trying to get to the point that the Attorney and the Premier

have stated that the Attorney will remain neutral on this particular

issue, and I’m saying that it doesn’t appear to be neutral to me, to

have the Attorney present this bill and to answer the questions at the

committee stage. But we’ll go beyond that. I do believe that the

Attorney did have the option of recusing himself in the process and

appointing somebody else.

Another question I have, just prior to getting into the detail for

section 2, is: why did the Attorney choose to proceed with Bill 6,

versus using the existing Referendum Act? He said this is enabling

legislation, but the existing Referendum Act provides the option for