British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, October 29, 2009

H1029am-04

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

First Session, 39th Parliament o FFicial rePort o F Debates of the Legis Lative a ssemb Ly (hansarD) the honourable bill bari So FF, SPeaker iSSn 0709-1281 Thursday, October 29, 2009 Morning Sitting Volume 6, Number 4

Pro Vince o F britiS h colu Mbia (entered c onfederation July 20, 1871) lieutenant -Go Vernor h is h onour the h onourable Steven l. Point, obc First Session, 39th Parliament SPeaker o F the leGiS latiVe a SSeMbl Y h onourable bill barisoff eXecutiVe council Premier and President of the executive c ouncil ......................................................................................................h on.

Gordon c ampbell Minister of State for intergovernmental r elations ....................................................................................................h on. n aomi Y amamoto Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance .......................................................................................................................... h on. c olin h ansen Minister of State for the o lympics and a ctn ow b.c. ....................................................................................................... h on.

Mary Mcn eil Minister of a boriginal r elations and r econciliation .....................................................................................................h on. George a bbott Minister of a dvanced e ducation and l abour Market Development ............................................................................ h on. Moira Stilwell Minister of a griculture and l ands ...................................................................................................................................h on.

Steve Thomson a ttorney General ...................................................................................................................................................... h on. Michael de Jong, Qc Minister of c hildren and Family Development and Minister r esponsible for c hild c are ............................................h on.

Mary Polak Minister of citizens' Services and Minister r esponsible for Multiculturalism and the Public a ffairs bureau ...........h on. ben Stewart Minister of c ommunity and r ural Development ................................................................................................................h on. bill bennett Minister of e ducation and Minister r esponsible for early l earning and l iteracy ......................................h on.

Margaret MacDiarmid Minister of energy, Mines and Petroleum r esources .....................................................................................................h on. blair l ekstrom Minister of State for Mining ................................................................................................................................................h on. r andy h awes Minister of environment .......................................................................................................................................................h on. barry Penner Minister of State for c limate a ction ...........................................................................................................................................h on.

John Y ap Minister of Forests and r ange and Minister r esponsible for the integrated l and Management bureau ........................... h on.

Pat bell Minister of h ealth Services ...................................................................................................................................................h on. k evin Falcon Minister of h ealthy l iving and Sport ...................................................................................................................................... h on. ida c hong Minister of h ousing and Social Development .................................................................................................................h on. r ich c oleman Minister of l abour ................................................................................................................................................................ h on.

Murray c oell Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General .....................................................................................................................h on. k ash h eed Minister of Small business, t echnology and e conomic Development ................................................................................ h on. iain black Minister of t ourism, c ulture and the a rts ...................................................................................................................... h on. k evin k rueger Minister of t ransportation and infrastructure ...................................................................................................................h on.

Shirley bond leGiS latiVe a SSeMbl Y l eader of the official o pposition ...................................................................................................................................................c arole James Deputy Speaker .................................................................................................................................................................................... l inda r eid a ssistant Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................c laire t revena Deputy c hair, c ommittee of the Whole .......................................................................................................................................... h arry bloy c lerk of the l egislative a ssembly...................................................................................................................e.

George MacMinn, obc, Q c c lerk a ssistant ..................................................................................................................................................................................r obert Vaive c lerk a ssistant and l aw c lerk................................................................................................................................................. ian D. izard, Qc c lerk a ssistant and c lerk of c ommittees ................................................................................................................................. craig h.

James c lerk a ssistant and c ommittee c lerk .................................................................................................................................... k ate r yan-l loyd Sergeant-at-a rms .................................................................................................................................................................................

Gary l enz Director, h ansard Services ............................................................................................................................................................Jo-a nne k ern a cting l egislative l ibrarian .......................................................................................................................................................... Peter Gourlay l egislative c omptroller ....................................................................................................................................................................... Dan a rbic

alP habetical liS t o F MeMberS a bbott, h on. George (l) ........................................................................ Shuswap a ustin, r obin (nDP) ................................................................................ Skeena bains, h arry (nDP) ....................................................................Surrey-n ewton barisoff, h on. bill (l) ............................................................................Penticton barnett, Donna (l) ................................................................ c ariboo-c hilcotin bell, h on.

Pat (l) ..................................................... Prince George–Mackenzie bennett, h on. bill (l) ...................................................................k ootenay e ast black, Dawn (nDP) ................................................................n ew Westminster black, h on. iain (l) ..................................................... Port Moody–c oquitlam bloy, h arry (l) ......................................................................burnaby-l ougheed bond, h on.

Shirley (l) ...........................................Prince George–Valemount brar, Jagrup (nDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Fleetwood c adieux, Stephanie (l) ...........................................................Surrey-Panorama c ampbell, h on. Gordon (l) .........................................Vancouver–Point Grey c antelon, r on (l) ..............................................................

Parksville-Qualicum c hong, h on. ida (l) ..................................................... o ak bay–Gordon h ead c houhan, r aj (nDP) ........................................................... burnaby-e dmonds c oell, h on. Murray (l) ....................................Saanich n orth and the islands c oleman, h on. r ich (l) ...........................................

Fort l angley–a ldergrove c onroy, katrine (nDP) .............................................................. k ootenay West c oons, Gary (nDP) .........................................................................n orth c oast c orrigan, k athy (nDP) ..................................................... burnaby–Deer l ake Dalton, Marc (l) .............................................................. Maple r idge–Mission de Jong, h on.

Michael, Qc (l) .............................................. a bbotsford West Dix, a drian (nDP) ............................................................Vancouver-kingsway Donaldson, Doug (nDP) ......................................................................... Stikine e lmore, Mable (nDP) ................................................... Vancouver-kensington Falcon, h on. k evin (l) ..........................................................Surrey-c loverdale Farnworth, Mike (nDP) ............................................................

Port c oquitlam Fleming, r ob (nDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan l ake Foster, eric (l) .......................................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (nDP) ............................................................a lberni–Pacific r im Gentner, Guy (nDP) .........................................................................Delta n orth h ammell, Sue (nDP) .................................................... Surrey–Green t imbers h ansen, h on. c olin (l) ..................................................

Vancouver-Quilchena h awes, h on. r andy (l) ..................................................... a bbotsford-Mission h ayer, Dave S. (l) .................................................................... Surrey-t ynehead h eed, h on. k ash (l) ...................................................... Vancouver-Fraserview h erbert, Spencer (nDP) ..................................................Vancouver–West end h ogg, Gordon (l) ............................................................... Surrey–White r ock h organ, John (nDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca h orne, Douglas (l) ..............................................c oquitlam–b urke Mountain h oward, r ob (l) .....................................................................r ichmond c entre h untington, Vicki (ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, c arole (nDP) .........................................................Victoria–b eacon h ill k aragianis, Maurine (nDP) ........................................e squimalt–r oyal r oads k rog, l eonard (nDP) ........................................................................... n anaimo k rueger, h on. k evin (l) ..................................... k amloops–South Thompson kwan, Jenny Wai ching (nDP) ...........................

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant l ake, t erry (l) .....................................................k amloops–n orth Thompson l ali, h arry (nDP) ..........................................................................Fraser-n icola l ee, r ichard t . (l) .......................................................................burnaby n orth l ekstrom, h on. blair (l) .......................................................

Peace r iver South l es, John (l) .........................................................................................c hilliwack l etnick, n orm (l) ........................................................k elowna–l ake c ountry MacDiarmid, h on. Margaret (l) ..................................... Vancouver-Fairview Macdonald, n orm (nDP) ....................................c olumbia r iver–r evelstoke Mcintyre, Joan (l) ..................................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Mcn eil, h on.

Mary (l) .................................................Vancouver–False creek Mcr ae, Don (l) ............................................................................. c omox Valley Mungall, Michelle (nDP) ..........................................................n elson-creston Penner, hon. barry (l) ............................................................c hilliwack-h ope Pimm, Pat (l) ..........................................................................Peace r iver n orth Polak, h on.

Mary (l) ...............................................................................l angley Popham, l ana (nDP) ...................................................................Saanich South r alston, bruce (nDP) ................................................................

Surrey-Whalley r eid, l inda (l) .............................................................................r ichmond e ast r outley, bill (nDP) .................................................................. c owichan Valley r outley, Doug (nDP) ............................................n anaimo–n orth c owichan r ustad, John (l) ........................................................................... n echako l akes Sather, Michael (nDP) ......................................... Maple r idge–Pitt Meadows Simons, n icholas (nDP) ...................................

Powell r iver–Sunshine c oast Simpson, bob (nDP) ...................................................................c ariboo n orth Simpson, Shane (nDP) .....................................................Vancouver-hastings Slater, John (l) ..............................................................boundary-Similkameen Stewart, h on. ben (l) ........................................................... Westside-kelowna Stilwell, h on. Moira (l) ...................................................... Vancouver-l angara Sultan, r alph (l) .....................................................

West Vancouver–capilano Thomson, hon. Steve (l) ........................................................k elowna-Mission Thorne, Diane (nDP) .................................................c oquitlam-Maillardville Thornthwaite, Jane (l) .......................................... n orth Vancouver–Seymour t revena, c laire (nDP) .................................................................... n orth island van Dongen, John (l) .............................................................a bbotsford South Y amamoto, hon. n aomi (l) ................................. n orth Vancouver–l onsdale Y ap, hon.

John (l) .............................................................r ichmond-Steveston liS t o F MeMberS bY riD in G a bbotsford-Mission .............................................................h on. r andy h awes a bbotsford South .....................................................................John van Dongen a bbotsford West ...................................................... h on. Michael de Jong, Qc a lberni–Pacific r im ..........................................................................

Scott Fraser boundary-Similkameen .....................................................................John Slater burnaby–Deer l ake ................................................................... k athy c orrigan burnaby-e dmonds ......................................................................... r aj c houhan burnaby-l ougheed ............................................................................ h arry bloy burnaby n orth .............................................................................. r ichard t . l ee c ariboo-c hilcotin ........................................................................Donna barnett c ariboo n orth ................................................................................ bob Simpson c hilliwack ...............................................................................................

John l es c hilliwack-h ope ...................................................................h on. barry Penner c olumbia r iver–r evelstoke .................................................. n orm Macdonald c omox Valley.................................................................................... Don Mcr ae c oquitlam–b urke Mountain .....................................................Douglas h orne c oquitlam-Maillardville...............................................................

Diane Thorne c owichan Valley ................................................................................ bill r outley Delta n orth ......................................................................................Guy Gentner Delta South ...............................................................................Vicki h untington e squimalt–r oyal r oads .....................................................Maurine k aragianis Fort l angley–a ldergrove ...................................................h on. r ich c oleman Fraser-n icola........................................................................................ h arry l ali Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John h organ k amloops–n orth Thompson .............................................................t erry l ake k amloops–South Thompson ............................................ h on. k evin k rueger k elowna–l ake c ountry ...............................................................n orm l etnick k elowna-Mission .............................................................. h on.

Steve Thomson k ootenay e ast .......................................................................... h on. bill bennett k ootenay West ............................................................................ k atrine c onroy l angley.......................................................................................h on. Mary Polak Maple r idge–Mission .....................................................................

Marc Dalton Maple r idge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................Michael Sather n anaimo ......................................................................................... l eonard k rog n anaimo–n orth c owichan ......................................................... Doug r outley n echako l akes ..................................................................................

John r ustad n elson-creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall n ew Westminster ..............................................................................Dawn black n orth c oast....................................................................................... Gary c oons n orth island .................................................................................. c laire t revena n orth Vancouver–l onsdale ........................................h on. n aomi Y amamoto n orth Vancouver–Seymour .................................................

Jane Thornthwaite o ak bay–Gordon h ead ............................................................ h on. ida c hong Parksville-Qualicum ..................................................................... r on c antelon Peace r iver n orth ................................................................................

Pat Pimm Peace r iver South ...............................................................h on. blair l ekstrom Penticton................................................................................... h on. bill barisoff Port c oquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–c oquitlam .............................................................h on. iain black Powell r iver–Sunshine c oast ................................................. n icholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie .............................................................h on.

Pat bell Prince George–Valemount ...................................................h on. Shirley bond r ichmond c entre ............................................................................ r ob h oward r ichmond e ast ................................................................................... l inda r eid r ichmond-Steveston .................................................................... h on. John Y ap Saanich n orth and the islands ........................................... h on.

Murray c oell Saanich South ................................................................................ l ana Popham Shuswap ...............................................................................h on. George a bbott Skeena .............................................................................................. r obin a ustin Stikine .......................................................................................

Doug Donaldson Surrey-c loverdale .................................................................h on. k evin Falcon Surrey-Fleetwood ...............................................................................Jagrup brar Surrey–Green t imbers ..................................................................Sue h ammell Surrey-n ewton ................................................................................. h arry b ains Surrey-Panorama ..................................................................Stephanie c adieux Surrey-t ynehead ...........................................................................

Dave S. h ayer Surrey-Whalley.............................................................................. bruce r alston Surrey–White r ock ....................................................................... Gordon h ogg Vancouver-Fairview ............................................. h on. Margaret MacDiarmid Vancouver–False creek ........................................................ h on.

Mary Mcn eil Vancouver-Fraserview ..............................................................h on. k ash h eed Vancouver-hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-kensington .................................................................Mable e lmore Vancouver-kingsway..........................................................................a drian Dix Vancouver-l angara ............................................................. h on. Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .........................................

Jenny Wai ching kwan Vancouver–Point Grey .................................................h on.

Gordon c ampbell Vancouver-Quilchena ..........................................................h on. c olin h ansen Vancouver–West end ................................................................Spencer h erbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................eric Foster Victoria–b eacon h ill .......................................................................c arole James Victoria–Swan l ake.........................................................................r ob Fleming West Vancouver–capilano ............................................................. r alph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ........................................................

Joan Mcintyre Westside-kelowna ...................................................................h on. ben Stewart Party Standings: l iberal 49; n ew Democratic 35; independent 1

CONTENTS Thursday, october 29, 2009 Morning Sitting Page introduction and First r eading of bills ................................................................................................................................ 1761 bill 18 — a ssistance to Shelter a ct h on. r . c oleman bill M203 — First n ations h eritage Protection and c onservation a ct, 2009 M. k aragianis Orders of the Day Second r eading of bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 1762 bill 19 — l obbyists r egistration a mendment a ct, 2009 h on.

M. de Jong l. k rog D. r outley M. k aragianis S. h ammell b. r alston h. l ali h on. M. de Jong Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room c ommittee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 1776 e stimates: Ministry of t ourism, c ulture and the a rts h on. k. k rueger S. h erbert

1761 thurSD a Y , october 29, 2009 The h ouse met at 10:02 a.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Prayers. Introduction and First Reading of Bills bill 18 — a SSiStance to Shelter act h on. r . c oleman presented a message from h is h onour the l ieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled a ssist- ance to Shelter a ct. Hon. R. Coleman: i move that bill 18 be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. R. Coleman: i am pleased to introduce the a ssistance to Shelter a ct.

We are proposing this legislation to ensure the safety of people on the streets of british c olumbia. e ven one death on the streets due to weather conditions is too many. When an extreme weather alert has been issued, we want people at risk off the streets and into safe accom- modation of their own free will. The legislation enables police officers to take adults at risk of harm due to weather to an emergency shel- ter where they can make the choice, after speaking to a worker or looking at the shelter and knowing that they could come in for a warm room and a meal, whether they wish to stay for the night.

This will prevent tragedies such as the one we experi- enced last winter when t racey, a homeless woman, died trying to keep warm in a makeshift shelter in Vancouver. a nd t racey is not the only person in history we have experienced this with. What we are trying to do today is establish a tool so that folks can go and help out folks who need it the most — to make a decision that may save their lives. t racey was actually approached by some outreach workers and some police officers who offered her to go to shelter.

Those police officers and outreach workers still today live with the fact that they didn't have a tool to at least take t racey to the door of a place so she could make an informed decision as to whether she wanted to save her life and come in from the cold. [1005] a s a society, we have the responsibility to prevent harm to our fellow citizens. We cannot stand by and watch as people put their lives at risk.

This new legis- lation will help people access the support system that we've set up for them. once in a shelter, an individual may connect with outreach workers and, as i said, they can make their own choices. a s a province, this is the action we're taking as a result of t racey's death and other situations that have occurred on our streets in the last decade, and as a result of people telling us that something needed to be done, including law enforcement, for a tool.

The a ssistance to Shelter a ct will be one of the many resources the province is providing to keep british c olumbians safe. i move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the h ouse after today. bill 18, a ssistance to Shelter a ct, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the house after today. bill M203 — Fir St nation S herita Ge Protection anD conS er Vation act, 2009 M. k aragianis presented a bill intituled First n ations h eritage Protection and c onservation a ct, 2009. M.

Karagianis: i move that a bill intituled First n ations h eritage Protection and c onservation a ct, 2009, be introduced for a first time now. Motion approved. M. Karagianis: i am honoured to introduce the First n ations h eritage Protection and c onservation a ct. This bill will better protect first nations heritage objects and sacred sites.

The bill amends the h eritage c onservation a ct to include a process by which first nations can trig- ger protection orders when heritage and sacred sites and objects or remains are discovered. i believe that this bill amends the heritage act to better provide a set of guidelines and tools that first nations, local government and the province need in order to implement protection, stewardship and conservation of first nations heritage and culturally significant areas — their artifacts, their sacred history — and, as well, to provide for the creation of a program to accomplish that goal. i would, therefore, ask that all members please read the bill and support it. i move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the h ouse after today. bill M203, First n ations h eritage Protection and c onservation a ct, 2009, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the h ouse after today.

british c olumbia Debates1762 t hursday, o ctober 29, 2009 Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. i call in c ommittee a, c ommittee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of t ourism, c ulture and the a rts; and in this chamber, second reading of bill 19, the l obbyists r egistration a mendment a ct. Second Reading of Bills bill 19 — l obb YiSt S re GiStration aMenDMent act, 2009 Hon. M. de Jong: i move that bill 19 be now read a second time.

This bill amends the l obbyists r egistration a ct. it in fact introduces amendments that, in my view, sig- nificantly update and strengthen the lobbyist regime in british c olumbia and in many ways bring it into align- ment with legislation enacted by our neighbours in a lberta. i might take a moment just to consider a little bit of the history of lobbyist registration legislation in british c olumbia. it's a fairly recent history. l egislation of this sort didn't exist until 2002, when the b.c. lobbyists registry was established in o ctober of that year under legislation that i think it's fair to say drew from similar initiatives in the province of ontario and federal legislation. [c. t revena in the chair.] i think it's also fair to say that since then many other provinces have enacted similar legislation, and recently there were amendments to the federal legislation that were brought into force in July of 2008. i wonder if i might also make this point briefly, and that is this.

The notion of lobbying and the term "to lobby" isn't and shouldn't be considered a dirty word. [1010] The notion of people bringing their views to elected officials and trying to impress upon those elected offi- cials a particular point of view — in fact, trying to influ- ence them as they go about making decisions — is a valid and fundamentally important part of the demo- cratic process. i'm happy that over the last number of months, at least, the registrar, who also happens to be the Privacy c ommissioner, Mr. l oukidelis, has repeatedly made that point: that whilst it is important to have workable, proper regulation in place for those whose profession it is to operate as a lobbyist, it is important to recognize the validity of the exercise of speaking with elected offi- cials and trying to convey a particular point of view to those elected officials. it's also, in my view, vitally important that the proper balance be struck so that government and those who sit in chambers like this one be open and accessible to people to be able to put their views to the representatives making the decisions that affect them.

There will be a difference of views, and ensuring that all of us, as elected people, do not construct barriers to that exchange of information is important. i think, though, it's also fair to say that what goes hand in hand with that notion of the vibrancy of dem- ocracy is the need for an element of transparency so that the public will know who it is that is engaged on a more or less full-time basis in the activities associated with the lobbying of elected officials and that advocacy work, either on their own behalf or on behalf of organizations, agencies or corporations.

This bill, i believe, will increase that transparency. it will broaden the reporting requirements and significantly strengthen the enforcement. it will create for british c olumbia, in my view, one of the strongest regimes for lobbyist registration in all of canada. it does respond to publicly debated issues and con- cerns, and its development has benefited greatly…. i want to express my thanks for the valuable input that has been received from the registrar of lobbyists, Mr. l oukidelis, who serves in his other capacity, also as an officer of this l egislature, around privacy protection. c onsistent with a lberta, this bill introduces an enhanced definition of lobbying, including a specific reference to a variety of topics or subjects that might be the subject of advocacy or lobbying activity — things like the privatiza- tion of government interests or assets or the contracting- out of the provision of goods or services to government.

They are mentioned specifically in this legislation. in addition, this legislation will, in my view, simplify and increase the transparency of the system by creat- ing two, and only two, streams of lobbyists: a consultant lobbyist or an in-house lobbyist. They will have parallel reporting requirements. i think that serves to strengthen the reporting require- ments. a lobbyist, either a consultant or in-house lobbyist, will need to report information about any sub- contracted consultant lobbyists, and they must disclose whether or not a lobbyist is a former public officeholder.

These amendments will also introduce a test that pro- vides that an individual is an in-house lobbyist when that individual's lobbying or the total lobbying done by their organization amounts to at least 100 hours. [1015] There will be, as i think members have seen in the legislation, a corresponding authority to clarify this test through regulation. a gain, this is consistent with the approach that has been taken in a lberta with their legislation. in this legislation there is a new prohibition on hold- ing the dual role of contracting to provide paid advice to

british c olumbia Debatest hursday, o ctober 29, 2009 1763 government on the same subject matter as a person, or someone associated with that person, is lobbying.

That is spelled out specifically and clearly in the legislation — a prohibition against those dual roles. i should point out as well that that prohibition, as it is spelled out in the legislation, is to apply regardless of the amount of time that someone dedicates to lob- bying. it is triggered not by the time but by the subject matter and the association between the lobbyist and the government. u nder the amendments that are contained within this bill 19, the registrar will have significantly enhanced powers and duties.

The registrar will be able to conduct full investigations, including the power to compel the production of documents and the attendance of people to testify as part of the investigative process that he or she launches in their capacity as registrar. a s well, in circumstances where the registrar finds that an individual has contravened prescribed provi- sions of the act or its regulations, there will be signifi- cant sanction.

The registrar will have the ability to levy administrative penalties of up to $25,000 and, following the completion of an investigation, the registrar will be required to report the results of that investigation to this chamber — the l egislative a ssembly. The bill strengthens enforcement mechanisms even further than that.

The maximum offence penalties from $25,000 to $100,000 for second or subsequent offences under the act…. in addition, and i think this is also sig- nificant, it empowers the registrar to prohibit a person convicted of an offence from lobbying and registering for up to two years if the registrar believes that is neces- sary and appropriate in the public interest. Finally, it extends the limitation period for a prosecu- tion under the act from six months to two years. The amendments as set out in the act, if passed by this chamber, would come into force on a pril 1, 2010.

We will, i'm sure, explore that further in committee, but i do want to alert the h ouse to the fact that that date was arrived at as a result of discussions with the registrar, Mr. l oukidelis, who is anxious that the technical require- ments, the websites, the ability for those who are either in-house or consultant lobbyists are all up, operational and running and that the office is equipped from the get-go to accept the registrations that will be required under this act.

This represents significant change, in my view — a new chapter, perhaps, in the realm of lobbyist registration in british c olumbia. i believe it is a significant advance- ment in the creation of mechanisms that guarantee openness and transparency, both on the part of govern- ment but also on the part of those who are engaged on a regular basis in trying to influence the actions and the decisions that we make in this chamber, that publicly elected officials make. [1020] i should say one other thing about that, because it has been the subject of at least a modest level of discussion.

That is, the specific provision that is included within the act concerning where the obligation lies to ensure that a lobbyist has conformed with the provisions of the act. That obligation falls squarely to those who are engaged in the advocacy work, to the lobbyist, and specifically and explicitly does not accrue to the elected official.

That is by design. it is deliberate. it is obviously very explicit in the act, and it is there for this reason: no act that i'm aware of in c anada imposes a positive obliga- tion on the elected official to verify in advance of discus- sions with an individual whether the requirements of the l obbyists r egistration a ct that exists in that jurisdiction have been complied with. t o do so, i believe, would be problematic in the extreme. There is a technical reason for that, and i'll speak about that for a moment, but there is a more practical con- sideration as well.

The act should not make, in my view, publicly elected officials regulators. it should not bestow an obligation upon, for example, the Mla s that sit in this h ouse the obligation to determine whether or not the technical requirements of the l obbyists r egistration a ct have been complied with. We impose that obliga- tion to comply on the lobbyists and the decision about whether or not those obligations have been properly dis- charged upon the registrar.

So that is, broadly speaking, a technical or legal rationale for the approach that is taken, but i think it goes beyond that. i think virtually every member of this h ouse will know that when they return home, they are confronted by people who want to talk to them about issues that may be relevant to their community, relevant to their lives. it strikes me that it would be entirely unworkable and inadvisable to create a situation where an Mla had to say to someone: "Sorry. i can't talk to you until i am absolutely satisfied that you are either exempt from or have complied with the provisions of the act." a s i said at the outset, at the heart of our democracy is the ability that citizens have to interact with their elected officials and engage in a meaningful conversation. t o erect hurdles or obstacles in the path of that occurring would, in my view, be unwise.

That approach and that philosophy is reflected in the act, particularly in respect of the one

section dealing with an explicit assertion of where the obligation for compliance rests. This is a step forward. This is a significant change, a step along the evolutionary path of legislation dealing with the registration of lobbyist activities. i know that members will have some thoughts, and i look forward to hearing those thoughts during the course of second reading debate. L. Krog: i'm delighted to rise to speak to the l obbyists r egistration a mendment a ct this morning, but i'm

british c olumbia Debates1764 t hursday, o ctober 29, 2009 reminded of the words of o liver t wist: "Please, sir, i want some more." The truth is that we have come some distance, but we have not gone the full course that was available and certainly an option for this government to take by way of reforming what has been described as a toothless tiger, a waste of time, completely useless — a lobbyist registration system that had become a running political joke in this province. n ow, i do want to agree, however, with what the a ttorney General had to say about Mr. l oukidelis and his very useful input to this legislation. i think the gov- ernment very wisely followed most of the recommenda- tions of Mr. l oukidelis. but he was very clear in his letter of o ctober 6, 2008, to the then a ttorney General, the hon.

Wally o ppal, when he said: "r equire public offi- cials to verify that a lobbyist is registered and to verify the intended outcome of the communication." because in the a ttorney General's remarks around the issue of making it so difficult that you had to ask everyone who was talking to you whether they were registered and it was a problematic situation, of course this raises the very issue of how one is to detect who is lobbying and what lobbying has gone on that is, in fact, lobbying under the act but can't be detected. [1025] c learly, the police aren't going to stand outside the minister's door and ask everyone who comes out whether, in fact, they've been lobbying the minister or lobbying some official of government.

That's not the way it's going to work. i think Mr. l oukidelis very wisely pointed out that the most efficient and effective way of ensuring that those who are lobbying government, in what should be a completely transparent process, would be known to the public is through a requirement that the person being lobbied verify that they're registered and verify the intended outcome of the communication. i think that was an important recommendation. i think it was a very valuable recommendation. n otwithstanding it doesn't exist in any other similar statute in the country is no excuse not to bring in such a change.

The whole reason for lobbyist registration is to ensure openness and transparency, to satisfy the public that when there's an outcome from government, they know who asked for it, what their relationship is with gov- ernment, what their relationship is with the industry or the group or person they're representing. They want to know that because otherwise there's this dreadful sus- picion that somehow some people are getting things out of government that just aren't quite right, that aren't quite fair.

Y ou know, when you meet with the a gricultural c ouncil, when you meet with the Principals and Vice- Principals a ssociation, when you meet with the bctF , when you meet with an industry lobby group, the public understands that all of those groups and groups like them educate public officials. They provide information. They point out deficiencies in legislation. They provide assistance that might not otherwise be available, and that's a good thing.

The a ttorney General, wisely, recognized that this morning. but when we come to issues where contracts get let, where things that were formerly under government con- trol become privatized…. When that occurs, the public really, really wants to know who asked for it, when did they ask for it, what specifically did they ask for.

That's where the rubber hits the road. i must say i thought it most interesting this morning that the a ttorney General pointed out very specifically that the legislation is going to include in the term "lobby": to communicate with an office holder, etc., with respect to "a decision by the e xecutive c ouncil or a member of the e xecutive c ouncil to transfer from the c rown for consideration all or part of, or any interest in or asset of, any business, enterprise or institution that provides goods or services to the c rown, a Provincial entity or the public…" etc. b ang on. but i have to tell you, for most british c olumbians, when they look at b.c. r ail, when they look at what's happened with h ydro, when they look at the numerous contracts that have now committed the people of british c olumbia — and i'm not going to call it the government; it's the people of british c olumbia — their tax dollars, for decades in some cases — billions and billions of dol- lars....

Much of it appears to have come as a result of lob- bying about which the public knows very little, if they know anything at all. it's kind of like getting the fire department to the fire after it's out. Y ou know, the bank has been robbed, the robbers left town three days ago, and the police show up. The fact is it's a little late. it's a little late. There are some british c olumbians who might sar - castically say that in fact we've privatized pretty much everything we can.

We've given it away in the eyes of the public, and now we're bringing in the legislation that would have actually made the process transparent — that would have given the public some opportunity, if you will, to know who was in the minister's office, who was at government's door, who were the insiders who were ensuring that this process of a transfer, if you will, of a transformation of the way government operates in british c olumbia, occurred. People wanted to know that. it was a legitimate con- cern. We know that several years ago even the Premier acknowledged that this legislation was inadequate.

We know that the former a ttorney General promised legis- lative change. We know that Mr. l oukidelis has been requesting this for a number of years. i mean, the Premier in 2007 made it clear in May. h e promised to fix the lobbyist registration law. n ow, two and a half years later, we're finally getting around to it. [1030]

british c olumbia Debatest hursday, o ctober 29, 2009 1765 n ow, i have heard the comments of the a ttorney General in this chamber this morning, and i've listened to his comments made outside of this h ouse. i've got to tell you: i appreciate that government can move slowly on occasion. i understand that. it grinds a little slow on occasion. but after the incredible public criticism, after the issues around Mr.

Dobell, the allegations made about Mr. k insella, all of those concerns raised publicly, after all the columnists, after all the news coverage, after all the public outcry, after all the questions by the oppos- ition, did it really take this long to draft the l obbyists r egistration a mendment a ct — 16 pages? Was it really that difficult?

From what i've heard from the a ttorney General, we just looked, basically, next door to a lberta, kind of rubber-stamped it, brought it home. i mean, through the l eader of the o pposition and others, we have put forward private members' bills around this on several occasions. They were there. They were readily available. i do not for one moment accept the excuses of the a ttorney General around the need for study and careful review and the promises that it was coming, that it was coming, that it was coming. it just doesn't have the ring of sincerity somehow. i mean, how long does it take to draft legislation?

The a ttorney General has a ministry full of able, capable people — people well trained in the law, people who have been drafting legislation for years, people who, in a rush, when there's an emergency, can draft legislation in a matter of days. but somehow it took us this long to get this far with this legislation. The a ttorney General referred to the history of this legislation brought in, in 2002. it was a good step forward, part of a growing trend. Well, that was seven years ago. The criticism started quite some time ago.

The disaster, and it was a disaster around k en Dobell, was public years ago. a llegations, concern around this issue, were made public years ago. So why didn't we bring it in? There is a nagging suspicion, i think, in cynical british c olumbians' minds that we had to delay this just long enough to ensure that everything was done, that all of the really interesting things, if you will, around lobby- ists and what they got and what they achieved on behalf of their clients were, in fact, achieved. That it's too late. The barn door truly has been shut long after the horse left — long after.

When you consider the importance of this, when you consider the public cynicism around government, when you consider the lack of trust, the suspicion that exists, just think how much better it would have been if this legislation had been introduced two years ago. if the government had responded quickly, if the govern- ment, once it was so clear that this, the existing act, was, frankly, a useless piece of legislation in most respects, just think…. interjection. L. Krog: one of the members suggests that somebody would have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

Well, i won't go quite that far, but what i will say is that at least there might have been a successful prosecu- tion under this act. There might have been a message to lobbyists in british c olumbia that we live in a society that values open- ness and transparency, that we want government to be respected. That we're not prepared to sit back and have activities go on which the public, by and large, without that veil being taken back from it…. Frankly, it doesn't look that good.

Y ou know, when you consider how much has changed in british c olumbia in the last eight years…. i know that the members on the opposite side are probably about to jump up and say: "a ll for the better. a ll for the better.

Things are wonderful." a lthough they perhaps are so quiet this morning that they're not even going to give me the credit of screaming or yelling at me or heckling me, which is always distressing for a politician. [1035] but the fact is that things have been done in british c olumbia, particularly around crown assets, that have offended old-line Socreds, n ew Democrats, small busi- ness people, rural british c olumbians, urban british c olumbians. Things have occurred that weren't part of the promise. h on. Speaker, you remember the 1996 election?

The Premier, then l eader of the o pposition, said he was going to privatize b.c. r ail. a nd son of a gun, guess what. r ural british c olumbians in particular, who relied on b.c. r ail, re-elected an nDP government. a nd in 2001 the Premier promised he wouldn't privatize b.c. r ail. n ow, i'm not suggesting for a moment that lobbying had anything to do with it, of course. i'm not suggesting that for a moment. i'll let the public record speak for itself on this issue. but somehow we ended up with a privatized b.c. r ail. n ow, you know, the Minister of t ransportation would probably say that it's not really a privatization. it's just a very long-term lease.

Well, it's long enough that i don't think any members of this chamber will see the renewal date pop up very quickly, or in their lifetime. it amounted to a privatization. it was a broken prom- ise — one of the most clearly broken promises of any politician in recent history in british c olumbia. The suspicion is that it has led to charges arising out of that involving corruption, a complete lack of transparency, a complete lack of openness. The l obbyists r egistration a ct should have been a lot tougher, a lot sooner.

Then british c olumbians might have seen this as a genuinely sincere attempt to do the right thing as opposed to what it appears to the oppos- ition to be now, and that is a public relations exercise.

british c olumbia Debates1766 t hursday, o ctober 29, 2009 So much of what this might have prevented has already happened. it's too late. b.c. r ail is gone. h ydro — i'm not going to go through the list this morning. it's done. it's over. l ong-term contracts are already in place. Do we know who lobbied for them, what they got paid for it, when it happened, how it happened? n o, we don't have any real idea, because the l obbyists r egistration a ct gave no powers to the registrar. Mr. l oukidelis could do no more than ask politely: "i f you'd mind if i inves- tigated you. Would that be all right?

Please, sir, let me investigate you." That's all Mr. l oukidelis could do. a nd k en Dobell, to his credit, said yes. Mr. k insella, relying on his rights at law — relying on his rights — said: "n o. Forget it." So we were left with the farce of Mr. l oukidelis being forced to ask the government for legislative change. h ow long has it taken? it's not the life of Methuselah. it's not a lifetime. but in political terms, it's a very long time. a s h arold Wilson said, "a week in politics is a long time," and a year is an eternity. We've had close to three eterni- ties to get to this stage today. We have

an act that doesn't fulfil all of Mr. l oukidelis's reasonable requests and suggestions, particularly around the verification process, because…. i come back to my point. h ow are we going to know who is lobbying? is the opposition going to have to continue to make Foi requests over and over again for the ministers' calendars to determine who's there? a re industrious reporters going to have to do the same thing? is there going to have to be a constant public watching of this in order to make sure it achieves what it's supposed to achieve, which is openness and transparency?

Wouldn't it be so much simpler, and wouldn't it be a feather in this government's cap — wouldn't it be a little gold star in their exercise book? — if they just made it the responsibility of public officials covered by the legislation to simply say: " a re you registered? a re you registered, and what do you hope to get from me?" is that so hard? is it so difficult for the attorney General to do that? [1040] Y ou know, when i consider the rigmarole you've got to go through to get a driver's licence, for heaven's sakes — and that's asked of ordinary citizens every day in the province — is it that difficult?

With the vast staff avail- able to every minister of the crown and to Mla s, is it so difficult to ask them to simply ask a couple of questions? Maybe a one-page form. it wouldn't be very hard. Y ou know what? What great evil would occur if that was the case? What great mischief would occur? i sug- gest absolutely none. What might occur is the restora- tion of people's confidence that government is, in fact, open — that it's their government; that politicians are doing the right thing; that politicians are committed to honesty and integrity, to being responsive to the public. but we don't see that.

We certainly don't see any pos- sibility of retroactivity in this legislation. We're certainly not going to see that, and i understand the difficulties around retroactivity in legislation. i understand that. but clearly we're not going to ever find out the truth about what happened in many of the most significant transfers of crown assets in the history of this province that has occurred under this government's watch, because we lacked legislation to do so.

When i consider what the government could have done in following Mr. l oukidelis's recommendation, was it so difficult for them to do it? indeed, as the a ttorney General emphasized this morning, the legislation, in fact, says: "For greater certainty, nothing in this a ct requires a public office holder to verify whether any person who is or may be lobbying the public office holder has acted in accordance with this act." Just in case there's any question — "We want to make it perfectly clear that government has no responsibility whatsoever. We don't want anything to do with enfor - cing this act.

We're expecting everyone else to look after that." Well, it isn't good enough. The a ttorney General, i suspect, may know it's not good enough. i mean, he did, in fairness to his remarks earlier, say that it was a signifi- cant advancement. Well, in comparison to what existed, anything would be a significant advancement. This legislation…. The existing statute provided noth- ing more than a cover — unenforceable, unused, ignored and a waste of time. n ow we have legislation that, in fact, takes us forward, that brings in, in fairness, a reasonable penalty scheme.

The opposition's bill, in fact, included a request for a $25,000 fine and — i give the government credit — for a second offence, up to $100,000. That's a good thing. That's a very good thing. but if we're going to really make it effective, the other question that arises is: will this government provide the necessary funding to Mr. l oukidelis?

Will we see the support that will be required in order to implement and enforce this, to do the kinds of investigations that will not only see compliance, but will encourage genuine compli- ance so that in the future in british c olumbia nobody's going to be lobbying unless they've registered and unless there's disclosure and transparency around it? When you've got a 50 percent turnout in a provincial election, the message is pretty clear.

People are so dis- gusted by the process and the results it produces that they don't even bother to vote. one of the reasons, i have no doubt, in this last election — given the public outcry and the significant news coverage around this existing act — was that people looked at it and said: "Y ou know what? a plague on all their houses. i'm not going to bother. i'm not going to participate in the democratic process." So this is a step forward. i'm going to be kind this mor- ning. The opposition is going to support this legislation. interjections.

british c olumbia Debatest hursday, o ctober 29, 2009 1767 Deputy Speaker: order, Members. order. [1045] L. Krog: The opposition, hon. Speaker, is going to support this legislation. We'll support it with amend- ments, because it is a step forward. a nd as i said…. interjections. Deputy Speaker: Member for n anaimo. Member, would you take your seat a moment. i request order. e verybody has an opportunity to speak to the bill and to raise the issues that are in the bill. Member for n anaimo, continue. L. Krog: The opposition is going to support it. it's a step forward. We are like beggars in the street.

We'll take what we can get. Someday, hopefully, there will be an opportunity for british c olumbians to get a first-class, cutting-edge lobbyists registration system that will be a model to the rest of the country, that will follow all of the recommen- dations of Mr. l oukidelis, that will put us out in front, just where we were with freedom of information and privacy in the '90s, when again british c olumbia was in the forefront, passed the best legislation and hired a superb information and Privacy c ommissioner.

That's where the opposition would like to be. but we're pleased that there are some tentative steps and that we are moving forward. i cede my place on this floor to the many other members i know who want to speak to this bill. D. Routley: i rise to speak to bill 19 and the l obbyists r egistration a ct. l obbying, like politics, has become a concept which has descended into contempt along with failures in behaviour and practice. We expect that people will respect the h ouse that we sit in and the process that we defend, the process that was defended by c anadians over time in history.

Y et broken promises and deceit from those who serve our communities, the kinds of deceptions we've seen from this b.c. l iberal government, have led to a contempt and a cynicism which has been a very toxic element to public process, just as the very act of bring- ing concern and interest to the government's attention — which has become defined as "lobbying" and which is, of course, an essential element of governance — has descended into the same level of contempt because of the misdeeds, the self-interest and the veiled interest that has been operative. c ynicism is the most toxic element in public process, and cynicism grows in the space between words of prom- ise and unfulfilled deed.

This b.c. l iberal government is big on words of promise but large in unfulfilled deed. They boast of promises as though it is deed. The b.c. l iberals have sold promise as a bumper-sticker commit- ment to concepts as though a heroic deed achieved. l ook, Madam Speaker, to the environmental awaken- ing of a government that has decimated the forest land base, of a government that seeks to lift the moratorium on offshore oil development. if you want to see elements and the seeds of cynicism, just look to the hypocritical gap between the stated promise and the deed.

We see the conversion to a conquest of first nations justice-making. Words have sufficed, headlines rewarded, but deed has fleetingly been avoided. l obbyists registration is one more example of b.c. l iberal promise-making met by short attention span and meagre commitment to real change. This bill does bring some penalty to avoiding registration. This bill does require some commitment to register and some penalty for failure, but Mr. l oukidelis made many other recom- mendations, which were rejected by this government.

This bill was three years in coming — three years of promise; three years of commitment that it was right around the corner, that we'd see it in the next session, in the next, in the next; the former a ttorney General prom- ising that the writing was underway, yet three years for a 16-page bill that failed to meet the recommendations of the commissioner. [1050] Will they fund this commissioner in these activities? Will they give him the room he will need to operate? That still is a question to be answered.

When we look to the probability of a question being answered by a deed, a promise being fulfilled by a deed, we have to look at the pattern. There's another characteristic to the pattern of the b.c. l iberals' failure to mate principle to practice. it does no farmer good to close the door on the barn after the proverbial horse has bolted. t ake the b.c. l iberal bill 17 health bill, which seeks to guarantee residents of care homes a bill of rights.

This bill was debated yesterday, and it would, if the b.c . l iberals had their way, have us all forget the mistreatment of our seniors at their hand, all the while slapping them on the back as protectors through this new bill. bill 17 would offer a weak gruel of protec- tions backed up by little or no enforcement or penalty. Does this sound familiar?

Does this description of the bill we debated yesterday sound familiar now that we stand here debating bill 19? it sounds very familiar to me. it certainly mirrors the dilemma Mr. l oukidelis faced when he attempted to bring rein to the lobbying activities of Patrick k insella. More importantly, this displays another pattern or characteristic beyond those two. This b.c. l iberal gov- ernment savaged seniors' rights. it dislocated seniors, evicted them…. Deputy Speaker: Might i remind the member that we're discussing bill 19. W e had the opportunity to discuss the other bill yesterday.

british c olumbia Debates1768 t hursday, o ctober 29, 2009 D. Routley: Y es, Madam Speaker. i'm attempting to bring a parallel and a characteristic of action or failure to act to promised deed, and it is mirrored in the bill that we debated yesterday. That characteristic is mir - rored again today in this bill. in order to illustrate that, i need to refer to yesterday's debate. but i will bring that into context. There was a savage mistreatment.

There was a disloca- tion without consideration, and then this b.c. l iberal government brought forward a bill that would cover their tracks and have them line up to be slapped on the back for credit.

That is mirrored today. a fter the privatization of crown assets, after the sale of b.c. r ail, after health care public-private partnership contracts were awarded, after the o lympic projects were completed and the contracts awarded, they bring forward a bill that would have offered the transparency necessary for british c olumbians to truly have understood who was at the Premier's door, whose interests were sitting at the cabinet table of the b.c. l iberal government when those important crown assets and crown services were auctioned off.

When the common wealth of this province was auc- tioned off, we had no idea who was standing in line at the Premier's door. n ow, after the fact, this government expects this province to slap them on the back and give them credit for bringing control and transparency to lobbying that should have been there. a fter the horse has fled the barn, they close the door with a sheet of paper. it is a pathetic failing of the interests of british c olumbia.

The goals of the b.c. l iberal government have largely been achieved — in terms of privatization of services, sale of crown assets, the auctioning off of the contracts for the o lympic Games. H. Lali: The giveaways. D.

Routley: The giveaways to friends and insiders have been done. only now do they provide us with this transparency that would have been necessary for british c olumbians to adequately have forced democracy to work in their favour. [1055] a fter the vote we hear about the deficit. a fter the vote we hear about the hS t . a fter the auctioning of the wealth of this province, we are provided with the lens that was required to have adequately judged whether it was fair or not. o ur a ttorney General wants us to pat him on the back for this great achievement. bill 19 is too little, too late, and it mirrors all of those examples.

So again, after the horse has fled the barn, the b.c. l iberals have closed the door with paper. So far, my speech has been about a recounting — an accounting, if you will — of what has occurred, a build- ing of a pattern, a characteristic of this government to offer failure to act on promises made. it's an accounting of past behaviour, of misbehaviour — characteristics of failure and a lack of integrity. This is where cynicism has grown.

This, as the previous speaker said, is where the poor participation rates in our democracy are born: in this cynicism that grows out of misdeed, the cynicism that grows in the spaces between lofty words and promise and their unfulfilled deed. n ow, though, i'll finish with a predictive note. british c olumbians expect their government to mirror their principles and the values they live by.

They expect their government to be honest; to not hide truths before elections, only to pop out surprises after the vote; to not auction off their assets, hiding from them the interests at play and then, only after the sale has closed, offer the lens that would have been required to make judgment of whether that was a fair or right process. They expect their government to be forthright about its actions.

So far, when the government has appealed to the princi- ples that british c olumbians live by, when the government advertised a conversion to a good-faith relationship with first nations that has been answered largely by the same characteristics of the old relationship — where people in first nations are not being consulted around the auc- tioning and harvesting of resources within their territories, are not being consulted on decisions made by government, are not being considered — we see the pattern.

They do not expect a government that will convert itself to an environmental awakening — lean on a hybrid car, paint itself green, all the while seeking to lift the offshore moratorium on oil and gas. They expect much more. So far, when those principles have been appealed to, british c olumbians have answered positively.

The gov- ernment did line up to be patted on the back, and they were patted on the back. but now that deeds have clearly shown a lack of com- mitment to principle, i predict that british c olumbians will not line up to pat this a ttorney General on the back for this l obbyists r egistration a mendment a ct, so late in coming. They will not forget that their commit- ment to principles and values lived by ordinary british c olumbians and failed in action by this b.c. l iberal government….

Those will not be forgotten, and people will express a much higher expectation the next time they go to the polls and will pass a judgment on this behaviour and this pattern of characteristic — of not meeting promise with deed, of failing to live up to commitment. That is what this government will be remembered for.

We do need to bring order to the activities of lobbyists, and Mr. l oukidelis's recommendations, all of them, do need to be acted upon. but when it's too little, too late, and when it's after the deed is done, more cynicism will grow and, along with it this time, an anger and a real- ization that for us to put right the principles and values

british c olumbia Debatest hursday, o ctober 29, 2009 1769 that govern our province, we need to do away with this charade that sits on the other side of the h ouse. That is the predictive note that i'll end my speech with. [1100] M. Karagianis: i'm happy to take my place in this debate.

Very interesting — bill 19, the lobbyists registry amendment act, because in many ways i would have to say that it's about time that we saw this act tabled here in this h ouse. a s has very aptly been debated by my two colleagues previously, it's a little bit too late, all at the same time. i am very concerned about some aspects of this bill, and those are the things that i will speak dir - ectly to in my comments. i listened very intently to the presentation by the a ttorney General here of this bill and have consider - able concerns with some aspects of this. i will talk about those and certainly will probably take the opportunity to ask more details as we move into committee stage. c ertainly, the need for an amendment to this lobby- ists registry has been a topic of great discussion in this h ouse for a number of years now.

The previous a ttorney General and members of the opposition, including myself, canvassed it at great length in debates in this h ouse.

We had heard for years and years that an amend- ment was being worked on and was eventually going to find its way into the h ouse. a s has been discussed here by my colleagues, so many of the actions that have taken place here with the b.c. l iberal government over the last number of years that would have been captured in this rewritten lobbyists registry act unfortunately now have managed to escape real scrutiny and real accountability for their actions. in looking at the various pieces of this…. a t one point in trying to find some way to force accountability onto those who were breaking the law in british c olumbia by failing to register as lobbyists, or by government's failure to adequately follow up and enforce accountability, i did explore the federal lobbyists registry act.

When the government says that they finally and inevitably turned to a lberta for a template on which to base their law, i would say that in fact, if we look at the federal lobbyists registry, it has been in place for many years, has huge accountability functions within it, has huge and very powerful investigative functions within it. c ertainly, that would have been a very good place to have gone. The government could have gone there many years ago, even before the opposition tabled sev- eral attempts to influence government in drafting this amendment to the lobbyists registry act.

When i look at some of the pieces that have been included here…. The power of investigation is finally being included in this act, and i guess, as other speakers have pointed out, many of the most gross violations of the lobbyists registry have, in fact, already taken place. Those have been the very issues that impelled govern- ment to finally amend this bill. i'm happy to see that there are powers of investiga- tion finally included in this, and powers to compel testi- mony and order documents to be produced.

Those are all very good things that should be included and should have been, in fact, amended into this bill many years ago when the scandals first began to unfold with the way the lobbyists registry was being violated.

The second point that gives me some concern here is that penalties have been increased. a nyone who now violates the rules will be fined up to $25,000 for the first offence and up to $100,000 thereafter. n ow, any bill, any law, any piece of legislation is only as good as its enforcement capacity. i would have to ask government to make it clear if there is going to be an enforcement action taking place after this registry is put in place. in fact, the previous registration act, the existing registration act, has some penalties for violations, but they've never been invoked here in this province. [l. r eid in the chair.] a re we, in fact, putting in place now a new set of penalties, certainly much more dramatic, much higher, much more costly? if we're not going to invoke those penalties, if we're not actually going to make sure that anyone who violates the lobbyists registry is fined, then this is a meaningless part of the act. [1105] one of the things i learned in municipal governance in my nine years in e squimalt was: don't enact laws that you either have no intention of or no ability to enforce.

From the government i'll be looking forward to the explanation on what intention they have to enforce and impose fines, because certainly, they've never done any of that in the current lobbyists registry. The second part of this that concerns me is that offend- ers will be banned from lobbying for two years. My ques- tion is: is two years an adequate ban for an offence of breaking the law?

Y ou know, the laws of british c olumbia, and we as lawmakers, have to ensure that the punitive measures that are put in place are real and they're valid, that they actually do discourage bad behaviour. i'm not entirely sure or satisfied that two years' ban is an adequate length of time for a violation of the lobbyists registry. if, in fact, we're saying that penalties of $25,000 to $100,000 would be adequate, then it seems to me that a two-year ban from lobbying government is not adequate. i would be exploring with the government whether or not they will look at more harsh measures than that, maybe a longer period of time of banning.

The third point that i think is most interesting is that lobbyists will no longer be allowed to lobby on behalf of a client on a topic about which he or she is advising the government. c learly, that was at the heart of the very

british c olumbia Debates1770 t hursday, o ctober 29, 2009 protracted opposition forcing government to look into the situation of k en Dobell, who was operating as both an adviser to government as well as lobbying govern- ment on behalf of the city of Vancouver and, therefore, had a superior opportunity to get the ear of government in order to satisfy the client that he was working for. a gain, this speaks very strongly to the reason and rationale for needing to amend the lobbyists registry in the first place. i would really sincerely hope that govern- ment is going to be strong on this point.

This leads me, then, to the fourth point. i know the a ttorney General spoke very specifically and pointedly to the fact that bill 19, the lobbyists registry amendment act, does not require public officeholders to find out if they're being lobbied and what they're being lobbied for. it would seem to me that this goes hand in hand with the previous point, which is if we're not going to ask people if they're lobbying or if they're registered with the lob- byists registry act then, in fact, we are foregoing our responsibility to the public. if we're going to have a lobbyists registry act that demands that lobbyists register, that they are not allowed to be advising government and lobbying government on the same topic at the same time…. i would say that probably those restrictions should be even broader than that. if there is going to be a system to fine people who violate the l obbyists r egistration a ct, if they would be banned from lobbying government for violating the lob- byists registry act, then it seems to me that we as elected officials should ensure that there's a responsibility to ask and ensure that those who come to meet with govern- ment and lobby ministers or members have registered. if we're going to put all these actions in place, why would we not ask that simple question? it seems to me to defy logic. i did listen very closely to the a ttorney General's explanation of this, but i disagree. i think that, in fact, it's imperative and incumbent upon members to ask that question and to make sure that we are very clear on who is or is not lobbying us and whether or not they are registered. c ertainly, all of the punitive measures for failing to register or for violat- ing the registry are pretty harsh and pretty strong.

Why would we, then, not take the opportunity to ask whether lobbyists have registered and what, in fact, their inten- tions are in meeting with government? [1110] Why would we go part of the way into this process to ensure a fully accountable, a transparently account- able lobbyists registry if we're not going to add that last piece of inquiring whether those lobbying us have regis- tered and what they are lobbying us for? it would seem to me, then, that once again the responsibility stays with the lobbyists to make sure they have followed the letter of the law, and there's no accountability. h ow would we ever begin to trace back and say that someone had violated? if people meeting with lobbyists are not going to ask the question, then who, therefore, is responsible for enfor- cing the lobbyists registry act on those individuals? a gain, would it fall to the media or to opposition members or to the public in general to be filing freedom-of-information requests to find out who ministers are meeting with and whether or not they have been lobbied? it seems to me that if the government can't take responsibility for that simple final step of ensuring that people meeting with them have registered and are not violating the laws, then we're incomplete in this new amendment to the lobby registry. i disagree with the government on this point and would look forward to asking the a ttorney General in commit- tee stage why, in fact, we're not going that full distance.

What is it that government's expectation is around who is going to then monitor those lobbying government who may not be registered? a nd how is a government official to know that if they're not going to ask that question? it seems to me to be counterintuitive that we would make all of these amendments — that we would promise the public that there will be enforcement, that there will be some new and stronger powers given to the registrar around investigative powers and that we would levy sig- nificant fines — that we would take all these measures around defining who can and cannot lobby the govern- ment and how they are expected to carry out their busi- ness, but we don't compel anyone to ask whether or not groups or individuals meeting with government are, in fact, lobbyists.

That seems to me to be a huge gap in the law, and i suspect it would be one that would plague government considerably in the years to come if this is not appropri- ately addressed at this point. a gain, it just opens a huge opportunity for a contentious environment to occur around investigating, trying to discover or asking under freedom of information who is lobbying government. i would like to see that little loop closed, because if officeholders and government officials are not required to ask that question, then it seems to me that the rest of the act is a little bit empty and hollow and doesn't make any sense. i will be looking to the government to answer some of those questions during the committee stage, and i know that other members of the h ouse here, my col- leagues, will talk about all of the reasons why this is a little too late in the game for many of the largest and most obvious violations of the lobbyists registry to be set free at this point, and no punitive action will ever be levied on those who broke the law in the province. i'm going to ask for harsher restrictions around the ban for lobbyists. i'm going to ask for proof of some kind of action on the government's part to really levy fines when there are violations, unlike their past performance. i'm going to be asking for them to reconsider the option here that public office holders are not required to ask

british c olumbia Debatest hursday, o ctober 29, 2009 1771 that question. Those will be the things that i'd like to see. i'm sure we will be…. i know i'll be supporting the bill, in any case, because a little is better than nothing at this point. but that will be a point that plagues me a lot — that we are not required to ask, that officeholders are not required to ask. it just leads to all kinds of questions in the future, again, and all kinds of detective work that somebody else has to do because the public official is not required to ask that simple question. [1115] S.

Hammell: i'll take just a few minutes to add my voice to the discussion around the lobbyists act. i do want to sort of harken back to 2001, when the act actually first came in — under much fanfare, i'm sure, and pats on the back and congratulations that b.c. had its first lobbyists act. i have to sort of ask myself: "What were they thinking when they brought in

an act that had very limited powers of investigation — basically a review, not an investiga- tion of any significant order — with no power to compel testimony and no power to charge any penalties?" in essence, they had

an act that said that you are to register, you are to pay a registration fee, and you are to declare yourself a lobbyist. once that act had been put in place, there were no teeth inside the act. There was no ability to enforce what i assume was a very honourable and high expectation that people, when they were acting on behalf of others and lobbying government, needed to have that fact be transparent and open and available for other people to see. Y et to have

an act, which with its best intentions was to do something that everybody wanted and that could be supported, with absolutely no teeth to compel a person to do what the principle of the act was asking is abso- lutely amazing. t o have very limited ability to investi- gate, to have no power to compel any kind of testimony and to be able to apply no penalties is an amazing fact. i mean, you have to ask yourself: "What was the govern- ment of the time thinking?" From that point to now, things have happened to compel the government to come back with

an act that had the missing pieces put in. we now, after a scandal with a former employee in the Premier's office — who, one would assume, had some notion of what this act was about — not being aware that he was a lobbyist and then finding out he was and then registering…. i think that the consequence of this behaviour has compelled the government to act. a person was charged with, or it was suggested that they were a lobbyist.

When they wrote back, they said: "We have reviewed the act and determined that the registrar has no legislative or other power to accept complaints or to conduct any investiga- tion or reporting on the activities of individuals alleged to have contravened the act." So they had no power, and in fact, it was true. They had absolutely no power. So after two major scandals plus another instance where a past member of this h ouse had been lobby- ing, the government has now acted and presented a bill which certainly has some teeth. it certainly has put into the act parts that it needed. We now have

an act that has given the power of investigation to the appropriate offi- cials and will have now the power to compel testimony and to order documents to be placed. [1120] The registrar will also be expected to report to this l egislature and to prepare an annual report. The meta- phor of reporting to this l egislature is the metaphor for transparency. This being the public forum, the people who represent the public, it is most appropriate that the registrar report back to this assembly the activities that have gone on in his jurisdiction.

Penalties have been increased, and it is very good to see a penalty of up to $25,000 for the first offence and up to $100,000 for the second. There is also the abil- ity to ban somebody from lobbying for two years. The expanded definition of what a "lobbyist" is, is also one that is a very good addition to the bill. but we are missing parts that we believe would enhance the bill greatly. We believe that public officials also have a responsibility to play a

part in making sure that gov- ernment is open and transparent.

They have a respon- sibility for being aware of who is acting when they're engaged in conversation, appointments and discussion of government business — for having an understanding of what that person's agenda is and what their end-game is; for being aware of that in setting appointments and having conversations; and for being, also, responsible, if a person is lobbying, that that person needs to be regis- tered — so that the appropriate transparency is available for our community to see and to ensure that their inter- ests are being respected and acknowledged. h on.

Speaker, we have a bill that certainly has come a long way. it has come from

an act where there was literally no ability….

Mr. l oukidelis has actually said that he had no ability to enforce anything and, therefore, stopped taking complaints. a fter considerable pressure, not only from this h ouse but from members of the public and the media, we now have a bill that certainly has come some way to improving the most glaring omis- sions in the last bill, but we need now to go a few more steps to ensure that other pieces are in the bill, which we will be suggesting through amendments. it is my pleasure to stand and take my place in this debate. i'm certainly pleased that we have this new bill.

We need to go a little further. i'll take my seat and listen to other people speak. B. Ralston: i rise to address the bill before the h ouse, which has amendments to the lobbyists registration act. i think it's important, at the outset at least, to examine briefly why lobbying laws are an important and integral

british c olumbia Debates1772 t hursday, o ctober 29, 2009 part of an effectively functioning democracy. i think it's clear that in order for the public to have confidence in the decision-making process, there needs to be some assurance that some people do not have special access to decisions that are made and that any decisions, any influence that's brought to bear by some parties that are perhaps more closely placed to a government, will at least be transparent.

That's the basic concern that the public has, and that's what lobbying laws are designed to address. i think it also needs to be said that free and open access to government is an important public value and, indeed, a proper concern of a functioning democracy. [1125] l obbying of public office holders is a legitimate activ- ity.

There's no doubt about that. it's desirable, though, that the public know who is lobbying them and, con- versely, that public office holders understand who is lobbying them as public office holders. a ny system for the registration of lobbyists should not impede free and open access to government. These are principles that Prime Minister h arper's government in o ttawa took to heart in 2006 and passed a very sweeping series of amendments to the l obbying a ct federally. So this is an evolving area of law in the sense that public sensibility and concern has often over- taken the existing legislation.

That's certainly the case in british c olumbia over the last several years, where the litany of foot-dragging and delay on modernizing and bringing this lobbyist act up to date can be very sharply contrasted with the steps that were taken by the federal government in updating the lobbyist act there. i want to briefly touch on some of those changes, because they contrast with some of the changes that we on this side have advocated. The l eader of the opposition put forward her private member's bill, bill M202, that's been repeatedly tabled in each session over the last sev- eral years.

There are some progressive changes there that the federal government has included in its law but that this legislation chooses unfortunately not to include. The federal law did address and create — they call it the explanatory note — an independent agent of par - liament, a commissioner of lobbying, to supervise the operation of the legislation. n ow, it is proposed that the information and Privacy c ommissioner, Mr. l oukidelis, will continue to supervise this act. i think it's important that recognition be given.

Since he is an independent officer, his budget comes before the Finance c ommittee, and in previous years…. i have been a member of the Finance c ommittee for several ses- sions. one of the principal points of access to the whole process is the website. i don't want to cast any asper - sions on the contractor who put the website together, but apparently the money available was relatively small, and the result is not a very easy site to access. if one looks at the federal site, it's very extensive, easy to use and an integral part of easy public access, as in so many other things in contemporary society. a budget for a new website that reflects the new legislative require- ments and that is accessible will be an essential part of a budget to bring this about. in addition, it's clear that if the commissioner is going to supervise the new activity and the new law effect- ively, there's possibly a requirement for more staff to do that.

My experience in the budgets presented by the information and Privacy c ommissioner is that he is very conservative in his budget requests. They're thoughtful and usually are, almost without exception, very well justified. i don't expect there will be a huge expansion in the budget request, but i think it's important to recognize that if this bill is to be effective at all and to achieve the legislative goals that the l egislature will set for it, it needs to be funded so that there is some measure of ability to enforce the provisions of the act to conduct investiga- tions where they're warranted.

The federal act also requires monthly disclosure by registered lobbyists. That is not the case here. That may be because the volume and the range of lobbying of fed- eral public office holders is more extensive, but certainly that's a more frequent reporting provision, which one might want to have seen considered here. [1130] The other provision in the federal legislation is that the commissioner of lobbying has authority to contact….

When there's a filing made by a lobbyist, and i'm reading from an explanatory note: "The commissioner of lobby- ing may require any present or former" — that's former public office holder — "to verify information derived from one or more monthly returns." There's a provision to approach the person directly. There's a deadline to respond to a verification request, and there are further steps taken if this is not done.

"The c ommissioner may report to Parliament on: the failure by a present or former designated public office holder to respond to a verification request, or provision by a present or former designated public office holder of an unsatisfactory response." So there is a mechan- ism, even in the filing of the reports, for scrutiny of those reports; a mechanism for requesting clarification, updating, correcting omissions; and a mechanism for publicizing those should that not be forthcoming. Those are some of the steps there.

The other specific concerns that i want to address in the brief time that is available to me…. i'll deal with what was

section 4 of bill M202, the l eader of the o pposition's bill, the title of which is "Public office hold- ers obligated to verify registration." The a ttorney General has taken a position that that would be contrary to the open and easy access to gov- ernment that is an essential attribute of democracy if public office holders were obliged to request of those who might be lobbying them.

british c olumbia Debatest hursday, o ctober 29, 2009 1773 i think that in one interview he gave an example of someone approaching him in the supermarket, which would hardly be the typical case for being lobbied, although i suppose one could trace the daily routines of the a ttorney General and make a plan to happen to accidentally bump into him in the supermarket to lobby him about some important matter. i think that's prob- ably unlikely.

That example aside, i think the concern and the reason for that provision in the l eader of the o pposition's bill is simply to place some obligation on the person being lobbied to understand who they're dealing with and for what purpose they are being approached. in some of the cases that have been publicized, the response of the public office holder — i think in one case the Premier — was that he was not aware that the person who was approaching him was in fact lobbying him. i think it's to avoid that kind of embarrassment to the public office holder himself or herself and to the dignity of the office that there is a requirement in the opposition's bill that there be an obligation placed on a designated public office holder to inquire as to what the purpose of the meeting is. i cannot anticipate that that is particularly onerous, that that would throw immense sand into the gears of democracy or that that would shut down communica- tion. i think all of these fears are exaggerated. o rdinarily, the process is, and for very good reason, that designated public office holders, members of the opposition — i include myself in this — are approached by organizations who seek to arrange a meeting typically either in the l egislature or in one's constituency office at an appointed time.

There's notice, and it's done in advance. it would seem that as part of the preparation for that meeting, it would not be terribly difficult to make a quick check on an open, public and easily accessible website as to whether or not that person was registered. That's something that could be done by support staff as part of a routine checklist before meeting with anyone.

So i don't see this as an onerous obligation. i'm a bit mystified by the strong resistance that the a ttorney General appears to be expressing on this point, so i will listen. i listened to his opening remarks introducing the bill, and i'd be interested in hearing his response on that, because i'm not sure that i understand the reason for the depth of feeling that he appears to have on the subject. [1135] if i might, just a couple more comments. one of the aspects of the bill that we introduced was that there was a requirement of fair measure of detail to be provided by the lobbyist about what the intended purpose of the lobbying was.

Simply registering to lobby and being pro- vided a line or two as to what the purpose was…. i understand that while there may be a plea that for some of these matters being lobbied about, there may be some commercial privacy interests that may be affected by the lobbying process. That would appear to conflict with the necessity to have some disclosure about what was being lobbied about. in my view, the public interest and the disclosure of what the lobbying purpose is should trump any concern about commercial propriety. That's a contrast between this bill and the bill that we introduced.

The next area, which is specifically banned in the fed- eral legislation and is a feature of the bill that the l eader of the o pposition introduced, is the prohibition against contingency fees for lobbying. c ontingency fees, for those who aren't familiar with that, is a fee based on an outcome. if one were successful in arranging or landing a contract, then the lobbyist in question would be paid a percentage based on the value of the contract. r eading briefly from the

summary prepared on the federal l obbying a ct, it says: "Some lobbyists base part or all of the fee that they charge on the degree of success achieved for their work. For example, if the grant, contribution or contract that they are helping to obtain is awarded to their client or if a desired law, regulation or program change is implemented, they are paid in full. if not, they receive a lesser amount or perhaps nothing.

This type of arrangement is called a contingency fee, because payment is contingent on the success of the undertaking." That was not prohibited in the previous l obbying a ct federally. it's now prohibited where it applies to consult- ant lobbyists. "c onsultant lobbyists are not permitted to receive any pay- ment that is in whole or in

part contingent on the outcome of their lobbying. c lients of consultant lobbyists are not permitted to make any such payment to a consulting lobbyist that they have retained." That was included in the provision in the bill we tabled. There are very good reasons. i would think that they would be obvious.

The pressure of a contingency fee may well distort the lengths to which one is prepared to go and may result in the kind of lobbying, the kind of pressure, that the act seeks to avoid and to regulate. o bviously, this view was shared in o ttawa, and that's why that ban or that prohibition was placed in effect in the federal act. Similarly here, we have expressed the same concern in one of the provisions of the bill that we have put before the h ouse. i'd be interested to hear, if he chooses, the a ttorney General's view on why that's not included here.

Finally, the definition of "in-house lobbyist" that's set forth in the bill is an amendment to

section 1(1)(

a) refer- ring to an in-house lobbyist: "an employee, officer or dir- ector of an organization…whose lobbying…amounts to at least 100 hours annually." The a lberta act, which the minister advises is the basis for the legislation before this h ouse, says in its regula- tions…. i'm looking at a lberta r egulation 247/2009, l obbyists a ct General r egulation. [1140]

british c olumbia Debates1774 t hursday, o ctober 29, 2009 They say — and i'm reading from

section 2: "t ime spent lobbying. For the purposes of determining whether lobbying amounts to at least 100 hours annually under

section 1(1)(

h) of the act, time spent lobbying is indi- cated by the time spent communicating with a public office holder but does not include time spent preparing for the communication." i suppose one might ask…. if the focus, the public contact with the officeholder, is a meeting of an hour, yet the person, understandably, might spend days or weeks preparing for that meeting — consulting with people in the industry, consulting with people in the community, drafting legislative changes, consulting very widely — that very well could amount to full-time work. it's not difficult to imagine. one could have, i suppose, 49 two-hour meetings in a year and still fall below the threshold that's set out in this definition. in my view, there are some difficulties with that defin- ition that has been set forward, and i invite the minister to consider them, if he would. briefly, to conclude, given that there are other speak- ers and that the matter is something that other mem- bers certainly want to address, the legislation advances slightly, so for that reason, we on this side are going to support it. but i hope i've drawn to the attention of the h ouse some of the deficiencies — and there are others that i have not had time to set out — of this particular bill. i'd invite the minister to consider, in the spirit of reform, taking some of the opposition's ideas and incor- porating them into the bill.

H. Lali: i take my place on bill 19, the debate on the l obbyists r egistration a mendment a ct, 2009, which the a ttorney General presented this morning. i sit here, and i look at this. W e as the opposition had been, i guess, in one sense lobbying the l iberal government for the last i don't know how many years that they needed to bring in the l obbyists r egistration a ct and to actually bring some teeth to it, to fix it so that all of the things that have gone on that some of my colleagues have talked about, which i will touch upon, would not take place.

The people of british c olumbia needed to know who it was that this government was trying to do business with behind closed doors — ministers or even deputy ministers, folks in the crown corporations — because the folks in british c olumbia had no idea.

They had no idea as to what was happening with all the privatization that was taking place and who was actually behind it in terms of lobbying the government. a fter all these years, they finally decide they're going to make an amendment to the l obbyists r egistration a ct and actually bring in some changes with penalties — making folks register and then providing penalties as well if they break the law. a ll this delay. one wonders why this big delay from this government all these years. We had the issue with k en Dobell.

"i'm not a lobbyist" — his famous words. it's sort of n ixonite. e verybody remembers r ichard n ixon when he got up and said: "i'm not a crook." it was one of those n ixon moments that k en Dobell had — "i'm not a lobbyist" — in that kind of a vein. h ere he is advising the Premier on one hand, and on the other side of his desk, he's lobbying for the city of Vancouver and other entities, making tons of money. There was no accountability, because this government decided that was the way it was going to do business.

We know that for the last eight years this government has done business that way. it's hidden things from the public. it's done things in secret in the basement of the l egislature or in some corporate office. it hasn't come clean, actually, and been honest with the people of british c olumbia to tell them exactly what was going on. t o not bring in the changes that were necessary for the lobbyists act, one tended to wonder. [1145] They're bringing it in now. it's good that they are, but it's almost like….

Some of my colleagues have said that it's closing the barn door after all the cows and the horses and the chickens and the pigs have all kind of left already. Then the Premier and the a ttorney General and cabinet decide: "Well, i guess we'd better close the door because there are still some insects and stuff in there that might get out. So let's close the door." That's how it is. Y ou've had all of this going on. i talked about k en Dobell. There's Patrick k insella. h e's made a lot of money from the l iberals.

Wasn't he the same guy that was a Socred operative and managed their cam- paigns and their strategy and communications? i think he did that for the b.c. l iberal Party. Then he became a lobbyist, and he made a lot of money with all these contracts. o bviously, it's the same guy who decided that, oh, no, he was not going to participate in the investigation that Mr. l oukidelis, the commissioner, was going to be doing. h e didn't have to because the act that the l iberals had in was absolutely toothless. h e found a little loophole and said: "i don't have to go talk to Mr. l oukidelis.

Who's he? h e can't make me do it." That's how toothless it was. The public will never know what really went on with the b.c . r ail sale and all the lobbying that went on. i wonder who lobbied Gary c ollins. h e was the minister of — what? What was he? Finance. We'll never know, because this bill that's brought in by the a ttorney General has no retroactivity. it doesn't come into effect, actually, until a pril 2010. no retroactivity. We'll never know what really happened. Who was lobbying Judith r eid, Minister of t ransportation at the time? We'll never know who was lobbying c hristy c lark. Who was she?

The Minister of c hildren and Families and, i think, the Minister of e ducation — a real bigwig with the l iberal cabinet as well. We'll never know who was lobbying Geoff Plant, who was the a ttorney General.

british c olumbia Debatest hursday, o ctober 29, 2009 1775 What do all four of these people have in common? e very one of them, every one of them — with, maybe, perhaps, the exception of Judith r eid — were future leadership hopefuls. They wanted to be Premier of this province — leadership hopefuls to the l iberal Party. They all had fairly good careers. They were going to make a long-term career out of it. They're all gone. one wonders why they left in such a hurry. They were all under a cloud, under this b.c. r ail l iberal scandal that was taking place. They're all gone.

There were no teeth to the lobbyists registration. but they're all gone, and we'll never know because all those secrets and all the lobbying that the folks did with those folks…. We'll never know, because the l iberals have not made this act, this amendment, retroactive. Y ou know, it just really leaves it in a cloud. Y ou look at all of the privatization of the public resources and enti- ties that were under the purview of the public of british c olumbia through crown corporations and even the ministries.

They're all gone. one wonders who did what lobbying to make sure that was going to happen. r emember in 1996, hon. Speaker? We the opposition actually found out that the l eader of the o pposition at the time, who is the Premier now, wanted to privatize b.c. r ail. There was a hue and cry from the public, espe- cially up in the north, who were absolutely upset with the b.c. l iberals and the Premier, who was the l eader of the o pposition at the time.

Folks rebelled and re-elected the nDP government in 1996. i remember at that time the Premier, then opposition leader, said: "n o, no, we're not going to privatize b.c. r ail. n o, we're not. a h, the government is just mislead- ing the public. Glen c lark is just misleading the public or whatever." or the nDP were. That's what the then l eader of the o pposition said. Then in 2001 he said: "n ope. i'll swear on a stack of bibles that i'm not going to privatize b.c. r ail." Well, it was already begun, and one wonders who was lobbying.

Somebody sat the Premier down and told him: "Y ou're going to change this, or the funds that will be put into the coffers of the b.c. l iberal Party will be gone." Deputy Speaker: i would ask the member to bring his remarks to the consideration of bill 19. H. Lali: i just need a little bit of clarification. a re we continuing debate after lunch on this bill, or is this over? That's it, or are we going to continue? Y es or no? [1150] Hon. M. de Jong: We were hoping to complete it this morning. H. Lali: This morning. o kay.

Well, in that case, i will say my concluding remarks, because i think the debate is going to come to an end here. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] a ll of this, when you look at it, just really…. The whole thing just smells, too, because the fact is that all of the pri- vatization has taken place, whether it's the MSP premiums administration or the accounting of b.c . h ydro, whether you look at even b.c . h ydro being dismantled and all of these private power projects coming into existence and also when you look at b.c .

Ferries, all of these things. a ll this privatization that has gone on under the liberals. it's all done in secret. Who is lobbying? Who is doing all the lobbying? We'll never know, because it's the way the government did things — in deception and secrecy, hidden away from the public somewhere out there. n obody's going to know. n obody will ever find out how or what took place or who was doing the lobbying because this government had

an act that was toothless. it was unenforceable. it was toothless, and nobody really needed to come down and sign on and say: "i'm a lobbyist." e ven right now one of the major parts that's missing is that when folks are lobbying ministers or deputy min- isters, nobody is required to actually ask them if they're registered or not.

That should be a part of it. in any case, like i said earlier, all of the animals, the farm animals, have all left the barn and finally the Premier, the a G and the l iberal cabinet decide: "Y ou know what? i think we'll close the doors because there might be a few insects in there that might just leave." That's how they're looking at this, and it's just the way this government does business. Seeing the hour, i will take my seat. J. Kwan: i seek leave to make an introduction. l eave granted. Introductions by Members J. Kwan: Visiting us in the precincts today are 42 students and ten adults from St.

Frances Xavier School. They were meant to be here at 11 o'clock, but i don't see them. So it might mean that they're just detained touring the l egislature building, learning about the l egislature building and the work we do as the Mla s and learning about the province's capital. l ater on today i know that they're going to be visiting the museum. These grade 5 students — i know that this is a full day for them. i hope that they enjoy the visit and that they have learned a lot about democracy in british c olumbia. Would the h ouse please extend this welcome to them, wherever they are in the building.

Debate Continued Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the a ttorney General closes debate.

british c olumbia Debates1776 t hursday, o ctober 29, 2009 Hon. M. de Jong: i'll try to do so in the time we have available. First of all, i want to thank the members who participated in the debate and brought their reaction, their ideas and, indeed in some cases, their criticisms. i have, as always, listened carefully. i won't try to respond to each one of the detailed suggestions or issues, but i did detect a theme that ran through some or most of the remarks from the hon. critic and the members from e squimalt, Green t imbers, Whalley, etc. That related largely to the provision which appears in the bill as

section 13(

c) and is the amend- ment to

section 8 of the bill, and that is the question around verification. i am certain that we'll explore this in more detail in the committee stage of debate, but just a couple of initial thoughts that i will anticipate what my remarks will be at that time. The argument is that there should be an obligation on the part of the public office holder to seek verification of compliance with the act. a t a certain level, that makes a degree of sense.

The dilemma is this. a nd i'm obliged to the member for Surrey-Whalley for pointing out some- thing that i'm not sure came across from all the other members that spoke — perhaps the critic, in fairness — and that is the definition of public office holder. [1155] There was a great deal of concern around meetings with the government, but this does include all members of the l egislative a ssembly. From a practical point of view, and i'll make this point again during the discus- sion in the committee, i ask members to think about the circumstances in which they find themselves in meetings.

They may set up a meeting with an individual representing an agency, and six people show up. The hon. critic and several others said: "Well, it's not that hard. Just ask the question." indeed, that's correct. it's not hard to just ask the question, but what if the answer is no? What does the Mla do at that point? i guess they have to believe the person who says: "n o, i'm not a lobbyist" or "Y es, i have registered." a nd does the public officer go around the room?

The hon. critic said that they should have a form they can fill out. it seems to me it starts to get pretty difficult for an Mla who has received a request for a meeting and six people show up because they're all supportive of the cause or the organization. The meeting starts, and the Mla says to each one of them: "a re you registered as a lobbyist?" They say: "Well, no, i'm not." i'm not sure where that leaves the Mla in those circumstances, because if there is that verification obligation, presum- ably something follows from that.

The members who commented on this were correct. it is a very purposeful inclusion, and we can, i'm sure, explore it in more detail — the government and my rationale for including it. but i hope i've provided some insight into some of the difficulties i believe would exist by asking an Mla, a government Mla or an oppos- ition Mla, having regard for the practical reality of how Mla s do their work, to be engaged as a regulator under the terms of the l obbyists r egistration a ct. We'll explore that, i'm sure, in committee.

The member from e squimalt asked about enforce- ment. i hope that between now and when we get to that stage of the discussion, she will have an opportunity to review the provisions of the act that make it clear that it is the registrar, not the government, who has respon- sibility for the investigation and, at the administrative stage at least, the enforcement of what are, admittedly, very beefed up penalties. i hope she'll have that oppor - tunity as well.

The member from Whalley raised some additional questions, as well, that i'm hopeful we'll have an oppor - tunity to discuss — things like contingency fees and that sort of thing, the definition around an in-house lobbyist. Mr. Speaker, again, i would like to thank the members for their participation in the debate, their contribution to the debate. i look forward to the committee and move second reading. Motion approved. Hon.

M. de Jong: i move the bill be referred to a c ommittee of the Whole h ouse for consideration at the next sitting after today. bill 19, l obbyists r egistration a mendment a ct, 2009, read a second time and referred to a c ommittee of the Whole h ouse for consideration at the next sitting of the h ouse after today. c ommittee of Supply (Section a), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. h on. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the house. Motion approved. Mr. Speaker: This h ouse stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon. The h ouse adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM Committee of Supply e Sti Mate S: Mini Str Y o F touri SM, culture an D the art S The h ouse in c ommittee of Supply (Section a); J. Mcintyre in the chair.

british c olumbia Debatest hursday, o ctober 29, 2009 1777 The committee met at 10:12 a.m. on Vote 41: ministry operations, $104,454,000. Hon. K. Krueger: i'd like to introduce the people who are with me this morning. on my left is Peter Walters. Peter is the assistant deputy minister for the ministry. on my right is Mr. h oward crosley, the gen- eral manager of b.c . Place. t o my left behind me is Shauna brouwer, the aDM for management services. t o Ms. brouwer's right is John h arding, the chief finan- cial officer for Pavc o. o ften ministers open with a bit of a statement.

This is really the opposition's time and, of course, the min- istry's time. i have a lot of highly competent, really useful people with me, including people sitting in the gallery. They're here to help provide the opposition with the information that is requested, so i don't really want to take up any of their time. i want to thank them all for taking the day, or as much of it as we need, to be with us. i think we'll just go straight to the opposition critic's questions. S.

Herbert: Thank you to the minister and all the staff from the Ministry of t ourism, c ulture and the a rts who have joined us here today. i'm looking forward to, hope- fully, a constructive discussion where we can learn more about the different pieces that make up the Ministry of t ourism, c ulture and the a rts.

The minister and i spoke about a bit of an order that we'll go through in terms of how we go through these estimates. i will say there is the possibility that we may go into Monday — we'll see — depending on how quickly we get through these questions. if so, i will let the minis- ter know on Friday if we have any of these areas that we need to recall for further discussion on Monday, if that's appropriate. i'll go through each of these. i'll try to keep my speech- ifying at a minimum — i know that the minister has said much the same — so that we can get to the real meat of the questions. i will give a bit of a

preamble on each area that we go through, and i'm sure the minister can as well. i'll start with some general questions on the ministry, some areas of interest, and then i'll get into the more specific pieces of the ministry. The first question is: what program areas will be impacted by the increase in MSP costs? [1015] Hon. K. Krueger: t he government, as we all know, uses a lot of acronyms, and S tob is one that you hear a lot. it stands for standard object of budgeting, so when i use that, that's what i'm saying. t he member can ask me if he forgets, because i constantly forget that.

The 2009-10 benefits budget, which is S tob 52, was based on 24.15 percent of Stob 50, which is our overall expenditure on payroll and benefits. This is an increase from the 2008-09 rate of 23.83 percent. a ny subsequent changes to benefit plans will be absorbed within the budget. S. Herbert: a m i given to understand that there will be no program impacts by increasing the cost of the MSP? There will be no cutting back in any other areas of services, either Fte s or investments? Hon. K. Krueger: That is correct.

We will absorb that cost out of normal administrative apportionments — travel and those sorts of costs. S. Herbert: o kay. So i'm to understand that there will be cutbacks in terms of travel and those kinds of administration things to deal with the MSP increases. h ave there been any new fees or fee increases on any services this ministry provides? Hon. K. Krueger: n o, there haven't been increases to any fees for services the ministry provides. S. Herbert: a ny new fees? Hon. K. Krueger: n o. S.

Herbert: h as the ministry website been changed in any way to reflect new budget priorities? if so, what were those changes? Hon. K. Krueger: The answer is no. S. Herbert: c an the minister provide the opposition with the names of the political appointees employed by the minister and his ministry

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H1029am-04
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H1029am 04
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	21951fc3f9aba71a28a79a6c21397f64de683b9f

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