British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, March 10, 2016

20160310pm-Hansard-v35n2

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fifth Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281 (P rint) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Thursday, March 10, 2016 Afternoon Sitting Volume 35, Number 2

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Fifth Session, 40th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ......................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Norm Letnick Minister of Children and Family Development .......................................................................................................Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and Minister Responsible for TransLink ................ Hon. Peter Fassbender Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Mike Bernier Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review .....................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ..........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Thomson Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacific Strategy and Multiculturalism ...........................................................................................Hon.

T eresa W at Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon. Suzanne Anton Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................................................. Hon.

Mike Morris Minister of Small Business and Red T ape Reduction and Minister Responsible for the Liquor Distribution Branch ........................................................................................................Hon. Coralee Oakes Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation..............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................................ Hon.

Amrik Virk Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon. Todd Stone Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness ....................................................................................................................Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition ...................................................................................................................................................John Horgan Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................. Richard T. Lee Assistant Deputy Speaker ...............................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ............................................................................................................................................ Pat Pimm Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................................... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees .................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ...................................................................................................................................................Roderick MacArthur, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Anton, Hon. Suzanne (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Fraserview Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal).....................................................................Penticton Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bennett, Hon.

Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Bernier, Hon. Mike (BC Liberal) ......................................... Peace River South Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ...........................Prince George–Valemount Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ................................Surrey-Cloverdale Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ........................................................... Burnaby-Edmonds Clark, Hon.

Christy (BC Liberal) ........................................ Westside-Kelowna Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) ...........................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (BC Liberal) ............................................. Maple Ridge–Mission Darcy, Judy (NDP) ..................................................................New Westminster de Jong, Hon. Michael, QC (BC Liberal) ..............................

Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP)............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Eby, David (NDP) ..........................................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fassbender, Hon. Peter (BC Liberal) ...................................

Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacific Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ............................................. Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Wm. Scott (BC Liberal) .................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) ....................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Heyman, George (NDP) .................................................... Vancouver-Fairview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Holman, Gary (NDP) .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Horgan, John (NDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) ............................................................. Nanaimo Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr.

Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Thompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Hon. Norm (BC Liberal) ..............................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Don (BC Liberal) ............................................................ Comox Valley Mark, Melanie (NDP) ...........................................

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Hon. Mike (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon. Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Pat (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River North Plecas, Dr. Darryl (BC Liberal) .............................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon.

Mary (BC Liberal) ..............................................................Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................

Port Moody–Coquitlam Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ........................................................................North Coast Robinson, Selina (NDP) .............................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, Hon. John (BC Liberal) ................................................

Nechako Lakes Shin, Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) ...............................................Burnaby-Lougheed Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Shane (NDP) .....................................................Vancouver-Hastings Stilwell, Hon. Michelle (BC Liberal)............................... Parksville-Qualicum Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara Stone, Hon. Todd (BC Liberal) .........................

Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal) ..................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal) ...........................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ..................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ............................................................Fraser-Nicola Thomson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wickens, Jodie (NDP) ..........................................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Wilkinson, Hon.

Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon. Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Dr. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacific Rim .......................................................................... Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ................................................................... Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ..........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .............................................................Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North ..............................................................................

Richard T. Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ......................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Throness Columbia River–Revelstoke ..................................................

Norm Macdonald Comox Valley.....................................................................................Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .......................................................Jodie Wickens Coquitlam-Maillardville........................................................... Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................ Bill Routley Delta North .........................................................................Wm.

Scott Hamilton Delta South...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola.................................................................................... Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Thompson ............................................ Hon. Dr.

Terry Lake Kamloops–South Thompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ..................................................... Hon. Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon. Steve Thomson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon. Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon.

Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ........................................................................... Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan ......................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon.

John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ............................................................................... Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ..................................................Jane Thornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .......................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................ Pat Pimm Peace River South ..................................................................Hon. Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................

Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast ................................................. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ....................................................Hon. Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon.

Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .................................................... Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................

Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers ..................................................................Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon. Amrik Virk Surrey-Whalley..............................................................................

Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview ..................................................................George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek ...................................................................Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview ......................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr. Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .........................................................

Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill .......................................................................Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.........................................................................Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................. Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..........................................................Jordan Sturdy Westside-Kelowna ................................................................

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 48; New Democratic 35; Independent 2

CONTENTS Thursday, March 10, 2016 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Personal Statement ................................................................................................................................................................ 11321 Use of props in the House J. Tegart Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................................................................ 11321 Bill 7 — Industry Training Authority Amendment Act, 2016 (continued) J. Darcy Hon. S.

Bond Committee of the Whole House .......................................................................................................................................... 11322 Bill 5 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act, 2016 Hon. S. Anton L.

Krog Report and Third Reading of Bills ....................................................................................................................................... 11329 Bill 5 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act, 2016 Committee of the Whole House .......................................................................................................................................... 11329 Bill 18 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2016 Hon. S. Anton L.

Krog Report and Third Reading of Bills ....................................................................................................................................... 11331 Bill 18 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2016 Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................................................................ 11332 Bill 17 — Local Elections Campaign Financing (Election Expenses) Amendment Act, 2016 Hon. P . Fassbender S. Robinson M. Hunt G. Holman S. Hamilton D. Eby L. Reimer M.

Elmore Royal Assent to Bills .............................................................................................................................................................. 11349 Bill 5 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act, 2016 Bill 10 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2016 Bill 11 — Food and Agricultural Products Classification Act Bill 18 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2016 Bill 20 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2016 Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply ............................................................................................................................................................ 11349 Estimates: Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation (continued) S.

Fraser Hon. J. Rustad D. Donaldson G. Holman

THURSDAY , MARCH 10, 2016 The House met at 1:31 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Personal Statement USE OF PROPS IN THE HOUSE J. T egart: I’ve been advised that the use of props in the chamber is not permitted, and I have accepted that advice. Orders of the Day Hon. T. Lake: In this House, it will be second read - ing of Bill 7. In Committee A, in the Douglas Fir Room, we have the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. Second Reading of Bills BILL 7 — INDUSTRY TRAINING AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2016 (continued) J.

Darcy: Let me just pick up where I left off before we broke before lunch. I was speaking of the importance of skilled trades and apprenticeships within the public sec- tor, which we don’t speak of as often as we should, when it comes to the value and the importance of supporting apprenticeships — in particular, in the health care sector. [R. Lee in the chair.] I think my most recent comments had to do with skilled tradespeople who work in health care being, in fact, the front-line emergency responders within health care.

We think of many people as being first responders, emergency responders — ambulance, fire, paramedics and so on. In fact, within hospitals themselves, within health care institutions, often it is the trades and mainten- ance team who are the front-line emergency responders for such crises as building floods, hazardous spills, nat - ural disasters and electrical failures.

I want to just read some comments that I’ve gathered from people who work in the skilled trades in health care, just so that members of this House fully appreciate the contribution they make but also how important it is to expand apprenticeships in health care as well as in all sectors of the public sector and the economy.

The issue that I began with, an important omission in the bill, has to do with building a real, true collabora - tion and partnership, including in the development of a strategic plan, which the bill speaks to — a strategic plan over three years — the critical importance of collabora - tion and partnership with the trade unions who repre - sent those skilled-trades workers everywhere through our economy as well as in the public sector. So just some of the comments from tradespeople: “We maintain all the building temperatures. We control disease by dining room pressurization. We manage all alarm systems.

We maintain temperatures for freezing or cooling for medications, for food services, for pharmacy. ” Another person: “I supply backup power to the oper - ating room, the emergency room, the intensive care unit, where people are in very weakened conditions. A lot de- pends on my work and on my skill. ” [1335] Another quote: “We are in control of and responsible for billions of dollars of buildings and infrastructure in B.C. ’s health care system. ” Another tradesperson: “I’ve been entrusted to take care of a community asset.

A hospital is the heart of a com - munity, and with those tax dollars, we are paid to main- tain the hospital and to do projects and upgrades. ” Another tradesperson says: “Everything we do is all about the patient. I’ve never before seen an industry that was so dedicated to the work they do. Whether it be a housekeeper or a cook, an engineer or a pilot on a med - evac, it’s all about the patient. ” It’s one of the things that we, perhaps, don’t fully ap- preciate — that wherever tradespeople work, they have an enormous amount of pride in the skill and the con - tribution that they bring.

When it comes to health care, they make an enormous contribution to the health care team. Again, it just underlines how very important it is that we have a true partnership with the organizations that represent people who work in the trades. Another person says, by way of affirming the import - ance of their role: “If you’re sick, you’re in the hospital to recuperate. Y ou want home-cooked meals. That’s what you’re going to get with in-house food services that are prepared by Red Seal cooks. ” Another person: “We install equipment that’s worth millions of dollars.

We make sure it’s operated safely and properly. ” It is critically important, I think, that we diversify our notion of where skilled tradespeople work in our econ - omy and work in our society, and that means that we have to strengthen the collaboration with the organiza - tions that represent them. Sadly, while there are some important steps forward in this bill, the issue of the involvement, collaboration and consultation with unions representing skilled-trades workers — whether they are in health care, in industry, in the building trades — is, unfortunately, lacking.

If we’re going to ensure the maximum potential of apprenticeship programs in all sectors of our economy, all sectors of our society, that is a very, very important piece. 11321

British Columbia Debates11322 Thursday, March 10, 2016 There has been important progress. There’s an awful lot that still needs to be done to expand apprenticeships — in particular, in publicly funded projects, where the govern- ment can play a leadership role. I do find it disappointing that there is no obligation to consult with trade unions in developing the strategic plan that this bill calls for. That collaboration is absolutely critical to the growth of ap - prenticeships and the support for apprenticeships and for the future of the economy and strong public services in the province of British Columbia.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill. Deputy Speaker: Seeing no more speakers, the min - ister closes the debate. Hon. S. Bond: I want to thank the members who have provided comments to this bill. I think it’s an important one. I am surprised by some of the comments that have been reflected, and I look forward to having a chance to have a conversation about some of those issues as we work through committee. Some of the issues that were raised were looking at ensuring…. Maybe I should explain the context of this.

I think if you were looking at the magnitude of the bill, probably it could best be described in many ways as a clari- fication bill. Many of the comments that have been made suggest that perhaps nothing’s been happening at the ITA. They have no strategic plan. No one is engaged. No one is being trained. Nothing could be further from the truth. One of the things that the McDonald report found and the recommendations asked us to do was simply to clarify the role of the Industry Training Authority, not create it, not overhaul it. The recommendation was that….

In the stakeholder groups, the partners in training, there was a lack of clarity. This bill is about confirming, about clari- fying, about laying out details like the purpose statement. The suggestion has been made that because there isn’t a purpose statement in legislation, there isn’t a purpose for the ITA. That’s simply incorrect. This bill clarifies the role so that there is a more common understanding of what is going on in the industry training system.

It also requires — which is already required but now in legislation — the need for consultation, for ensuring that there’s a strategic plan in place — all of those things. There have been letters of expectation. [1340] There are a series of measures in place that the ITA currently operates under. This, in many ways, brings legislation in place with current practice, as opposed to some of the characterization that I’ve heard throughout the commentary. One of the things I really want to…. There are two things I want to quickly comment on before we move second reading.

The suggestion that organized labour is not engaged with the Industry Training Authority is incorrect. In fact, there has been commentary about the building trades. In fact, Mr. Tom Sigurdson sits on the board of the Industry Training Authority. And unions are represented on nine of the 11 sector advisory committees. The B.C. Federation of Labour, the United Food and Commercial Workers, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Unifor and the International Union of Operating Engineers, among others, are engaged at the table and having a dis- cussion.

I personally think that is a fantastic approach. There is not at all a suggestion or a practice that ex - cludes organized labour from this process. In fact, the exact opposite is true. I value Tom Sigurdson’s voice at the table, another member who is there as well. When there’s a discussion about the use of apprentices on public projects in British Columbia, this province is proud of leading the country.

We’re the first jurisdiction that stood up and said: “If you’re going to build a public project in British Columbia, you’re going to have appren- tices on that project. ” The suggestion that we haven’t taken leadership in the area of apprenticeship…. In fact, the building trades have asked that I help by joining them in Ottawa to talk to the federal government about ensuring that when Canadian dollars, taxpayers, are part of projects at the federal level, they, too, look at British Columbia’s example when we’re building public projects in the province.

We have had a very constructive relationship working with the men and women who build British Columbia, and we intend for that to continue. With those comments, I very much look forward to committee stage. I look forward to having further dis - cussion about exactly who is involved, what’s happening and the progress that has been made. With that, I move second reading. Motion approved. Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 7 be referred to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 7, Industry Training Authority Amendment Act, 2016, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. T . Lake: I now suggest we move to committee stage of Bill 5, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2016. Committee of the Whole House BILL 5 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES (SIGNED STATEMENTS) AMENDMENT ACT, 2016 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 5; R. Lee in the chair.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, March 10, 2016 11323 The committee met at 1:44 p.m. On

section 1. Hon. S. Anton: I am joined today by Nancy Carter, executive director in the Ministry of Justice, and Jodi Roach, senior policy analyst, Ministry of Justice. [1345] Because this act deals with quite a number of stat - utes and quite a number of different ministries, I will be joined by different staff throughout the afternoon. If they need to be introduced individually, I can do that. Otherwise, we can just carry on. I will start, though, with the person we have here right now from Community, Sport and Cultural Development, Miriam Starkl-Moser. L.

Krog: I’m delighted to spend an afternoon with the Attorney General and her able staff, who have been in this chamber many times before — at least one of them for sure — advising the government on this very interesting piece of legislation. I’m just curious to know. My understanding is that these changes contained within Bill 5 reflect a report that was actually ordered, so to speak, or commissioned, back in 1974 and then made in 1976 and then updated by the British Columbia Law Institute in 2006. I just wonder if the minister can comment on that. Hon. S. Anton: That’s correct. L.

Krog: I feel like a lawyer doing a great job on cross- examination. Y ou get a yes or no out of the person you’re questioning. But I’m sure the minister has got a more ful- some history behind this that she might share with the House. I’m very curious to know: are there any significant differences between the ’76 report and the 2006 report? [1350] Hon. S. Anton: In 1976, the B.C. Law Reform Commission and then, in 2006, a report from the B.C. Law Institute both agreed that we had too many instan - ces in the statutes of British Columbia where people were required to swear their statements to be true.

That would be in front of somebody who was able to take the state - ments, a commissioner for taking oaths. I think it’s fair to say that the more robust consultation by Justice began in the spring of 2015. The consultation then was with all of the ministries involved. The individ- ual ministries were responsible for consulting with their stakeholders, but what Justice did was put the package together, if you like, and that has now transpired into the bill which is before us. L.

Krog: I wonder if the Attorney General can outline to the House whether or not there was a consultation with the notaries society or the Law Society of British Columbia respecting these changes. Hon. S. Anton: We consulted with the executive of both the Law Society and the notaries. They were given, on a confidential basis, the draft legislation and draft regulations. L. Krog: I just wonder if the Attorney General could outline what the response was from the Law Society and notaries society. Hon. S. Anton: They were generally supportive. Both the lawyers and the notaries were given a technical brief- ing.

We responded to their questions and to their con - cerns, and as I said, they were generally supportive. I will say to the member, and when we get to it, that there were questions around

section 10 of this act. If the member wants to bring it up again in

section 10, we can talk about the discussion around that section. L. Krog: The reason I raise it, and it’s sort of an obvious one, is having someone swear before almighty God that what they’re stating is true, or solemnly affirming it, is a lit- tle different than a signed statement — which, candidly, is no different, I suppose, arguably, than the person receiving a document delivered to an office and signing for receipt of it, ensuring that the courier company has done its job.

It just strikes me that this, in some way, debases the coinage of the very document, so to speak, by lowering the standard that’s expected. I appreciate that it creates a significant reduction, potentially, in cost across the board to various…. Interjection. L. Krog: Y es, I’m coming to that. The Attorney General is raising the issue of red tape. I’m sure we’ll get to that in a moment. It may well reduce the costs for organizations or indi- viduals, but as I say, it does debase the concept of what’s happening.

I’m just wondering if the Attorney General has any comment on that aspect of the bill — which, frankly, runs through the whole bill. [1355] Hon. S. Anton: In awareness of the issue that the member raises, when staff did the consultation with all of the different ministries, they did it with that awareness in mind. In fact, we landed on less changes to the sworn statements than were proposed, for example, by the BCLI in 2006. Not all of the sworn statements have now been switched to signed statements. Some of them have a sub- set of what was recommended. At the same time, there was an offence provision.

We ensured that an offence provision was included in each

British Columbia Debates11324 Thursday, March 10, 2016 of the acts and put into each statute itself rather than as a general provision in the Offence Act. L. Krog: I take it, from what the Attorney General is say- ing, that by having the provision in each statute which will potentially include the replacement of a signed statement with a sworn statement, it now very specifically says in that act that it is an offence and will be punishable on

summary conviction, I’m going to assume. And that is true across the board, with all of the changes contained in the bill? [1400] Hon. S. Anton: If there was an offence provision in the act, we did not create a new one because it was already there. There is one exception, which we can deal with in a moment, which is under the School Act. Perhaps, if the member wouldn’t mind, we’ll wait until we get to that sec- tion, and then we can deal with that one. L. Krog: I’m always comforted by the words of the Attorney General.

I love to hear it from her lips, herself assuring me that this will see no reduction in the penalty that would be imposed on someone delivering a signed statement under any of these statutes — as opposed to swearing a declaration or signing an affidavit — and that the penalties will in fact remain the same in both cases — both what exists now and what will happen if this legis - lation is passed. [1405] Hon. S. Anton: As I said, some of the acts had an existing penalty. Others referred to the Offence Act. If they had an existing penalty section, we didn’t change it.

Although, the individual ministries could have taken up the opportunity to change it. In fact, none of them are being recommended for change at this point. If there was no existing penalty in the act, we did cre - ate a new offence, simply saying that it was an offence. We were silent on the penalty in those new provisions which, in all of those cases, then refer back to the Offence Act. A maximum, at the moment, is $2,000 or six months’ im- prisonment. L.

Krog: That does give me a tiny pause for concern, because I think for many offences the concept of a $2,000 fine might be seen as rather minor in comparison to when whatever statute is being changed or revised was in fact passed. With great respect, I think even I’ d recog- nize that $2,000 in 1991 isn’t, certainly, $2,000 in 2016. I’m just wondering, then, in light of that: is there any contemplation to make a change to bring that more con- current? I mean, time in jail is time in jail. That’s a pretty significant penalty.

But if it comes to the question of a fine, a $2,000 fine may be seen by someone who wishes to breach the act as nothing more than a licence or a fee than as a true disincentive to breach the act itself. I’m just wondering: is there any contemplation, then, to follow this up with changes that will make the fine something more substantial and realistic? We are, just this very session, in the process of approving legislation that will change one fine provision in one statute — I be - lieve, the Mines Act — from $100,000 to $1 million. So it seems to me we’re making these changes.

The Attorney General may suggest it’s a reduction in red tape, but at the same time, some may see this as just a licence to — no disrespect to the government — treat a breach of a statute as a minor matter, capable of being dealt with as a $2,000 fee. I’ d be interested to hear what the Attorney General has to say around any further changes that might be contem- plated to, in fact, put some real teeth in the fining provi- sions of the legislation. Hon. S. Anton: As I said, individual ministries do have individual penalties. I could refer, for example, to the Credit Union Incorporation Act.

A corporation could be liable for $100,000 or on a subsequent conviction, $200,000. They are quite variable within the acts, but each of these was on the advice of the individual ministry. For the ones which simply refer back to the Offence Act, that was on the advice of the ministry concerned. [1410] L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General’s response, but candidly, we know that these recommendations, to some extent at least, if not to a large extent, were incor - porated in a report that was given to government back in 1976 — 40 years ago, by my calculation. I’m going to as - sume….

We haven’t seen substantial changes to the max- imum fine, as I recall, of $2,000 under the Offence Act. The Attorney General can, no doubt, correct me. This report, which forms the real basis of the legisla - tion, was given to government in 2006, ten years ago. It just strikes me that that’s a lot of time between the reports without taking into consideration inflation and still leav- ing, in some cases — based on what the Attorney General has told me — the possibility that the maximum amount you’re going to be fined is $2,000. Again, my question is….

I appreciate the Attorney General may not be in a position to answer or wish to answer. If she can’t, she’ll tell me, of course. Why, when we’re doing all of this, aren’t we talking about a change that, notwithstanding individual pieces of legislation that allow for a larger fine, would…? In fact, at the same time we’re doing this and re - ducing, if you will, the cost to the individuals of having to get a notary or a lawyer, etc.….

Why not, at the same time, if we’re making things free for them, at least con - template the possibility, if they choose to not tell the truth when they sign a statement, that they be fined ac - cordingly and that there be some genuine disincentive to be either lax or sloppy or negligent or deliberately

British Columbia DebatesThursday, March 10, 2016 11325 lying when it comes to providing these statements to government? I’m going to presume, if we’re reducing red tape…. That’s all we hear from the government side, time after time. And we indeed have our own special Red Tape Reduction Day now, up there with the importance of Holocaust Day, for heaven’s sake. Surely, I would have thought that if these things are important, gosh, why do we even have statutory require- ments that these things be provided to government?

Why not just eliminate the requirement altogether if you’re not going to actually severely penalize people who file what will amount to false statements with the govern - ment with respect to the various pieces of legislation contained in this bill? [1415] Hon. S. Anton: The member refers back to the earli - er reports. Those reports encouraged government to act, and they were considered and helpful. But it is today’s analysis that matters, and that’s the analysis that has been undertaken over the last year or so.

As I said earlier, each individual ministry was invited to consider what the penalties should be, and they are very variable. They may be the $2,000 in the Offence Act, or they may be significantly more, such as the one I men- tioned a minute ago under the Business Corporations Act. We went, as I said, with the advice. Individual min - istries were consulted, and this Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act is the result of that. L. Krog: If I can ask in a more general way…. I ap - preciate the Attorney General’s comments around the current analysis being what’s important.

Clearly, that current analysis didn’t take into account inflation and the recommendations of a report that is now 40 years old. Goodness, it would be…. That’s two generations, by my standard, and a good chunk of the three score and ten we’re supposed to be allotted for life on the planet. Having considered that, if we’re not…. I take it from the Attorney General’s lack of response that we’re not considering any specific changes around increasing the potential fine from a maximum of $2,000, which, as I say, depending on what you’re talking about, may be seen as a minor fee or almost a licence payment.

Surely, then, are we looking at any changes with respect to penalties? Any more specificity? Are we contemplating any kind of campaigns or increasing public knowledge around this so that people will know that they’re still going to face offences, etc.?

Some folks, with great respect, who are perhaps deal - ing with one aspect of a statute, when they see “just sign a statement, ” are just going to sign a statement with the casual air that many people sign the receipt, as I say, for a document that gets delivered to their office, as opposed to taking the time, swearing an oath in front of a notary or lawyer and being advised of the legal consequences of it. Nobody’s going to get near a lawyer or a notary to do this stuff now. They’re not going to hear any lecture about the law. They’re just going to simply sign a state - ment.

With great respect, there’s a whole bunch of folks who are not going to be perusing this statute end to end and seeing that “Oh my goodness, by signing this state - ment, I’m actually making myself liable for an offence if I don’t do it correctly. ” Is there anything further to follow this bill that might drive home the importance of what’s being done here? Or again, I come back to my point, and I’ d be interested to hear the Attorney General’s comments: if it’s not im- portant, why are we requiring people to do it anyway? Hon. S. Anton: Two things.

First of all, as I’ve said sev- eral times, each ministry did consider its penalty provi - sions. So if they settled on the Offence Act, that was done with consideration that that was the appropriate amount. There are other amounts throughout the statutes which are different than the Offence Act. [1420] The concern that the member raises about whether or not individuals will take these statements seriously…. That is a matter that was seriously considered.

In fact, in the implementation of the act, should it pass, we have en- couraged program areas to be aware of the importance of these elements and to take the steps appropriate in their circumstances to address them. For example, on a form that you are signing, best prac- tice might well be that the form itself refer to the offence. In other words, if you mislead by whatever you say on this form, you are subject to an offence of so and so. We will be providing time between the bill passing, should it pass, and the time it comes into force to allow for oper - ations changes and training to take place.

The matters that the member is raising have been con- sidered. They’ve been considered individually, as I said, by each ministry, and the offence amount that has been set- tled on has been deemed to be appropriate by that ministry. L. Krog: I do hope the Attorney General understands that if there’s any accusation by a government member in the future that the New Democratic Party opposition is soft on crime, I will remind them of this conversation. The Attorney General is prepared to continue with the implementation of a maximum fine that’s become almost ludicrous in light of inflation and changes over time.

We won’t hear any more of that talk, when it comes to the willingness of government to ensure that laws are com - plied with in the province with respect to penalties. I will ask, however, given these changes…. I’m sure ministry officials consulted with other provinces. Are these kinds of changes to legislation that historically has required a sworn statement or an affidavit or a statutory

British Columbia Debates11326 Thursday, March 10, 2016 declaration consistent now with what is happening in other provinces? Or are other provinces resisting this trend? Or are they all moving towards simple signed statements? Hon. S. Anton: The question as to whether or not other provinces are going in this direction — that’s not some analysis that I have at hand. What I can say is that we’ve done this in British Columbia in order to make peoples’ lives easier, to reduce red tape, but to still have seriousness in the matter that is being signed — there are a number of them here — by creating an offence in each case. Chair, I will remind you that we are actually right now on

section 1, which is on the Local Government Act, which is a

section regarding the reduction of a mu - nicipal area. L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General’s comments, as always. Y ou know, this is the helpful start of the bill when we can get through a number of these general ques- tions, as opposed to dragging things out unnecessarily. Having said that, with respect to the recommendations that were made in both the ’76 and the 2006 report, does this legislation cover all of the recommended changes, or are we going to see another bill of similar type next fall, next spring, whenever?

In other words, is this a full- scale reform, once and for all, or are we going to do this in dribs and drabs over some timetable that hasn’t been announced? [1425] Hon. S. Anton: I know that the member opposite real- ly likes the recurring bills. The periods and commas one, which may be coming up later today is, I know, a favour- ite with the member. Interjection. Hon. S. Anton: “Be still my beating heart, ” he says. But in this case, it is not likely that we would bring back another compendium of the nature before us here.

It is certainly possible that individual ministries, as they open bills for one reason or another, may make a similar kind of change at that time, or as new legislation is de - veloped, it will be considered whether or not the state - ment needs to be sworn. But in terms of bringing a lot of them together all at the same time, I think that this is it. I really am sorry for the member that we might not have this exact pleasure at a future time. L. Krog: Just so I’m clear. This, then, reflects most, if not all, of the recommendations that were made in the B.C. Law Institute commission report in 2006.

In other words, the government has gone through the revised stat- utes of British Columbia and the statutes that have ac - cumulated since their last revision and determined that these are the changes that need to be made, as opposed to us doing this thing piecemeal, time after time? Hon. S. Anton: The question was: are we taking all the recommendations? The answer is: we took the ad - vice to look at what provisions might be changed. We are changing the ones that were appropriate based on our an- alysis and on our consultation with individual ministries.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. L. Krog: With respect to the education amendments, these changes all relate to the Francophone Education Authority and consequential amendments by striking out “affirmation” and substituting “a signed statement. ” If I may try and simplify the process dealing with the rest of the bill, all of these sections amount to the same thing. We are deleting the provision of an affirmation, or a sworn statement, and simply referring to a signed state- ment only. It has no other significance. It has no other change. It doesn’t reflect in any penalties. It just makes it, in theory, simpler for the Francophone Education Authority for someone to become a member. Hon. S. Anton: The first two,

section 2 and

section 3, do, as the member described, change it from an affirma- tion to a signed statement. The next section, which is sec- tion 4, is a regulation-making power. Sections 2 to 8 inclusive approved. On

section 9. [1430] L. Krog: With respect to

section 9, this relates to: “ …an applicant to provide proof, by signed statement or other- wise, with respect to a matter arising out of the applica - tion or with respect to the applicant’s financial affairs. ” So arising out of the disposition of Crown land. I’m just wondering. Under what circumstances are these kinds of declarations required? If the minister could give me some examples so that I can understand the import of the section. [1435] Hon. S. Anton: This

section deals with the Land Act. It’s where an applicant has an existing tenure but may want a replacement tenure. They have some requirements under

section 37(1): “The minister may require an appli- cant to provide proof, by signed statement or otherwise, with respect to a matter arising out of the application or with respect to the applicant’s financial affairs. ” Then in section (2), there’s an offence section.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, March 10, 2016 11327 L. Krog: I assume it’s safe to say that the value of that tenure might be minor, or it could be how much? I ap - preciate the Attorney General has a representative from the Ministry of Forests with her, so perhaps we could try and understand the import of this section. Again, is this just a minor matter, something valued at a few thousand dollars, or could we be talking literally millions of dol - lars with respect to this?

It then strikes me, and I come back to my point, that if you’re making a statement, signing a statement as op- posed to swearing a statement, and it involves values of an extraordinary amount, then the potential fine under the act, I’m going to assume, and the minister is going to assist me here, must be much more substantial than $2,000, surely. Hon. S. Anton: There are a number of ways people can use Crown land under the Land Act. This section, sec - tion 37(1), is simply dealing with the signed statement itself, not with all the ways that people use their tenures. [1440] L.

Krog: What’s the purpose of the signed statement with respect to the applicant’s financial affairs? Is it to guarantee they’re in a position, then, to ensure that they can look after the tenure appropriately? Is that the con - cept? Hon. S. Anton: Just by way of example…. I wouldn’t know how many examples there are. There are probably thousands. But in any event, by way of example, if you are running an aggregate site and you have the licence to use land to remove aggregates, you may be asked to demonstrate what you have been doing and your finan - cial affairs in relationship to that. L.

Krog: Just so I can understand, this section, then, is the

section that enables the ministry to make a decision as to whether or not a transfer of tenure or right would in fact occur and may involve the consideration of sub - stantive amounts of money, because presuming you’re transferring a tenure of some value, you want to know that the tenure holder that wishes to receive the tenure has substantial assets.

It just strikes me as curious that in a situation where, potentially, so much value is involved — potential em - ployment, revenues to the Crown that flow from the transfer of the tenure, the ability of the tenure holder to pay profits or licences or fees or whatever to the prov - incial government — this might have been one of those cases, particularly if the penalty is only $2,000. This is, again, why I’m asking the question, and I’m sure the Attorney General can give me an answer. Is the maximum fine only $2,000 potentially, or is it more sub- stantive than that?

If it’s more substantive, then so be it, but if it’s not, this is one of those sections where I would suggest that the Attorney General reconsider this, be - cause simply providing a signed statement as opposed to a sworn statement just doesn’t have the impact. [1445] [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Hon. S. Anton: Chair, sorry. We were consulting the statutes here, just to make sure that I had it right.

Section 37(1) provides for the signed statement. This is all under

section 9, of course, which refers to

section 37 of the Land Act. In

section 37(2), a person who does the following commits an offence: knowingly provides false information and produces a signed statement knowing it to be false. I’m paraphrasing slightly. The offence under 37(2) is found in

section 68 of the Land Act.

Section 68 is the penalty section, which says: “Every person who is convicted of an offence against this Act for which no penalty is provided is liable on convic - tion to a fine of not more than $20,000 or to imprison - ment for a term not longer than 60 days, or to both the fine and imprisonment. ” L. Krog: It’s like the bus pass clawback: you giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other. Now in - stead of six months, you get a maximum of 60 days, but the fine goes up to $20,000. Well, that’s an interesting juxtaposition. I’m satisfied to let

section 9 pass, but I will want to rise on

section

Section 9 approved. On

section 10. L. Krog: I’m indebted to the Attorney General for her courtesy in advising me that the lawyers raised some issues with respect to

section 10, which deals with an amendment to the Land Title Act that, again, strikes out a sworn declaration and substitutes a signed statement. I’m just curious to know what their particular objec - tion was and what the concerns were that they that raised. [1450] Hon. S. Anton: I think it’s safe to say that both the law- yers and the notaries — the executive who were consulted with — were very cautious around land. The Land Title Act does contain a number of provisions for sworn state- ments. In this particular case, in this particular section,

section 203(6), it is deemed appropriate that it could be re- placed with a signed statement, but that is the only provi- sion in the Land Title Act which is proposed for a change. L. Krog: Subject to the Attorney General answering a question which I will have to raise when you bring up

section 10, I’m happy to see

section 10 pass — and sec -

British Columbia Debates11328 Thursday, March 10, 2016 tions 11 through 28. But before we pass those sections, I just have a general question about the provision in sec - tions 11 to

Section 10 approved. On

section 11. L. Krog: My question is this, simply, to the Attorney General. My perusal of all of these sections is that it’s es- sentially the same thing over and over again with respect to the replacement of the statement, etc. — a signed state- ment versus a sworn statement. Are there any provisions that have raised any concern in the mind of the Attorney General or which she’s received particular advice on with respect to any of those sections, 11 through 27, or has there been any objection from any group that was con - sulted with respect to those sections? I suspect not, but I’m simply doing my due diligence.

Hon. S. Anton: Between sections 11 and 27, they do three things. Some of them have minor housekeeping changes in them. Some of them create offences where there was none before. That’s

section 15, for example. And some of them are the change that we’ve already seen: changing from a sworn statement to a signed statement. Sections 11 to 28 inclusive approved. On

section 29. L. Krog: Just so I can have some understanding.

Whenever I see the Trustee Act pop up, that raises concerns. [1455] The bill note suggests that it’s to replace “the use of an affidavit with the use of a signed statement by the donee of a power of attorney, under which an execu - tion of a trust is delegated in respect of certain mat - ters. ” I just wonder if the Attorney General can give us an example of what’s covered here, because after all, when you’re dealing with a trustee situation where you have a donee of a power of attorney and execution of a trust, etc., we couldn’t be involving substantial amounts of money or assets.

I’m just curious to have a specific example of what this is and, again, some rationale for why this particular change in something as important as the Trustee Act. Hon. S. Anton: This was a recommendation from the Law Institute. It is fairly narrow, and it is actually the only change that’s recommended in the Trustee Act. It replaces the use of an affidavit with the use of a signed statement confirming that the donor to the trust is on war service out of British Columbia and that the donee is acting in execution of the trust.

The power of attorney itself requires a witness, which adds a safeguard with respect to the identity of the person giving the statement. And of course, “war service” is de- fined. As I said, it’s something that comes up only rather rarely but from time to time. L. Krog: I certainly wouldn’t want to stand in the way of those who are placing their lives at risk on behalf of their country overseas in terms of war service. If that’s, in fact, the only application of this change, a signed state - ment as opposed to a sworn statement, then I’m happy to see 29 pass.

Section 29 approved. On

section 30. L. Krog: This section, I take it, replaces the statutory declaration with the use of a signed statement in respect to the satisfaction of the registrar general of the death of a person named in an application under

section 77 of the act. [1500] Now, I haven’t had a chance to dash over and grab it. Perhaps the Attorney General, with her able staff there, can save me having to ask for a minute or two and just confirm: what’s the situation where this applies, and who would likely be signing that statement? Hon. S. Anton: This

section relates to a request to the registrar general whether or not a notice has been filed of the existence of a will. It’s where an applicant does not have a death certificate. They do want to make a search for a will. They can do that now by a signed statement rather than by an affidavit. L. Krog: Sorry, I just missed the first part of that. If the Attorney could just repeat her answer, I’ d appreciate it. And give me a concrete example. This is a situation where a person’s making a search to determine if there is a will? Hon. S.

Anton: I said a moment ago “affidavit. ” Prior to this, if you wished to make an inquiry as to whether or not a will was registered with the registrar general and you did not have a death certificate, you needed to make a sworn statement. It’s proposed in this

section that that be changed to a signed statement. L. Krog: I take it this has no impact, though, on who can, in fact, ask for a wills search, as we call it in common parlance. Is that correct? Hon. S. Anton: That’s correct. It is only the question of the way the request is made, not who may make the request.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, March 10, 2016 11329 L. Krog: Just for example. This doesn’t change the practical effect of this. If you’re not sure a person is de - ceased, this

section and change would have no appli - cation. It’s only that situation where you believe that someone has died, or you’re satisfied that they’re dead, that you would then be in a position to use the signed statement as opposed to the sworn statement. Hon. S. Anton: That’s correct. L. Krog: Again, it would have no application with re- spect to the class of persons who’ d apply for a will search — so a solicitor acting on behalf of a client who’s poten - tially seeking administration or probate with respect to the estate of a deceased person — or the executor, for in - stance.

It wouldn’t extend or apply to any other persons — for instance, just a stranger who wants to determine if there’s a will left by someone. The reason I’m raising this is…. This isn’t any more sig- nificant a change than I understand it to be, that people can go around determining whether or not Uncle George has in fact filed a wills notice with the division of vital sta- tistics. It’s still not a free-for-all. Y ou have to be satisfied and state directly that Uncle George is in fact deceased. [1505] Hon. S. Anton: This does not change who can apply. Sections 30 to 33 inclusive approved. On

section 34. L. Krog: Having looked at these sections, I really just have one more question. I’m sure the Attorney General will indulge me, because it’s rather hard to fit this ques- tion into the overall process. I suppose I could have done it at the start. I am advised that when the Law Institute created the draft legislation, it had something like 201 provisions, and we’ve got 39 here. Does that reflect the fact that the ministries were then consulted and determined, in their view, that it was inappropriate to have this number of changes, as proposed?

In other words, the Law Institute was way ahead of the game, and the ministries weren’t prepared to change. Frankly, subject to the Attorney General answering that question, I’m content to see the other sections pass. Hon. S. Anton: The Law Institute made a number of recommendations. The detailed analysis was done by Justice staff, in consultation with their colleagues in other ministries. As I said, that started early last year. It was fol- lowing that detailed analysis that the final tranche, if you like, of statutes and statutory changes was recommended and is now in this proposed act today. L.

Krog: I just want to thank the Attorney General, and her staff, for answering the questions this afternoon. I’m happy to see this pass. Sections 34 to 39 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. S. Anton: I move that the committee rise and re- port the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 3:08 p.m. The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and Third Reading of Bills BILL 5 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES (SIGNED STATEMENTS) AMENDMENT ACT, 2016 Bill 5, Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act, 2016, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. M. Polak: I call committee stage debate on Bill 18. Committee of the Whole House BILL 18 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES (MINOR CORRECTIONS) AMENDMENT ACT, 2016 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 18; R. Chouhan in the chair. The committee met at 3:09 p.m. The Chair: The committee will be in recess for five minutes. The committee recessed from 3:10 p.m. to 3:17 p.m. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] On

section 1. Hon. S. Anton: I am joined by our chief legislative council, Corinne Swystun. This statute does deal with a number of different acts. We do not have staff here from the different ministries concerned. L. Krog: I believe the Attorney General has subtly

British Columbia Debates11330 Thursday, March 10, 2016 indicated that I can’t ask any tricky questions about the various statutes. Having said that, I appreciate that this bill provides a great deal of amusement to various members of the press gallery and the government benches. I can see their scin- tillating, you know, excitement building as we approach a brief discussion on Bill 18. I’m almost overcome with the enthusiasm of the legislators here and assembled. Interjection. L. Krog: Again, I rest my case — the enthusiasm reflected in the incredible desk-pounding from the Minister of Environment.

I haven’t seen her this pleased since, I don’t know, question period. Having said that, every once in a while I have to look really, really, really closely just to understand the differ - ence. Maybe I need better progressive lenses. What’s the practical impact of changing what looks like a semicolon to a period and why, in

section 1? Be still my beating heart. [1520] Hon. S. Anton: The answer is that it is because it is at the end of the section. L. Krog: I just desperately wanted to hear the Attorney General explain it. Well, I’m happy to see

section 1 pass. The Chair: Shall sections 1 through 49…? Interjections. The Chair: No? Okay. I thought, with the enthusiasm expressed here, we should….

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. L. Krog: I know that speed is a quality appreciated in some things but certainly not in the passage of legislation. Having said that, these sections 113 and 115…. It says in the bill it “repeals a provision that is inoperative and repeals another provision that is unnecessary because the same subject matter is addressed elsewhere. ” Perhaps the Attorney General could just explain that. Again, I don’t think it requires any staff in particular. I’m sure she must have some kind of a note. Does this thing have any consequence?

We’re working on the assump - tion that everything that’s being proposed is really quite inconsequential, but this strikes me as being a somewhat more substantive section. Hon. S. Anton: The two sections are inoperative, so they are proposed to be repealed. L. Krog: Again, I appreciate that’s what the note says. But what does “inoperative” mean with respect to a sec- tion in a bill? I know when my car breaks down, it’s not operating, but an inoperative section…? Interjection. L. Krog: The minister is criticizing my automobile.

I think his might be of equal or greater age, so I’m going to take that as a compliment. I look forward to the Attorney General’s answer. Hon. S. Anton: Sections 113 and 115 of the Admin - istrative Tribunals Statutes Amendment Act proposed to amend

section 693 of the Local Government Act, and

section 693 of the Local Government Act no longer exists. L. Krog: I’m delighted. We’re repealing a

section be- cause it no longer has any application because the sec - tion is gone. I had no idea that when I faced the electorate in Nanaimo for 28 days in 2013 that part of my onerous duties would involve repealing a

section that’s literally gone already — by amending a

section because that sec - tion is inoperative. I’m delighted to see

section 2 pass.

Section 2 approved. On

section 3. L. Krog: This is just “extra-provincial, ” substituting “extraprovincial agency” — one word, without a hyphen anymore. Just out of curiosity…. I’m delighted to ask this question because I know that language is a great interest of the Attorney General and government. Is that a mistake? I don’t have my dictionary handy, and I’m such a poor student. Is that a mistake, or is this a new style of writing? [1525] Hon. S.

Anton: With regard to the first part of that question, I would like to assure the member opposite that his remarks on Nanaimo bars this afternoon elevated the conversation in this House to a remarkable level and that his constituents in Nanaimo are very well served. I com- pliment him on his years of service. Now, as to sections 3 and 4, it is a change of spelling to be consistent with our current standards. L. Krog: My immediate response to the Attorney General’s remarks: it could not be other than sweet. Having said that, then, with respect to sections 3 through 6, I’m happy to see them pass.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved. On

section 6.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, March 10, 2016 11331 L. Krog: My take on sections 7 to 9 is that they’re simply language changes, making reference to the Local Government Act following its revision. Is there any sub- stantive aspect to any of sections 7 to 9? I suspect not, but I just want to hear the Attorney General say so. Hon. S. Anton: There were changes made to the Local Government Act which required these changes in the Drainage, Ditch and Dike Act. Sections 6 to 9 inclusive approved. On

section 10. L. Krog: Y eah,

section 10 is fine. Sections 10 to 22 inclusive approved. On

section 23. L. Krog: With respect to

section 23,

part 21 of the Municipal Replotting Act is repealed. I’m just wonder - ing why we’re repealing such an exciting part of the Municipal Replotting Act. [1530] Hon. S. Anton: This was a redundancy in the Munici- pal Replotting Act.

Part 21 had just one section, and it was a

section that should never have been brought into force because the same subject matter is addressed elsewhere. Sections 23 to 38 inclusive approved. On

section 39. L. Krog: Just to confirm. This strikes me as the faster version of getting through all of the changes that are often contemplated. For the sake of some certainty, in a previ- ous bill this afternoon, I asked the Attorney General if it was likely to be the last kick at corrections, so to speak, of existing statutes. Does the work contained in sections 39 to 48 cover all of the existing legislation?

Are we satisfied this is the last time we’re going to have to come back and change “ac - knowledgment” to “acknowledgement, ” with a slightly different spelling, and “enrol” with a different spelling and “enrolment” and “fulfil”? In other words, have we carefully perused all of the statutes, or are we going to be doing this again? Hon. S. Anton: In terms of the spellings, an attempt has been made to correct all of them — in the acts, not in the regulations. In terms of the minor corrections of punctua- tion and so on, those do turn up from time to time. They may continue to turn up.

But, as I said, in terms of the spellings, it’s hoped that this covers them all off. L. Krog: Just for the sake of the listening audience at home, who must be fascinated by all of this, in sections 39 to 48, all we are doing is essentially correcting the spelling of various words — “installments” versus “instalments, ” with and without the “l” — from what we’ll call American spelling to Canadian spelling.

In fact, we are here engaged in a triumphant call to arms for Canadian spellers, set out here in legislation that we are reclaiming the English language in our Canadian version, with our spelling, and striking out “under way” as two words and making “underway” one word. I just want to compliment the Attorney General for the pa - triotism this bill reflects as we engage once more in re - claiming our culture. With that, I’m delighted to see sections 39 to 48 pass in — I was about to say “triumphant, ” but I nearly slipped and said “Trump” — a triumphant volley of gunfire, 200 years past the end of the War of 1812.

Sections 39 to 48 inclusive approved.

Section 49 approved. Schedules approved. Title approved. Hon. S. Anton: I move that the committee rise and re- port the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 3:34 p.m. The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair. [1535] Report and Third Reading of Bills BILL 18 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES (MINOR CORRECTIONS) AMENDMENT ACT, 2016 Bill 18, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2016, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. M.

Polak: I call second reading debate on Bill 17 and would request just a five-minute recess so we can get people in the room. Madame Speaker: This House stands recessed. The House recessed from 3:36 p.m. to 3:40 p.m. [R. Chouhan in the chair.]

British Columbia Debates11332 Thursday, March 10, 2016 Second Reading of Bills BILL 17 — LOCAL ELECTIONS CAMPAIGN FINANCING (ELECTION EXPENSES) AMENDMENT ACT, 2016 Hon. P . Fassbender: I’m now pleased to move that Bill 17, intituled the Local Elections Campaign Financing (Election Expenses) Amendment Act, 2016, be read for a second time. British Columbians and election participants ex - pressed their support for expense limits for local gov - ernment elections. This legislation paves the way to implement expense limits for the next local government elections in British Columbia, in 2018.

Over 3,500 candidates and over 40 elector organiza - tions were involved in campaigns during the 2014 local elections. This legislation will inform the development of regulations to specify expense limit amounts for can - didates and for third-party advertisers. The underlying principles are that the bill is based on recommendations of a Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits, convened by this Legislative Assembly in the fall of 2014. The committee made a number of recommendations to the Legislative Assembly in two phases.

In phase 1, the committee recommended principles of fairness, neutrality, transparency and accountability for establishing expense limits for participants in British Columbia’s local govern- ment elections. The legislation honours those principles. In phase 2, the committee recommended expense limit amounts for candidates and third-party advertis - ers. In November of 2015, based on the recommenda - tions of the special committee, Bill 43 was introduced in the Legislature as an exposure bill.

By introducing Bill 43 as an exposure bill, the government created a final op - portunity for a review of the specifics of expense limits by British Columbia’s local governments, election par - ticipants and citizens. Bill 17 provides, based on the consultation, that the legislation will create a framework for expense limits that will apply to the candidates running for mayor, council- lor, electoral area director, Vancouver park board, Cultus Lake Park Board, Islands Trust area trustee and school board trustee.

Expense limits will apply to independent candidates, endorsed candidates and those affiliated with elector or- ganizations. Elector organizations will not have their own expense limits but rather will share the amounts estab - lished for their endorsed candidates. Expense limits will also apply to third-party advertising sponsors. While the legislation sets out the framework for ex - pense limits, the actual amounts would be set by regu - lation.

For candidates in election areas with less than 10,000 people, the proposed expense limit establishes a flat rate of $10,000 for mayoralty candidates and $5,000 for all other locally elected offices. For election areas with more than 10,000 people, a per- capita formula will determine expense limits. There will be a higher expense limit for mayors — twice the amount as for other candidates — to reflect the fact that it is usu - ally more expensive to run a campaign for mayor. This is consistent with the approach in other provinces that have expense limits.

The expense limits period for candidates and elector organizations will be altered from the initial proposal for a January 1 date to 28 days prior to the close of election day, which is the third Saturday of October. This creates alignment between provincial and local government ex- pense limit periods. [1545] Bill 17 proposes a flat rate for third-party advertisers in election areas with less than 15,000 people, an altera - tion from the initial proposal.

This addresses stakehold- er concerns raised during the consultation that a small jurisdiction’s third-party advertising limits were too low to be seen as being reasonable. In election areas with 15,000 people or more, the pro- posed expense limits for third-party advertising sponsors would be 5 percent of the expense limit of a mayoralty can- didate in municipal elections. The proposed expense limit would be 5 percent of the expense limit of a candidate in those areas where there is no mayoralty candidate — for example, a school trustee or a regional elector area direc- tor.

There would be a cumulative provincewide maximum of $150,000 applicable during the 28-day campaign period.

In order to clarify and strengthen enforcement for ex- pense limits, the legislation includes the following chan- ges to penalties and offences: first, make spending by endorsed candidates and elector organizations, beyond a campaign financing arrangement, an offence only when it causes expense limits to be exceeded; replace offences for non-payment of monetary penalties with authority for Elections B.C. to file a certificate with the Supreme Court, making the amount owed enforceable as if it were a judgment of the court; and enable Elections B.C. to ex- tend a late-filing deadline without penalty for as long as may be necessary, rather than 120 days.

Local election expense limits would be adjusted for inflation, consistent with the approach for provincial expense limits. The new bill also proposes a related amendment for the Local Government Act, reinstating the rule that a person who is disqualified from voting in an election in British Columbia is also disqualified from being nominated for, elected to or holding office. The Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits and my ministry undertook considerable public and stakeholder consultation. We heard abundant input from individuals, candidates, elector organizations and other stakeholders.

As this House knows, this has been an issue that has been discussed. There have been vari - ous task forces in the past.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, March 10, 2016 11333 I believe that the implementation of expense limits will complete our commitment to the modernization of local government elections, based on recommendations of the joint Local Government Elections Task Force — B.C. and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities — that was formed a number of years ago. I ask that all members lend their support to this legis- lation. S. Robinson: I’m pleased to rise to speak to Bill 17, Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, (Election Expenses).

I think it’s important, when talking about this bill, that we have the context for it. In essence, this bill came about as a result of the run - away spending that had started to take hold in some of our local elections in this province. In particular, it was the city of Vancouver’s challenges with spending. It was actually in 2005 that they started calling for some legisla- tion that would help with some of that runaway spending. But we were also seeing increased spending in places like Surrey, Coquitlam, Burnaby and other large munici- palities.

Y et what surprised me, which I certainly learned in researching this bill, is that it’s not exclusively the do- main of larger local governments. We’ve heard this issue come about in some smaller lo- cal governments. There’s one situation in particular, and that was Powell River. They had a situation just at the last election where there was a big bump in spending because of one contribution from one developer. It just spurred the spending for all candidates.

I want to talk a little bit about why it’s important to ad- dress, certainly, spending limits and other components of these elections. [1550] We all talk about the idea of a level playing field. We talk about this issue of fairness, making sure that every - one can participate equally. We hear it all the time in vari- ous different realms in our lives. W e certainly hear it from business. Business will always talk about how they want a level playing field. W e certainly heard it when Uber was knocking on our door. Y ou’ d talk with taxi drivers.

They’re saying: “Uber can come in, but we want a level playing field. W e want to make sure that every- one’s playing by the same rules, same regulations, same li- censing requirements. ” That creates real competition. Now, when we have the same regulations, same limits, same expectations, people intuitively know that there’s real fairness. It feels fair. They know it’s fair, and they’re willing to compete. I’ve also heard this from a friend of mine who owns…. He doesn’t own it anymore, I guess. He owned this oil reclamation business.

He pointed out the importance of ensuring that everyone in the business had the same regulations. He would complain and whine incessantly about the paperwork he had to do. He couldn’t stand all the regulations that he had to pay attention to in his busi- ness. It meant it slowed him down. But he also recognized that there was a level playing field, and it was critical for him in a competitive market. He understood that if everyone was playing by the same rules, everyone had the same regulations, everyone had the same paperwork, then that was okay. If it slowed him down, it slowed his competitor down.

If everyone was playing by the same rules, at least there was fairness in the marketplace, and he could absolutely live with that. Where else do we see this importance of a level play - ing field? It’s not just business, and it’s not just politics. I always think of sports when I think about level playing field. Let me just talk about that for a second. The minister and I both have the privilege, I think, of tracking the sports file for this province. Nowhere is the concept of fairness more evident than in sport. In sport, we always ensure that teams are even in ability.

Every Sunday morning my husband plays hockey with a group of guys, pickup hockey. He prepares his pickup hockey roster based on who was playing that morning and as - signs his friends to either dark or light, carefully ensuring that he hasn’t stacked one side or the other with certain skills or talents. He knows that having a level playing field, having even teams, will make for a better game. I think back to my own time as a young child playing baseball. As children, we were always so focused on en - suring that the teams were even. That was the language we used. They had to be even. What did we mean by that?

Well, we knew that there were those in our midst who could throw, catch, pitch or bat, and we knew that there were others who weren’t so good at those things. If there was somebody who couldn’t catch or who couldn’t bat, then you made some compensation. Y ou traded off people to make sure that the teams were even, that they could compete, that there would be fairness in your game in some way. Y ou can even use the notion of a level playing field in- appropriately. Some people…. The example that comes to mind, that we’ve heard from this government, is the bus pass clawback.

I’ve heard people talk about it: “There needs to be a level playing field, that everybody should be treated equally. ” They call it fairness, levelling the playing field so that everyone has the same $77 a month, and some can choose to get a $52 a month bus pass if they need it and have access to it. That’s actually a false premise of fairness, because there’s no competition. These people aren’t com- peting with each other. People with disabilities are not competing with each other, so why are we caught up in a level playing field? We use that when there’s competition.

If government really wants to address fairness in this way, then perhaps they ought to address the high cost of housing for people with disabilities who live in the Lower Mainland. That can be also a notion of fairness. But I digress. I’m going to get back to the value of fair- ness, because I think at the end of the day, you need to be

British Columbia Debates11334 Thursday, March 10, 2016 consistent. When I think about fairness and a level play- ing field, I think it’s really clear that there needs to be a notion of competition. That’s where we have to make sure that we have regulations.

When we have this value of fairness and it permeates in the political realm, when you have numerous candi - dates competing for limited spots on a council or a park board or a regional district or a school board, then you need to have some rules and regulations in place so that it is fair, so that it is balanced. [1555] When the Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits was first struck back in October 2014, the committee was tasked with the following. I think it’s really important to understand what it was that the com- mittee was asked to do.

In phase 1, the committee was asked to examine, in - quire into and make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly about the following things: “(

a) Principles for the relationship between elector organiza - tions and their endorsed candidates with respect to expense lim- its, including how elector organizations and endorsed candidates share accountability for expense limits, with consideration for fairness between independent candidates and candidates en - dorsed by elector organizations. “(

b) Principles for establishing expense limits for third-party advertisers, including whether there should be an overarching, cumulative limit on third-party spending such as exists in prov- incial general elections. ” We were asked to prepare the above recommendations to the Legislative Assembly in order to prepare this cur - rent legislation and get ready for phase 2. So what did we find as a committee? This first phase was a pretty im- portant phase. I want to point out that my colleagues on the com - mittee, colleagues from this House, all came from local government.

We’ d all spent considerable time, or we’ d come from school boards, so we were pretty knowledg - able about the experience of campaigning in our com - munities and local governments. We understood some of the challenges in small rural communities and in lar - ger communities. We had the member for Fraser-Nicola chair the com- mittee, and she was a fine Chair. Given her experience as the Liberal caucus chair, she was excellent. I suspect we were a far easier bunch to chair than the Liberal caucus. She ran successfully…. Interjections. S. Robinson: No, it wasn’t a shot.

It’s just, I think, eas- ier to chair a committee than it is a caucus; I don’t care what caucus. She ran successfully for school board and really does have a clear understanding of the challenges of running in local elections. We also had a very experienced member from Peace River South. He’s now the Minister of Education. He’ d been the mayor of his fine town, and he certainly had lots to say about the importance of fairness, as did the members for Surrey-Panorama, Port Moody–Coquitlam, Vancouver–False Creek, the previous member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

I was on that committee as well. I’m actually very, very proud of the work we did. I thought we worked really well together. We had great dialogue, we did a good job of focusing on the issues at hand, and we paid very close attention to our duties and responsibilities on this committee. This committee heard from a range of speakers during phase 1 of our work. We received lots of on-line feedback, and we consulted with numerous stakeholders. Everyone agreed that we needed to address runaway spending in local elections.

And everyone agreed that the principles of fairness, neutrality, transparency and accountability should guide our work as we prepared for phase 2, which would lead to the recommendations for the legislation we have before us. I’ d like to say just a little bit about these principles, be- cause at the end of the day, we all need to ask ourselves…. Every single member of this House needs to ask our - selves if this piece of legislation adheres to the principles we adopted. First, I want to talk about neutrality, transparency and accountability, because I want to come back to this no - tion of fairness.

In this report, we heard from all these folks. We got to hear a little bit about their thoughts about what these principles were and how to organize them in terms of priority. The principle of neutrality. I’ll just read from the re - port so that we get it into the record about what it was that the committee really understood and how it guid - ed how we got to here today. “The committee heard the principle of neutrality reflected in a number of submis - sions. Neutrality refers to how independent candidates are treated relative to endorsed candidates and elector or- ganizations.

In essence, it means they are treated in such a way that there is no advantage for candidates to run independently or with elector organizations. ” We felt that it shouldn’t matter whether or not there was an elector organization in your community or whether you were picked or nominated or whether you were going to run independent — that there shouldn’t be a bias one way or the other; that you had equal opportunity, equal chance to participate fully in the democratic process of a local election.

That was an important principle, and we felt it was really important for consideration going forward. [1600] Now, the principle of transparency was identified as one of the top three priorities by respondents to our on-line questionnaire. Transparency was cited as be - ing integral to the prime objective of strengthening and championing democracy. It was emphasized by a number of parties that presented.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, March 10, 2016 11335 Here in the report, the Non-Partisan Association stat- ed: “Voters deserve to know who is paying for campaigns designed to influence them. ” Another written submission, Cliff Boldt, said: “Between an elector organization and a candidate, the relationship must be transparent and clearly understood by the electorate. ” As a committee, we agreed that this principle of trans- parency was critical, because we know that the electorate deserves to know how they’re being influenced. Let’s face it.

A campaign is a marketing exercise. “Pick me over the other guys. ” That’s what a campaign is about. It’s competi- tion, so we need to make sure that there is some under - standing about who is participating in that exercise. So transparency is a very key, fundamental principle that the committee looked at and certainly heard, and we felt that it needed to be acknowledged in our reports. Now, the third principle was the principle of account- ability.

We noted as a committee that it would be the basis for separate expense limits for candidates, elector organ- izations and third-party advertisers, such that each would be accountable for their own spending. Bruce Milne, who is a mayor, spoke about the sur - prising number of third-party advertisers in his small community and pointed out to the committee that third- party advertisers are an independent voice and are not controlled by the candidate. So that suggested that they ought to have their own expense limit that’s distinct from an expense limit of the candidate or elector organization.

The idea is that everybody has to take responsibility for their contribution and for their messaging in local elec - tions. These were three of the four principles that guided all of the activities of the committee. I want to go back to the first principle. I think it’s fair- ness that was the one we heard the most about. Pretty much every single speaker who came and presented be - fore the committee had something to say about fairness. That was at the core of pretty much every conversation we had, every presentation we had. People really wanted it to be fair. They want local elections to be fair.

They want all candidates to have equal access and equal opportunity. After all, this is something that I think everybody in this House recognizes. We learn that as children, and we certainly know that to be true here when it comes to lo - cal elections. When we talked about the principle of fairness, this is what we had to say in the report: “The committee consistently heard that expense limits are a matter of fairness. Although articulated in different ways, the principle of fairness was mentioned by most participants in the committee’s consultation process.

This was often expressed as the need to maintain a level playing field for all candidates so that well-financed candidates do not have an unfair advantage. ” It was stated by the representative of RITE Richmond, which is an elector organization in Richmond, “It creates an uneven playing field as to how much we want money to determine the outcomes of elections versus issues and policies of the candidates who are running. In the words of George Knox, ” the report goes on to say: “‘Everybody should have an equal chance. ’” It’s through this lens of fairness that we ought to be real- ly paying attention.

As we go through this bill, I believe it’s through this lens, through the lens of using these four principles. That’s what we were asked to do. We were asked to come up with principles in phase 1 of this exercise as a committee. We were asked to come up with the princi- ples that would guide us through phase 2, when we would make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly. Neutrality, transparency, accountability and fairness should be the lenses that we use when we are reviewing this bill. Does this bill support the principle of neutrality? Does the bill support the principle of transparency?

Does it support accountability? And, I think most importantly, does it support the principle of fairness? [1605] When we think about fairness, we need to ask our - selves: does this bill level the playing field among can - didates for school boards, parks boards, area directors, councillors, mayors, Islands Trust? Does every candidate have access to fully participate in the democratic process, or will some be advantaged in some way? As I read through this bill, there were certainly ele - ments that addressed neutrality.

The committee carefully considered ways to ensure that independent candidates weren’t compromised against those who were part of a slate. Reporting out is an important part of transparency and accountability. The bill certainly speaks to that. I want the House to know that the special committee certainly struggled to balance pragmatism with transpar- ency and accountability and made sure that there was proper reporting and real penalties for not following the rules. After all, why would you have rules if there are no consequences? I want to keep coming back to this principle of fairness because (

a) it’s the one that we heard the most about and (

b) because I think it’s just a basic principle of democracy. Anyone, regardless of their wealth, should be able to par- ticipate in the democratic process and be able to repre - sent their community. If that is the value that we hold dear, then it should be fully reflected in this legislation. The Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Deve- lopment and I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to at- tend the B.C. Winter Games. The member for Penticton was there as well, given that he represented the host com- munity and he was the mayor of Penticton.

I am sure that both of these gentlemen will appreciate my analogy. At the B.C. Winter Games, we saw so many athletes come together to give their all in sport. Y ou know what, hon. Speaker? We saw the concept of fairness play out in every venue, in every sport. I had the honour of hand - ing out medals in the judo competition. I mean, I’ d never watched a judo match. Do you know, hon. Speaker, how they do match-ups in judo so that the competition is fair? Well, they have

British Columbia Debates11336 Thursday, March 10, 2016 gender and weight classes. Can you imagine if I had to enter a judo match with the member for Port Coquitlam or the member for Cowichan Valley or North Surrey or Surrey-Panorama? There is understanding in this sport, a sport that re - quires you to throw your opponent to the ground faster than your opponent…. Y ou have to do that. I probably could, actually, take them all. But I do want to say that there’s recognition that some competitors, around weight, will have an advantage. Weight is an advantage.

I don’t think I could actually throw the member for Surrey- Panorama. I don’t think I could throw the member for Port Coquitlam. I understand it’s levers, but trust me. There is still a weight distinction that you need to sort of control for. When you are assessing a skill, all other factors that in- fluence the outcome should be neutralized so that you can really assess that one skill. In the case of judo, it’s about which competitor can throw the other to the ground first. The other sport I want to talk about that I think pro - vides a really good analogy is wheelchair basketball.

My niece Sarah Friedmanplays the game, and I watched her play in Penticton for the B.C. Winter Games. She is able- bodied. How do you think this sport ensures that there is fairness when teams are a mix of able-bodied and dif - ferently abled players? Well, my understanding is that each team is awarded 15 points. Depending on the level of disability or able- bodiedness, you get to allot your 15 points. My niece Sarah uses up five points because she has full use of her limbs. Other players with partial use of their limbs may only take up two, three or four points.

Each team can make use of the points as they see fit so long as they do not exceed 15 points. The idea here is that there is a system created to ensure fairness, that there is the same level on each side of this competition. There is a level playing field, a system where everyone can play so long as it’s fair play. [1610] We value this principle in sport, and we value this prin- ciple in business. In short, we value this principle wher - ever and whenever we have competition. We all know that when there is competition, fairness is perhaps the most important principle for consideration.

How does this bill address the issue of competition for local government, park board and school board elec- tions? Well, the Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits took on the initial task to try and de - termine how to achieve fairness. We certainly received numerous presentations from around the province from citizens who shared their thoughts with us. We received on-line surveys and comments from people around the province. They had an opportunity to share their thoughts and ideas with us.

We met with stakeholders, who had a chance to make presentations to us, to share their inside view of what it’s like from their perspective. Most importantly, I h’ave to say, we did have the opportunity to review the spend - ing data from the 2014 local elections. I will say…. And I suspect that the member for Surrey-Panorama and the Minister of Education will recall getting that data and how valuable it was for us to take a look and see where spending was at and how to rein it in and what that would look like. We certainly asked presenters for their suggestions, and it was actually a tough challenge.

The process to have a joint committee and go through this together was a valuable process. We got to hear from citizens, candidates, elector organizations, stakeholders. I was very proud that we were able, as a committee, to make unanimous recom- mendations. I want to compliment all the members of the committee for their hard work, because it really was very, very tough. When we put together phase 2 of the report, it was certainly with some challenges that we got to where we got to. We made a number of recommendations that in- cluded how to build a responsible and responsive actual spending limit.

I understand it’s going to be addressed in regulation. The committee was also instructed to use a number of reports to help inform us as we went through the tasks. We were to consider the report of the Local Government Elections Task Force, including the principles, from May 2010. We got to use the Expense Limits in Local Elections:

Summary Report on Expense Limits Engagement . We had a chance to review the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act of 2014. We had to consider the model approved by govern - ment in July 2014, which was to set provincially set lim- its for candidates and third-party advertisers in local elections, with limits to set using a flat-rate amount for jurisdictions under 10,000 people, and a per-capita for - mula for those over 10,000 people. We certainly did that. We got to use our original, first document in phase 1. There was one piece in our terms of reference that I want to reflect on.

I think it is something that we heard a lot about from the presentations, but we were told very spe- cifically not to consider them. It says in the terms of refer- ence: “The special committee shall limit its consideration of campaign finance topics to forming recommendations on expense limits for local elections. ” Now, I think it’s really important to get into the record that the reason why that was there…. To put a caveat in the recommendations is to say: “This is it.

Y ou’re only allowed this little piece, and if you hear of other things that people want you to consider, you’re not allowed to consider them. ” What was it that we weren’t allowed to consider? I think it’s really important to raise what we heard from all of these people who made the time out of their busy schedules to come and talk to us. We were commis - sioned to go out into various communities around British

British Columbia DebatesThursday, March 10, 2016 11337 Columbia and hear what people wanted for their local elections. [1615] I believe that this government did not want us to talk about contribution limits. I do think that that’s part of fairness, and certainly we heard that a lot in committee. I want to share what we heard about contributions, be- cause I think it’s important that people understand that it wasn’t that we didn’t hear anything about contributions. We heard lots about contributions.

We heard during phase 1 of the committee’s work that it wasn’t just spend- ing limits that were creating problems with runaway spending, but that contributions, the other side of the election financing equation, were also creating problems. Here’s a little bit about what we heard. Sav Dhaliwal, who at the time was president of the UBCM, presented to the special committee on April 15, 2015. I’ d like to read into the record his comments, because he talks a little bit about some of the challenges. He notes: “Spending in Vancouver is uniquely high and appears to in - crease with each election.

In 2008, total candidate spending in Vancouver was reported at around $4.5 million. In 2011 it was $5.3 million. For 2014…. ” Of course, I’m going back. It appeared that it was going to be around $5.7 million. We have since learned that it was $5.5 million. Deputy Speaker: Member, are you the designated speaker? S. Robinson: I am the designated speaker. “High spending in Vancouver has been acknowledged repeat- edly by its council as an issue that needs to be addressed.

In 2013 our membership endorsed the resolution brought forward to the UBCM convention from the city of Vancouver requesting that UBCM support Vancouver’s request to the provincial gov- ernment for amendments to the Vancouver Charter to allow Vancouver to make rules for election campaign finance that place greater limits on campaign spending and contributions and provide for greater disclosure. “While the recommendations of the 2010 Elections Task Force only address expense limits, Vancouver is also seeking to limit contributions.

It was envisioned by the task force that if expense limits were put into place, there would be no need to limit contri- butions. However, our membership as a whole has recognized the challenge facing Vancouver and the need to equalize the playing field and increase accessibility by tackling the problem at both the expense and the contribution levels. “While UBCM has supported the development of a province- based approach to establishing expense limits, we are also cog - nizant that the Vancouver situation is unique. ” Now, we all, I think, can agree that Vancouver is unique.

But it’s not just the UBCM that points that out. We also had a presentation from Jordan Bober, the direc- tor of the Green Party of Vancouver. He presented at the public hearing of the special committee on local elections on April 9, 2015. This is what he had to say: [R. Lee in the chair.] “I must say that I’m very disappointed that your committee hasn’t been given a mandate to look at donation limits, because I think that’s actually even more fundamental to the attack on democracy that I have seen from big money in politics.

It’s, at least, the perception that there are certain organizations, cor - porations or individuals that can, essentially, buy favour with an elector organization. That’s something that the spending limits, unfortunately, are not going to address directly. ” We also heard from Craig Henschel of Burnaby. He also presented on April 9, 2015, to the special commit - tee on local elections expenses. He said this: “When you’re not allowed to examine or work with contri - bution limits, then you’ve got to look at sort of the worst-case scenario of what we’ve got, which is appalling.

I mean, someone donated almost $1 million a few years ago in Vancouver and this time over $400,000. That’s crazy. That means that one person is having the effect, in an election, of the rest of the population. ” It just doesn’t make sense. ” Now, we also heard from Marion Jamieson of the Upper Kitsilano Residents Association, and she said this: “The corporate and union donation issue. I know it’s not your mandate, but again, you’ve been asking people whether or not they feel strongly about this.

We certainly do feel strongly that democracy can really only be restored — in Vancouver, certainly; I’m not that aware of other jurisdictions — as long as individual and corporate donations can be limited. I think somebody al - ready referred to the famous $900,000 donation that was made, and another one of $400,000. [1620] “Unless corporate and union donations and individual dona - tions are limited, this will still leave a real or apparent obligation to powerful, wealthy special interests. ” Finally, we heard from Jillian Skeet. I say finally be - cause this is sort of the last example I’m going to bring.

We heard this over and over and over again. Jillian Skeet, of Vancouver, presented to the committee on April 9 as well. This is what she had to say. “The truth is that no one in our society, especially not those in business, gives money without expecting something in return, and both sides know this. Our political parties and our polit - icians are being bought by the highest bidders.

If an election were held tomorrow and you told these same donors that the money would go into a centralized pot and would be shared fairly — perhaps according to votes, as is now done federally — I’m sure that many, if not all, of these donors would disappear. To restore democracy, we must bring in similar rules to those that now exist at the federal level. “ A ban on donations over, say, $500 should not pertain solely to the official campaign period, particularly not when we have set election dates. Donors will simply ensure that they make their hefty donations prior to the campaign.

There should be strict annual donation limits imposed. “We should never have allowed the current scenario to exist. By allowing unlimited donations, we have opened a door to corruption. The damage that has been done to our democracy and to our city is irreparable in too many cases. It is truly tragic. ” This is just a sample. We heard stories over and over and over again — the one about, in 2011, the spend - ing between the two main parties, the NPA and Vision Vancouver. The number of newspaper articles was enor- mous.

It was beyond belief when the NPA spent $2.5 mil- lion, and just one donor, Rob Macdonald, contributed over $900,000 — I think it was $960,000 — to that cam - paign. That’s really not acceptable.

British Columbia Debates11338 Thursday, March 10, 2016 In that election, Vision Vancouver also spent an ob - scene amount of money, $2.2 million, and COPE spent just over $360,000. That hardly looks like a level playing field. On the spending side, it certainly wasn’t a level play- ing field. But we should also be able to argue that it wasn’t a level playing field on the contribution side either.

Until this government gets back to real principles of fairness, instead of looking out for its own power and its own con- tradictions on it, we’ll continue to have an unlevel playing field in both local and provincial elections. When the special committee was given its marching orders to address this outrageous spending, we were se - verely limited, I think, in addressing the problem. The committee heard it time and time again. We heard it from candidates. We heard it from elector organizations. We heard it from citizens. They all, I have to tell you, assumed we were considering contribution limits.

Over and over again, people kept talking about contri- bution limits and expense limits. They were doing both. They were using them interchangeably, because we were talking about fairness. They intuitively know that for fair- ness, you need to address both sides of this point. I hated telling our presenters that we were given strict instructions to only consider spending limits, and so many were shocked. “What? Only expense limits? Why not contribution limits? That’s obscene too; $960,000 to one party in a local election.

That’s outrageous. ” They were shocked that we were to not consider contribution limits as part of our deliberations. We have contribution limits for federal campaigns, but this government doesn’t seem to see fit to consider contribution limits for either provincial or local elections. Many presenters at our hearings talked about some of the obscene contributions. Certainly, we heard a lot about the $960,000 donation by Mr. Macdonald. We heard that several times. But the one that surprised me most was one that was made in Powell River, a small community, right?

In Vancouver, you know it’s a multi-million-dollar campaign. We’re talking Powell River, a small community. We heard the story of how one developer made a single contribution, to the incumbent mayor, of $20,000. Now, these mayoral campaigns cost a couple hundred dollars, a couple thousand dollars. We’re not talking big money; we’re not talking big city. But in Powell River, one developer — who also happened to have a project in the pipe, getting ready to bring it to council — gave the in - cumbent mayor $20,000, and it created such an imbal - ance.

The optics of this was terrible. [1625] The community rallied around, and they were angry that we had nothing in place to stop an obscene amount of giving that could have tremendous influence, tremendous impact on their local elections and on their community. They were upset that one person could buy an election. It’s clear, when we see these significant contributions, that we absolutely have to pause and consider what meaning such a contribution can have to an election campaign.

Now, many people believe that when we have contributions that appear significant, like the one made to Vancouver’s NPA that neared $1 million, there has to be some undue influence or promise being made to that person, that business — or that union, for that matter. There has to be some way to rein that in as well, be - cause the experience of fairness is that it’s not fair. It’s not fair that people who have deep pockets can influence, in some way, the outcome of an election. It’s not right.

I believe that when we all put our name forward to serve our communities — whether it’s local government, school board, park board, regional district — we all do it with the best of intentions. We want to contribute to the overall well-being of our communities. We believe that we have something to offer our neighbours, something that will make life better. What happens to that when we throw in these ridicu - lous contributions and we make the democratic process all about she who has the most money? People become jaded. They no longer believe in democracy.

They no longer believe that their vote, their contribution, their voice actually gets heard. Instead, they start to believe that this process is rigged or that it’s tainted — tainted by money and tainted by influence. I’ve certainly heard members of this House talk about the importance of strengthening our voter turnout for provincial elections and also local elections, because that has the lowest voter turnout.

I believe that we can all agree that we need to support and encourage better voter turnout, especially, in local elections because we all know that at that level, where we have the poorest voter turnout, we actually have the most impact on people’s daily lives. If citizens are jaded, if citizens are frustrated, if cit - izens are disgusted by big money and they’re turned off the democratic process because they believe that money and big contributions are inappropriately influencing the outcome of elections, then we as legislators are not do - ing our job.

If British Columbians have lost faith in the democratic process, then we, the members of this House, have to take responsibility for that. I want to bring this piece about contributions back to this idea of fairness. We created expense limits for local elections, and I think it’s a good start. It will help rein in spending — absolutely. But th

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20160310pm-Hansard-v35n2
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20160310pm Hansard v35n2
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3fee5670c777002eaaccfc26d7c72487a1227e25

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