Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, October 2, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 26

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Jack Robertson

M. de Jong

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Christopher Seguin

P. Milobar

Introductions by Members

Statements

Cybersecurity

Hon. J. Sims

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Steve Arnett

D. Routley

Ministerial Statements

Violent incidents in Edmonton and Las Vegas

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. de Jong

Hon. L. Beare

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2017

Hon. D. Eby

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Reconciliation with Indigenous peoples

B. Ma

Small business

C. Oakes

Foster families

M. Dean

Response to opioid crisis by Moms Stop the Harm network

J. Thornthwaite

Nanaimo Youth Services Association

D. Routley

T ITEL – We value each other

A. Olsen

Oral Questions

Confidence and supply agreement secretariat

S. Bond

Hon. M. Farnworth

Hon. C. James

Trans-Canada Highway safety upgrade projects

G. Kyllo

Hon. C. Trevena

L. Throness

Transportation planning and government strategy

M. de Jong

Hon. C. Trevena

Vancouver school district trustees

M. Polak

Hon. R. Fleming

J. Johal

M. Bernier

Tabling Documents

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, annual report, 2016-2017

Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for B.C., annual report, 2016-17

B.C. Arts Council, annual report, 2016-17

Motions Without Notice

Membership change for Finance Committee

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 4 — Acting Information and Privacy Commissioner Continuation

Act

Hon. J. Sims

S. Thomson

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Acting Information and Privacy Commissioner Continuation

Act

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Election Amendment Act, 2017

Hon. D. Eby

A. Wilkinson

D. Routley

D. Barnett

Hon. C. James

J. Yap

Hon. D. Donaldson

C. Oakes

Hon. G. Heyman

R. Sultan

R. Kahlon

T. Wat

R. Singh

J. Isaacs

Hon. S. Simpson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor

General

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. Morris

J. Thornthwaite

MONDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2017

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Sims: It’s my pleasure today to introduce three amazing women: Rebecca Blair

from the Kootenays, Ellen Ellis from Vancouver Island and Patricia

Gudlaugson from the Lower Mainland. These three women are teachers. They are

amazing social justice activists who have spent their lifetime advocating

for quality public education and for learning support for students. Whether

they’ve been serving on the executive or in their classrooms or as past

presidents, what they have demonstrated is that to be a good teacher and to

really be able to address the needs of your students, you need to leave the

classroom and become an activist in your community.

These are three warriors I salute. They’re good friends. They’re my

support network. And I think they just do an awesome job of stirring up

activity out in our communities.

E. Ross: I want to do something different today. I want to address all the

members in this House on something that gets talked about but is never

really explained. As a public leader taking public office, there’s lots of

talk about sacrifice, and I don’t think anybody realizes this unless you’re

actually sitting in this kind of position or chair. We miss weddings,

funerals, birthdays. We miss all those events back home because we believe

in helping to build the province.

Last night my youngest daughter had a boy born to her at 6 p.m., and

then I had to go catch a flight at 6:30. I had 20 minutes to view, not pack,

my grandson, whose name is Parker Russell Sutherland.

I know many of you are in the same boat. You miss a lot of events back

home. I know your families miss you. I know your relatives and friends —

everybody misses you so. So on behalf of my people, my family, thank you for

your service.

Welcome to my grandson coming to the province of B.C.

R. Chouhan: I have three sets of introductions to make today.

The first one. It’s my pleasure to welcome some special guests. Our

Legislative Assembly and the Parliament of the Cooperative Republic of

Guyana recently signed a partnership agreement to facilitate

information-sharing and professional development. For the next three weeks,

we have the pleasure of hosting a parliamentary staff exchange. Please join

me in welcoming to British Columbia and to our Legislature Claudia Daniels,

Clerk of Committees; Cheryl Ann Archibald, Hansard senior editor; and Eton

Moses, documentation and preparation assistant. Please join me in welcoming

them.

I also have the honour to introduce a delegation from the Philippines

Canada Trade Council. One is Ms. Mercedes Wong, Mr. Irvin Hildebrand and Mr.

David Machratty.

The second members of the delegation are associated with Global

Inspired Volunteer Society. The GIV Society is a volunteer event management

team that supports non-profit organizations and communities in achieving

their social goals. They are Mr. Karim Allibhai and Mr. William C. Tsai.

Please join me in welcoming them.

E. Foster: It gives me great pleasure at this time to introduce long, longtime

friends of mine from the village of Lumby, where I’ve lived for 35 years. If

the House would give Don Bigelow, Shirley Bigelow, their daughters Julie and

Sarah Bigelow, and their grandson Barrett Scott a warm welcome in this House

today.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Darcy: I’d like to ask the people in this House to join me in extending

congratulations on a wedding that happened Saturday night, which Minister

Mark and I were able to attend, for Michael Cheevers, who was my former

constituency assistant and now works with the Minister of Labour. He married

a wonderful young woman, Kate Feeney, a public interest advocacy lawyer. It

was a joyous celebration of two families and their friends coming together.

I would ask this House to extend our congratulations to Michael Cheevers and

Kate Feeney.

Tributes

JACK ROBERTSON

M. de Jong: All of us in this House come from communities where there is a

person or two persons who probably represent the heart and soul or the

grandmother or the grandfather of the community. Jack Robertson was such

a person in the community I call home, Abbotsford. And my community is

mourning today upon learning of his passing last night.

He was not a man who would wish people to be in despair. He was a

man who volunteered with great gusto — a councillor, a businessman and a

person who left a lasting legacy in athletics. When he was inducted into

the Abbotsford Sports Hall of Fame in 2007 as a builder, all of

Abbotsford rejoiced and saw it as an entirely appropriate

selection.

His wife, Jean, and he have lived at the same little farm in south

Abbotsford for decades and decades. He will be sadly missed. I know that

members of the House, the member for Abbotsford-Mission, and yourself,

Mr. Speaker, will want to pass condolences along to Jean and the entire

family for the passing of Jack Robertson.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Ralston: I want to introduce a delegation who are here from Wavefront.

Wavefront is Canada’s centre of excellence for wireless commercialization

and research. It has offices across Canada in Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal,

but its head office is in Vancouver in British Columbia.

From the staff at Wavefront: James Maynard, president and CEO;

Christian Magsisi; Michelle Sklar; Nikki Arasaki; Shauna Shrivastava. From

visiting tech companies: CEO of MetaOptima, Maryam Sadeghi; from Colony

Networks, CEO Michael Kuhlmann; and from Sierra Wireless, David Climie,

vice-president. Would the House please make all of those people

welcome.

J. Rustad: It’s a pleasure today to introduce to the House three guests: Carol

Brain, who is from Prince George and is down visiting with her sister Mary

Laing from, I believe, the Richmond-Steveston area. They also have a special

guest of theirs over from England, John Sargent, who is here doing a little

bit of a tour around B.C. and getting a chance to learn a little bit about

the politics here. They look forward to seeing question period. I ask that

the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Mungall: I just want to join with the Minister for Citizens’ Services in

welcoming Becky Blair to the House. She is from Creston, which is one of the

best places in the Kootenays. I can attest to her being quite the dynamo, as

the Minister for Citizens’ Services was saying. I’ve knocked on many doors

with Becky, and basically, if you need something done in Creston, this is

who you call. So please, may the House once again make Becky Blair very

welcome.

Tributes

CHRISTOPHER SEGUIN

P. Milobar: Unfortunately, I rise today to also acknowledge the passing of a

community leader, Christopher Seguin from Kamloops, who was instrumental

in the development of Thompson Rivers University. He left us all too

early. He was only 39 years old and a great community leader. He leaves

behind a wife and two young boys. He was, in fact, in this House on the

budget day and fell ill shortly after. He touched a great many lives in

Kamloops, even for his short age. I just want to make sure the House

recognizes the great achievement he gave to both Kamloops Southand

Kamloops North.

[1:45 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce some foster

parents who are here from the Victoria area. October is Foster Family Month,

and I’m really looking forward to meeting them all, with some of their

foster kids, after question period. I’d like to introduce Natalie Smith,

Dawna Drapeau, Angela Hatch, Gitte Wilson, Sam Taylor, Michelle Allen, Jason

Allen and Mitchel du Pleiss. I’d also like everyone to please join me in not

only welcoming them to the Legislature but thanking them for all the work

they do and for their commitment to the children in this

province.

Hon. K. Chen: I’m so happy to have the opportunity to welcome some friends and very

important members of our community from the Aboriginal Mother Centre from

Vancouver, including Ms. Laura McDiarmid, vice-president of the Aboriginal

Mother Centre, Ms. Mercedes Wong, director of the centre, and also Mr. Irvin

Hildebrand.

The three of them are also friends of the Rotary club members who are

visiting our Legislature today. I look forward to visiting the Aboriginal

Mother Centre, including their licensed daycare, in the near future. I would

like to ask the House to please make them feel very welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: I noticed in the gallery, and in the restaurant as well, a former

opponent of mine, now friend. She ran for the B.C. Liberals shortly after I

was elected in 2009 — Laura McDiarmid. She’s here today to meet with folks,

and I just want to make her very welcome. It was a fun competition back in

2009, and I look forward to continuing to work with her on community issues

of concern.

A. Kang: I want to echo the Minister of Citizens’ Services in welcoming Pat

Gudlaugson. She was my grade 1 teacher. She gave me love, care and lots of

remember the first time meeting her at a fundraiser. I broke down in

tears.

Ms. Gudlaugson, I’m doing a lot better today. Welcome. Thank you for

welcoming me into Canada.

Today I would like the House to please make my grade 1 teacher, Ms.

Gudlaugson, feel very welcome here.

J. Routledge: Visiting us today is a delegation from the Rotary Club of Taipei

Yungfu. I am happy to introduce Ms. Home Hung Lee, Ms. Joanne Hsiao, Ms.

Peggy Liu and Ms. Patty Lin. Please join me in welcoming them to British

Columbia and to the Legislature.

Statements

CYBERSECURITY

Hon. J. Sims: October is National Cyber Security Awareness Month. In Canada, we

know that 70 percent of adults have experienced a cybercrime, and more

than one million Canadians have unknowingly put their digital selves in

harm’s way. We want British Columbians to better understand potential

threats on line, so this October the office of the chief information

officer’s website will have a quiz designed to help British Columbians

stay cyber safe. I’d like to invite my colleagues in the House and

citizens across the province to take the quiz.

Introductions by Members

R. Glumac: I’d like to introduce my family, who are here today attending question

period for the very first time, so be nice: my wife, Nathania, my

11-year-old daughter, Xylia, and my six-year-old son, Nico. Please welcome

them.

A. Kang: I would also like to introduce some of my guests who are here today

from the Rotary club, a delegation from the Rotary International District

5040 and the Rotary Club of Vancouver Centennial. The Rotary International

brings together businesses and leaders in order to provide humanitarian

services, encourage high ethical standards in all vocations to advance

goodwill and peace around the world. My good friends Ms. Davinder Grewal;

Mr. William Tsai, the president; as well as three past presidents — Mr.

Daniel Cheng, Mr. Walter Cheng and Ms. Joana Cheng. Would the House please

make them feel welcome.

[1:50 p.m.]

Tributes

STEVE ARNETT

D. Routley: I’d like the House to help me celebrate a constituent and friend.

His name is Steve Arnett. Steve Arnett has been a Ladysmith resident for

21 years. He’s been married for 36 years, two sons, Matthew and

Christopher. Steve is 63 years of age, and today happens to be his last

day at work. He is the CEO of Nanaimo Youth Services Association — a

dedicated person, bachelor in social work, master’s in social work, a

registered social worker for 35 years. He’s a real leader and a real

beacon for young people.

This is not someone who simply coddles. Steve is a hard person

when he needs to be hard and a loving person when he needs to be loving.

He has taken care of so many young people. Their services essentially

help children who are aging out of care connect with services, connect

with employment opportunities and learn, which is a fantastic thing for

our community.

He’s a three-term Ladysmith town councillor. He was one of the

executive members of the mid-Island soccer association for ten years,

ending in 2004. He’s the chair of the Ladysmith youth advisory committee

for three years; president and vice-president of Employment Navigators

for three years; a member of the Ladysmith Maritime Society, which means

he’s an incredible volunteer who participated in rebuilding a community

marina, which is a focal point of Ladysmith.

He’s on the celebrations committee of Ladysmith Days. He’s the

council liaison, and he was a three-term executive committee member on

the Vancouver Island regional library board.

He’s retiring. Today is his last day, and he’s going to be

sticking around to help the organization. But I would like everyone in

the House…. Certainly from me, Steve, the deepest thanks on behalf of

all the young people that you’ve helped, all the families that you’ve

made life better for.

Ministerial Statements

VIOLENT INCIDENTS IN

EDMONTON AND LAS

VEGAS

Hon. M. Farnworth: I rise to make a ministerial statement, a copy of which I know has

been provided to the Opposition House Leader as well as to the leader of

the Green Party.

Today is a day of grieving throughout North America. All of us

share in it. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims in Edmonton

and Las Vegas, as well as their families and friends.

We are so thankful that the Edmonton police constable, Constable

Chernyk, has been released from hospital and is healing. We’re all

waiting for more information, though, on Canadians and British

Columbians who may have been victims in the Las Vegas attack. Sadly, we

know for certain that one young man from Maple Ridge is among the dead,

and another British Columbian is critically injured.

They are among those Canadians who have been victims beyond our

borders this year, as a result of planned, deliberate acts. That reality

reflects, in part, on what’s at stake in chambers like this one around

the world. When we have to pray for victims and first responders, it’s

too late. We must take every opportunity to learn, to listen to experts

and to facilitate changes that make people safer.

Let the tragedies of this weekend in Edmonton and Las Vegas

strengthen our resolve to keep our communities and our citizens safe,

wherever they may be.

M. de Jong: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Government House Leader for his

thoughtful and kind words.

The world has known evil frequently — all too frequently, I fear.

It hides in the shadows, and it strikes the innocent and unsuspecting.

It stalks, evil does, ordinary people who are going about the ordinary

events of their day. And when evil emerges from its glare of discontent,

families are forever shredded, dreams evaporate into a pool of blood and

despair.

It’s on days like today that we are inclined to feel —

understandably — distraught, powerless, angry, fearful, violated. But

most of all, on days like today, let us feel united, because here — and,

as the Government House Leader has said, in this chamber particularly —

I believe that in our hearts, we know that humankind is stronger than

fanaticism. Goodness is stronger than evil.

[1:55 p.m.]

For the people of Edmonton, for the people of the U.S., for the

Canadians and British Columbians who have been touched directly today,

yesterday, in the last 48 hours by evil, know that here in this chamber,

across British Columbia and across Canada, we stand with you. This

darkness that has descended upon you envelops all of us, and together,

unified goodness will overcome the evil.

Hon. L. Beare: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make a few remarks.

Leave granted.

Hon. L. Beare: During last night’s tragic events in Las Vegas, the Maple Ridge

community lost one of our own, 23-year-old Jordan McIldoon. On behalf of

the member for Maple Ridge–Mission and myself, I would like to offer our

most heartfelt condolences to his family and friends. The thoughts and

prayers of our entire community and of those in this House are with you

and with all the families affected by this senseless act.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Eby: I am pleased to introduce the Lobbyists Registration Amendment

Act. This bill introduces a two-year prohibition on lobbying for all

former public office holders, which will run from the date the

individual ceases to hold public office. The registrar of lobbyists will

be provided with the discretion to grant exemptions from the prohibition

on a case-by-case basis, where it is in the public interest.

Non-compliance with the lobbying prohibition will attract administrative

penalties and will be subject to the offence provisions in the

act.

I move the bill be introduced and read a first time.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 8, Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2017, introduced, read

a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

RECONCILIATION WITH

INDIGENOUS

PEOPLES

B. Ma: What does it take to right the wrongs of the past? How does an

entire country express that it is sorry, in a language that it helped to

destroy? When can a province begin to ask for forgiveness for a cruelty

that it enabled until just so recently? Through what mechanism does a

society atone for the tears, the lies, the deaths, the abuse, the broken

hearts and broken families, the continued suffering it’s caused, through

the colonization of these lands and residential schools? Why should the

Indigenous peoples who have called this land their home for thousands of

years ever trust us again? And how do I, as just one person in a sea of

many, do my part to make amends?

[2:00 p.m.]

These are the questions that I, and tens of thousands of people,

asked when we joined the Walk for Reconciliation two Sundays ago, on

September 24. Yet through the darkness cast by the gravity of these

questions came a beacon of light, an offering of hope from the very

Indigenous peoples that we had harmed.

“Walk with us,” they said. “And though the path may be long, and

though the journey may be arduous, we fill find a way forward together.”

’Namwayut .

SMALL BUSINESS

C. Oakes: October kicks off a month-long recognition of Small Business Month

in British Columbia. Small Business Month celebrates and recognizes the

tremendous contribution this vital sector makes to the B.C. economy and

to our local communities.

Small businesses make up 98 percent of all businesses in British

Columbia and employ over one million people. They provide 55 percent of

all private sector jobs in British Columbia, which is the second-highest

rate in the country.

In fact, small businesses are at the heart of our communities,

providing services and creating a large percentage of our local jobs. I

know that because I once served on the Small Business Roundtable to

represent a rural voice. In rural British Columbia, we have a wide

variety of small businesses spanning many sectors, from technology to

guide-outfitters, health care to agriculture, retail to natural

resources.

It might interest you to know that there are over 1,200

Aboriginal-owned companies in British Columbia, many of which are small

businesses too. At last count, there were approximately 388,500 small

businesses operating in British Columbia, and most of them had less than

five employees. But their contribution should not be underestimated.

According to the latest statistics, small businesses accounted for over

36 percent of British Columbia’s exports, with 47 percent of those

exports destined for the United States. The total value of exports from

small business was $12.9 billion.

To assist small businesses, the previous government made a point

to reduce red tape and regulation wherever possible. It is my sincere

hope that the current government continues this practice that

contributes so much to the growth of our provincial economy.

This October, I hope all members of this House take a moment to

appreciate everything that small businesses contribute to our

province.

FOSTER FAMILIES

M. Dean: Do you think that you have to own your own home to foster or that

you can’t foster if you’re a single parent? Well, think again. Fostering

can be one of the most rewarding ways to give back to your community,

and anyone over the age of 19 can become a foster parent.

October is Foster Family Month in British Columbia. This is a

great chance for us all to celebrate the incredible British Columbians

who provide a welcoming home to more than 6,900 kids in care every day

and help them through some of the most challenging times of their lives.

These children and youth need a temporary home, a safe haven, where they

can stay while they and their families heal and become strong again and

a path for their future can be laid.

There are around 2,700 foster carers in B.C. at the moment who

make room in their hearts and in their homes. As one foster mom from

Colwood told me last week: “We offer unconditional support and are

important in the life of a child. We get to help them while we can, and

we hope for the best for them.”

Foster families make a real difference to children and youth in

care across B.C. It takes dedication, commitment and patience, and it’s

very rewarding. The children in youth may only be in a foster family for

a short time, yet the impact changes lives forever.

We are incredibly grateful for the work that our foster families

do for children and youth in need across this province.

RESPONSE TO OPIOID CRISIS BY

MOMS STOP THE HARM

NETWORK

J. Thornthwaite: I rise today to recognize Moms Stop the Harm, a national network

comprised of mothers, fathers, siblings and spouses that have lost loved

ones to substance use.

[2:05 p.m.]

Moms Stop the Harm was co-founded in 2016 by Leslie McBain, who

two years earlier lost her 25-year-old son, Jordan, to an opioid

overdose. The organization was founded with the aim to provide hope for

those suffering from substance use disorders as well as support other

bereaved parents looking for assistance as they cope with their losses.

Sadly, as the number of deaths related to substance use grows every day,

the Moms Stop the Harm network has increased in size and is now

comprised of over 100 network members and allies across five

provinces.

Despite major efforts by our previous government, who called for a

provincial state of emergency and introduced new money for safe

injection sites, harm education and first responders, people are still

dying. As the new Minister of Mental Health and Addictions said in her

remarks at the Recovery Capital Conference, if deaths continue at the

rate that they are going, 1,500 people will die this year. That means

four today.

One of the main goals of Moms Stop the Harm is to decrease the

stigma of addiction by convincing people that those with substance use

disorders should be treated like those with other health issues. We use

the term “eating disorder” for bulimia, not “those who abuse food.”

Likewise, those with addictions should not be seen as having moral

failures or as addicts but, instead, as having substance use

disorders.

The other aim of Moms Stop the Harm is to encourage those with

substance use disorders to not use alone. The B.C. Coroners Service

reported that nearly 82 percent of the 780 people who fatally overdosed

in the province between January and June were men using alone in their

homes. All of the naloxone in the world won’t help people when they

overdose alone. Leslie gave me a demonstration on how to administer

naloxone and is a strong advocate of making this life-saver available to

everyone.

I’ll leave you with this, Mr. Speaker. When someone asked Leslie

if she was doing this for her son, she replied: “No, I’m doing it for

your son.” It could be anyone’s son.

NANAIMO YOUTH SERVICES ASSOCIATION

D. Routley: Earlier, in introductions, I introduced the members to a man who

is retiring, Steve Arnett. He runs this organization that I’m about to

speak about, the Nanaimo Youth Services Association.

For 50 years next year, the Nanaimo Youth Services Association has

been providing services to young people aged 13 to 30, primarily young

people at risk who are aging out of care. Nanaimo Youth Services, in

their own words, “creates a respectful atmosphere of possibility for

youth by providing them with skills to achieve their goals.” Their

mission is “to provide opportunities for youth to gain knowledge, life

and employment skills to allow them to reach their full potential as

productive citizens of their community.”

This organization provides support for and promotes and encourages

youth to become productive citizens through building self-esteem and

confidence, encouraging the development of respectful relationships,

fostering the safety and stability of at-risk youth. The services are

all free. The services are all provided by licensed and trained people.

It is a community-based organization, a charitable society that has

provided a range of residential and non-residential services to

vulnerable youth. They provide everything from housing to training, life

skills and connection to other services as young people age

out.

Approximately 45 percent of the youth population served by Nanaimo

Youth Services Association are represented by urban Aboriginal young

people. They were honoured to be cited as an exemplary organization and

one of the ten best-managed charitable organizations in British

Columbia. I am so impressed by the work that they’ve done for so many

years. Funding changes recently have challenged the organization, but

I’m here to celebrate them. I’ll lobby for better funding in the

future.

Thank you, Steve. Thank you to everyone in the organization who

dedicates themselves every day to the promotion and elevation of the

young people of British Columbia.

T ITEL – WE VALUE EACH

OTHER

A. Olsen: I was going to talk about the Union of B.C. Municipalities

Convention today, and I woke up this morning and turned on the news.

Senseless acts of violence in Edmonton, Las Vegas and Lawrence, Kansas.

Humans in shocking displays of savagery. It was a disturbing morning.

Add these two incidents to an ancient history of humans treating each

other very, very badly.

[2:10 p.m.]

I wake up each morning well before my SṮLITḴEȽ , my

babies. This morning when I went into their rooms to get them up, I

stood over their peaceful slumber. I paused to ask myself: how is it

that these innocent, perfect little humans can become so

monstrous?

Humans have been mistreating each other forever, mistreating other

living things, even the very TEṈEW̱ , the very earth that

sustains us. We focus on what divides us, our differences. We pursue

power over one another. We want to control, dominate and force others to

submit.

I was raised with the teaching that we are to love one another —

that we are to be humble and put others before ourselves. Yet somewhere

along the way, we have lost these teachings. This society that we have

constructed does not really allow us to love one another. Even this

stone building, built on long houses, is full of rituals, ceremonies and

practices that divide.

Today I stand in this place to embrace each one of you, my

colleagues. In SENĆOŦEN it’s called ṮITEL — we value each

other. We love one another. I love each of you, and I commit to you to

work every day. My work is inspired by that love. By the love for my

SṮLITḴEȽ , our children, for all living things and our

TEṈEW̱ , let’s do this work with humility and love in our

hearts. HÍSWḴE SIÁM .

Oral Questions

CONFIDENCE AND SUPPLY AGREEMENT

SECRETARIAT

S. Bond: Well, another day and another surprise for B.C. taxpayers. We now

know that this government plans to bill B.C. taxpayers a quarter of a

million dollars every year for a secretariat to manage their political

wheeling and dealing.

To the Minister of Finance, can the minister please explain to

this House and to British Columbians why taxpayers are on the hook for a

quarter of a million dollars every year to manage a purely political

relationship?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. The secretariat is in place

to ensure that the agreement that will allow for a smooth running of

legislation priorities, on which we campaigned during the election

campaign — ensuring a change in good governance and addressing the

priorities that matter to British Columbians will be able to go through

this House in an orderly manner. I think that’s the right thing to

do.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: Nice try, Minister. It is a political accord.

Last week the minister and her government surprised taxpayers by

telling them that they were going to be footing the bill for future

elections, despite the promise that they would not do that. Today we

have the minister — not the Minister of Finance but the minister of

defence — defending picking the pockets of B.C. taxpayers by over a

quarter of a million dollars a year to manage the wheeling and dealing

between two political parties.

To the minister, does he honestly believe that B.C. taxpayers

should be forced to pay for a secretariat to manage the political

conversations and deal-making that goes on between two political parties

in this Legislature?

Hon. C. James: Well, only the other side would think that working together is

political. The public sends all of us in this House to work together on

their behalf. That’s why we’re elected in this Legislature. And I am

proud to stand here and say that we are working with our colleagues to

make government work on behalf of the public of British

Columbia.

[2:15 p.m.]

I would just add that if the member across or anyone on the other

side wants to work with us, we’re happy to do that as well.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a second

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, Minister, let’s be clear. This is not about working together

in a normal situation in a parliament. This is about managing a

political accord. And let’s be clear. This is about relationship

counselling between the government and their junior partner.

Let’s explore the funding just a little further. It may surprise

British Columbians that there is even a travel budget line in this

quarter-of-a-million-dollar tax grab. So let’s talk about working

together. In past parliaments, the office of the House Leader played a

major role in facilitating discussions between parties, and I am

absolutely confident there couldn’t be a lack of confidence in the

current occupant of that office.

To the minister, surely she recognizes that public funds should

not be used for partisan purposes — period. Why can’t she simply direct

the Government House Leader to get up, walk down the hall, pick up the

phone and manage their political conversations without using taxpayer

dollars?

Hon. C. James: Well, it’s very clear why those members are on that side of the

House. They clearly don’t understand this is democracy in action in a

minority parliament, and we are making it work. The people….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please.

Hon. C. James: Working together on behalf of the public is exactly the reason

that the public sends all of us here to this Legislature. We are working

together with the Greens. We are working together…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. James: …in a minority parliament to make this parliament work on behalf

of British Columbians. It’s what the public expects us to do, and it’s

what we’re going to continue to do.

TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

SAFETY UPGRADE

PROJECTS

G. Kyllo: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. A previous B.C.

Liberal government committed $162.7 million to twin the Trans-Canada

Highway through Salmon Arm to address safety concerns and traffic

congestion. My constituent Opal Hendrickson contacted the minister this

past week. She wanted to know more about the NDP’s plan for twinning

from Tappen to Salmon Arm.

It seems the minister was surprised or even offended by the

question. She wrote back: “I’m not sure what your concerns are.” Well,

let me tell the minister. There are significant safety concerns along

this corridor that need to be addressed. Residents are looking to see

this project advance.

To the minister, will she confirm for Opal Hendrickson and my

constituents of Shuswap that the Salmon Arm west project is on

schedule

and will be completed by the original timeline?

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question. This is an issue that came up

at UBCM as well as many other times. There has been some

misunderstanding — I don’t know where that may have come from — about

our commitment to the Trans-Canada.

We have committed very clearly throughout our campaign, and in my

mandate letter, that we’re going to accelerate the twinning of the

Trans-Canada. I have been in touch with the member’s constituent. She

has now offered to…. When I’m going through the route of the

Trans-Canada in a couple weeks’ time, she has invited us to sit down

together and talk about her concerns specifically. I’m going to see if

we can make that happen. I’m looking forward to doing that.

[2:20 p.m.]

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

G. Kyllo: Well, “accelerate,” I believe, is the word that I heard from the

minister.

Now, the minister has an obligation to be honest with British

Columbians. The mid-term budget update provided no additional funding

for transportation projects. The minister must be aware that projects

cannot be advanced without adequate funding. Yet in response to Ms.

Hendrickson’s question, the minister said: “We are going to be

accelerating four-laning.”

How can this be? There are no new funds, yet the minister somehow

expects the public to buy into her baseless claim. There’s a big

difference between “accelerating” and “exaggerating.” The minister

appears to be doing the latter.

Will the minister tell my constituents when the pre-loading for

phase 1 will begin, and will she come clean and confess to Ms.

Hendrickson that the project is already being delayed?

Hon. C. Trevena: This is a very serious issue. We’re talking about safety. Highway

1 is a safety issue.

That side of the House, when they were government, had signs up

for years and years and years — basically every time an election was

coming — saying they were going to be doing the four-laning of the

Trans-Canada. We are committed to that.

If that member wants to talk about exaggeration, he should maybe

think about….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Trevena: Perhaps he should think about exaggeration in terms of “Debt-free

B.C.” That’s exaggeration.

L. Throness: The trip from the Fraser Valley to Vancouver is getting longer and

more dangerous every day.

Last Thursday thousands of people sat for three hours on the

Trans-Canada waiting for an accident to clear. This morning the

westbound lanes were shut down entirely. This is a serious matter of

safety, as the minister just acknowledged.

The previous B.C. Liberal government publicly committed to

widening the highway out to 264th Street, but the NDP platform was

silent about it. Will the Minister of Transportation commit today to the

widening of the No. 1 to 264th street?

Hon. C. Trevena: The Trans-Canada is an important corridor for everyone in B.C. It

is a major highway, both for commerce, for regular people, for tourists.

It’s a major, major highway. We are committed to ensuring that that

major highway works for everybody in B.C.

We’ve committed to working on specific areas where we’re going to

accelerate the four-laning, and we’re going to be committed to ensure

that we have a highway that is for commerce, for workers, for families

across B.C.

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

L. Throness: That’s not an answer at all.

When we were in government, we spent billions on projects all

around Vancouver, all of them opposed by the NDP. The only two decisions

that this government has made so far in transportation have only served

to increase congestion in Vancouver.

A few weeks ago, the budget update included a list of major

projects, but the widening of the No. 1 to 264th Street was

conspicuously absent. This is a big safety concern for people from all

over B.C. It is a major impediment to our economy, to the environment,

to tourism and to the quality of life for hundreds of thousands of

people who live in the valley.

Why did the Transportation Minister reject the widening of the No.

1 highway from the budget update?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m not sure which is more confusing, the member’s lack of

understanding about the budget process, which rolls out over a

three-year term, in which we have a ten-year transportation plan, or his

lack of understanding about the failure of that side of the House in 16

years — 16 years — to fix the problems.

He is the representative of his area. If he had really been an

effective member, he could have convinced his side of the House when

they were government, to work on that — but 16 years of

failure.

[2:25 p.m.]

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND

GOVERNMENT

STRATEGY

M. de Jong: Well, the minister, I’m sorry to say, isn’t convincing anyone,

least of all the tens of thousands of people that she has condemned to

spend hours more per day in their cars and away from their

families.

Interjections.

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

M. de Jong: We have had many notable Ministers of Transportation. The

minister, sadly, is becoming our first minister of parking lots. You

only have to look at what is taking place on our major

corridors.

I am trying….

Interjections.

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

M. de Jong: I’m trying to understand the basis for some of these bizarre

decisions, and what better place to look than that old nugget, the NDP’s

pre-election platform documentation. “This is what bold looks like.”

Lots of stuff here about ferries and transit. There’s a noteworthy line

about how the math has not been done. That’s a recurring theme in some

of this stuff.

Mr. Speaker: Member, your question, please.

M. de Jong: The line that really jumped out at me is this one: “We are looking

for a gimmick.”

Will the minister stand in the House and explain to British

Columbians, to tens of thousands of British Columbians stuck and mired

in that traffic, what gimmick she and her government are going to use to

try and convince them that spending an extra two hours a day in traffic

is a good thing?

Hon. C. Trevena: This is a bit rich coming from a former Finance Minister who knows

what money is being spent around this province.

I mean, after 16 years, where a previous government really ignored

all but the elites in this province, we are working to ensure that

services work for people, that life is affordable and that government

starts to works for people, not against them. That’s why we are

working….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please. We shall hear the response.

Hon. C. Trevena: That is why we are working with people across the region, across

the province, to ensure that we have a transportation system that really

works for everyone in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the official opposition on a

supplemental.

M. de Jong: I don’t entirely blame the minister. She either didn’t get to this

part of the briefing book or chose not to read it when it was presented

to her. But do I have to go through the list of projects that are

representative of the record levels of capital infrastructure and

transportation infrastructure that took place? Do I have to remind the

minister of the bridges that were built to better move…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. de Jong: …not just cars but transit and bicycles? Do I have to remind the

minister of the transit infrastructure that was built to take people

from the airport to downtown and to other parts of the Lower

Mainland?

How can she stand here and make the kind of statement that she

just has? It is such an indication of how ill-equipped she is to perform

the important task before her.

Again, I ask the minister, how can British Columbians take her and

her government seriously when on a matter of such importance — moving

thousands and thousands of people through the Fraser Valley, through the

Lower Mainland — her best response is: let’s find a gimmick? It’s not

good enough, and it’s not good enough for the thousands of people who

are stuck in traffic, waiting to get home to their families.

Hon. C. Trevena: I have to say that was a fine example of a Liberal leadership

speech.

[2:30 p.m.]

The people of British Columbia have been desperate to have

services working for them. We on this side of the House are ensuring

that the systems do work for them. Whether it is getting rid of the

tolls to make life for affordable both south of the Fraser and north of

the Fraser…

Interjections

Hon. C. Trevena: …whether it is investing in transit and transportation and, yes,

investing in highways, we’re going to make the services work for people,

because they’ve been neglected for 16 years.

VANCOUVER SCHOOL DISTRICT TRUSTEES

M. Polak: Here’s what the independent investigator said about the behaviour

of school trustees who were fired from the Vancouver school board. “The

conduct of the board and individual trustees contributed to the creation

of a toxic work environment. There was credible evidence that members of

the senior management team staff were subject to direct bullying and

personal harassment.”

Surprisingly, some of these disgraced former board members are

putting their names forward in the upcoming Vancouver school board

by-election. I assume the minister has read the reports. Will the

minister commit today to releasing the full, uncut versions so Vancouver

voters can read them too?

Hon. R. Fleming: To the opposite member, the critic, I thank her for the question.

I was beginning to wonder if education in the K-to-12 sector was held in

such little regard by the opposition as it was for them in government.

But here we are.

On this side of the House, we’re trying something different this

September. We’re trying something for the first time in generations.

Thousands of teachers are being hired and put into classrooms to enhance

the learning of kids in our system. Parents in Vancouver and every part

of British Columbia are enjoying a record $681 million new investment

into classroom learning resources right across British

Columbia.

Instead of talking about dozens of school closures, which was the

conversation in Vancouver that this government was trying to ram through

just six months ago, I’m proud to say that right across British

Columbia, there are districts — from Prince George right down through

the Interior and here on Vancouver Island — that are looking at

reopening schools so that kids can go to them.

As we have heard from education stakeholders right across the

system, it’s a sea change in the conversation we’re having with parents

and families and teachers and everybody who works so hard in our public

education system. We’re proud on this side of the House to be the

government that’s bringing that change.

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

M. Polak: Sadly, I’m not surprised that the minister would be proud to cover

up for these disgraced school trustees. In fact, he’s on record as

saying he thinks they should be reinstated. His Premier even went so far

as to say that there was no reason to dispatch this board.

The behaviours were so severe that this also triggered an

investigation by WorkSafe B.C. Their report reads: “When witnesses were

asked why they did not report any behaviour or comment they

believed….”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please.

M. Polak: “When witnesses were asked why they did not report any behaviour

or comment they believed was bullying and harassment, they all answered

they were fearful for their jobs and future careers.”

Voters in Vancouver go to the polls on October 14. Will the

minister release the full reports, or is he content to continue with

this cover-up of bullying?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Well, I’m not sure if I hear a condemnation of the democratic

process in the member’s question. It’s not really all that clear. But

you know who will have the final say on who represents them in a

legitimate elected board, to make decisions on behalf of parents and

kids in Vancouver?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister.

Hon. R. Fleming: It will be an elected board of representatives. And here’s why we

think it’s important to have a legitimate new elected board in

Vancouver.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, one moment, please.

Members, we shall hear the response.

Minister, proceed.

Hon. R. Fleming: Here’s why it’s important for Vancouverites to have a legitimate

new elected board. We have no more time to waste on seismic investment

delays in the wake of the Mexico City…. We have seen what that

government’s lack of investment has done over years and years and

years.

We have to get on with the business of restoring trust, faith and

confidence in the public education system in the city of Vancouver.

That’s what an elected board brings to the situation. They fired them.

We want to give back a democratic accountable board to the people of

Vancouver.

J. Johal: Let’s try this one more time. A number of folks affiliated with

Vision Vancouver have recently been hired in various roles by the

provincial government. This includes a former executive director. The

Premier’s chief of staff is a former Vision Vancouver councillor. We

wish them well in their roles. It does, however, highlight the close

ties between the NDP and Vision Vancouver. Notably, several Vision

Vancouver candidates running for the VSB opposed the release of the

unredacted version of the bullying report.

This government likes to talk about transparency. They’ve been

doing it for years, but it refuses to tell the rest of the story on

bullying at the Vancouver school board.

A question for the minister: will the minister commit to telling

voters the rest of the story, or will he continue to cover up bullying

on behalf of Vision Vancouver?

Hon. R. Fleming: What we’re not going to do on this side of the House is try and

second-guess the voters of Vancouver. We trust the voters to figure out

who they want around the table making decisions on behalf of their kids

and working with a government that wants to drive improvements into the

public school system.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please. We shall hear the response.

Hon. R. Fleming: That wasn’t possible under the previous government. Let’s give

democracy a try in Vancouver so they can work with a new government here

in Victoria.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a

supplemental.

J. Johal: Here’s a description from news reports of some of that behaviour.

Trustees were asking “nasty” questions. Their behaviours “were rude and

disrespectful. There was bickering, eye-rolling…and loud sighing.”

That’s just some of the information — some of the

information.

There’s a long history of political support….

Interjections.

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

J. Johal: There’s a long history of political support of Vision Vancouver

candidates by NDP members and vice versa. One of the Vision board

members, who is now running again to fill that role, called the firing

of the board an outrageous political decision.

Once again, I ask this minister: can he explain how it isn’t an

outrageous political decision to keep important information from voters

in Vancouver?

Hon. R. Fleming: Now, I’m waiting for a question actually about kids and the school

system and how we’re driving a record investment into the education

system. Instead, I’m getting the opposition side urging the Minister of

Education to have new powers that include barring people from running

and censoring candidates and interfering in an election.

I can’t believe what I’m hearing, but I look forward to a question

that’s actually about kids, that’s actually about the improvements and

ambitions and outcomes we hope to achieve in the K-to-12 system that

this government, its message and our budget, was built

around.

[2:40 p.m.]

M. Bernier: You know, the minister stood up and accused us of firing the board

as if it’s a bad thing when people are bullying, when people are not

doing their jobs, when people are actually out there causing

dysfunction.

One of the things for myself that I’m…. When I was the minister, I

actually read through that report. I actually read that report and saw

the dysfunction, saw the accusations, saw why six staff members had to

take sick leave, medical leave, because of how they were being treated

at the school district. Appalling.

It absolutely should not be happening in a school district. In

fact, I talked to school districts around the entire province that were

ashamed of what was taking place in the Vancouver school district — the

dysfunction and the tarnish that it was putting on the school

districts.

I want to ask the minister, because everything he said so far…. He

doesn’t want to release the report. I’ve read that report. I know what’s

in that report, and I think the voters deserve to know what

happened.

Interjections.

M. Bernier: They’re asking what I did. You know what I did? I fired the school

board for not doing their job.

So a simple, simple question for the minister. Since he doesn’t

want the voters of Vancouver to know what was taking place before he

became minister, since he doesn’t want them to have the accurate

information before they go to the polls, will he at least stand in this

House, then, and obviously admit to the fact, before he’s made this

decision to actually have the by-election, he obviously has not even

read the report himself? Or he’s allowing the dysfunction to continue if

some of those people get re-elected.

Will the minister stand here today and admit, then, that he has

not read the report at all?

Hon. R. Fleming: The most important thing to me as minister, having this decision

on my desk, was to find a way forward for Vancouver. I don’t want to go

back to the days of chaos and confrontation and school closures. We want

to find the way ahead for Vancouver.

The former minister I don’t think included releasing the contents

of an investigation. He’s asking the government to do that now. His

colleagues are asking us to bar individuals from running for public

office. They’re asking us to interfere in elections. Lord wonders what’s

happening to the party of small government and so-called free enterprise

over there when they ask the state to have all these kinds of new

powers. It baffles the mind.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to present the following reports: Office of the

Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia, Annual

Report, 2016-2017 ; Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for British

Columbia, Annual Report 2016-17 .

Hon. L. Beare: I rise to table a report. I have the honour to present the 2016-17

annual report of the B.C. Arts Council.

Motions Without Notice

MEMBERSHIP CHANGE FOR

FINANCE

COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: I gave a motion to the member earlier, the Opposition House

Leader.

By leave, I move:

[That Dr. Andrew Weaver, MLA be appointed to replace Adam Olsen, MLA

as a Member of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government

Services for the 2nd Session of the 41st Parliament.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In Committee A, the small House, I call the estimates of the Solicitor

General and Public Safety, and in this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill

[2:45 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 4 — ACTING INFORMATION AND

PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

CONTINUATION ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 4; L. Reid in

the chair.

The committee met at 2:48 p.m.

section 1.

Hon. J. Sims: Hon. Chair, I would like to introduce ministry staff who are

attending with me today: David Curtis, assistant deputy minister,

corporate information and records management office; Joel Fairbairn,

strategic policy and legislation branch; Melissa Sexsmith, director,

legislation and special projects.

I would like, also, to express my thanks to colleagues on both

sides of the House for the support that has been expressed for this

bill. This is an important measure that will preserve the integrity of

the special committee appointment process.

S. Thomson: I appreciate the opportunity to ask a few questions here. As we

indicated in second reading, we will be supporting the legislation. It

was pointed out in the comments during second reading and our response

that this is largely administrative and has a temporary nature to it.

But I would like to just ask a few questions about it. It may save a

little bit of time in estimates if we can do it today as

well.

Maybe firstly, I wonder if the minister could advise the House or

confirm for us the date on which the acting appointment that’s currently

in place would have expired if the legislation was not introduced or

passed.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Sims: October 18 would be the last day, and that’s why we are here

debating this today.

S. Thomson: I wonder if the minister could also advise on her understanding of

the next steps in this, and the timing with respect to the next steps,

in order to ensure that the process will be there to get a

recommendation from the process that would meet the timelines that have

been laid out in the legislation.

Hon. J. Sims: What this legislation would do is it would enable an all-party

committee to come together and select a Privacy Commissioner that they

can all agree on.

S. Thomson: On

section 1 again. I wonder if the minister could advise us and

perhaps advise the House. I know the process here, how we’re dealing

with this current conundrum that the government finds themselves in,

with the fact that there wasn’t a unanimous recommendation. They have

brought the legislation forward.

I wonder whether, in the briefing and in the consideration that

was given of how to deal with this particular situation, there were any

other options considered or whether there was another option available

that could have addressed this situation that we find ourselves in. A

motion before the House, a resolution of the House — could it have been

handled in this way, or was the legislative approach that is laid out

here the only option that was available to the minister in terms of

dealing with this particular situation?

Hon. J. Sims: Thank you very much for that question. As you know, the current

legislation is very prescriptive for the number of days that an interim

Privacy Commissioner can hold that position. So this legislative

amendment, measure, is required so we can overcome our conundrum. As you

know, with the previous government, there was an inability to reach a

consensus and agree on an appointment. What we’re doing with this

amendment is giving a finite time, with a sunset clause, so that an

all-party committee can come to a resolution.

S. Thomson: I appreciate the response and what the legislation is structured

to do here and, also, as you pointed out, the prescriptive nature of the

legislation. But I guess I want to re-ask the question maybe one more

time around.

In considering the options, was this the only option that could

have been utilized to address this situation? Were you completely

constrained by the legislation — the current legislation — in order to

have to do this? Or could it have been achieved through a resolution of

the House or in some other manner? When you were briefed, were those

options provided and this was the one chosen? Or was it very clear —

unequivocal advice, I guess — that this was the only option that could

have been utilized to address this current situation?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to assure the member across the way that all options were

reviewed with the leg. counsel. We did find ourselves being restrained

by the current legislation, and this amendment was the best option to

address that issue.

S. Thomson: Just so we can be clear — because I want to be clear — this was

the best option, given the structure of it. That was the approach

chosen, as based on the advice and the decision that, in the view of the

government, it was the best option. But again, maybe I can just ask for

complete clarity. It may be the best option, but was it the only

option?

Hon. J. Sims: In our judgment, this was the best option. We know that a

ministerial order has been used by a previous government. But from leg.

counsel, that was not what they recommended.

[2:55 p.m.]

We wanted to give the people of British Columbia certainty. We

wanted them to have an appointment of a Privacy Commissioner that had

the all-party agreement that we’re looking for.

This position is too important to be left where there could be

some questions raised and left unanswered. So in order to have that

certainty, we have brought forward this legislative amendment to ensure

we have an all-party committee that can get together and come up with an

appointment. Therefore, we needed this legislative requirement change to

do that.

S. Thomson: I appreciate the response. As I said, we are going to be

supporting the legislation and the approach.

I just want to confirm this, and the minister can tell me if I’m

wrong in making this statement. I take it from the answer that it was

the best option and the one that was recommended by legislative counsel,

but it potentially could have been handled through another process,

through a resolution of the House. It might have been an option — or was

an option that might have been available or could have been available —

but the decision that was made was that the approach with the

legislation was the best option.

What I’m probing at, I guess, is wanting to get clarity around the

fact that this wasn’t necessarily the only option. In the view of the

government and the view of the minister, this was the best option, but

it could have been handled by a resolution of the House.

Hon. J. Sims: Let me say it very, very clearly.

We looked at different options. The legislative counsel advised us

against taking the other options that you have talked about. The best

option to do this — to give British Columbians confidence and certainty

— was to have an all-party committee recommend the Privacy Commissioner,

and that’s the route we have taken.

Once again, the leg. counsel was very, very clear. They did not

recommend that we try any other circuitous route to do this.

S. Thomson: I’ll just close out questions on this

section by, I guess, just

stating for myself and for my own purposes the assertion or the

suggestion that was made, or that I made — that there was potentially

another option.

The minister is saying, again, that the leg. counsel and all the

sources said that this was the best option and the legislative option —

as I said, we will be supporting it — but in standing here, I’m not

wrong in saying that there could have been another approach. It was

viewed not to be the best one, but there could have been another

approach here.

Hon. J. Sims: Thank you to the speaker for asking that question again. Let me

assure you that in my ministry, having the mandate and having not only

the freedom of information but the protection of privacy in this

ministry is very critical. I want the member across the way to know that

I take that role very seriously.

We need government to be open and transparent and to provide the

information our citizens need, but we have to balance that with the need

for protection of privacy. The role of the Privacy Commissioner is

absolutely central for the people of British Columbia to have confidence

in their government. Because of that, it is really, really critical that

this appointment is above reproach. It’s done through an all-party

consensus, and that’s written into the legislation. There has to be an

agreement from this all-party committee. We’re very committed to

that.

Of course we looked at all the options. We wanted to choose an

option that was not going to be questioned later or would question the

integrity of the appointment.

[3:00 p.m.]

So to ensure that, we looked at the current legislation, looked at

the constraints and restraints that were within that legislation, and

then we had to come up with something that would make things work. That

was a legislative amendment, which we have brought here.

Once again, let me assure all members in this House that that

legislative amendment is not forever. It’s a sunset clause that will

come to an end by the end of next March. The reason for the sunset

clause is because we don’t want to find ourselves in this position

again.

This is a very unique position. We’re in this position because of

the shenanigans from the previous government. We wanted to find a way to

move forward, and the way to move forward was to have clarity and to

have a kind of legislative change that would govern the new appointment.

That’s the way we’ve structured this. That is why, colleagues, what

we’re doing is a legislative amendment rather than ministerial orders or

anything else.

Let me tell you that British Columbians rely very, very heavily,

and so they should, on the role of the Privacy Commissioner. They want

to be assured that that person is at arm’s length from government and

that there are not any pressures or undue obligations in any way. I’ve

had the pleasure of spending time with the Privacy Commissioner as part

of a consultation as we look forward to bringing changes to the freedom

of information and making sure that citizens get the information they

need.

As I was saying, we did look at the all the options, but upon the

advice of experts, our legislative council, we decided to go the

legislative route. That is why this is here before you.

S. Thomson: I’d said that that would be my last question on

section 1, but

maybe not quite. Sorry.

Just to be clear to the minister, in raising the questions around

whether there was another process or not — certainly, not at all

diminishing or lack of acknowledging the critical importance of the

position and the role with the commissioner and the importance of

finding the path forward to have a commissioner in place with the full

term and responsibilities — I wasn’t at all questioning the motives or

the process behind the approach that was taken.

I just wanted to probe whether there was another approach, and I

believe there was. I think I heard that, even though maybe not as

directly as the minister might have answered in terms of another process

through a resolution in the House. I would probably state here that the

resolution of this House, supported by both sides of the House and by

all members of the House, would have the same gravity and weight of the

legislative approach here. I would just state that again, and I will

allow us to move on to the next

section with the understanding, and I

think I heard it, that there could have been another option.

I want to be able to sit down. If the minister will nod and agree

that there may have been another approach…. I recognize the advice given

and the approach taken around the legislative approach and the best

advice of leg. counsel, those we rely on in the process, but I do

believe it could have been achieved through another process.

All that being said, we do have this process. We have the

legislation in front of us, and we do have a critical next step that

needs to take place in order to get the process to get a recommendation

that will allow a commissioner to be appointed.

Hon. J. Sims: First of all, let me clarify that this is not an amendment to all

of FOIPPA. This is just stand-alone legislation we’re bringing in that

does have an end date — just so we’re clear on that.

[3:05 p.m.]

There were a number of other processes that we could have used.

One of them was order-in-council, as that is what happened in March

2017. But that order-in-council can only be used under specific

circumstances, and these circumstances include the following. Let me

just go through them so that we’re all clear.

“The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may appoint an acting

commissioner if” — and that’s the big if — “(

a) the office of

commissioner is or becomes vacant when the Legislative Assembly is not

sitting” — and we know that not to be true — “(

b) the commissioner is

suspended when the Legislative Assembly is not sitting” — that’s not

true, either — “(

c) the commissioner is removed or suspended or the

office of the commissioner becomes vacant when the Legislative Assembly

is sitting, but no recommendation is made by the Assembly under

section

37 (1) before the end of the session, or (

d) the commissioner is

temporarily absent because of illness or for another reason.”

Looking at those, we believe, and so does the legislative counsel,

that the option open to us then was that the secure option and the one

that best protects the integrity of the office was the stand-alone

legislation we have brought to you, which is an amendment that will

suspend a certain part of FOIPPA, but only for a very, very short

term.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

S. Thomson: This

section provides for the…. This is the repeal

section that

turns this off at a certain timeline — March 31, 2018, or earlier. I

wonder if the minister could advise, in the briefings and the

consideration in bringing this bill forward, whether or not there was

any consideration of either an earlier date or a later date than the

date that was picked, March 31. I guess maybe the question I’m driving

at or just wanting to get the minister’s comments around is: why March

31? Was there any consideration or any concerns that it may need a bit

more time? I know that if it’s earlier, great, but was there concern or

any discussion about a different date other than March 31, and why March

31?

Hon. J. Sims: Thank you for that question. We did look at a number of timelines,

and one of the pieces of information that informed our decision to land

on the end of March was taking into consideration how long past

committees have taken to get to that decision, to making a

recommendation. Of course, as members across the way understand, if the

committee can reach a decision in the first few weeks — let’s say, even

by the end of October — then, of course, the sunset clause is

moot.

We want to get this process through as quickly and as thoroughly

as we can. Once again, for those of us who have maybe been involved in

negotiations or are aware of sunset clauses, they are put there for a

reason, the reason being that by a certain date that amendment just

ceases to exist, and we will go back to FOIPPA as it exists right

now.

This particular amendment is for a very short term to meet a

specific target, and the target is to get an independent Privacy

Commissioner in place.

S. Thomson: Thanks. I appreciate the response. I understand, you know, what a

date provides — to make sure that the work gets done. We need to have a

date if this is the approach that is taken.

[3:10 p.m.]

I looked back through the file on this. I think the special

committee before had 19 meetings to attempt to come up with a unanimous

recommendation, which is required, so I just wondered if there were any

concerns at all from the minister, given the past challenges on this

around meeting those timelines. I know that in the comments in

introduction and, I think, in second reading, the minister expressed

confidence in the ability to meet those timelines. I’d just like to hear

the minister’s comments on that — that degree of confidence.

That’s why I asked the question around was a possible different

date considered at all in the consideration of bringing the legislation

forward and also, potentially, why a resolution option may have been a

better approach if that legislative timeline somehow doesn’t get met.

What happens then, past March 31, if there isn’t a recommendation? The

legislation repeals, and then where are we at?

Hon. J. Sims: If the committee doesn’t reach a resolution by March 31, then we

will look at all the tools available, at our disposal, to ensure

continuity of oversight.

But you also have to choose a date, and we chose that date because

we wanted this legislation to have a sunset clause. Sometimes you need a

date in order to reach a resolution and actually come to an agreement.

In the spirit of this new-found cooperation and everybody working

together, we’re really hoping that we will be done long before the end

of March.

S. Thomson: I appreciate the comments. I guess I would just like to say that I

wish the special committee, when it’s charged — because I’m not sure it

has been charged yet, or what the situation is — the best in

deliberations in order to achieve this. It is a critical position, a

critical appointment, as the minister pointed out.

With that, I’d like to thank all the staff who have joined to

support the minister as well. We look forward to the next steps in the

process for the work, Hopefully, they will be able to bring that

recommendation forward before that date, on the earlier provisions that

are in the legislation.

Hon. J. Sims: I want to say that I have really appreciated the cooperation of

members from across the way, and our colleagues at this end of the House

as well, as we try to address, as I said previously, a conundrum that we

find ourselves in. It’s really important for all of us to…. It behooves

all of us, sitting on both sides of the House, that when we have a

committee, the committee work diligently to reach a resolution and come

to an agreement when they’re looking at the appointment of the Privacy

Commissioner.

We, on our part, are going to do our very best to make sure that

we’re doing everything to facilitate the meetings as quickly as we can

so that we can go through this process and not need to come back to this

House for a different sort of resolution.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. Sims: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:14 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[3:15 p.m.]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — ACTING INFORMATION AND

PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

CONTINUATION ACT

Bill 4, Acting Information and Privacy Commissioner Continuation Act,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. C. James: I call second reading on Bill 3.

Mr. Speaker: The House will take a short recess.

The House recessed from 3:18 p.m. to 3:26 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — ELECTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby: I move that Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act, 2017, be now read

a second time.

This bill implements our government’s commitment to get big money

out of politics. The amendments and the bill substantially reform the

rules in the Election Act respecting political contributions, election

expenses, loans and debts, fundraising functions and the regulation of

third-party advertisers.

The bill eliminates corporate and union donations and establishes

strict limits on individual contributions. The bill provides that only

residents of British Columbia who are Canadian citizens or permanent

residents may make political contributions to political parties,

candidates, constituency associations and leadership contestants. An

eligible individual may make contributions totalling no more than $1,200

in combination to a political party, its candidates, nomination

contestants and registered constituency associations. This represents

the lowest contribution limit in Canada outside of Quebec.

The bill establishes a separate limit of $1,200 to leadership

contestants in relation to a leadership contest. To ensure that party

members may continue to participate in policy and leadership

conventions, nominal fees to attend these events will be excluded from

the contribution limits.

To ensure that future elections are contested only with funds

raised in the spirit of these new rules, any political contributions

received before the applicable provisions came into force and that would

not meet the new source and amount restrictions must not be used to

incur future election expenses.

The bill also requires that loans to political parties, candidates

and third-party advertisers must be made by savings institutions at no

less than the prime rate of interest. Currently there are no

restrictions on who may make a loan and what rate of interest could be

charged.

These amendments also create greater transparency around election

advertising. The bill restricts contributions made to third-party

sponsors of election advertising in a manner similar to the restrictions

on political contributions. No more than $1,200 in contributions per

eligible individual per year may be used to sponsor election

advertising. This ensures that corporate, union and foreign money cannot

be used to influence the outcome of our elections — whether directly,

through parties and candidates, or indirectly, through third-party

sponsors.

It’s important to note that the bill does not limit how much a

person may contribute in general terms to third-party organizations. The

bill only limits how much may be used specifically for the purpose of

sponsoring election advertising.

The bill responds to recent advertising campaigns by groups that

engaged in pre-campaign-period advertising, but not during the campaign

period, and who did not voluntarily disclose their contributors or aims.

The bill creates a 60-day pre-campaign period before fixed-date

elections that will apply to third parties who sponsor election

advertising that is partisan in nature.

We are, of course, aware that previous attempts in British

Columbia at regulating third parties outside of the campaign period were

successfully challenged in the courts. The new provisions address

previous constitutional concerns in two important ways.

First, there is no spending limit established for third-party

sponsors in the pre-campaign period. Second, indirect or issue-based

advertising is exempted from these new rules. The existing spending

limits and regulation of issue-based advertising will continue to apply

during the campaign period only.

[3:30 p.m.]

Major third-party sponsors will also be expected to comply with

additional rules to ensure transparency. These sponsors must open a

dedicated bank account, have their post-election disclosure report

audited, and disclose their contributors on a more frequent basis during

the campaign and pre-campaign periods.

In order to address concerns of so-called cash for access in

fundraising, the bill provides for new restrictions and additional

transparency around fundraising functions attended by major political

party leaders, members of the executive council and parliamentary

secretaries. If a fundraising function for a major political party or

its candidates, leadership contestants or constituency associations will

be attended by one or more of these specified individuals, the organizer

must provide advance notice of the event to the Chief Electoral

Officer.

The bill defines “major party” as one that has elected one or more

members to the Legislative Assembly or that ran candidates in more than

half of the electoral districts in the most recent general

election.

The CEO will publish the information respecting the fundraising

event on the Elections B.C. website in advance of the event. Additional

information will be reported and disclosed 60 days after the event. The

bill also prohibits one of these specified fundraising functions from

being held in a private residence if there is an admission charge over

$100.

In recognition of the public’s concerns about the growing costs of

election campaigns, this bill will reduce the election expense limits

for political parties and candidates by 25 percent. We believe the new

limits are sufficient to wage full election campaigns and should

particularly help to reduce spending disparities at the local

level.

To assist those political parties most affected by the new

restrictions on the source and amount of political contributions, the

bill provides transitional assistance in the form of an annual allowance

to political parties that receive at least 2 percent of the vote

provincewide or 5 percent in the districts in which it endorses

candidates. Beginning in 2018, parties will receive $2.50 per vote

received in the last general election. The allowance will decrease by 25

cents per vote each year until 2021. The allowance will also be provided

in 2022, when the bill provides for a special committee of the

Legislature to be struck to review the allowance and to report whether

it should continue beyond 2022.

A similar five-year transitional allowance was introduced in

Ontario this year. However, Ontario’s allowance starts at a higher

amount and decreases more slowly.

This bill also provides for the partial reimbursement of eligible

election expenses to political parties and candidates that receive at

least 10 percent of the vote. We believe this will help reduce barriers

for new candidates and parties and not just those of the larger

political parties.

Finally, the bill will establish monetary penalties for

individuals and organizations that contravene any of the election

financing and election advertising provisions in the act. These

additional penalties will strengthen the ability of the Chief Electoral

Officer to enforce the act, particularly where the contraventions may

not meet the public interest threshold or a public

prosecution.

Thank you, hon. Speaker. I look forward to further debate on this

bill.

A. Wilkinson: This is an important bill. I must say, and my colleagues elaborate

on, that what the government of the day intends to do about election

financing is a travesty. It is a complete betrayal of what they took as

their position during the election, what they held out to voters as

their position. And it fundamentally changes the landscape of how our

elections will work in this province and how they’ll be

financed.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

It also, importantly, attempts to cement in guaranteed funding for

the existing political parties at the expense of any newcomers that may

emerge in our democracy over the years and decades to come. This is a

fundamental flaw in this bill, and given the level of public disgust

that’s been evoked by this behaviour on the part of the government, we

are hopeful that this government will come to its senses and back out of

its provisions providing for ongoing direct taxpayer subsidies to the

major political parties in this province. This is no easy task, and it

will probably be only part of the story of what we do in this House,

because it depends upon the media to bring this to the attention of the

public and to raise the level of disdain they have already felt about

the behavior of this government on this issue.

I’m going to quote at some length from an

article printed today by

Paul Willcocks, the title of which is “Horgan Got It Wrong on Political

Finance.” It starts out with a subheading saying: “First, it’s a

betrayal.” That is an irrefutable truth. This is a complete reversal of

what the taxpayers and the voters were told in the election.

[3:35 p.m.]

As Mr. Willcocks summarizes it: “Horgan said, ‘It’s always

alternate facts with the Premier. In one of her distortions last week,

she said my preference was for taxpayers to pay for political parties.

That is just not the case.’” That came out Premier Horgan’s mouth during

the election, and he has completely, flatly reversed his position on

that with this bill. It was a betrayal of the voters.

The

article goes on to say that the New Democrats introduced a

bill in February, which they liked to espouse as their long-standing

commitment to this purpose, that “called for a ban on corporate and

union donations and an independent review of political financing. It

didn’t mention public funding for parties.” Yet once in power, the

Premier “decided political parties needed money from taxpayers. He

didn’t stick with the campaign promise or the commitment in the

Green-NDP agreement to ‘conduct a review of campaign finance and the

Elections Act.’ Instead, behind closed doors, a deal was cut to provide

taxpayers’ money for parties. No independent review. No consultations or

studies.”

This is not a partisan statement from the members on this side of

the House. This is a statement made by the media, observing the

behaviour of this government as it engages in one betrayal and one

reversal after another, in its earliest days in power. This is a huge

disappointment to the people of British Columbia. We see the members

opposite staring into their laps in shame.

The

article goes on to say: “The promise to take big money out of

politics wasn’t just about the influence of large donors.” It is talking

about supporting “a system in which politics becomes a career, and

practitioners move fluidly between party operations and political staff

jobs and lobbying and elected office.”

This is exactly what this bill will encourage, because it provides

ongoing funding for a political class. This is not something that

taxpayers endorsed, not something they’ve been asked to look at, not

something that anyone in this province has been asked to comment upon

and most certainly not what any independent review has suggested. Once

again, I see the members opposite diligently staring into their laps in

shame.

It goes on in the

article to say….

Interjections.

A. Wilkinson: They mock the writer of the article. These are quotes, Members

opposite. These are not my words. These are words from the

media.

“It creates the risk that party members are increasingly

irrelevant.” Let’s underline that: the party membership becomes

irrelevant in our system because there’s no need to go out and work hard

to attract the attention and support of donors, no matter how small they

will be, because the taxpayer funds the parties directly.

The

article goes on to say: “The NDP-Green political finance

changes fail in part because there has been no independent effort to

decide how much parties actually need.” Correct. How did they come up

with these numbers for a $1,200 cap, for a $1.16 limit on spending in

each riding, for the $38 million they’ve decided to line their own

pockets with out of the taxpayer’s revenue? There is no basis for this.

These are arbitrarily picked numbers, done by political activists behind

closed doors on that side of the government. This is

shameful.

The

article goes on: “A chance for meaningful reform is lost. The

Premier and the NDP start their term with a broken promise and give the

Liberals a stick to beat them with for the next four years.” And here’s

the kicker: “It’s an easy mistake to fix.” In today’s Tyee ,

which is normally taken to be friendly to the NDP, here we go: “The New

Democrats can amend their bill. The limits can be left in place while

the issue of public subsidies is sent for independent

review.”

That is the democratic process in action, not having a bill rammed

down our throats by a party that intends to line its own pockets with

the taxpayers’ revenue.

“The review can look at party spending across Canada, consider the

level of funding that best serves the democratic process and citizens’

interests, and decide if public subsidies to parties are needed” at all.

That is the appropriate response to this bill. Of course, we look

forward to this government coming to its senses and realizing what it’s

about to do in terms of betraying the public trust not only during the

election but in this whole process of simply taking money from taxpayers

with no permission, no consultation, no thought of whether there would

be some kind of democratic role in deciding whether this is

appropriate.

Instead, they’ll just push it through this House, with the

assistance of the Greens. The party that talks about collaboration,

about principled government, about doing things properly will

shamelessly dip into taxpayers’ pockets and receive a cheque for having

done nothing. This is why we get elected: to provide better governance.

And this is the antithesis of better governance. This is a path to

democratic oblivion if we cement in the two major parties in this

province, make it impossible for others to raise money and thereby make

membership in political parties irrelevant. This is a travesty of the

democratic system.

[3:40 p.m.]

I think it’s summarized most nicely, in the cynicism of the NDP,

in a September 18 newspaper

article in the Globe and Mail where

the headline says simply: “Ahead of Finance Reform, B.C. NDP Press on

with Lavish Fundraisers.” They are making hay while the sun shines,

because they know that they have tailored this bill to their own needs,

to their own donation profile, to make sure it gives them maximum

advantage in taking money from donors and collecting money from

taxpayers so they can be optimally placed for the next

election.

Where does the Liberal Party stand on this? We’ve been very clear.

We support the intent of the bill to limit union and corporate donations

and to reform campaign finance laws. I introduced our bill in June. The

members opposite, including the Greens, who claim to be so

collaborative, so focused on democracy, so reasonable in their approach,

refused to even read the bill. It did not receive first reading

approval, so it disappeared, unread. That was yet another example of the

high-handed behaviour of the members opposite as they line their pockets

with taxpayer’s money.

What is in the offing is a $27 million cheque coming to the two

major political parties and the Greens that is guaranteed over a period

of five years. Then, of course, the members opposite say: “Oh, no.

There’ll be a review process in 2022.” Well, that happens to be after

the next election. Clearly, this is a pitch for the members opposite

thinking that they will form government in the next election and

reinstate and perpetuate this with their special legislative committee,

which, of course, would be dominated by the party that wins the

election. So this is really a thinly disguised attempt to make these

permanent subsidies to parties.

Further, they go beyond the $27 million gift to political parties

— as they stare in their laps in shame — and they provide $11 million

for candidates in ridings, a 50 percent subsidy based on the cost of

running an election. What does that say to the members in that riding?

You have become largely irrelevant, because all we want to you to do is

show up at election time and make phone calls.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

We don’t have to get you to organize before the election. We don’t

have to hold all those coffee parties and those little fundraisers,

because we’ve got cheques coming from the NDP. And isn’t it interesting

that we now have a situation where they’re prepared to refund 50 percent

of the cost of an election, and that is exactly the amount they cut our

donation limits by? From $2,500 with no subsidy to $1,200 with full

subsidy. Clearly, the NDP sat back and said that “$2,500 sounds like a

reasonable number, but we’d like half of that for free, straight from

the taxpayer.”

I see the member from Cowichan smirking, smiling, nodding and

saying how much he enjoys the idea of taking money from taxpayers. This

is a shameful position for him to take. Utterly shameful.

We then go on to the issue of third-party advertising. Well, the

advertising provisions are the same as in our bill — the bill they

refused to read on first reading — but they have also taken out some

critically important features, to their own advantage. After it had been

through the legislative review committee, had been completely vetted by

the Attorney General’s staff and was ready to go into force after

appropriate debate and passage through this chamber, our bill provided

some appropriate controls on paid canvassers working for political

parties, on polling and dissemination of polling results and on direct

mail. These are the modern campaign tools that need to be regulated

during the writ period.

But, lo and behold, all of that has been stripped out of the NDP

bill, and they’ve left it at advertising only, because they’re seeking

to have that competitive advantage that suits their electoral profile

perfectly: cut the donation limits in half, top it up with a handout

from the taxpayers, and carry on to win the election by tying the hands

of the other parties. This is utterly shameful, and it is the first

major broken promise of this government, which is something that we can

all look forward to, as time goes by, as more and more promises are

broken and this government shows its complete lack of

integrity.

The $1,200 limit that they have imposed — there is no reasoning,

no rationale, no research, nothing except some parameter of $100 a

month, which seems to be something they’ve picked out of the air to suit

their own donation profile. Clearly, they want to restrict the ability

of political organizations to raise money, because now they have a

taxpayer subsidy. So why not damage the opportunities to the other

parties by undercutting their fundraising ability and get them out of

the game? Again, this is only available — that is, the subsidy — to

existing political parties.

[3:45 p.m.]

If there’s a new political party that comes to light — as they

often do in Quebec — three or five years from now, they will be starved

off the edge of the table by the NDP, because the NDP are looking for

ways to get themselves perpetually into government by restricting

fundraising in terms that suit their purposes.

I think it’s most important, too, to notice that the Greens have

capitulated and cooperated in this process. They had the opportunity to

do the right thing, to at least read the bill in June. They refused.

They talk about collaborative, principled government, yet here they are

preparing to rob the taxpayers of their revenue so that they don’t have

to fundraise at all.

Let’s not forget that the Bloc Québécois lived for more than a

decade off the backs of Canadian taxpayers. They did not raise a nickel

in fundraising efforts in the ridings in Quebec. They got it all from

the federal taxpayer as they attempted to tear this country apart. Thank

goodness that came to an end. The federal taxpayer subsidies ended, and

lo and behold, the Bloc Québécois has fizzled out.

Now we look at the Green Party as it attempts to perpetuate its

existence, having strung together a few wins in this last election.

Well, why not get some direct payments from the taxpayer, courtesy of

the NDP? That’s a great reason to prop up an NDP government, because you

start to guarantee your revenue stream. This is utterly shameful, and

the members opposite should hang their heads and go back out to the

taxpayers and defend themselves in the newspapers from this completely

shameless grab from taxpayers.

They’re also in the process of reducing the spending limits in the

next election, because it suits their profile. They’ve found out the

optimal marketing tools, the optimal revenue tools. Now they’re

stripping them out of the taxpayer’s pocket to feed their machinery at

just the right formula, and you can imagine them smiling all the way to

the bank.

They didn’t consult any experts. They didn’t consult the public.

They didn’t do their review across the country that they promised.

They’ve done nothing more than arrange for themselves to have the

maximum opportunity to win the next election.

This calls for amendments, and we will be proposing amendments to

delete

section 20 of the bill, which is the entire subsidy section,

which should not be allowed to proceed in our society.

We’ll also be expanding the third-party prohibitions in terms of

polling, direct mail and canvassing by paid canvassers during the writ

period. These things were taken out of the bill in a completely

opportunistic effort by the NDP to maximize their

opportunities.

I must say these amendments will be a test of the integrity of the

Green Party, because if they cannot rise to the occasion and deal with

these items, it is a sorry statement about this supposedly principled

party — that they’re prepared just to bleed the taxpayers and optimize

their chances rather than take a principled position.

I think it’s a sad day that we’re standing here in this

Legislature dealing with this bill, because this is a truly cynical

attempt by the NDP. They refused first reading of our bill in June,

which contained about 80 percent of the same content. They then went

away, added in these subsidies to perpetuate their own existence and

betrayed the trust of voters. There is no other word for this than a

complete betrayal of the public confidence.

There is no commission to review the processes around the world

and across the country to find the optimal arrangements and make

recommendations. There are subsidies that go directly into the pockets

of political parties, to the members opposite, to their riding

associations, to cover their own costs. And this is something that has

been entirely rigged and geared toward the electoral success of the

NDP.

This bill is a shameful day in this House, and I think we’ll all

be sad to see the day it makes it to next reading.

D. Routley: It gives me great pride to rise in the House and speak to Bill 3

and give my support to this bill.

The biggest problem people have identified in politics in B.C. —

not just parties and not just politicians but the people of B.C. — is

the toxic influence of big money in our politics. There’s no party in

Canada that represented big money in politics better or worse — take

your pick — than the B.C. Liberals. In their term in government, they

collected tens of millions of dollars from corporations. I believe that

60 percent of their fundraising came from corporations.

The member opposite spoke so poorly of public financing of

elections. But this party, the B.C. Liberals, who took tens of millions

of dollars….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

[3:50 p.m.]

D. Routley: And the people of the province, the people of Canada, pay for that

in terms of tax receipts. This former government betrays its hypocrisy

one more time.

The B.C. Liberals took those tens of millions of dollars from

their big money donors — developers, forest companies — and they handed

them public policy that suited them. They gave tax breaks to

millionaires and wealthy corporations, while they made MSP premiums

higher for regular people. They took $8 million from real estate

developers, while delaying action on the housing crisis. Connected,

right? They took $3.6 million from big oil companies and then let them

rewrite B.C.’s climate action plan. A direct connect.

The people aren’t stupid. I think the B.C. Liberals anticipate

that the people might not be intelligent enough to put A to B equals C

and to figure out that the tens of millions of dollars of donations

affect public policy.

The NDP, this government, recognizes that those donations do

affect public policy. We’re banning corporate and union donations. We

are making a commitment to clean up B.C. politics and get big money out

of B.C. politics once and for all. We’re proud of that.

They took $55 million…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, wait for your turn.

D. Routley: …from the top 177 donors. Their top 177 donors gave them $55

million. What did the B.C. Liberal government do in return for that $55

million? They handed $15 billion in contracts to those same

donors.

If $55 million will get you $15 billion from the B.C. Liberals,

that’s a pretty good investment, I guess, but not for democracy.

Certainly, for those people who got those contracts, that’s a good

investment, but not for the people I represent, not for the people of

B.C. The public interest would dictate that this House make decisions on

spending public money that are in the public interest, rather than the

interests of those 177 donors who donated $55 million and got $15

billion in public contracts and government payouts.

The old way of doing business in B.C. worked well for wealthy

donors, and it was at the cost of British Columbians, regular people.

We’re determined to end the influence of big money and make the system

work for people. People are tired of knowing that they can’t be heard by

their government because they can’t meet the cost of being heard. They

can’t put up millions of dollars…

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please.

D. Routley: …in order to support a government that will return billions in

contracts to them.

That’s the way this government always did business. You brought

your money to the table, and you had a place at the table, whether it

was labour relations, whether it was the forest industry. Look at what

the forest industry got for their millions. They got a deregulation of

the industry that resulted in a massive increase in deaths. They got

increases in raw log exports. They got public policy around the use of

fibre, caretaking of the land base, reforestation. All these things that

are in the public interest suffered because the priorities of the former

B.C. Liberal government were being dictated by those few top donors.

That’s the reality.

We’re fixing campaign finance rules, and we’re going to ensure

that government’s decisions benefit the people, not just those people

with deep pockets. We’re taking $65 million out of B.C. politics by

ending corporate and union donations and capping individual donations at

$1,200. We are going to ban out-of-province donations. Of course, the

B.C. Liberals were taking donations from energy companies in Alberta and

then allowing them to write public policy.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, take a seat, please.

Are members interested in making their speeches? Do you want to do

it now, or shall we finish with the speaker who has the

floor?

The member will continue.

D. Routley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m sorry if that intervention had to be

made in order for you to hear. It really doesn’t bother me if the

members opposite are squawking.

[3:55 p.m.]

The message I have is the message that British Columbians have

lined up at polling stations to receive. They have demanded that

politics reflect them. They have demanded that they have a place in the

interests of their government. This is what we have done. Rather than

having 177 donors give…. How much was it? So 177 donors gave $55 million

to the B.C. Liberal Party, and then the B.C. Liberal government gave

them $15 billion in public contracts and government payouts. Quid pro

quo. That’s what they did.

We will be banning those out-of-province donations that the B.C.

Liberals collected when they went to Calgary and had fundraisers with

the oil barons in Calgary and then allowed those same oil companies to

rewrite public policy, to rewrite the climate plan for British Columbia.

Energy companies that donated money to the B.C. Liberals rewrote the

climate action plan in B.C. How wrong is that? That is just so

unbelievable.

People are happy. People are seeing that we are turning it around.

We are removing big money from politics in B.C. That’s our job, and

we’re going to do it.

We’re restricting third-party election spending so that parties

can’t circumvent these rules by supporting third parties that would

advertise outside the scope of this legislation. We are ramping up

transparency in fundraising events to address cash-for-access concerns.

We are limiting privately held fundraiser tickets to $100 each, rather

than the $5,000, $10,000, $15,000 that has been charged in the past.

That will make things much more fair for people.

Not only are we limiting the ticket value for fundraiser events to

$100, but if there is any leader of a party, cabinet minister or

high-ranking public official who would attend that meeting, the

organizers must record who attended and report to Elections B.C. who

attended that fundraiser. That will be reported out to the public. That

is transparency.

We are reducing election spending limits to make democracy more

accessible to small parties and those without deep pockets. Currently —

or before this bill — the limit on constituency campaigns was $78,000.

That will be reduced to $58,000. That’s a significant reduction and

brings a full-scope campaign more within the limits and abilities of

smaller parties and independents.

These are all important steps that will help reinvigorate

democracy in British Columbia, and we’re proud of those. We’re

determined to end what’s been described as the Wild West of political

cash donations and give British Columbians their government back to

them. We’re finally going return, to the hands of British Columbians,

their government. That’s why we’re bringing in these toughest

fundraising restrictions in the country. That’s to make government work

for people, not simply for wealthy donors with deep pockets.

If you look at what the previous system cost us, you can look at

the cost of tax receipts that were given for donations. I would suggest

that donations to a party reflect the intentions of donors, not voters.

The system that we’re moving to reflects the intention and priorities of

voters. This is a step that people have been calling for, for the last

decade and a half, and they had become quite cynical about ever seeing

that materialize until now. We’re proud on this side of the House that

we are absolutely going to end the Wild West of political cash donations

in British Columbia.

You know, removing $65 million from the political process in B.C.

can’t do anything but good. We’ve seen the effects of donations. This

government, we in the B.C. NDP, want to be free of any kind of influence

like that. We know and we’re hearing from people what people’s

priorities are. For 16 years, they’ve become accustomed to not being

heard. All of us have sat on committees where members of the public come

forward to give recommendations or testimony, be it education or freedom

of information, health, all the committee work of this

province.

[4:00 p.m.]

Over the years, I’ve seen people come, year after year making the

same recommendations to that former government, just to be ignored. And

then, over the years, fewer and fewer people showing up to those

committee meetings because they were fatigued by having given the same

recommendations, the same pleas to government never being

heard.

It’s the same thing here. I don’t think I’ve spoken to a single

person who thought that the way the B.C. Liberals allowed big money to

influence politics was a good thing. I don’t think I’ve spoken to one

single person who thought that. But then, I’m probably not talking to

one of those 177 donors who gave $55 million to the B.C. Liberals.

Certainly, none of the people that I roll with got billion-dollar

contracts from the government. But their donors did.

It’s a pretty clear connection. How can we say that 177 donors

giving $55 million to the political party that then turned around and

gifted them $15 billion in contracts and payouts…? Is there any British

Columbian who doesn’t equate that with corruption? Is there any British

Columbian who does not equate tens of millions of dollars being paid to

a party and then public money being funnelled to that person in

contracts and payouts….?

Interjection.

D. Routley: In the House? Yeah.

Is the minister contesting the fact that 177 donors got $15

billion in public contracts?

Interjection.

D. Routley: Yes, thank you. Thank you for your advice.

S. Bond: That’s a very serious allegation.

D. Routley: Yes, it is a very serious allegation.

The critic suggests that I’ve made a very serious allegation. Yes,

I have. Yes, I have: 177 donors to your party, to the B.C. Liberal

Party, received $15 billion in public contracts and payouts. That’s a

fact, and I will walk outside in the hallway and say that.

S. Bond: Make it in the hallway.

D. Routley: Yes.

We have finally answered the call of British Columbians. During

the campaign and afterwards, people have been very clear that they have

lost faith. We aim to restore people’s faith in the political process.

If the source of funding for political parties continues to be

corporations and unions and wealthy donors, the people of British

Columbia will be left out, continue to be left out.

That is changing with this bill. That is changing, and this

government is finally removing the toxic effects of big money from

politics. The B.C. Liberal government had 16 years to act. Up until the

very end, they claimed that there was no reason to make such a ban.

Until after the election and they were clinging to power, they gave a

throne speech that basically mimicked the B.C. NDP platform. They

brought forward a bill to ban union and corporate donations, in a

cynical attempt to divide….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, please.

Minister.

Let’s have one speech at a time, please. Thank you.

Carry on.

D. Routley: Thank you. Actually, it’s interesting to have the background and

accompaniment that comes with heckling. If you can concentrate, you’ll

detect a rhythm, and that allows you to speak. You can just ignore the

complaints of the opposite side.

Anyway, I’m proud to stand in the House and speak to a bill that

is finally going to remove big money from British Columbia politics.

Since I’ve been in this House, tens of millions of dollars have been

collected. As I said, 177 of the top donors to the B.C. Liberal Party

gave that party $55 million. That party, when it was in government, gave

them $15 billion in public contracts and government payouts.

This has been a subject of deep concern for British Columbians —

IntegrityBC and so many different organizations pointing to the toxic

effects this has had on public policy decision-making.

[4:05 p.m.]

We’ve seen the most egregious examples, like the $3.6 million they

took from big oil companies only to then let those big oil companies

rewrite climate policy in British Columbia. That is a travesty to public

policy and public interest.

They took $8 million from real estate developers while they

delayed action on the housing crisis. That’s a polite way of saying it,

isn’t it? The former Premier and the former Housing Minister basically

told British Columbians: “There’s no problem here.” They told people in

Vancouver that housing is quite affordable. The minister at the time —

the minister, I believe, from Langley — told British Columbians, told

Vancouverites, that housing was basically affordable in

Vancouver.

The former Premier, Christy Clark, said that if people had a

problem with the costs of housing in Vancouver, they should move to the

north. That was the answer that this government gave to people concerned

about housing costs.

Interjection.

D. Routley: The member for Richmond-Steveston says she was right. The member

for Richmond-Steveston says that the former Premier, Christy Clark, was

right and that people should move to the north if they don’t like

housing costs in British Columbia. That’s quite interesting.

So that’s the attention that the former government, the B.C.

Liberal government, gave to the housing crisis that British Columbians

were facing. They didn’t take steps to reduce the cost of housing. They

denied there was a problem. Why? Because the people who were profiting

from the balloon had given them $8 million.

They gave tax breaks to millionaires in this province. The top 2

percent were given $1 billion in tax breaks over the last four years.

What did the rest of the people of British Columbia get? A 100 percent

increase in MSP premiums. My constituents saw 115 percent increases in

their ferry fares. That was the priority of this government: to answer

those who had deep pockets at the expense of the public interest and the

people of B.C.

It was a travesty. Thankfully, the people of B.C. have ended that.

Now we’re taking the steps we promised to take by removing big money

from B.C. politics and bringing integrity back to the public process in

British Columbia, giving faith to citizens that their government

actually works for them. The people who speak to them and tell them

what’s happening in this province perhaps ought to listen and realize

that deceitfulness has been the cause of the collapse of the former

government and that good government is what will earn the support of

British Columbians.

I suggest that the B.C. Liberals, now in opposition, go away and

reacquaint themselves with the problems that regular British Columbians

face, rather than simply the priorities of their wealthy donors. You’re

welcome.

D. Barnett: We support the intent of Bill 3, to reform the campaign laws for

the province of British Columbia. Opposition to public tax dollars

subsidizing political parties has, as long as I can remember, been our

stand.

In 2017, the Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, when we

raised this concern of the NDP taxpayer plan, called our accusations as

alternate facts, a distortion, and accused us of lying. The Premier was

very clear that he would not provide tax dollars to political parties.

This seems to be another broken promise to satisfy his senior partner,

to the tune of more than $800,000 in direct subsidies to the Green Party

in the first year alone.

I now see why they refused to read our legislation in June. They

had a plan, and that was to siphon taxpayer dollars to their own party

proper.

The NDP received record-breaking donations two years in a row —

$1.3 million over three years. They cannot function without massive

union funding, so they will just help themselves to your, the

taxpayer’s, pocket once again. It is called “transitional” by the NDP.

Remember that word: transitional. It will become permanent, I fully

believe, unless we stop it.

[4:10 p.m.]

The NDP’s senior partner and adviser, the Greens, say they are

opposed to this tax. Only time will tell. Will the Greens vote against

this bill? I quote the following: “We are here discussing how the

present government wants to pick your pocket once more after promises

made to not. We have been almost begging for financial help from this

government for citizens who have lost their homes, lost everything, have

small family businesses that will not be here in 2018 without financial

assistance, due to the wildfires of 2017.”

The Minister of Finance, when a request for property taxation

relief for tourism operators and small businesses was requested, says:

“Paying someone’s taxes will not help.”

Well, to the government: a business needs cash to carry on. A

citizen needs a warm bed to sleep in, not taxation to satisfy a few

political wants. I do not support taxpayer-funded campaign financing,

and I, like my colleague from Penticton, will not accept

this.

I’d like to quote John Horgan’s broken promises. “There is no

proposal in our legislation for public financing of

elections.”

An Hon. Member: You can’t use his name in the House.

D. Barnett: Oh, I’m sorry. I will remove the name.

“There is no proposal in our legislation for public financing of

elections. There is a proposal to have a group of prominent people,

through Elections B.C., look at what the rest of the world is doing.”

The opposition leader, January 24, 2017.

“What we propose is that Elections B.C. will look across the

country and around the world at the best way to make sure that only

individuals are paying for our political process and our election

process. That’s what we’ve said in the past. And that’s what we’re going

to say in February. And that’s what we’re going to do after the May

election when we form the next government.” January 27, 2017, CKNW, the

then opposition leader.

“At no time have I said that I prefer to make public dollars

responsible for political parties. At no time….” Again, the Premier just

making stuff up. “I believe we need to get big money out of politics.”

Opposition leader, February 9, 2017.

“It’s not the only way” — referring to subsidies — “and I have

said I have no opinion on this, because I don’t. I want the best outcome

for citizens. Currently we subsidize political donations through tax

cuts, so this notion that it’s free to taxpayers is not true. I believe

that people should fund political parties.” The opposition leader, then,

February 10, 2017.

How times change. Can you imagine taxpayers funding political

parties? I believe that our federal government got rid of that because

they realized and they understood that it was the wrong thing to do. We

live in a free society, I thought, where you could donate to whom you

wish. You’re not buying favours like the opposition said.

Interjection.

D. Barnett: I would like the member of the opposition to repeat his

comments.

An Hon. Member: We’re the government. You’re the opposition.

D. Barnett: I know we’re the opposition. Sorry.

Deputy Speaker: Member, continue, please.

D. Barnett: To take money out of the taxpayer’s pocket for political purposes

is wrong. In my community of the Cariboo-Chilcotin, I’ve talked to many

people. I spend my life talking to people, listening to my constituents.

I have not had one constituent support the initiative of the government

to tax citizens for votes. It should be their choice, they say, and it

should be my choice as to whom I vote for and whom I donate dollars to,

to support them to get elected.

[4:15 p.m.]

You know, there’s one good thing about this, I will say. Many

constituents of mine belong to unions. They’re great workers. They’re

great people. And there is nothing wrong with the union. But they have

been frustrated over the many years that they have to pay dues to

support a political party, when they want a choice. That choice is

theirs, and it should stay theirs. I do not and I will not support

taxpayer-funded political wishes.

The rest of the bill has good merits in it, so piece by piece, we

will debate this bill. But this is a wrong thing to do. To deceive

taxpayers and to expect them to pay for political parties is

wrong.

Hon. C. James: I’m pleased to rise to speak to Bill 3, the Election Amendment

Act, 2017.

I have to say how proud I am that this legislation has been

introduced in this House. Back in 2005, when I was first elected, this

was one of the first private members’ bills that I introduced, with the

support of our caucus, into the Legislature — that’s 2005, to ban union

and corporate donations.

I think back to that time period, when the other side had the

opportunity to support that legislation. Seven times this legislation

has been introduced in this Legislature, in different ways, in different

bills. This piece of legislation is long overdue. It was a piece that

was ignored.

I have to tell you the excuses that came forward from the other

side around why this wasn’t necessary and wasn’t needed in British

Columbia were constant. We could have made a difference when it comes to

supporting democracy by banning union and corporate donations back in

2005, when those bills were first introduced. Instead, no, the other

side had no interest — no interest in coming forward and saying yes to

banning union and corporate donations, to actually addressing election

finance reform.

I heard that it wasn’t needed, that everything was fine, that they

liked the system the way it was. I remember that debate and discussion

in public. “No, the public is just fine with election financing the way

it is.”

Well, I can tell you the public was not fine. They weren’t fine

back in 2005, and they aren’t fine now. They’re proud to see election

finance reform