Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, November 1, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 175

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

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 50 — Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. D. Eby

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Response to wildfires in Columbia River–Revelstoke area

D. Clovechok

Re-establishment of human rights commission

R. Chouhan

Sustainable agriculture and food systems programs at Kwantlen University

L. Reid

Indigenous Disability Awareness Month

M. Dean

Role of journalists and free press

S. Furstenau

Blood donation campaign by Sikh Nation

R. Singh

Oral Questions

Bus service in rural B.C.

D. Clovechok

Hon. C. Trevena

Ride-sharing services

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. C. Trevena

Forest management practices and sustainability

A. Olsen

Hon. D. Donaldson

Funding for rapid transit project in Surrey

T. Redies

Hon. J. Horgan

T. Stone

Massey Tunnel replacement project

I. Paton

Hon. J. Horgan

J. Johal

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 53 — Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

A. Weaver

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2018

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. Eby: There are a number of guests in the gallery here for an historic day

in our B.C. Legislature, related to the re-establishment of the human rights

commission. There are a number of them, so I’ll run through and just ask

members to hold their applause right till the very end.

I’m very pleased to welcome Kasari Govender, executive director of

West Coast LEAF; Gurpreet Singh; Kamaljit Thind; Morgane Oger; Catherine

Jenkins; Joanna Gislason; Sarah Robinson, who is a member of the Minister’s

Advisory Council on Indigenous Women. Nico Slobinsky and Jason Murray are

here. They’re the director and the chair of the B.C. Centre for Israel and

Jewish Affairs. Aleem Bharmal is the executive director of the Community

Legal Assistance Society.

There are several staff from the Ministry of Attorney General who have

been working on this human rights legislation: Renee Mulligan, Carmen

Zabarauckas, Catherine Hunt, Kelly Farish, Kathleen Reilly, Tarynn McKenzie,

Jen Helmy, Courtenay Jacklin, Mackenzie Curran, Nima Dorji and Leanna

Gruendel.

Also, I’d like to acknowledge the assistance of a couple of experts

that assisted as well: human rights experts Gwen Brodsky and Shelagh Day,

and Katherine Hardie, who’s senior legal counsel at the B.C. Human Rights

Tribunal.

Would the House please make them all feel very welcome.

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Harinder Mahil. He has been an

anti-racist and human rights activist since the 1970s. He served the people

of British Columbia as chair of the British Columbia Council of Human Rights

from 1992 to 1997, and as the deputy chief commissioner of the British

Columbia Human Rights Commission from 1997 to 2002.

He was acting chief commissioner of the British Columbia Human Rights

Commission when the previous commission was dismantled in 2002, and he was

also a member of the Canadian delegation to the 1993 United Nations World

Conference on Human Rights in Vienna.

Along with him also is my friend Chris Finding, who was a manager of

investigations for the Human Rights Commission when the commission was

dismantled. He recently retired after occupying a senior management position

for the last 16 years with the HEU.

Thérèse Boullard was a human rights officer at the B.C. Human Rights

Commission for some ten years and then served as the executive director of

the Northwest Territories for five years.

Please join me to give them a very warm welcome.

D. Davies: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a good friend of mine, Dallas

Isert, who’s travelled all the way down from the snowy white north — as we

now have snow up there — from Fort St. John. Please make Dallas feel

welcome.

Hon. S. Simpson: As members will know, November is Indigenous Disability Awareness

Month. It’s my pleasure today to welcome members of the B.C. Aboriginal

Network on Disability Society, better known to some as BCANDS, who are

joining us today to kick the month off: Melissa Aird, Evelyn Huntjens, Debi

LaHaise, Cindy Rebain, Alexandra Pierik, Marina King and Margo Bok. They’re

joined by BCANDS executive director Neil Belanger, who’s also a member of

the Poverty Reduction Advisory Forum.

BCANDS is an award-winning Indigenous charitable society who serve the

unique and diverse disability, health resource and support service needs of

Indigenous people across our province, and 2018 marks the 27th year of

successfully delivering Indigenous disability and health programs to people

who need them.

[10:10 a.m.]

I’m proud to be wearing their pin today, along with many of my

colleagues, recognizing the invaluable contributions that BCANDS makes to

removing barriers and promoting inclusivity across our province.

Will the House please make them welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 50 — HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT,

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Human Rights Code Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

It’s a personal honour, and I’m incredibly grateful for the

opportunity to present this bill on behalf of the government. This bill

amends the human rights code to re-establish a human rights commission

for British Columbia. For years, British Columbia has been the only

province in Canada with­out a human right commission.

This bill is part of the government’s agenda to build a better

B.C. for all. Creating a human rights commission is part of a new era

for human rights in B.C., one which will foster a society in which every

person is treated with respect and dignity and ensure that rights and

opportunities are provided without discrimination.

This bill creates a human rights commissioner who will be an

independent officer of the Legislature. This model is meant to ensure

the longevity of the commissioner so that the turbulent history of human

rights commissions in British Columbia is not repeated.

The commissioner will have the key function of educating British

Columbians on human rights and examining and addressing discrimination,

particularly issues of systemic discrimination. A lack of understanding

and knowledge can often be the cause of discrimination, especially in

the workplace. Healthy, respectful relationships based on an

understanding of circumstance and history, together with inclusive,

solution-based approaches to issues, will create a stronger and more

cohesive community. It is envisioned that by giving the commissioner the

powers to promote as well as protect human rights, the discriminatory

practices, policies and programs will be reduced and eventually

eliminated.

The commissioner will have the power to initiate inquiries into

human rights issues and issues of systemic discrimination in order to

hold governments, institutions and the private sector to account. At the

conclusion of an inquiry, the commissioner may make recommendations and

speak publicly in order to reduce, prevent and eliminate issues of

discrimination.

The commissioner’s inquiry powers will come into force at a future

date, once the commissioner’s mandate is underway. The amendments will

also extend the time limit for filing complaints to the B.C. Human

Rights Tribunal from six months to one year, while maintaining the

tribunal’s discretion to accept late-filed complaints in certain

circumstances.

I’m sure all of the members of the House understand the importance

of this bill at these times that we face, and I’m incredibly honoured to

put it forward for first reading.

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

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 50, Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2018, 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)

RESPONSE TO WILDFIRES IN

COLUMBIA RIVER–REVELSTOKE

AREA

D. Clovechok: As we all know, 2018 was the worst fire season on record in

British Columbia, with close to 13,000 square kilometres being burnt, a

fire season that precipitated a provincewide state of emergency. British

Columbians suffered not only from the smoke that was

prov­ince­wide, but many families were uprooted from their

lives and their homes due to evacuation orders, with others being put on

alerts.

My riding was not immune to this provincial firestorm. Two fires

of note were the Meachen Creek fire and the Cross River fire that

resulted in evacuation orders and evacuation alerts. Yet out of that

darkness and smoke emerged great light, and that light was the

people.

I want to recognize and commend the St. Mary Lake and Ta Ta Creek

residents for the courage they showed in the face of disaster during

their evacuations.

I am so proud of the residents of Kimberley, who took the alert in

stride. They prepared their emergency kits and took care of each

other.

I want to thank and commend Lyle Wilson and his staff from Nipika

Resort, who evacuated an entire wedding that was underway during the

evacuation order, which is no easy task.

[10:15 a.m.]

I want to thank and commend the mayor of Kimberley, Don McCormick,

who demonstrated incredible leadership and compassion during a very

difficult and very stressful time. I worked closely with him, and in

spite of the pressure, he did not flinch.

I want to thank and commend Kimberley Fire Chief Rick Prasad and

his members, who did not sleep until they were certain their community

was safe.

I want to thank and commend the Kimberley RCMP detachment

commander, Sgt. Chris Newel, and all of his and visiting deployed

members, who protected and served beyond duty and expectations during

the evacuation alert. The force is proud of you, and your community

thanks you.

I want to thank and recognize Brent Martin, with FLNRORD and the

B.C. Wildfire Service. He is a credit to this province. He’s a

consummate professional and a credit to his profession.

I want to thank Teck Coal for the donation of the Kimberley

minesite buildings for the fire command centre.

Last but not least, I want to thank and recognize the staff of the

regional district of East Kootenay, RDEK director Jane Walter, who is

one of the St. Mary Lake evacuees, and the southeast fire centre and all

of the firefighters, women and men from across Canada, who daily put

themselves in harm’s way protecting my communities.

We survived the firestorm, and I’m grateful that winter is on its

way.

RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF

HUMAN RIGHTS

COMMISSION

R. Chouhan: Today is an exciting day for British Columbians. It is a day I

have been waiting for since 2002. I am proud to be part of a government

that has introduced legislation to bring back the British Columbia human

rights commission, which was dismantled in 2002.

I represent the Burnaby-Edmonds constituency, which is the most

diverse in the province. It has First Nations people, those who came

from China, Korea, India and from many African countries. They represent

different cultures, religions and races, and they speak over 70

different languages. Those who live in Burnaby, like many other regions

of the province, are of different genders and ages and have different

abilities.

One thing that unites us all is our belief in equality, tolerance

and concepts of treating each other with respect and dignity. Our

history shows us that we cannot take these values for

granted.

We know that there has been discrimination and intolerance in our

province. During World War II, thousands of British Columbians of

Japanese origin were sent to internment camps. First Nations people and

other minorities were denied the right to vote.

Equality is something we have to constantly strive for. For that,

we need institutions such as the human rights commission. Since 2005, I

have introduced a private member’s bill three times to re-establish the

human rights commission. Human rights laws protect all of us.

I believe it was wrong to dismantle the commission in 2002.

British Columbians have been denied the services of a commission for the

last 16 years. This legislation will correct that wrong. It will give a

vehicle for British Columbians to build a society which is free of all

types of discrimination.

SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND

FOOD SYSTEMS PROGRAMS AT

KWANTLEN UNIVERSITY

L. Reid: I recently had the enormous privilege of taking a fall harvest

tour with Dr. Rebecca Harbut, chair of the department of sustainable

agriculture and food systems at Kwantlen University. It was a perfect

autumn day. Dr. Harbut is a gift to Kwantlen University and to our

community. Her wisdom, enthusiasm and commitment to sustainable

agriculture are unparalleled.

I come from a long line of Saskatchewan farmers. There is nothing

better than a flax field in bloom. I was delighted to see a greenhouse

dome on the Richmond site, which will now allow for earlier

plantings.

This 20-acre site is located on the Garden City lands, with other

programs found on the Richmond campus terraces and indoors at the

university.

I speak of the seed research underway. It was impressive to learn

of the many partners in this important work, including Dr. Kent

Mullinix, director of the institute for sustainable food

systems.

Please consider a degree — a bachelor of applied science in

sustainable agriculture. It uniquely integrates the science and art of

agro-ecosystem management. The students engage in learning through

classes, practical training on certified organic teachings and on

research farms, community engagement and student research projects.

Whether it’s a new seed or a winter groundcover, Kwantlen University is

each day inspiring leaders in sustainable food systems.

Please respect the students’ projects, and don’t eat their

homework until the marks are recorded.

[10:20 a.m.]

INDIGENOUS DISABILITY

AWARENESS

MONTH

M. Dean: November is Indigenous Disability Awareness Month in British

Columbia, a month which recognizes and acknowledges the important

contributions Indigenous people with disabilities make to our province.

This month has its roots right here in B.C. The British Columbia

Aboriginal Network on Disability Society, BCANDS, serving B.C. from

Esquimalt-Metchosin, created the first Indigenous Disability Awareness

Month in 2015. It is part of a growing movement to recognize Indigenous

people with disabilities in Canada and around the world.

The month is recognized nationally by the Assembly of First

Nations and by Métis Nation B.C., the First Nations Summit and several

other disability-related organizations. During the month, we acknowledge

the unique challenges that Indigenous people with disabilities face,

magnify the social and economic inclusion they experience.

Since 1991, BCANDS has been an important resource for Indigenous

people with disabilities in providing disability health and resource

support. They’ve helped break down barriers and increase inclusion for

some of the province’s most vulnerable people. In March 2019, BCANDS

will hold their Indigenous Disability and Wellness Gathering, “From the

outside looking in….”

I hope that you will join me in promoting awareness for Indigenous

people with disabilities this November. One way to show your support is

by wearing this pin. It’s a symbol of our recognition of the invaluable

contributions and unique challenges Indigenous people with disabilities

often face in B.C. Together we can help break down barriers and ensure

everyone can participate in inclusive and striving

communities.

ROLE OF JOURNALISTS AND FREE PRESS

S. Furstenau: On Monday, the annual Jack Webster Awards were given to B.C.

journalists for their outstanding work over the course of the last year.

I extend my sincere congratulations to this year’s winners as well as

all members of the journalistic community for their vital work as part

of our province’s free press.

The press plays a vital role in society. Journalists speak truth

to power, tell the stories that need to be told and bring hidden issues

to light, enabling us to make changes needed for a more just

world.

It was journalists that exposed such massive injustices as the

child abuse in the Boston Catholic Church and egregious abuses of

political power like Watergate. It was journalists who revealed the

horrific human cost of the Vietnam War and who more recently helped tell

the stories of survivors in the pivotal Me Too movement.

Tragically, journalists often face violence. In 2017, 71

journalists worldwide were murdered or killed while reporting, covering

an incident or simply because they were a journalist. We must stand

united in condemning these attacks in the strongest possible

terms.

The free press is also facing unprecedented challenges. Studies

estimate that one-third of Canadian journalism jobs have been lost in

the last six years. The rise of digital media has disrupted the industry

and has led to a proliferation of alternative facts, disinformation and

Internet conspiracy theories that have had a corrosive and divisive

effect on our public discourse.

In today’s climate, the role of the free press is more vital than

ever. It’s important that we recognize and support the crucial work

journalists do in pursuing fact-based reporting and upholding the truth.

To quote the Washington Post , a paper that is doing an

outstanding job in the face of even bigger challenges south of the

border: “Democracy dies in darkness.” Journalists shed light on the

issues that matter so that we might build a stronger

democracy.

BLOOD DONATION CAMPAIGN

BY SIKH

NATION

R. Singh: There isn’t a more noble act than saving a human life. Today I

wish to draw the attention of the House to a wonderful initiative that

many of my constituents help organize and donate at. The event is the

annual blood donation drive by Sikh Nation. Since its inception almost

20 years ago, approximately 130,000 lives have been saved.

These drives are organized in commemoration of the victims of the

anti-Sikh massacre that rocked the Indian nation in the first week of

November 1984, following the assassination of then Indian Prime Minister

Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards. Innocent Sikhs were killed across

the country by the mobs to punish the entire community for the murder of

the Prime Minister.

[10:25 a.m.]

I was in India back then, and I still remember the atmosphere of

hatred and dread created by the violence directed at a single community.

When the bloodshed started, we lived in constant fear for the lives and

security of my aunts and uncles living in New Delhi, the national

capital, which was hit worst by the pogrom.

Though I was fortunate enough to be far from the epicentre of the

mayhem, that wasn’t the case with many others, who got killed and

molested only because of their identity. Even a quarter of a century

having passed, the families and those affected are still dealing with

trauma and waiting for justice.

Despite all that, the Sikh Nation volunteers come together each

year to organize a campaign to save lives through blood donation and

continue to set an example of fighting hatred and injustice with love

and giving. As this campaign continues to grow across North America

every year, I want to applaud the blood donation volunteers for

restoring our confidence in humanity in the face of bigotry and

barbarity.

Oral Questions

BUS SERVICE IN RURAL B.C.

D. Clovechok: The Minister of Transportation has known about the elimination of

Greyhound services in British Columbia for well over a year now. Talk

about being asleep at the wheel. Under her watch, there are dozens of

communities that are suffering from the loss of these services —

communities like mine in Kimberley, Invermere, Radium, not to mention

about the rest of the province, like Armstrong, Dawson Creek and

Penticton.

The question for the minister: why has this minister failed so

many rural communities throughout British Columbia?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m very pleased to see the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke

back in full health here, and I’m very happy to take his

question.

Greyhound’s announcement, I think, caught the whole of Canada by

surprise. It was pulling out, not just in B.C. but pulling out from the

whole of western Canada. Since Greyhound made its announcement, we’ve

been working diligently with communities, with the private sector, to

make sure that we are doing as much coverage as we can.

I’m very pleased to say that 83 percent of routes that Greyhound

was covering in the southern half of the province are going to be

covered by private operators. And in the northern half of the province,

as the member well knows, we moved very quickly to have an interim

service with B.C. Transit, with B.C. Bus North, which is covering the

northern half of the province.

I continue to work with my federal counterparts, with communities,

with Indigenous organizations to ensure that those remaining gaps are

filled.

Mr. Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke on a supplemental.

D. Clovechok: I thank you for that answer — although the minister seems to want

to pat herself on the back, with all of the work that she’s done. Just a

reminder, of course, that self-praise is no praise.

Not to say…. At the very least, it’s not about counting

kilometres. It’s about communities that are no longer connected in rural

British Columbia. It’s about seniors, about students, about families who

rely on bus services between these communities — services that have been

abandoned under this minister’s watch.

My question to the minister: will she tell the communities that

have been abandoned when they’ll be getting a return to the real service

and regular service?

Hon. C. Trevena: I understand that people are absolutely concerned about the access

to ground transportation. It’s something that we have known about — and

the opposition, when they were government, knew about — for a long while

— the precarious nature of Greyhound and the likelihood that they were

going to be pulling out from the province. This was not new. The

suddenness was new.

We have been working diligently, through the Passenger

Transportation Board, the independent board, to make sure that as many

communities are covered. The Passenger Transportation Board looks at

each application, looks at each route it’s doing, assesses the

communities and makes the decision. They’ve been expediting it, and I’m

very pleased they have.

For those remaining segments — the eight remaining segments that

Greyhound used to cover — the Passenger Transportation Board will be

working with them to have expressions of interest so we can see whether

commercial operators can come and fill the gap. I’m fully aware that

people need safe, affordable ground transportation, and we are working

diligently to make sure that we can have those gaps covered.

[10:30 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke on a second supplemental.

D. Clovechok: It’s interesting that one minute she’s really surprised, and now

she’s known about it forever. So it’s kind of contradictory.

Yesterday she said to my constituents, and I’m going to quote:

“Use the different sorts of ride-share, and I cite Poparide as one of

the ones that is sort of a true ride-share.” Seriously, Poparide? I went

to the Premier’s favourite information source, Google, to find out what

this Poparide thing was all about. I’ll tell you what. In my riding,

there was only one reference to a Poparide — one reference — and it was

a guy that wanted to go to Golden for nine bucks.

I thought: “Does someone want to put their children on that bus,

their wife on that bus or in that vehicle?” Does this minister actually

believe that Poparide is a viable transportation solution for seniors,

folks with disabilities, students and families, my grandchildren in my

remote rural riding? Seriously, do you think that this is a viable

solution?

Hon. C. Trevena: We have been working with the Passenger Transportation Board to

make sure that we can cover as much of the province as possible. I’ve

got to say that I’m very proud of the work that has been done by the

Passenger Transportation Board as well as by B.C. Transit, who came in

to move, in the north, when Greyhound pulled out from the north. We now

have coverage for the north and interim service.

I’ve been working with MLAs from the north on that and with

communities in the north. I continue to work with communities around the

province to ensure that we can fill those gaps. It is a priority. We

know that there are people who feel that they’re not being served and

are not being served, and we’re making sure that we are trying to fill

those gaps.

RIDE-SHARING SERVICES

J. Thornthwaite: Well, if the Transportation Minister had kept her promise, we’d

actually have real ride-sharing in this province of British Columbia

right now. Just listen to the frustration….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question. The member for North

Vancouver–Seymour has the floor.

J. Thornthwaite: Just listen to the frustration of Nikki, from North Van, who

tweets: “I tried for an hour to get through to North Shore Taxi tonight.

My phone redialed nearly 100 times and never completed a call. Please

explain to me why we don’t have ride-sharing in Vancouver.”

My question is like Nikki’s. When are we getting ride-sharing in

British Columbia?

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for her question. It’s something that she could

have asked her own government when they were in government, because they

had five years to work on it.

We have been working on it. We have made sure that we worked on a

two-phased approach, as we announced in July, getting more cabs on the

road, 500 more vehicles — we’re expecting to see them roll out shortly —

as well as collecting more data so that we know where the needs are. We

said there will be legislation this fall. There will be legislation this

fall.

Mr. Speaker: North Vancouver–Seymour on a supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: All three parties in this House promised ride-sharing in their

campaigns in 2017. We were going to bring it forward. We already had the

work done. The fact is that you promised it in 2017, promised it in

2018, and nobody believes you’re going to bring it in this year. We’ve

got one more…

Interjections.

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

J. Thornthwaite: …Christmas season. People on the North Shore are begging to bring

in ride-sharing. Everybody on the North Shore either knows somebody or

has experience, personal experiences, from shoddy cab service. Either

they’re trying to get a cab from downtown to go home, or they can’t get

a cab from North Shore to downtown.

The issue is for you, Minister. Can you explain to my constituents

when we’re going to get ride-sharing?

[10:35 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: The member asks why we haven’t done in one year what they didn’t

get done in five years. Maybe she should listen to her own leader. He

said, back in July when we were announcing the fact that we are going to

be bringing in legislation this fall, the fact that we are working with

the Passenger Transportation Board, an independent tribunal, to get more

cabs on the road….

At that time, the Leader of the Opposition said: “The issue is

about the quality of vehicles involved, the safety of passengers, the

safe drivers involved and the insurance product.” He continues: “So

let’s get on this and fix this serious situation so we can get on with

more widespread driver recruitment systems.”

That is what we’re going to be doing through our legislation. It

will be introduced this fall, and then the member will know that this

side of the House actually keeps its promises, unlike the other side of

the House, which had five years to do something and ignored the

problem.

FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

AND

SUSTAINABILITY

A. Olsen: British Columbia is a leader in low-value raw log exports and mill

closures. We’re not producing enough value-added wood products. This

summer I posted photos of massive piles of slash on the way to Sooke.

This morning I posted photos of that valuable fibre burning.

B.C. mills are a huge opportunity for innovation.

Bio­plastics, for instance, can be made from wood and pulp waste.

We can retrofit mills to turn wood debris into every­thing from

bioplastic food waste packaging to 3D printer stock. If our forestry

industry is going to continue to offer long-term, good-paying jobs and

if we are going to sustainably manage our forests, it will not be with

the status quo. Our mindset needs to change, and mills need to

evolve.

To the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources, can the

minister provide tangible examples of how his ministry is supporting the

innovation in mills to embrace these changing times?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I want to say thanks for the question. Forest management is an

important topic in this province, as many of the MLAs in this chamber

know, and moving ahead in a new way is important in light of a changing

landscape, in light of climate change and in light of decreasing timber

supply.

We have been working with the industry on Vancouver Island and on

the coast, with First Nations, with commun­ities on a coast forest

revitalization strategy. We began that in June. We had meetings

throughout the three months over the summer. We met again in

September.

What it is all about is encouraging new forestry practices to

maximize utilization and get more value out of the fibre currently being

logged. The example that the member brought up around wood waste and

wood left in the woods is something that’s been addressed through our

new coast forest revitalization strategy.

It’s an important topic. We must get more jobs out of every piece

of wood that’s being logged and that’s in the forest. It’s something

that we’re keeping our eye on, and we’re going to make changes in

Mr. Speaker: Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.

A. Olsen: We’ve heard from mayors and councillors, Indigenous leaders,

environmental groups, academics and domestic and international sciences.

They are united in the criticism of our province’s forest

management.

A Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report this year

highlighted the massive job losses and mill closures under the former

B.C. Liberal government, despite being the self-appointed masters of job

creation and defenders of rural British Columbia. It called our forest

management “a program of liquidation, not sustainable forestry.”

Decades-old forestry policy is not the way of the future. If it was,

should I expect my Myspace account to blow up?

To the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resources and Rural

Development, what substantive steps is the minister taking to move away

from wholesale liquidation to sustainable forest management?

[10:40 a.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: While I appreciate the interest in the question, the premise of

wholesale liquidation is not happening in B.C.’s forests under this

government. There are nearly 500,000 hectares of parks and protected

areas on Vancouver Island, and as recently as this year, we added an

extra 70,000 hectares of old-growth forest along the coast for the

marbled murrelet.

There is work to be done, and we recognize that. We want to work

together with people who are interested in moving biodiversity forward

as well as a continued vibrant forest sector that people depend on in

rural communities up and down the Island, up and down the coast and

across B.C. in the Interior and north and rural areas.

We are working with industry. We’re working with environmental

organizations on an old-growth strategy and modernizing our land use

planning process. That’s an important part of how we’re going to change

into the future with new forest management practices.

I also want to point out that we’ve had an incredible amount of

investment in the forest sector in the last 15 months under this

government. There have been recent investments by the San Group and

Mercer. The San Group’s investment of almost $70 million in a lumber

facility in Port Alberni is going to be focusing on a specialized mill

in small-dimension wood — wood that’s available now and into the future,

the kind of wood that will be available in the future. We’ve also had an

incredible investment by Mercer in the Catalyst mills on the

coast.

It shows a confidence in this government. It shows a confidence in

our management of the forest resource industry.

FUNDING FOR RAPID TRANSIT

PROJECT IN

SURREY

T. Redies: Surrey is growing fast, and local transit infrastructure needs to

keep up.

My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Can the

minister tell us the amount of provincial funding that has been

committed to the Surrey-Newton-Guildford LRT project?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m sure the member will know that the Prime Minister was here

earlier in the fall, and he and I joined with municipal leaders around

the region to announce an extraordinary investment in public

transportation right across the Lower Mainland. It was called the

mayors’ plan. The province invested, the communities invested and the

federal government invested to build a comprehensive plan for the entire

region.

Now, I appreciate that the member on the other side would rather

divide people than unite them, but what we’re trying to do is follow the

lead of the Mayors Council. We put in the dollars to build the Broadway

line because that will be owned by the province. The LRT line will be

owned by TransLink. So it was an accounting issue. The money is there.

The province is committed to Surrey — the first investment in Surrey in

over two decades, as the result of this government.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.

T. Redies: Actually, I’m concerned about connecting the people of Surrey to

the downtown corridor via transit, not political posturing like you’re

doing right now.

Despite what the Premier is saying, based on the province’s press

release, not one red cent has been committed by the province to this

project. It’s zero. It’s the province’s press release.

My question to the Minister of Transportation or the Premier: how

can they explain this complete lack of provincial funding for Surrey’s

needs?

Hon. J. Horgan: The mayors’ plan is comprehensive for the entire region, and we

brought partners together — the communities, TransLink, the federal

government and the province of British Columbia.

The member on the other side wants to be obstreperous. That’s what

she wants to do. We want to build transit in British Columbia — billions

of dollars invested by all levels of government to deliver right across

the region.

You know what? Not only did we eliminate the usurious tolls on the

Port Mann Bridge to make life easier for Surrey, and not only are we

building schools in Surrey at a rate unprecedented, but we’re building

transit throughout the region.

I’m proud of that. My Surrey members are proud of that. The entire

government is proud of that. Why won’t the opposition get on the

train?

Interjections.

[10:45 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

T. Stone: If there’s one theme that sums up the performance of the

Transportation Minister, it’s that she has left British

Columbians….

Interjections.

T. Stone: It’s this. The Minister of Transportation has left the people of

British Columbia stranded. In Delta, they’re stuck in a tunnel. In

communities like Osoyoos, they don’t have passenger transportation

services — no bus services. Despite much fanfare and despite the

Premier’s hyperbole, not one single cent has been allocated by this

government to rapid transit projects in the city of Surrey.

Our question to the minister is this. When will the residents of

Surrey actually get the rapid transit investments that they deserve and

that they were promised by this government?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, the Prime Minister was here. I was here, the then mayor of

Surrey, the mayor of Vancouver. We all gathered together with regional

representatives and MLAs on this side. I think there might have even

been some members on the other side. A $4 billion investment by all of

the partners.

Now, my buddy from Kamloops keeps holding up a zero, but that’s

the zero that they invested in Surrey over the 16 years that they had

investing in transit.

We have embraced the mayors’ plan, which included investments in

Surrey. It included investments in Vancouver, bus transportation

throughout the region, reducing the time of travelling across the

region. We embraced it. We were enthusiastic. You delayed it. You put in

place a referendum saying: “Well, maybe we’ll invest; maybe we

won’t.”

No tolls on the bridge, LRT coming, SkyTrain coming. We’re going

to build out the region so that everybody benefits, even

Liberals.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a

supplemental.

T. Stone: Wow, where to begin. The Premier stands in this House and suggests

that the Port Mann Bridge was not a significant investment that’s made a

huge difference for the people of Surrey.

He stands in this House, and he doesn’t acknowledge investments

like the South Fraser Perimeter Road, investments like Nordel, Tilbury,

Sunbury.

He stands in this House, and he doesn’t acknowledge the billions

of dollars that were represented in the George Massey Tunnel, which is

now missing in action under this government.

These were all investments that were announced and that were

funded by the former B.C. Liberal government, and we’re very proud of

that.

Let’s get back to the matter at hand. Let’s talk about rapid

transit in Surrey, shall we? In the government news release of September

4, 2018 — it’s extensive, and we’ve read it word for word — the Broadway

subway project, it says here, will be funded $888.4 million by the

Columbia, and the city of Vancouver will even kick in $99.8 million

through in-kind land contributions.

Then we turn to the matter of rapid transit in Surrey. You can

imagine our surprise when we read the Surrey-Newton-Guildford LRT

TransLink, $1.12 billion.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

T. Stone: How much is allocated by the province of British Columbia? Zero,

absolutely nothing.

When will this Premier come clean with the people south of the

Fraser, and in Surrey in particular, and tell them when they’re going to

actually get the investment that was announced, that has been promised

and that people south of the Fraser deserve?

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll just remind the former Transpor­tation Minister, who

oversaw the implementation of unfair tolls on the people of Surrey,

which were eliminated not by them but by this government. I’ll remind

the former Transportation Minister, who clearly was missing in action.

Some­one else had to take TransLink away because he couldn’t

understand it.

It’s a greatest hits list. I haven’t even mentioned the

billion-plus-dollar deficit at ICBC on his watch.

I want to go to one key point in the question from the member. He

said that the Massey Tunnel was fully funded. What happened with the

Massey Tunnel? It was kind of like all of the hospitals that they

promised and didn’t deliver.

After the 2013 election, the Premier got out an envelope and said:

“Let’s build a bridge there.” There was no planning. There was no

coordination. The Mayors Council rejected it. Now he has the audacity to

stand up and say we’re not funding transit in Surrey. Forty percent of

the cost of the implementation of the plan is coming from B.C. taxpayers

— 40 percent, my friend.

You know better. That’s why you weren’t responsible for

TransLink.

MASSEY TUNNEL REPLACEMENT PROJECT

I. Paton: Well, on the topic of trying to get transit improvements for the

people of Surrey, how about the George Massey Tunnel? Let’s talk a bit

about that this morning — all the thousands of people that live in South

Surrey that make use of the George Massey Tunnel every morning, the

worst gridlock in B.C.

There was a robust election in Delta, as well as the rest of the

province, just a few weeks ago. There’s a great deal of change. We have

a new mayor-elect, George Harvie, and his number one commitment to the

people of Delta in his campaign platform was: “I will get something done

about this terrible, seismically unsafe George Massey

Tunnel.”

Delta mayor-elect George Harvie won the election on the issue of

the Massey Tunnel replacement, something the member for Delta North said

was a non-issue in the municipal election in Delta and a project that

the Transportation Minister abruptly cancelled about a year and a bit

ago.

Last Friday the mayor-elect said: “I door-knocked on thousands of

homes in south Delta and North Delta, and in both areas of the city, the

top comment was that we need to get it fixed.” After ten years of being

on city council and then running for MLA, I have knocked on thousands of

doors in North Delta and south Delta, and for ten years, I’ve heard the

same thing from the people of Delta: we need to fix the George Massey

Tunnel.

My question to the minister: when will the minister restart a

project that was well on its way one year ago? When will the minister

get on with the building of this bridge?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his passion and the length of his question.

But it comes back to the same key point. The Mayors Council did not

include the Massey Tunnel in their ten-year plan. We’re funding the

ten-year plan.

I’m glad to see that now the members on that side of the House are

supporting LRT in Surrey. A little late, but at least you’re there now.

With respect to the Massey Tunnel — which was on the back of a napkin by

the former Premier and not funded until the last gasp from that

government — we have a report that the minister is working with

diligently. We will have solutions for the people in your community as

early as we can get there.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Delta South on a supplemental.

I. Paton: Well, here’s the kicker. I find it utterly ridiculous that this

minister continues to sit on a report that was handed to her nearly five

months ago, a report about what’s going to happen with the George Massey

Tunnel.

To quote Mayor-elect Harvie: “There are already over 14,000 pages

of engineering reports available on the Internet. We want a solution,

and we want a solution very quickly.”

My question to the Transportation Minister: when will the minister

release the Cowdell report and give 80,000 daily drivers a glimmer of

hope that this bridge will get built?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, the member will know that the previous plan was a tolled

bridge. That seems to be operating practice for people on that side of

the House — pile more costs onto individuals, pile more costs onto

people. We reject that. And you know what? So does the federal

government. That’s why there was not one penny of federal money in the

George Massey replacement project.

[10:55 a.m.]

What we are doing on this side of the House is listening to

everyone in the region, including the mayor, who I have met with as

recently as at UBCM. I look forward to working with him into the future,

as well as with the member. But they can’t have it both ways. They can’t

delay, delay, delay and then say, “Look, we put a pile of sand over here

so the guy from Richmond-Queensborough can go golfing,” and then say

somehow we’re the problem.

The problem is they didn’t have a proper exit plan, because at the

centre of their plan was not people but tolls and political advantage.

We want to build out transit for the people of the region fairly and

equitably, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.

J. Johal: I want to remind you that’s a $100 million NDP sand

trap.

Last Friday the mayor-elect of Delta said: “All the engineering reports, thousands and thousands of

pages, say the bridge is the best option and that congestion is

intolerable.”

This is the worst traffic bottleneck in the province, but the

minister has spent the last five months trying to absorb yet another

report. I also want to remind the minister there are 24 ambulance trips

through that tunnel every single day. Six of them are code 3, which is

lights and sirens.

On behalf of parents, on behalf of commuters and on behalf of

Richmond businesses, 14,000 businesses, I ask once again: where is the

Cowdell report, and when will construction begin?

Hon. J. Horgan: I will just refer the member from Richmond to the views of the

Richmond council, which I assume he hears from periodically.

They have serious concerns about the plan that was done on the

back of an envelope by the members on the other side of the House. What

we want to do is have a genuine cooperative approach, not just with the

Delta council but with Richmond and the other members of the Mayors

Council.

Who are we to say, from the Kootenays, from the Peace country,

from Nicola Valley, what’s in the best interest of the Lower Mainland

region? I would suggest it would be the MLAs and the mayors and

councillors from that region.

We are going to listen to them, and I welcome any reasonable input

from the golfer on the other side. I call this one a bogey,

Member.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 53, Recall and Initiative Amendment

Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 53 — RECALL AND INITIATIVE

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby: I move that Bill 53, the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act,

2018, now be read a second time.

This bill updates the Recall and Initiative Act to establish a

framework for recall petition financing in advertising that is similar

to the rules for provincial elections under the Election Act.

Last fall this government followed through on a commitment to get

big money out of politics. Major amendments to the Election Act banned

corporate, union and foreign political contributions and limited

individuals to a maximum of $1,200 donations per year. Additional

changes were made for loans and debts, fundraising functions and the

regulation of third-party advertisers. All of these changes responded to

public concerns about how elections in this province were being

funded.

Last fall’s Election Act changes brought greater fairness and

transparency to how members get elected to this House.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The recall process, which allows British Columbians to petition

for the removal of an elected member of this House, should be subject to

the same standards. The recall provisions in the act set out the process

for a recall petition. This bill focuses on the financing and

advertising elements of the recall process. The bill does not change

fundamental procedural aspects of recall. The process remains the same

in terms of time frames for canvassing for signatures and the threshold

for a successful petition and continues to reflect the recommendations

of the all-party committee in 1993 that set the basic parameters for how

recall would work in British Columbia.

The financing and advertising rules in the Recall and Initiative

Act have not kept pace with changes to the Election Act or with public

expectations for fairness and transparency. For example, there are no

expense limits for third-party advertisers in recall campaigns, and

contributions from corporations and unions are still permitted in

unlimited amounts.

[11:00 a.m.]

This bill would ensure that the way recall petition campaigns are

funded is consistent with how election campaigns are funded and bring

similar transparency to advertising.

Under the Recall and Initiative Act, the petition proponent and

the member subject to a petition are regulated as authorized

participants. The proponent and member must both stay within the same

expenses limit during a recall petition period and file a recall

financing report within 28 days of the end of the recall petition

period, disclosing contributions received and expenses

incurred.

This bill would ban corporate and union contributions to

authorized participants and limit eligible British Columbians to

contributing a maximum of $1,200 per year to an authorized participant.

An additional restriction that applies only to MLAs is that the $1,200

limit is inclusive of recall contributions and political contributions

under the Election Act to the MLA’s political party, candidates and

constituency associations.

In other words, an individual could not contribute more than

$1,200 per year in political contributions and in recall contributions

combined. An MLA waging a campaign against a recall petition, therefore,

could not receive any more donations from an individual than they could

already get right now.

The same rules as in the Election Act will be applied to

fundraising functions held for the benefit of authorized participants

and attended by major political party leaders, members of the executive

council and parliamentary secretaries. The organizer must provide

advance notice of the event to the Chief Electoral Officer and report

afterwards on whether the specified individuals attended and the value

of contributions accepted.

Public concerns over cash for access and fundraising were

addressed in the Election Act, and this bill now does the same for

recall. Recall advertising rules would be updated to parallel the

Election Act, with modifications to suit the unique nature of the recall

process. The amendments restrict contributions to recall advertising

sponsors in a manner similar to the restrictions on recall contributions

to an authorized participant.

Corporate and union contributions for the purposes of sponsoring

recall advertising would be prohibited. No more than $1,200 in

contributions per eligible individual per year may be given to any one

recall advertising sponsor. This ensures that corporate, union and

foreign money cannot be used to influence the outcome of a recall

campaign, whether directly, through the authorized participants, or

indirectly, through recall advertising sponsors.

With respect to recall advertising during a recall petition

period, the bill establishes an expenses limit of $5,000 for a recall

advertising sponsor. This limit applies only during the recall petition

period, which is a maximum of 60 days long. Given that both the petition

proponent and the member subject to the petition must adhere to an

expenses limit, it is fair for individuals and organizations who sponsor

paid recall advertising to do the same. That is the case for provincial

elections, and similar principles should apply to recall.

Election Act amendments last fall also responded to advertising

campaigns by groups that engaged in pre-campaign-period advertising but

not during the campaign period and who did not voluntarily disclose

their identities or those of their contributors. The amendments created

a 60-day pre-campaign period prior to a scheduled general election and

required registration and disclosure of contributions and expenses.

During that time, advertising expenses are not limited, and the

definition of pre-campaign-period election advertising is intentionally

narrow. Indirect or issue-based advertising is not regulated.

Applying that approach to recall, this bill would require

individuals or organizations who sponsor paid advertising at any time

outside a petition period that directly promotes or opposes the recall

of a member to register with Elections B.C., to include sponsorship

information on their advertising and, if they sponsor advertising worth

$5,000 or more, disclose their significant contributors at that time and

every 14 days afterwards.

They would also be required to report each year on their

contributions and expenses if they incur expenses of more than $500 in a

calendar year. If a petition is issued, recall advertising sponsors who

are active in the non-petition period would be required to disclose

their expenses and contributors within 28 days of the petition’s

issuance.

The bill’s requirement to register sponsoring non-petition period

recall advertising is broad in the timing of its application. The rules

would apply at any time outside of a recall petition period. Unlike a

pre-campaign period before a fixed-date election, there is no practical

way to establish a bounded time period during which advertisers directly

promoting or opposing the recall of a member could be required to

register.

This is because the timing of a recall petition application is in

the hands of the prospective proponent. If non-petition-period

advertising were to remain completely unregulated, as it is now,

individuals and organizations could engage in unrestricted and anonymous

advertising advocating the recall of a member immediately before

applying for a recall petition. Then, after the petition is issued,

everyone, including other advertising sponsors, would be subject to

spending limits. This is one important difference between elections and

recalls. The timing of a recall petition cannot be publicly known in

advance.

I want to stress that the definition of non-petition-period recall

advertising is intentionally narrow and focused. There is no intention

to regulate advertising on issues such as the performance of a member in

this House or public policy issues that play in the electoral district.

The objective is simply transparency with respect to paid advertising

that is directly for or against the recall of a member.

[11:05 a.m.]

The regulatory requirements for the recall advertising sponsor are

similarly narrow in their focus. There are no spending limits for

non-petition-period advertising. Instead, the intent is to provide

public transparency on who is sponsoring and funding direct recall

advertising undertaken prior to a petition being issued.

To support the enhanced campaign financing and advertising

framework, this bill includes an amendment that a chief electoral

officer may not issue a recall petition in an electoral district if

there is already a petition underway in that district. This was

recommended in the Chief Electoral Officer’s 2003 special report on

recall as a measure to support integrity of the expense limits on

authorized participants.

Additionally, to help prevent potential confusion and overlap

around rules applying to recall advertising and election advertising,

the bill provides that the Chief Electoral Officer may not issue a

recall petition in the six months prior to general voting day for a

fixed-date election. Although the Chief Electoral Officer’s 2003 report

recommended that recall petitions not be issued in the year prior to a

fixed-date election, this amendment reflects that report’s view that

there is little practical value in a recall petition immediately before

a general election and that it is important for Elections B.C. to be

able to focus on election preparations in the lead-up to an

election.

The bill also requires that loans to authorized participants and

to recall advertising sponsors 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.

The bill will also establish monetary penalties for individuals

and organizations that contravene many of the recall financing and

recall 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 for a public prosecution.

In conclusion, our government has been given a mandate to get big

money out of politics in B.C. We have forced big money out of general

elections. We’ve forced big money out of municipal elections. We also

forced big money out of the current referendum campaign. Forcing big

money out of recall campaigns is an important next step. I look forward

to further debate on the bill.

M. Lee: I rise today to speak to this bill, Bill 53, the Recall and

Initiative Amendment Act, and I speak in strong opposition to this bill.

British Columbians have a lot to be proud of when they come to how we’ve

built a democratic process in this province. Our electoral system has

delivered a peaceful transition of power since our province entered

Confederation as the sixth province, in 1871.

We’ve elected stable governments, we have reflected the will of

most people, and we’ve built a prosperous and peaceful place that is the

envy of the world. Yet in the midst of this government’s mandate, we are

seeing what is perhaps the greatest bait-and-switch program to our

political system ever put in front of our province. We keep hearing

about promises — promises for the people, promises to fix our democratic

process.

Every single step of the way that this government has brought

forward its agenda has eroded our democratic process in this province.

For instance, as the Attorney General just commented at the end of his

remarks, this government has said that it’s getting big money out of

politics. Let’s take the example of municipal politics. As we’ve seen

just in the most recent municipal election, big money remained with

union-endorsed candidates enjoying the support of union-paid staff.

Actions fail to line up with the words of this government, and as we

will see in this bill, it continues.

Right now British Columbians are being asked to vote on a

referendum on proportional representation that proclaims it’s going to

be more fair. Somehow, votes will count more for people.

[11:10 a.m.]

Instead, what this government is delivering continues to be

government for the political parties themselves, with friends in the

Third Party being able to deliver more power to political parties. The

reality is, as much as talk about making every vote count more, somehow,

it’s all about who’s in charge — who is in charge within party

headquarters of these particular political parties. At least, that’s

what we’ve seen from the experiences around the world with the forms of

proportional representation that are being presented to this

province.

Yet, of course, we continue to see this government being reluctant

to share the details of so many important factors to be determined after

the vote. This is a pattern of how this government is undermining our

democratic system. It’s a pattern that myself and our colleagues on this

side of the House will not stand for. This bill is just another example

of that pattern.

What is this government hiding? What is it afraid to tell British

Columbians about the details of this proportional representation? We

know that as much as that side of the House wants to improve democracy,

it’s the erosion of democracy that we’re seeing here. This is the

pattern, though. What’s important to know is that under Bill 40, what

this government has done, at the last minute, in the course of this

referendum, is they’ve introduced a second referendum

promise.

What are they doing now? They are introducing, on the eve of the

18-month process, after the May 2017 election, another rule change. They

continue to change the rules of our democratic process in this province,

and that is not something that any British Columbian should stand for

from this government. This government continues to undermine the

democratic process in our province, and we are not going to stand for

that.

They may say it is something that people want to just pretend

away, but it is not. This is not something that you can just game,

continue to manipulate — our democratic process. This is what is

occurring.

We are seeing, for example, it continues to be the case where MLAs

are selected off party lists under proportional representation. It’s the

insider aspect of what is occurring here. This government continues to

change what is in favour of people — people taking their democratic

process to heart, being engaged in a democratic process, having the

ability to recall members of this House, under very strenuous rules —

and they’re making it even more strenuous.

British Columbians need to ask the question: why is it, when it’s

a matter of days from which British Columbians can launch recall

campaigns all over this province for any member of this House, that this

legislation is coming forward at this time? Why is that? It’s the same

reason why, at the last minute, even though those voter guides say

there’s going to be a promise of a second referendum, Bill 40 is

introduced. We are still debating that bill in this House, Bill

We are now debating this bill in this House because this

government continues to undermine our democratic process. These are just

examples of what this government is doing to our democratic process in

this province.

When we ask the question to the Attorney General, in the context

of democratic reform…. It’s my view that all of these things are linked,

because we are talking about changing our voting system…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, Vancouver-Langara has the floor.

M. Lee: …in this referendum. We’re talking about changing our voting

system. We’ve been at this for 14 months.

[11:15 a.m.]

With respect, Madame Speaker, it is linked. Because when we asked

the Attorney General in the spring, “How will the Recall and Initiative

Act need to be redefined in the context of proportional representation?”

he said to us he didn’t know. They had not figured that out

yet.

Well, you might ask yourself: why doesn’t the government just wait

until the result of the referendum before determining to have a second

referendum or before determining whether to change this act? Why is it

changing it now?

If proportional representation passes, that change will need to

occur. For example, under proportional representation, we know that is

it entirely possible, in mixed-member proportional, that members of this

House will be selected off party lists. How does that work under the

Recall and Initiative Act? How does that work?

We know, of course, that MLAs need to be acting in accordance with

their party’s instructions, in accordance with what their party bosses

say. That is what is going to be occurring under proportional

representation, because when you’re selected off a party list, your

loyalty is to that narrow party ideology and to your party

leader.

How does recall work in that context? Your loyalty and your

accountability are to your party leader, not to the constituents,

because they didn’t select you in the first place. So how would recall

work in that context? This is why I think it’s a very serious question

to be asking in this House — why we’re spending this time and effort to

be amending a Recall and Initiative Act when we’re on the eve, also, of

the referendum. We’re in the voting process now.

Why isn’t it that, if this government wanted to make these

adjustments, they didn’t figure that out before the campaign period

started on July 1? It’s just like promising a second referendum when

they didn’t have the bill in front of this House. These are the examples

of what this government is doing to undermine our democratic

process.

When we look at what this government is doing…. They say they’re

cleaning things up. They say they’re bringing rules in line with the

other changes that they’ve made. But it’s like when they say they’ve

gotten rid of big money, while letting union-paid activists work on

municipal campaigns.

Yet again, they passed legislation in this House — the Local

Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act — and they left a fairly

large loophole where union-paid activists could continue to volunteer,

supposedly to work on municipal campaigns, to support candidates and

municipal campaigns, like in Vancouver, which were backed by the unions.

Union-endorsed candidates — how is that fair?

This government talks a lot about fairness in its democratic

process, yet left that large loophole in that act which has undermined

our democratic elections in this province across all our municipalities,

including Vancouver. This is what occurred.

Let’s look at this bill. Lo and behold, we see that in-kind

volunteer donations, or donations of volunteer time, aren’t included.

“The value of the following is not a sponsorship contribution: (

a) services provided by a volunteer.” They have now made this an explicit

loophole in this 50-plus page bill. They have now made what was the

issue in the municipal campaign elections explicit in this recall

campaign legislation.

Yes, they’ve limited third-party expenditures to a lower amount

than what’s permissible in by-elections with a 28-day campaign. This is

a 60-day referendum petition period, yet the amount, at $5,000, is even

less than what you can do in a 28-day by-election period. How is that

fair?

[11:20 a.m.]

On top of that, third parties are now limited in what they can do,

yet volunteer efforts can come forward. This is a very large loophole in

this bill. You can understand why that might be something that the

government didn’t focus on, perhaps, but you would have thought — given

the furor and the concern that was there in the municipal elections,

both during and after — that this would be addressed.

British Columbians have the ability, as I mentioned earlier, to

hold, ultimately, all of us to account. They can do it at election time.

They can do that in the by-election in Nanaimo coming forward. They can

do it through this Recall Act. This has been part of an important

democratic right for British Columbians in this province.

Yet in this bill, we have an initiative now to amend this Recall

Act by a government which is hanging on by one seat, a government that

knows that — with the numbers in this House, with the determination of

what happens in that Nanaimo by-election — a recall effort would tip the

balance again, to undermine and destabilize this government.

The government would no longer have the confidence of British

Columbians, such as it is now with the members of the NDP and the

members of the Greens. In many votes that we have in this House, it’s 43

to 42. It’s a one-seat difference. They’re hanging on by one vote from

one member. The Recall Act being amended at this point in time continues

to undermine the playing field on which British Columbians can hold MLAs

accountable in this House.

I say to you this: how is it that British Columbians can have any

confidence in this government, in the way it has proceeded with the

referendum — in a flawed way — and the way that it has brought about the

second-referendum promise under Bill 40, in the way that it enabled

union-backed members to undermine our municipal campaigns and in the way

that they’re now bringing a change in the rules, when they know full

well that there are British Columbians, in some ridings in this

province, that have been very concerned by the members that represent

them to this House, as reported in the media?

They know full well that there are citizens in our province that

have been organizing and preparing for recall campaigns in ridings in

this province. Again, this government is hanging on by one member. This

is the reason why British Columbians cannot have any confidence in this

government. You may have the seats in the House for now, but I think

British Columbians need to take a very close look at what this

government is doing right now to manipulate our democratic

process.

Of course, the member who sponsored this bill and raises this

bill, the Attorney General of our province, is the chief legal officer

for this government. As a member of our executive council, he has a

higher level of responsibility and duty to our province. As the media

reports, he may be subject to one of these recall campaigns.

The optics and the perception are important in terms of the

confidence that British Columbians have in this government. This

government shares all of that with the Attorney General. To stand with

the Attorney General to present this bill in this House at this time is

shameful.

[11:25 a.m.]

It is offensive to British Columbians to use the opportunity to

change the rules of recall just when British Columbians are about to

launch whatever efforts they want to do under the rules of recall that

have been in place for many years.

I think that British Columbians need to hold to account this

government and the Attorney General for doing that, because when British

Columbians want to have confidence in who they elect, they expect that

we act with integrity. They expect that we act with due process. They

expect that we act without a conflict of interest.

British Columbians are smarter than this. They can see this. If

the members on the other side of the House can’t see that, well, the

members on this side of the House and the rest of our constituents

around this province can see this. It doesn’t take a lot to see that

this is really a manipulation of our process. It’s a completely

inappropriate use of our time in this House. It’s something that is

illegitimate in terms of the effort that they’re bringing

forward.

Of course, one of the points that the Attorney General mentioned

in the course of his comments is the fact that, well, it’s going to be

whichever group files their application first — and it’s accepted or

approved in principle by the Chief Electoral Officer — will be the one

recall petition effort. That means whichever group organizes first to do

that will be able to get first in line.

This is something that, of course, can be exploited in terms of

whatever groups purport to be doing recall in whatever riding in this

province that we’re speaking of. It only takes one group. There is no

review behind the nature of that recall application. There’s some basic

information, you know: name, particulars, address, a 200-word

description. That’s all there really is.

On the face of an application, the Chief Electoral Officer can

choose to accept and approve that in principle. If he does, he publishes

a notice to this province on the Internet and in the Gazette .

Once that occurs, no other group can go forward.

Of course, this petition period lasts for 60 days. At the end of

the 60 days, the group that was approved in principle needs to come back

and demonstrate that they’ve received the necessary 40 percent of

registered voters signed up in that particular electoral district and

also demonstrate that they’ve been able to comply with the additional 50

pages of requirements around financial disclosure in this bill — at a

$5,000 limit, at least for third-party advertising sponsors.

The complexity of what this government is putting on, to make it

even more onerous and more difficult to bring a recall campaign…. We

know that of the 27 recall campaigns in the history of this province,

only one was successful, and the member who was the subject of that

recall voluntarily resigned. So it is difficult to bring on a recall

campaign.

What we are seeing now, in this particular bill, is another

potential loophole of exploitation, where one group can come forward,

which may prove to be bogus. It may be a group, because there is no

review process in this bill, that can just be someone, quite frankly,

who is a member of the NDP party. We have seen what has come across in

terms of what members on the other side of the House will stoop to. This

is another loophole that, I think, will basically gut the effect of this

Recall Act.

We see that there are a number of ways in which the rules for this

recall petition will work.

[11:30 a.m.]

We’ve talked about the fact that already, as the Attorney General

mentioned, they are now cutting the time period in which recall can be

brought forward. You are prevented for the first 18 months, and now

they’re cutting another six months. This will be effectively a situation

now where members are only subject to recall for half of their

term.

This government is making it even more difficult for British

Columbians to bring about recall. How is that fair?

We know that with the cap on advertising at the $5,000 level, that

is going to be a challenge. It’s a challenge in terms of the efforts

that third parties can bring on. We are again limiting — just as this

government has been, under the referendum rules — the freedom of

expression, the ability of citizen groups to organize amongst

themselves, to bring on an effort, to participate in a democratic

process.

If we think, as we do, that the Recall and Initiative

Amend­ment Act, or the recall act itself, is fundamental to our

democratic process because it’s been part of how British Columbians have

exercised their rights in this province…. This is the bait-and-switch

aspect. We continue to hear from this government about how it stands for

British Columbians and for the people, putting people at the centre of

politics.

I think that, as I’ve said before many times in this House, this

government is putting parties at the centre of our politics. This

government is making it harder for people to participate, to know who

we’re voting for under our voting systems, under proportional

representation. To be given false promises that will never be kept by

virtue of a second referendum, to give the ability of union-paid workers

to support union-endorsed candidates in municipal campaigns and, now, to

take away and limit the ability of citizens to mount recall campaigns in

this province, as has been done 27 other times in the history of this

province….

Recall has become, for many British Columbians, an important way

to exercise their democratic rights. It’s something that both sides of

this House have experienced, let’s say, over the course of our

democratic political process.

We know that true democratic power rests with the people. As I’ve

said, it’s my belief that this bill erodes that and our democracy. This

will be a sad legacy for this House and this government if this bill

passes at this time. Timing and confidence for British Columbians is

everything.

This government should not underestimate what manoeuvre it is

pulling at this time. That adds to the long list of what I’ve been

saying and what other members of this House have been saying for weeks

and months. This just continues that erosion. I will submit, as we’ve

seen — and there’s been a concern — that many British Columbians, young

and old, new Canadians and long-time Canadians, in all parts of our

province, are disillusioned by our political process.

The other side of the House says: “Well, we’ve got to change our

system.” I say we’ve got to change that side of the House. It’s the

people who matter. The people we elect, when they are given the

confidence of our constituents to stand in this House…. We are to be

accountable to them.

[11:35 a.m.]

When we start gaming and changing and manipulating our voting

process, our election financing rules, in the way that this government

has done and in the way that this recall initiative act is being

amended, this is a concern.

I think that, really, what British Columbians need to reflect on,

as we do, is what the true objectives are of this government. Of course,

we know what that is. It’s power. It’s power to continue to implement

the agenda that they’ve been doing. That’s all this is about. It’s the

ability to continue in power with the Green Party, the three Green Party

members that hold and have held a disproportionate balance of power in

this House. They are trying to keep together this fragile coalition,

which is hanging on one seat. They do not have the confidence of this

province to start undermining and continue to undermine our democratic

process.

Above all of the issues and priorities that are facing this

government in this province, the referendum and what this government is

doing with this recall petition act and the promise of the second

referendum…. These are the fundamental concerns that all British

Columbians should have about the behaviour and conduct of this

government — from the Premier to the Attorney General to all members of

this government and the three Green Party members.

They’re in this together, and they are continuing to undermine our

process of democracy in this province. They’re continuing to do that

under the guise of fairness, when, as I’ve been speaking to you, Madame

Speaker, it’s very clear that with the ability to bring on a false

petition and a limit on spending, as well as the timing of this…. This

is of great concern.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in support of Bill

53, Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018. True to form, frankly,

the official opposition once more stood up today and rallied against

taking big money out of politics. It’s remarkable.

I wonder if, after almost a year and a half, they’ve learned

anything from the last election. I’m wondering whether the official

opposition have not learnt the lesson that put them in the time-out

where they’re sitting now, a lesson which is to have them realize that

what matters to British Columbians is not the games and the cynicism but

actually ensuring that their interests are front and centre in our

democracy.

Now, listening to the member for Vancouver-Langara, moments ago,

discuss another bill, frankly, and not actually address the substance of

this bill, which is taking big money out of yet another aspect of B.C.

politics, I had a lightbulb go on. The lightbulb was this. I realize now

why the B.C. Liberals are so cynical, are throwing allegations of gaming

the system, are actually claiming that this is undermining this and

that. It’s because that’s the mindset by which they operated government

for the last 16 years, and they recognize and realize….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Vancouver-Langara said he wasn’t here for 16 years,

and I understand that.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, Oak Bay–Gordon Head has the floor.

A. Weaver: The member for Vancouver-Langara wasn’t here for 16 years, but I

suspect the person who wrote his speech was.

The cynicism embodied in what we hear today is classic. It is

exactly what I’ve come to now realize. It is the way that they

operate.

[11:40 a.m.]

They accuse others of being them, because the only frame that they

understand is one of a few select people doing what’s in the best

interest of the people that they want to represent. I understand that.

It was a lightbulb, and I expect to hear more about that as we discuss

this bill further.

I’m not sure what, if anything, as I said, the official opposition

have learned. We, in British Columbia, were called the Wild West of

political financing by the New York Times . That’s not exactly a

brand that we would want to actually take some pride in. It’s an

embarrassing brand.

One of the first things that was done with the new government was

reflecting the will of election campaign promises of both the B.C. NDP

and the B.C. Greens to ban big money. What was truly remarkable is that

the B.C. Liberals voted against that as well. They voted against banning

big money in provincial politics. Talk about self-serving, the

gall.

To be in this Legislature, today again…. We listen to B.C. Liberal

after B.C. Liberal go on about how somehow this proportional

representation campaign is self-serving, after they voted against the

bill to ban big money, at first reading of this bill. Without even

having the opportunity to see what was in the bill, they voted at first

reading against taking big money out.

Bill 53 complements Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act, 2017,

which was passed and which again, as I pointed out, was voted against by

the B.C. Liberals. It also complements Bill 15, the Local Elections

Campaign Financing Amendment Act, which was passed in the fall of last

year as well, which took big money out of local government elections. So

big money is now gone from provincial elections, from local government

elections and from school board elections. What’s happening right now is

that the final aspect of that is being closed — in recall and initiative

campaigns.

When this bill was introduced, my office put out a press release

applauding this bill. What was stated in our press release — and

attributed to quotes which I gave — was: “Recall campaigns should be

about making politicians accountable to their constituents, not to

making them subject to big money–funded hit jobs.” That was one of the

quotes I gave for that. Another quote I suggested was: “These rules will

apply to both proponents of recall campaigns and politicians who are

attempting to stay in power.” It’s conveniently forgotten by members

opposite that big money can be used not only by a proponent of a recall

campaign but by a defendant in a recall campaign. That is being cleared

up in this particular legislation.

This legislation will assure that a sufficiently motivated

electorate is able to recall their elected officials without risking the

process being corroded by the influence of big money. Politicians should

be accountable to voters, plain and simple. Unions, corporations and

extraordinarily wealthy individuals should not have a disproportionate

say in our democracy, whether they support an elected official or the

recall campaign against that elected official. Right now any person, any

union, any corporation — any entity anywhere in the world — can give any

amount of money, any time they want, to any recall campaign. I think we

don’t want that. I truly think we don’t want that here.

As I said in our press release, I am disappointed, although not

surprised, that the B.C. Liberals voted against this legislation. This

is the same party that refused to act while our province was

internationally derided as the Wild West of political fundraising, only

to make a 180 reversal in their summer of 2017 throne speech, in a

desperate attempt to cling to power.

It’s remarkable that the official opposition continues to fail to

understand that democracy should reflect the views of citizens as equal

members of society, not the ability of special interests who happen to

have slightly deeper pockets.

[11:45 a.m.]

Coming back to this legislation. Under the Recall and Initiative

Act, when a recall petition is issued by the Chief Electoral Officer,

the voter becomes the proponent of the recall petition and has up to 60

days to garner signatures and submit the petition for

verification.

There have been 26 recall campaigns that went through. The 27th

was actually not followed through on, because the actual MLA at the time

resigned before votes were counted. No recall campaign has been

successful. One, where the proponents thought that they had enough

signatures, turned out not to be successful. As we know with petitions,

you’re in a mall somewhere and anybody can sign, and of course, you have

to be in the riding that you were…. In fact, after they counted, a

substantial number of the votes were deemed to be ineligible, and it was

not successful. So there has not been a successful recall

campaign.

It’s remarkable, again, that the member for Vancouver-Langara

suggested that there was one. He suggested that in fact there was a

successful one. There was not. Again, alt-facts. This is very similar to

what we’re seeing in the self-serving discussion by the opposite side

about proportional representation.

As mentioned, a voter can only petition to recall the member for

the electoral district in which they are registered to vote. That

doesn’t stop people anywhere in the province, any corporation, donating

any amount of money to that initiative, right now. But that will change.

We also know that there’s a very high bar in recall campaigns. Forty

percent of voters eligible to sign the petition in that electoral

district must actually sign. If the petition meets the criteria, a

by-election must be called within 90 days.

Now, I know that the B.C. Liberals are all salivating about the

opportunity to have a recall campaign — a recall campaign here and a

recall campaign there. The reality, I suggest, is that they should

actually be worrying about recall campaigns in their own ridings, based

on their performance in this Legislature over the last session — where

we have spent almost 36 hours debating a bill that is actually being

debated solely in the self-interest of a party that is made up of

multiple factions that are clearly warring within themselves.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: They’re warring within themselves. You can hear it in the banter

in this room. It’s a party that’s afraid of the future, a party that is

afraid of British Columbians actually having a say in their own

democracy because they might not like what the outcome is.

No other Canadian jurisdiction provides a legislative framework

for voters to remove an elected member from office. We are unique here.

Successful petitions, as we note, do result in the immediate removal of

an MLA. A recall petition cannot be initiated until at least 18 months

after an MLA is elected. In the present case, that date would be

November 10. It’s incredibly easy for a citizen to initiate a recall

campaign. You basically need a 50-buck processing fee and a statement

not exceeding 200 words setting out why, in the opinion of the

applicant, the recall campaign is warranted.

We have an initiative…. It’s very similar for initiatives. I’ll

come to that in a second. We still have an initiative that just stopped

— an initiative to basically stop Site C. I don’t know what happened to

that, because we still haven’t seen the signatures. It didn’t get a lot

of attention.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Well, we have no idea. I never saw that.

Anybody can do these. That’s the point I’m raising. Whether

they’re successful or not, anyone can do it. The point of the matter is

that what’s being done here is that certain rules are applied to ensure

that vested interests — that have been so embraced by the former

government, now official opposition — cannot use their deep pockets to

actually influence.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I do note the time, though, and I reserve my right to continue my

position in debate.

A. Weaver moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Health, for the Government House

Leader.

Hon. A. Dix: I’m going to give this another try. We did so well last night. I

feel that it’s very difficult to replace a Government House Leader in

this place, and it’s going to require all of my repertoire. I look

forward to seeing all of you this afternoon.

Hon. A. Dix moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:50 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2018: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada