2017 Legislative Session: Sixth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 43, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Stan Wardill

L. Krog

Introductions by Members

Tributes

King George Dragons boys basketball team

S. Chandra Herbert

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Rod Naknakim

C. Trevena

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Service to Legislature by MLA s

J. Horgan

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

150 th anniversary of Canadian Confederation

J. Tegart

Vietnamese Canadians

A. Dix

Technology summit and high-technology industry

R. Lee

Sandpiper Signs

S. Robinson

I always hoped

G. Hogg

Community organizations in West Kootenay

K. Conroy

Oral Questions

Election campaign financing

J. Horgan

Hon. S. Anton

Contaminated soil case in Saanich

L. Popham

Hon. M. Polak

Minimum wage

S. Simpson

Hon. S. Bond

Rental housing costs and regulation

G. Heyman

Hon. R. Coleman

Conservation of Owl Island and return to Coast Salish Nations

G. Holman

Hon. S. Thomson

Mental health and addiction services

S. Robinson

Hon. M. Morris

Hon. T. Lake

Conditions at Prince Rupert Middle School

J. Rice

Hon. M. Bernier

R. Fleming

Petitions

N. Simons

J. Rice

S. Robinson

R. Fleming

D. Ashton

J. Darcy

Tabling Documents

Liquor Distribution Branch distribution centre project, capital project plan, February 2017

Guarantees and indemnities authorized and issued report, fiscal year ended March 31, 2016

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 6 — Information Management (Documenting Government Decisions) Amendment Act, 2017

D. Routley

Hon. M. de Jong

K. Corrigan

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Information Management (Documenting Government Decisions) Amendment Act, 2017

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Election Amendment Act, 2017 (continued)

Hon. A. Wilkinson

S. Hammell

Hon. P. Fassbender

A. Weaver

D. Bing

K. Conroy

M. Hunt

S. Simpson

R. Fleming

M. Farnworth

Throne Speech Debate (continued)

G. Hogg

[ Page 14369 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2017

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

S. Fraser: I notice that one of my constituents is visiting us today in the gallery. He and I are about to embark on a quest for this seat for Mid Island–Pacific Rim. Would you all please make Darren DeLuca — the Liberal candidate for this upcoming election for Mid Island–Pacific Rim — feel very welcome today.

Hon. T. Lake: I have the pleasure today of welcoming some very good friends to the Legislature: Greg and Diane Neilsen, from West Vancouver, and Diane’s brother Ross Hayward, who is actually from Victoria and serves as the executive director of performance monitoring and evaluation for the Ministry of Health.

Greg and Diane and Lisa and I have been friends since 28½ years ago, when our first children were born at the same time in Lions Gate Hospital in North Vancouver. I just need to put on the record that Greg and I had a gentleman’s bet on which baby would arrive first. Little Lisa, as Greg and Diane’s first child is known, was born an hour earlier. But Big Lisa’s, my Lisa’s, due date was later, actually. So, technically, I did win that bet.

I’d like the House to welcome Greg, Diane and Ross to the House today.

G. Heyman: Joining us in the gallery for her very first direct view of question period is Brontë Renwick-Shields. Brontë is not only my legislative assistant but also the legislative assistant for the members for Vancouver–Point Grey, Coquitlam-Maillardville and Surrey-Whalley.

Brontë is a recent graduate of the University of Victoria. She’s been working in this building for about a year. She is smart. She likes her work. She is always looking for ways to make our lives easier and find things that she can do to make them easier, and she finds them.

Will the House join me in making Brontë very, very welcome.

Hon. M. Polak: Today in the gallery, we are joined by Grant and Vera Ward, two very longtime friends and supporters. They have brought with them their grandchildren Reilly Ward and Casey Ward. Reilly is a 12-year-old future NBA star and Casey is ten years old, but I am certain at some point you’re going to see her with an Olympic medal around her neck for track.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

S. Simpson: Today we’re joined in the precinct by Irene Lanzinger, the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, along with a contingent of union and labour activists, about 20 members of affiliated unions to the Federation of Labour.

[1340]

They’re here to continue their strong advocacy for a $15-an-hour minimum wage and to make the case that we need to lift all boats. We start that with a $15 minimum wage.

Please make the representatives of the Federation of Labour welcome.

Hon. M. Bernier: In the building today, we have a group that, obviously, represents tens of thousands of teachers in the province of British Columbia, the B.C. Teachers Federation. It’s my pleasure to have with us today President Glen Hansman and Vice-President Teri Mooring, who are joining us today to have more meetings with myself and my staff, as we move education forward in B.C.

Please make them welcome.

M. Mark: I have a number of friends in these chambers today that I’d like to introduce.

First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge my constituency assistant, Christina Rzepa, who gets me to work every day and makes sure that things are in my calendar, that I get fed and that I pick up my kids on time. She gets me to where I need to go. She is responsive and generous to all the constituents of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. It’s been a steep learning curve. We’ve done an accelerated degree in one year, getting elected in a by-election last year. I’d like to thank Christina for all of her work.

I’d also like to acknowledge and introduce the men’s basketball coach at Capilano University, Cassidy Kannemeyer. The Blues recently placed second in the PACWEST provincials, winning their first silver medal since 2004. Cassidy Kannemeyer is also a student support worker at Grandview Elementary School, which is in my constituency — a dynamic inner-city school. So please, if the House can join me in thanking him.

I’d also like to introduce — I have so many friends here; people are so excited in these chambers — and acknowledge my good friend nupqu ʔa·kǂam̓. He is a Ktunaxa writer and broadcaster living in Lax Kw’alaams territory. He recently completed a residency at the Banff Centre and has been published in the Malahat Review . He is a senior adviser to the Ktunaxa Nation council and is the host of Native Waves on CFUV radio station. If the House could please join me in welcoming Troy Sebastian.

Last but not least, Denise Moffatt, my constituent who is here with the B.C. Fed. Thank you so much for being an amazing constituent.

Please join me in welcoming my friends.

[ Page 14370 ]

Hon. S. Thomson: I’d like the House to welcome a couple of guests in the gallery this afternoon.

Darren DeLuca is the vice-president of conservation for the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. He was previously introduced and also acknowledged as our candidate for Mid Island–Pacific Rim.

With Darren is Shane Mahoney. Mr. Mahoney is an internationally renowned speaker on hunting and the North American model of wildlife conservation. He is the president of Conservation Visions, an organization devoted to conservation in North America. He hails from Newfoundland, from the far other coast of Canada, visiting here today.

I’d like the House to make both of them very welcome.

R. Fleming: I’d also like to welcome the president of the B.C. Teachers Federation, Mr. Glen Hansman, and the first vice-president, Teri Mooring, who are here in the House with us today, as the minister has mentioned.

There are other educational leaders that have joined us who I’d also like the House to give a warm welcome to. We have George Davison, the president of the Post-Secondary Educators of B.C. He represents over 10,000 faculty and staff in colleges, universities, institutes and private sector ESL schools in British Columbia. With him is Terri Van Steinburg, FPSE’s secretary-treasurer. Also joining this delegation is Norman Gludovatz. He’s a staff representative for policy and communications with the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of B.C.

Would the House make these guests most welcome here this afternoon.

J. Yap: In the gallery today is a constituent who is visiting. We had lunch today in the dining room. Randy Sandhu is an active member of the community. He observed that he has not been visiting the Legislature. The last time he was here was about 20 years ago. He thought the dining room looked a little larger. All in all, a very delightful lunch.

Would the House please offer a warm welcome to Mr. Randy Sandhu.

[1345]

S. Robinson: I have two guests with me here today in the gallery. My dad, Irv Dardick, is here. He’s my biggest cheerleader. He’s now a retired small business owner. He was the first feminist in my life, who has always told me that I could be whatever it is I wanted to be as long as I put my mind to it. He’s joined by his friend Arlene Howard, who is a wonderful friend and companion to my dad. She introduced my dad to the arts, making him a much better person for it.

Would the House please join me in welcoming Irv and Arlene.

Hon. D. Barnett: Today I am delighted to have a lady here with me from the Chilcotin. Do you know how far away that is? She’s here with her husband at the guide-outfitters convention. Out in the Chilcotin, their family works very hard. They have for many, many years. They’re a historical family of guide-outfitters, trappers, ranchers and small business people.

Would the House welcome Bev Madley.

Tributes

STAN WARDILL

L. Krog: I want to recognize the passing in Nanaimo on March 13 of Stan Wardill, one of our community’s outstanding musicians. Indeed, it was his passion for music that introduced him to his wife, Bernice, at the Pygmy Pavilion in Nanaimo. They were married for 65½ years with Stan’s death on Monday, still survived by Bernice.

Stan had a remarkable career. He was the third generation of a pioneer Nanaimo family. Bernice Nash, his wife, was another pioneering Nanaimo family. Stan’s family came to Nanaimo in 1887.

He had a long and wonderful career as a proud native son, practising law for many years in Nanaimo by himself and then with his partner, George Henderson. He became a part-time magistrate and, eventually, a Provincial Court judge, serving until he was 70 years old.

He was an avid boater, a great trumpet player, a community-minded person. As I say, he was one of those sons Nanaimo is very proud of. I could not pass this day without recognizing that.

I must tell you, as his daughter informed me, that Stan said all the most significant events occurred on the 13th and the 26th of the month throughout his life. Born on the 26th, he passed on the 13th. I would ask the House to recognize the passing of a fine citizen of Nanaimo.

Introductions by Members

J. Thornthwaite: I’d like to introduce some constituents of mine that have surprised me today by coming: Jessica Macht; Ben Macht, who’s 11 years old and in grade 5; Hannah Macht, nine years old and in grade 4; Jacqueline Hardy; Abby, who’s 13 years old and a grade 8 student at Argyle Secondary; and Megan, who’s 11 years old and a grade 5 student at Ross Road Elementary. I look forward to meeting them later on this afternoon.

Can the House please make them welcome.

J. Rice: I would like the House to please make welcome Alex MacDonald, who is my constituency assistant.

Hon. S. Bond: All of us are blessed with fantastic staff who make sure we get to the right places. When you’re a rural MLA, in particular, there are lots of details around how we commute to work, etc. I would like to ask the

[ Page 14371 ]

House to make welcome two of the administrative staff in my ministry, Izak Brussow and Amanda Robb. Both of them do an exceptional job as part of a great team in JTST.

I’m really pleased that they’re able to join us here in the Legislature today, and I would ask all members to make them welcome.

J. Darcy: I see my good friend Justin Schmid in the gallery today. I’ve known Justin for a very long time, ever since he was a member of the CUPE young workers committee. You can’t all see him, but it wasn’t that long ago. It’s been wonderful to see his career develop since that time. He is today the legislative coordinator for CUPE B.C.

Will the House please join me making Justin welcome.

Hon. S. Anton: I’d like to introduce two of my staff: my chief of staff, Martyn Lafrance, who always keeps things moving in the right direction — in particular, me and my responsibilities — and Christina Starko, my administrative assistant, who is a treasure in our office in the Ministry of Justice.

[1350]

I’d like to thank them for the hard work that they do every day. Both of them are relatively new to the British Columbia government, and both of them are completely outstanding.

Would the House make them feel very welcome.

K. Conroy: I, too, would like to welcome the guide-outfitters who are here today with the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. I want to thank them for the lovely breakfast they threw this morning for the official opposition. I think that I can safely say that we came afterwards agreeing more than we disagree with each other.

I also want to welcome Shane Mahoney to B.C. I’ve heard him speak a number of times, and I’m so impressed with what he has to say about the outdoors, back country, wildlife and all those things. So I welcome him to B.C.

I want to acknowledge one guide-outfitter, Ken Robbins. He’s actually from Nakusp. It’s rare I have people from my constituency, so I’d like to welcome Ken. Could the House please join me in welcoming all these people.

E. Foster: I have two friends in the audience today, Ian Hames and Theresa Sanesh. They hail from Chase, which is in the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure’s riding, but Theresa grew up in Lumby. We’ve been family friends for 35 years. I’m sad to say to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure that they’re moving from Chase. They’re going to move back to Lumby.

Ian and Theresa are great people. They are paramedics, now actually working in Vancouver. They do a great job for the province. I would like the House to make them very welcome.

N. Simons: I’d like to start with two introductions. I’d like to welcome to the House Gabe Dalpiaz from Powell River. He’s visiting Victoria for we don’t know how long. I hope he gets back to Powell River soon.

As well, I’d just like to add to my friend, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who, in her extolling of the virtues of her constituency assistant Christina Rzepa, failed to mention that she is also very capable of playing harmonic minor and melodic major scales on the cello — a former cello student of mine. I’m happy to have her here. If the House would please make them both welcome.

If I may, also, I’d like to welcome Linda Tenpas to the public gallery this afternoon. Linda is the mother of Nick Lang, a boy whose name sadly has been mentioned many times in this House as we’ve sought answers to troubling questions about services to children and youth. On behalf of all members, I’d like to offer Linda and her family our ongoing, heartfelt sympathies as well as the encouragement that she may need as she strives to make things better for others. Thank you, and welcome to the House.

J. Tegart: I’m very pleased to welcome two constituents from my riding today, Bonnie and Murray Abram. They’re valuable community members, wonderful supporters and great friends of mine. They have travelled from the community of 16 Mile. Please make them welcome.

J. Wickens: Joining us in the gallery today is also Samantha Scott. Samantha Scott is my legislative assistant, along with some of my colleagues. I’ll never forget the moment when the panic actually set in, and I realized all the things I had to do as an MLA. It’s because of our legislative assistants and constituency assistants that we are able to do what we do. So thank you, Sam, and thank you to all of the staff that help us do what we do.

Hon. C. Oakes: I would like to recognize fantastic staff who are here today, Dustin Dobravksy and Kirby Delaney, and, of course, staff who are back in the office holding down the fort: chief of staff Derek Cummings and Yarko Petryshyn. Thank you very much for all your work.

Tributes

KING GEORGE DRAGONS

BOYS BASKETBALL TEAM

S. Chandra Herbert: First off, I want to congratulate the King George senior boys basketball team, the Dragons, for placing No. 3 out of all basketball teams in British Columbia. It’s the best that they’ve ever done in their history. Huge congratulations to them, the teachers and all of the fans and parents who helped them achieve such great success.

[ Page 14372 ]

Introductions by Members

S. Chandra Herbert: I also want to welcome to my office, and hope the House will help me welcome, Paul Smale and Sarah Kim, who are joining my office and the very capable Murray Bilida as constituency assistants.

[1355]

J. Thornthwaite: I’d also like to introduce some members from the Child and Youth Mental Health and Substance Use Collaborative: their project director, Val Tregillus; Vancouver Island regional lead, Roxanne Blemings; and a very special young person, the Saanich Peninsula and Victoria regional action team lead, Jasmine Rakhra. Could we please welcome them.

G. Holman: Joining us today in the precinct and meeting with opposition caucus members today are representatives of the Active Manufactured Home Owners Association, including some constituents of mine — Joyce Klein, Trevor Hunt, Samantha Sanderson and Wendy Kaye. We’re discussing with them amendments to legislation that governs compensation for homeowners that are being evicted. Could the House please make them feel welcome.

D. McRae: I have two guests joining us in the chambers today, beyond yonder pole. I have Ron Webber and Lorraine Webber. Ron served as an elected official, both as a city councillor and as mayor of the city of Courtenay, for 30 years. Lorraine can only be described as his rock. The two of them have lived almost all their lives in the Comox Valley and continue to work hard to make our community a better place. I’ve had the honour of knowing them for 31 years. I’m proud to say that not only are they great Comox Valley citizens; they’re also the best in-laws a son-in-law could ask for. Thank you very much.

Tributes

ROD NAKNAKIM

C. Trevena: I’d like to inform the House of the sudden passing of Rod Naknakim. Described as a beacon for the community, he used his professional skills as a lawyer to advocate for Laich-Kwil-Tach rights and title. He was also deeply involved in the Nuymbalees Cultural Centre on Quadra, working on the repatriation of cultural artifacts, and had been involved in the majestic Tribal Journeys event that’s planned for this summer. A service will be held in Cape Mudge for him this Friday, and I would ask the House to send its condolences to Mr. Naknakim’s family.

Introductions by Members

L. Throness: It’s always a pleasure to have family visit. I have four siblings, and I have the special pleasure of having my brother, Trevor, from Abbotsford, visit today. He brings with him his wife, my sister-in-law Jennifer, nieces Julia and Ella and my nephew, Will. I promised them fireworks in question period today, so I’m looking forward to great things. Would the House please make them welcome.

S. Fraser: I would note that I think we’ve maybe set a record in welcomes this afternoon. It’s almost a half-hour. With that in mind — and it’s just about the end of the session — for anyone that wasn’t welcomed so far in the gallery, would the House please join me in making them all feel very welcome.

D. Routley: You think so, eh? All right.

These notes were passed to me by my CA, and I’m introducing some wonderful people, one of them from Ladysmith, a longtime resident, Winnie Stubbington. Winnie was nurse and head nurse in the OR in the Chemainus hospital for many years, the hospital that I lived two doors from for several years. Winnie is a fixture around the community, and people who have been treated by her and know her will smile every time they see her. She and her late husband, Jack, were familiar faces in local NDP campaigns.

Winnie’s daughter, Nessie Magee, is from Victoria. She’s a special education teacher here in school district No. 61, and she’s been doing that job since 1986, affecting many lives. Winnie’s son, Ray Stubbington, was an electrical contractor with a company that served Duncan and Ladysmith. He’s also with us today.

And this

part I’m not sure about. I’ve got to get my glasses. It says: “Also with them is the best CA ever, Patty McNamara.” Yeah, that’s it. May the House please help me make them welcome.

Tributes

SERVICE TO LEGISLATURE BY MLA s

J. Horgan: For those students of politics, this is not a filibuster. It appears to be a filibuster, delaying the tactics in the House.

What I wanted to do was to take this opportunity to say thank you to many members of this place who will not be seeking re-election in the weeks ahead — the member for Vancouver-Langara, the member for Kootenay East, the member for Surrey–White Rock, the member for Peace River North, the member for Comox Valley and, of course, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson on the government side; our venerable independent from Delta South, who will not be seeking re-election.

[1400]

On the opposition side, Burnaby-Lougheed; Burnaby–Deer Lake; Cowichan Valley; Columbia River–Revelstoke; Skeena; my bestie, from Esquimalt–Royal Roads; and, of course, the longest-serving member on this side, with

[ Page 14373 ]

the Opposition House Leader, the member for Surrey–Green Timbers.

To all of you: thank you so much for what you do. For those who came to watch fire and brimstone: it is coming, but this is one of those rare opportunities for all of us to thank, from the bottom of our heart, the sacrifices, on both sides of the House, by our retiring members.

You’ve done your community and yourselves proud. I thank you for your work. I thank you for your effort. And now let the games begin. [Applause.]

An addendum, Madame Speaker. Of course, members don’t know that you can’t name people in this Legislature in complete names but you can say thank you to Moira, Bill, Gordie, Pat, Don, Terry, Vicki, Jane, Kathy, Bill, Norm, Robin, Maurine and Sue. Thank you all very much.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

150 th ANNIVERSARY OF

CANADIAN CONFEDERATION

J. Tegart: Our nation stands strong and free. In 1867, the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick joined Confederation, marking the birth of our country we now know as Canada. A few years later, the country grew larger with the additions of Manitoba, the Northwest Territories, P.E.I. and British Columbia. Canada didn’t stop growing in both population and territory, with the last addition of Newfoundland in 1949.

Every province, every city, every Canadian has a reason to be proud of the 150 years of Canada’s history. From the days prior to our formation, consisting of our First Nations peoples; to the founding of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who keep our country safe coast to coast; to the patriotic Olympic victories, we can stand back and say that was all history. But when you stop and think about it, these are the events that have formed the foundations of our country and continue to shape us and the generations that will follow as Canadians.

An example of this history is showcased in the village of Clinton in my riding of Fraser-Nicola, where they, too are celebrating Canada’s 150 years. Their 150th annual May ball, being held May 20, is the longest-running event of its kind in Canada. I would love to invite you to attend, but this event has been sold out for over a year.

Many men and women have come before us in the past 150 years who have planted the seeds that continue Canada’s growth, and there is so much more to come. Happy 150th, Canada. We truly do have so much to celebrate.

VIETNAMESE CANADIANS

A. Dix: In years after the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975, some 840,000 Vietnamese fled their country, mostly by boat, and 60,000 were accepted as refugees in Canada through the efforts of grassroots organizations everywhere. For example, my neighbour Winnie Cao grew up in the province of Jianyang. She was an elementary school teacher and began her escape on the last day of the school year in 1981. There were 21 people in her boat, 15 adults and six children, including Winnie’s 7-year-old daughter, Van Tran.

They survived storms, robbery by pirates and made it to a refugee camp in Thailand. She arrived in Canada in October 1981 and has become a successful small business person and community leader.

British Columbia today is home to some 40,000 Vietnamese Canadians, who contribute every day to making our country a better place.

I think of Hap Fam, a friend of my colleague from Surrey-Whalley, who raised money to support Syrian refugees whose difficult path mirrored his own, and active organizations such as the Mekong Delta Friendship Society, the Free Vietnamese Association, the Vietnamese-Canadian community in greater Vancouver, the Vietnamese Veterans Association, the Greater Vancouver Vietnamese Women’s Association, the Little Saigon Foundation, the Vietnamese Cultural Heritage Association in Surrey, and many others who give life in B.C. to a Vietnamese culture that is 4,896 years old.

[1405]

In 2015, the Parliament of Canada unanimously passed a bill recognizing every April 30 as Journey to Freedom Day. This April 30 will take place, of course, during the election campaign, but I encourage my colleagues to commemorate this event and look forward to the next Legislative Assembly of B.C. coming together to commemorate Journey to Freedom Day with yellow scarves on April 30, 2018.

TECHNOLOGY SUMMIT AND

HIGH-TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY

R. Lee: Today members of the tech industry are celebrating day 2 of the sold-out B.C. Tech Summit in Vancouver. The 5,000 participants attending the summit see the latest and greatest innovations from over 300 of B.C.’s technology companies, research labs and post-secondary institutions. Throughout the summit, small and medium businesses have the opportunity to further their growth and share ideas with larger tech firms and government agencies.

This exciting event is in conjunction with the announcement of a renewed B.C. tech strategy yesterday. The B.C. tech strategy aims to increase investments by up to $100 million by 2020 and the number of tech companies with ten or more employees by 20 percent by 2021.

Through this strategy, great local companies and institutions are getting supports. Our tech sector is already strong in Burnaby, with companies like Ballard Power, General Fusion, Glentel, Creation Technologies,

[ Page 14374 ]

Traction on Demand, Xenon Pharmaceuticals, D-Wave and Electronic Arts. Public institutions like SFU and BCIT are educating the next generation for the industry.

Whether it is exploring a new source of practical, renewable clean energy; creating connections through innovative wireless communication; providing leading-edge, innovative technology and engineering; bringing companies to clients through cloud technology; developing of novel medicines; researching and delivering quantum computing systems and software; or creating the next generation of video games, each of these companies is keeping B.C. tech on the move.

I would like to ask the House to join me in supporting them as they continue to create and develop the innovative technologies we use daily.

SANDPIPER SIGNS

S. Robinson: We all have businesses in our community that do more than run a business. Many of them also care for their community. There is one such business in Coquitlam-Maillardville that is the go-to place for my community when you need help to make your company or your event look good.

Since I can remember, Ken Doty and Sandpaper Signs have been where everyone goes to get their signage and their decals done. When the “three divas” decided to host a community fundraiser Oscar party, with red carpet and all of the glam, it was Ken Doty from Sandpiper Signs who put together the backdrop of sponsors so that the divas could look good while raising money for the community agencies.

When SHARE Family and Community Services needed print materials for their Imagine gala, it was Sandpiper Signs that stepped up to the plate. Whether it is Festival du Bois, Eagle Ridge Hospital Foundation, the Amanda Todd Legacy fund or Crossroads Hospice, Sandpiper Signs has been there to support their efforts every single step of the way.

Now, Ken just retired from the company he built up over several decades, and he will be sorely missed. The good news for us, with Ken’s retirement, is that one of my constituents, Carlo Zarillo, purchased controlling shares of the company. He says: “Sandpiper Signs is an institution in the Tri-Cities and the Lower Mainland. Their community involvement is what sets them apart, and I really wanted to be part of that story.”

I know that Sandpiper will continue to contribute to the overall health and well-being of our community. Thank you for setting the standard, Ken Doty, and thank you to Sandpiper Signs for everything you do, including making us all look great.

I ALWAYS HOPED

G. Hogg: I know many of you will be saddened to learn that my inspired two-minute speech entitled “What to Say When You Have Nothing to Say,” followed by two minutes of silence, has been cancelled. Sorry. So instead, this.

I have believed — and, I am sure, still believe — many things that just aren’t true, and I have embraced or rejected what turned out to be bad or good advice. I have, like many of you, been the recipient of lots of unsolicited, unsubstantiated advice, and sometimes I embrace it, maybe because of the messenger and maybe, as Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman argues, we believe what we believe because someone we know and trust has told us — someone like my mom.

She, in grade 11, told me that she read in the local newspaper that there was a shortage of little league coaches and she thought I should volunteer, that I should give back, just as so many coaches had given to me. I didn’t want to disappoint her, so I started coaching. A few years later, our team got the right to go to Edmonton for the championships, and the league president asked me to go to a White Rock city council meeting and ask for support.

[1410]

That council meeting was my first formal contact with elected politicians. I had no idea what was going on, and it was so foreboding and incomprehensible to me.

When I got home my mom asked how it went, and I said: “Oh, Mom, we were last on the agenda. We didn’t know what was going on. It was old people making stupid decisions.” And she said in a motherly way: “Son, I hoped I’d always raised you to be the kind of person that if you didn’t like something, you wouldn’t complain about it, but you’d get involved and try and make a difference.” She said that was my responsibility as a citizen. Again, I didn’t want to disappoint her, so I got involved. I ran in the next city election and got elected.

Well, I still believe a lot of things that aren’t true, and sometimes I even am incomprehensible myself. My formal contact with politicians, even today, is often like that first visit to city council. I have only a vague sense of what’s going on, and it still seems somewhat foreboding, and sometimes our opinions seem to be based more on what team we belong to and less on our assessment of the facts.

Well, we are told that human rationality is bounded rationality. Although we often do things we regret, we do them in very predictable ways, and we are always trying. Thanks, Mom.

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS

IN WEST KOOTENAY

K. Conroy: I want to share a few milestones that are being celebrated in our region this year. On March 4, I had the pleasure of attending the West Kootenay Big Game Trophy Association’s annual awards banquet in Trail. There were a number of awards and trophies presented by the association and the Trail and district Wildlife Association, as well as a very special recognition.

[ Page 14375 ]

The club itself is 60 years old this year. Founding members consisted of Pat Archibald, Harold George, Cookie L’Ecluse and Lou Kratky. Pat, Harold and Cookie have all passed away, but Lou is still very much alive. Not only was Lou at the dinner as one of the remaining founding members; he was also recognized as one of the first Boone and Crockett scorers for the club. In fact, it was also speculated that he might be one of the first scorers to be registered in B.C. Lou, at 86 years old, is a long-time resident of Montrose but has recently moved to Kelowna to be near his family.

Another organization celebrating in our area is the Trail Maple Leaf Band. Members include people from throughout the region of varying ages and musical ability. The band first appeared at the Colombo Lodge functions in 1911 as the Italian Band. In 1917, a contest for a new name was held, and the band became known as the Trail Maple Leaf Band.

Under the direction of Frank Giovanazzi, there was a membership of 72 musicians. Joseph Fuoco, a tuba player, began conducting the band in 1986. During his tenure, the Maple Leaf Band celebrated 75 and 95 years of playing and now, this year, is celebrating its centennial. Performances are held at many different venues throughout the region and are always a big hit at all the parades.

On February 27, they played at Sandy DiPasquale’s memorial service. Sandy was born in Trail in 1920 and lived his entire life there, except for the three years he was in the army. He joined the Maple Leaf Band at ten years old and was still playing until last year — a total of 86 years in the band. Amazing.

If you’re in Trail this summer, July 20-23, please take the time to come and hear this fabulous band as they celebrate their 100th anniversary.

Oral Questions

ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCING

J. Horgan: For the past number of weeks we’ve been raising issues about the influence of big money in our politics here in British Columbia, and we’ve run up against a stone wall of silence from the government side. So I want to pose a question to the Attorney General, who in 2009, when she was a city councillor, had the following views when it came to municipal fundraising. She described it as “the Wild West” to the Georgia Straight , which is something that we’ve heard a lot about lately. I think of the headline in the New York Times , which described our politics as the Wild West.

The then councillor, now Attorney General said…. She pointed to huge cheques from individuals and from corporations and questioned whether or not funds are being donated through public relations firms. Shocking, shocking. Gambling in Casablanca. I’m shocked. The current Attorney — then councillor — went on to say that she called for limits on donations saying that nobody should be allowed to give cheques of $10,000, $20,000 or $30,000.

So my question to the Attorney General: what happened?

[1415]

Hon. S. Anton: Thank goodness this debate is on the floor of the House a little later this afternoon so the member will not be confined merely to the 30 seconds of his question, but he can talk for 20 minutes on that very subject.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Well, I’ll be very surprised if members of the executive council can muster five minutes on defending the indefensible.

What we’re going to be discussing later on…. Apparently, Members, the problem is not the $100,000 donations. What that side of the House wants to do is ferret out those $100 donations from Granny and Grandpa. Those are, apparently, the problem in our politics. That’s what they’re focusing on.

The people of British Columbia want to know why it is, for example, that the Pace Group, which is hosting a fundraiser for the Premier the day that this Legislature dissolves — and the tickets range from $500 to $10,000 for the Premier’s inner circle — is doing this? Is it out of the goodness of their heart, or is it because of the $4 million in government contracts that the Pace Group has received since the Premier sat in that chair four years ago?

Madame Speaker: The Chair does not compel anyone to answer.

J. Horgan: I rise on a new question.

I find it passing strange that the Attorney General was goading me on to speak for 20 minutes, and she’s got nothing to say. Maybe it’s the quantum. Maybe the $4 million since the current Premier took that chair isn’t big enough to get anyone’s attention.

The Pace Group has received, since 2001, $23 million to put ads on television telling us how great the Liberals are — all for a measly donation of only $160,000. Only $160,000 from the Pace Group. I’d say they’re a little bit below average for the usual donations on that side.

However, I will again ask the Attorney General: what happened between 2009 and today? Was it that back in those days you weren’t benefiting from the donations, and now you are?

Hon. S. Anton: The Election Act is on the floor of this House, and the member may debate it freely when it is called again this afternoon.

[ Page 14376 ]

CONTAMINATED SOIL CASE IN SAANICH

L. Popham: Last week I asked the Environment Minister about the Blazkow family, who are living on an oil-polluted farm in Saanich.

The Ministry of Environment is insisting that the Blazkows pay over $400,000 for a cleanup on a decade-old oil spill even though they were not the polluters. The minister said she wanted more information, so I tried to

schedule a meeting with her and the Blazkows for this week. The minister’s staff said she simply couldn’t find the time.

But on Monday night, the minister did find some time to attend a private fundraiser in Saanich, less than ten minutes from the Blazkows’ home.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. Should I have advised the Blazkow family that the only way to talk to the minister about their polluted farm was to buy a ticket to her fundraiser?

Hon. M. Polak: I’m sure the member is aware that we do already have a meeting scheduled for my staff to meet with the individuals tomorrow, I believe it is. In fact, the other day just before question period, I believe it was, I mentioned to the member that, likely, given the

schedule this week, on such short notice, it would be difficult to arrange a meeting with myself but that I would do everything I could to make sure they could have a meeting with staff this week. And I have done so.

When I advised the member of that, she seemed pleased with it. So I’m saddened to hear she’s not pleased with it anymore.

L. Popham: I was happy that there was some hope to get a meeting this week with the minister’s staff. But I was told the ministry staff were all out of town this week, so I couldn’t get a meeting.

A week has passed. The Legislative session is ending, and the Blazkows are no closer to getting a solution to their problem.

[1420]

The minister won’t talk to them, but she found the time to talk to donors at a party fundraiser in Saanich. Couldn’t the minister have found the time to visit the Blazkows on her way to the fundraiser, or didn’t she want to keep her donors waiting?

Hon. M. Polak: I’ve been working in this building for many years, working in many ministries. I’ve worked with very many members from the opposition on various constituent issues. I’m always happy to do that. Had the member come to me before bringing the question to the House, we could have scheduled something, I’m certain.

Instead, the member came immediately after raising the question first in the House and my advising that we could put together a meeting. As I understand it, we have that meeting put together. They’re meeting with the individuals on Thursday. And I think all members know that my office is always open to them for constituent issues. I think I have a strong record in that regard.

MINIMUM WAGE

S. Simpson: Francesca is a 34-year-old woman living in southeast Vancouver with her husband and her ten-year-old daughter. She works two jobs as a cleaner, seven days a week, trying to make ends meet. She earns a little more than minimum wage, being paid $10.95 an hour for one job and $12.75 an hour for the other. Her life revolves around working every day to try to pay the bills, leaving little time for her family and the volunteer activities she enjoys at her church. If Francesca made $15 an hour, she could work a little less, earn a little more, and she would have more time for her family and her church.

Can the minister responsible tell the House why her government thinks it’s okay to have a minimum wage that guarantees that people like Francesca struggle every day to stay out of poverty?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I want to recognize the members of the B.C. Federation of Labour that are here today. In my role as the Minister of Labour, I have met with them quarterly for the last four years, and we had many, many difficult and, also, some constructive conversations. Minimum wage was certainly an issue that was on every single agenda. Sometimes we agree to disagree on the approach to how British Columbians should be able to care for their families in British Columbia.

Today the average hourly wage in this province for adults is over $25 an hour, and the average hourly wage….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, the Chair will hear the answer.

Hon. S. Bond: The average hourly wage for youth in our province is over $15 an hour.

I have a great deal of respect for the family that was mentioned here today. That’s why this government wants to ensure that our number one priority is creating well-paying, family-supporting jobs in this province, and that’s what we’re going to continue to focus on.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

S. Simpson: This government is always saying: “We don’t have a poverty reduction strategy because our strategy is a job.” But the half a million people in this province who work for under $15 an hour are struggling in poverty. The majority of low-wage workers in B.C. are over

[ Page 14377 ]

25 years of age, they’re supporting families, they’re largely women, and they work full-time.

Sadly, B.C. has the worst rate of wage growth in this country, and we have the highest poverty levels for working people in the country. Someone who works full-time, who works hard, should earn enough to stay out of poverty. The current minimum wage does not allow that. People like Francesca can’t afford the indifference of this minister and this government to her situation.

Will the government do the right thing? Give Francesca, and the half a million people like her, a chance by raising the minimum wage.

[1425]

Hon. S. Bond: Well, as I said to the member previously, the average hourly wage in the province is significantly higher than the minimum wage. The minimum wage will be increasing in September of this year. And you know….

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, please.

Hon. S. Bond: One of the things we actually have to consider is the impact on small businesses in British Columbia and, also, the impact on families. What Francesca cannot afford…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: …is the hypocrisy of the opposition, who continue to say no to every single project in British Columbia that would create well-paying, family-supporting jobs. That’s hypocrisy at its height.

Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would like to check out the benches and see their position for the people who have currently got jobs on projects in British Columbia, because the member for Saanich South, the other night, made it perfectly clear…. In opposition to, we think, what the Leader of the Opposition thinks, she made it clear that she was going to ask the BCUC to make a decision on Site C. She said clearly they would not support the project. So I’d like the member for Saanich South to go look 2,000 people in the eye and say: “No job for you.”

RENTAL HOUSING COSTS AND REGULATION

G. Heyman: Hon. Speaker….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members, this House will come to order before the member continues.

G. Heyman: Once again, when members on the other side of the House hear about real British Columbians struggling with affordability, they blame the opposition instead of their own policies.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Just wait.

Members.

G. Heyman: So let me once again raise a real story of real British Columbians. Yesterday my constituent Joanna Reid called to tell me she and her neighbours were recently issued a rent increase notice of 35 percent based on the geographic comparability policy. She and her neighbours are organizing to contest the rent increase, but they are stressed and worried by their landlord’s demands.

My question is simple. It’s to the Minister Responsible for Housing. Why has his government left this gaping policy loophole that allows a few landlords to demand outrageous increases that renters just can’t afford?

Hon. R. Coleman: To the member opposite, there is a provision under the act for people or landlords where there are extraordinary expenses and issues like that with regards to geographical area — it could be things like taxes, water, sewer, repairs, those types of things — to make an application to the residential tenancy branch under that

section of the act.

They’re allowed to go forward with it. There has been an application made to the residential tenancy branch. It will go to arbitration, which is basically the administrative law process with regards to that. The tenants have the right to actually go and present and say it doesn’t work for them.

In the last few years, there have been 15 of these applications. One of the applications was settled between a landlord and the tenants to actually improve the building in cooperation with each other. Three have been approved, and the other 14 have actually been turned down at arbitration.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Fairview on a supplemental.

G. Heyman: The minister appears to think that there’s a process that renters who are struggling daily to put food on the table, make ends meet and get on with their lives can suddenly turn their lives upside down to defend themselves against every loophole that an unscrupulous landlord will try to walk through.

[1430]

After rent-hike demands of up to 43 percent in Vancouver–West End were reported in the news, the minister said exactly what he said in this House. But we

[ Page 14378 ]

now have two cases in two weeks, and renters say there are many more.

Unscrupulous landlords have found a loophole, and they will exercise it if they can. Not every renter is able to take the time and study the options available to them to contest these. In the very, very difficult Vancouver rental market, people are being asked to bid up rent auctions while those who have a home are being forced out so the bidding wars can begin.

To the Minister Responsible for Housing, will he close this B.C. Liberal loophole before more landlords escalate the affordability crisis facing struggling renters in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Coleman: In actual fact, probably for about 30 years now, this particular provision has been in successive residential tenancy acts in British Columbia. The reason for it is that as aging buildings come along, they need to be renovated or fixed. You have two options. You can either tear the building down and demolish it and lose the rental stock, or somebody can come and make an application for an extraordinary issue relative to a building. It’s always been there for the protection of both property and long-term rentals.

The reality is, hon. Member…. I will not prejudge the outcome of any one of these applications. It’s totally independent of government. It goes to arbitration under the Residential Tenancy Act. They get to go and have the arbitration. The arbitrators rule, and there can also be a judicial review subsequent to that.

If somebody has a rent stress in British Columbia and it’s relative to their income, they can always go to the rental assistance program, even if this was to be a success or not successful. There are over 30,000 households on that, none of which are supported by the opposition with regards to rental in British Columbia, because they don’t support the program.

In the city of Vancouver alone, there are over 150 people who have been approved to buy their first home and will vacate rental housing when they buy their homes in the next couple of months and put an additional 150 rentals on the market, for people to rent in the marketplace. I think….

Madame Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: The process is there. It will be followed through, and I’ll not prejudge the outcome.

CONSERVATION OF OWL ISLAND AND

RETURN TO COAST SALISH NATIONS

G. Holman: Owl Island is a First Nations burial island on the southern Gulf Islands. The Tsawout First Nation in my constituency has requested the return of the island to the Coast Salish peoples.

The property owner is offering the island for sale. A group of conservancies and community leaders — some of whom I have met, with government — have formed to assist First Nations in acquiring and protecting this burial island. This group is also working with Parks Canada and the capital regional district to explore possible partnerships.

My question is to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources. To avoid the shameful and costly repeat of the Grace Islet fiasco, will he commit to working with local First Nations and conservancies to return Owl Island to the stewardship of the Coast Salish?

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. We have had communication on this particular issue, and the member opposite should know a number of things with respect to the site.

First of all, the sites are protected. The archeological sites are protected under the Heritage Conservation Act. The owner has taken the property off the market to allow the process that the member opposite just outlined to get underway and to be worked through. There are no site alteration applications on the site. Should there be any applications received, they would be fully referred, dealt with, and fully referred to First Nations in the process.

That is the current situation on the island, and the process continues. But he should know, and as we have communicated directly to him, that there are no site alteration applications. The sites themselves are protected under the Heritage Conservation Act, and they are registered.

[1435]

MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION SERVICES

S. Robinson: In June 2016, William Landeweer admitted himself to Royal Jubilee Hospital because of intrusive thoughts of harming his stepbrother. He was released with anxiety medication, no diagnosis and no additional mental health support.

Desperate for help sometime later, he contacted the police in a bid to keep himself and others safe. He was then put in jail for 30 days because there were no other alternatives for him. His grandmother, Carol Tysdal, who is now looking out for him, is angry that her grandson was locked in prison instead of getting mental health supports he desperately needs.

To the Minister of Health, can he explain to Carol and William, who are here today in the gallery, why, seven years into his government’s ten-year mental health plan, William and others are forced into jails instead of getting the health care supports they need?

Hon. M. Morris: From personal experience, these are tragic situations when somebody suffering from mental health is incarcerated and spends some time in jail. I’m not going to comment on any specific cases, because I can’t. But I will assure the member opposite that the only

[ Page 14379 ]

reason that people are in our correction centre, whether they’ve got mental health issues or any other issue, is because the court sentenced them to go to jail.

The other aspect of this is that every single inmate that comes into any of our correctional centres in B.C. is assessed within 24 hours. If there are any medical issues or mental issues that are determined, we have skilled mental health workers in every single facility that will work with these individuals. They’ll develop case plans for these individuals during their period of time of incarceration.

When they’re released, we work with agencies and groups outside of the corrections system to make sure that they have the care available to them.

In addition to that, what we’ve done is…. Now we will be going to the Provincial Health Authority to take over all of the medical issues for corrections services. Any inmate that comes in will be properly diagnosed and put on whatever regime of therapy that they need. It’ll be a seamless transition into the communities when they leave the correction centre.

Madame Speaker: The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville on a supplemental.

S. Robinson: Well, this young man needed mental health services. He did not need to be in jail. The police did not want to take him there, and it was the only choice they had in order to keep him and other people safe. So I’ll try another question for the Minister of Health.

Sarah Johnson, her mother, Corrine, and grandmother Susan are here today. Last month Sarah showed up at her parent’s home after years of addiction and homelessness, and she told her mom that she was ready to get clean from her heroin addiction. The first thing the next morning, with hope and determination, Corrine took Sarah to the methadone clinic here in Victoria, only to be told it would be about a month’s wait before a doctor could see her — a month.

Corrine knew that her daughter would get dope sick if she couldn’t get a substitution drug, so Corrine did what any loving mother would do to care for her daughter. She resorted to purchasing illegal, possibly tainted, street methadone herself so Sarah wouldn’t take off and be lost to her once again. It was only after Corrine went public that Sarah was offered some help up-Island.

To the minister: why do people have to go public in order to get the help that they need?

Hon. T. Lake: The members opposite know very well the huge investment that we have recently announced into mental health and substance use over the next three years — $140 million. A lot of that is focused on young people — hiring more than 120 trained mental health workers throughout B.C. to ensure young people have increased and timely access to supports, focused staff and resources to increase the interventions upstream.

The members opposite know that this government has spent over $100 million on the opioid crisis in this province, including making sure that Suboxone is available at no cost to most British Columbians. No government has done more on mental health and substance use in the last year than this government, and we will continue to do that.

[1440]

CONDITIONS AT

PRINCE RUPERT MIDDLE SCHOOL

J. Rice: I recently asked the Minister of Education about the appalling health and safety issues faced by children and staff at Prince Rupert Middle School. I told him that this school is a high seismic risk. I told him sewage and water pipes are bursting, and the building is sinking into a garbage dump. The school needs $19 million in upgrades. B.C. Liberals have known about these worsening problems for over a decade and have done nothing.

My question is to the Minister of Education. Can you tell the 400 kids going to this school why you’ve done nothing to deal with this?

Hon. M. Bernier: When it comes to this school, specifically, and that school district, we did commit. We are working with the school district. We’re looking at what the issues are that they are facing.

If you look at what we have in this budget going forward, this year alone we’ve increased…. Over $600 million is going in to help capital and seismic improvements around the province of British Columbia. One of the big focuses we’re working on is making sure our schools are seismically safe. That school there that the member is referring to is one of those schools. That’s why we’re committed to making sure that those schools are completed and seismically mitigated by 2025 — something our government committed to doing, something we can follow through with.

The members opposite had to cancel seismic programs. Why? They couldn’t afford it. The seismic mitigation program did not come into place until our government actually took that as a serious priority and made sure that those investments are there for our students.

Madame Speaker: North Coast on a supplemental.

J. Rice: The minister knows Prince Rupert Middle School has desperately needed repairs and upgrades. He knows he has neglected it for so long that the school now needs to be replaced. The minister’s own report found the building to be beyond repair.

Why is the minister forcing children to attend this decrepit school?

Hon. M. Bernier: I’ll repeat the fact that we’re making huge investments in education around British Columbia

[ Page 14380 ]

— that school specifically. In fact, I’m going up there to meet with that school district in just a week to make sure I’m touring that school, to make sure we’re actually looking at these issues that they’re facing.

The commitment we’ve made is to work with that school district and every school district in the province of British Columbia on what their priorities are and how we, as a government, can make sure we make the investments for those students and for those school districts.

Those are investments, again, that can only be made when you have the money to make the investments, something that happens with our government. When you look at the fact…. Again, $600 million is being invested. Our focus is on the seismic mitigation and the safety of the students, and that school is exactly one of the ones we’re working on.

R. Fleming: In 2002, this government ripped up contracts with teachers. We’ve gone through the saga in the Supreme Court. In 2002, they cut school capital budgets by 60 percent. We now have a collision of both of those failed policies in our school system. The minister knows that there’s $1.2 billion of deferred maintenance in our school system. That’s the record of the B.C. Liberal disaster on public education.

It’s not just this school building that’s beyond repair. According to the minister’s own internal report, most of the main systems in the school — including fire alarms, hot water and lighting — are all beyond repair.

My question for the Minister of Education is the same question as the member for North Coast. Why has this government repeatedly failed to make Prince Rupert Middle School a safe place for kids, support staff and teachers?

Hon. M. Bernier: I think what’s really important to focus on is the fact that we’re in a strong state where we can actually make investments in our schools in the province of British Columbia. Again, I’ll remind the members opposite that it was something they were unable to do. In fact, the Minister of Education under the NDP government actually said: “We need to cancel our seismic plans in the province of British Columbia, and we have to stop investing in old schools. Why? We don’t have the money to do it.”

[1445]

That money is now available. We have a strong economy. We have the opportunity to invest not only in our schools but in the students of the province of British Columbia. Why? I know that every child in this province deserves the opportunity to soar. We’re going to make sure we make those investments. We are building an education nation here in the province of British Columbia, the envy of the world.

[End of question period.]

Madame Speaker: If you could take down the piece of paper that’s at the front.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Mr. Leader.

Petitions

N. Simons: I rise to present a petition from…

Interjection.

N. Simons: I’m being heckled during a petition. I don’t need leave.

…the Catholic Women’s League — names calling for the government to make sure that hospice and palliative care facilities are separated from those that offer assisted suicide and euthanasia and that implementation of regulations will respect the freedom of conscience of all health care workers.

J. Rice: I rise to present a petition on behalf of the Prince Rupert Middle School parent advisory committee with over 300 signatures. “Prince Rupert Middle School, built in 1958 on a former landfill site, has been classified with a risk rating of H1 and is at risk of structural collapse in the event of an earthquake. Other issues with the facility include lead in the drinking water system, power outages, failed water and sewer pipes, and air quality issues. The petitioners respectfully request that the House replace Prince Rupert Middle School without further delay.”

S. Robinson: I’d like to present a petition on behalf of 2,447 signers that calls on the government to retain the Riverview lands as a centre of excellence for mental health and wellness, set within the existing world-class arboretum and surrounding green space. They ask that the Riverview lands must remain in public hands and not be sold to private developers for the purpose of market housing.

R. Fleming: I seek leave to present a petition. Today I am pleased to be tabling a petition of over 18,000 petitioners calling for the government, after having raised tuition fee revenues by 400 percent over the last 15 years, to make higher education in B.C. colleges, universities and institutes accessible and affordable for students in B.C. and for all middle-class families.

D. Ashton: I rise today to present to the Legislative Assembly a petition from a community that I represent, consisting of over 5,600 names, asking for consideration of local government accountability legislation for the citizens.

[ Page 14381 ]

J. Darcy: I rise to present a petition on behalf of the B.C. Health Coalition and some of us on Bloodwatch Canada. “The undersigned call on the government of British Columbia to safeguard the health of Canadians and the integrity of our voluntary blood donation system by enacting legislation to ban the sale of blood and plasma in the province of British Columbia.” It’s signed by 6,500 British Columbians and another 10,000 Canadians.

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. Oakes: I have the honour to present the report of the capital plan for the Liquor Distribution Branch distribution centre project.

Hon. M. de Jong: I respectfully present the guarantees and indemnities authorized and issued report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, in accordance with the Financial Administration Act,

section 72(8).

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Committee stage of Bill 6.

[1450]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 6 — INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

(DOCUMENTING GOVERNMENT DECISIONS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 6; R. Lee in the chair.

The committee met at 2:52 p.m.

section 1.

D. Routley: Mr. Speaker, would I be able to question the title of the bill in this?

Interjection.

D. Routley: Okay.

Section 1 extends the mandate of the chief records officer. This is referring to, I believe, enforcement and oversight. Can the minister explain why the mandate of the chief records officer didn’t require a specific duty to document, rather than simply a recommendation?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you to the member. May I do three things, with the committee’s and the member’s indulgence — first, introduce David Curtis, Joel Fairbairn and Melissa Sexsmith, who are in the House, joining us for the purpose of the debate; secondly, point out that I think I understand the nature of the member’s question, and it’s probably going to involve more than a single exchange; and, with great apologies, seek his indulgence? I find I have to excuse myself for a moment. If we might recess just for five minutes.

The Chair: The committee will be in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 2:54 p.m. to 3:03 p.m.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize for the delay, but I can assure members that my ability to concentrate on the matter before us has been enhanced dramatically.

I think the member’s question with respect to

section 1 perhaps goes to the heart of what I recall some of the issues have been regarding some of the criticism that has unfolded in some quarters — not all, but in some quarters.

He has asked about this question of creating a requirement. I know we will get to it. I hope we will get to it eventually, when we come to

section 5. But the newly created mandatory requirement around the creation of documentation…. There had previously been an obligation to retain government documentation. But the obligation to create certain information and documentation is actually contained in

section 5.

[1505]

The member may wish to explore in more detail the specifics of the creation of a subsection (

e) to

section 3 of the Information Management Act and the expanded authority granted to the chief records officer. But the mandatory requirement — the duty to document, as it were — is created mandatorily in

section 5.

D. Routley: We’re all aware there are leaks in government, and they become more frequent as the government gets older, so we’re happy to accommodate.

The

section refers to the mandate of the chief records officer being extended. Can the minister explain why the choice was made to amend the Information Management Act rather than, as the commissioner recommended, create either a stand-alone act or amend FIPPA to include this concept of duty to document?

Hon. M. de Jong: From time to time, I may refer, in the course of the discussion, to the benefit we had of advice and recommendations. I know the member is familiar with the report produced by a former commissioner, Mr. Loukidelis, at the end of 2015. He made a very specific recommendation around ensuring that the chief records officer under the Information Management Act….

He identified the chief records officer, and he identified the Information Management Act as ensuring that that person and that office has the authority to establish guidelines on information management systems and as-

[ Page 14382 ]

sisting ministries in ensuring compliance with the act. So I guess the short answer is that the amendment to this

section is in direct response to the recommendation we received from Mr. Loukidelis.

D. Routley: I’m wondering why the government would choose to observe the recommendation of Mr. Loukidelis when it concerns the chief records officer, versus the establishment or amendment of FIPPA, rather than repeated recommendations from the Information Commissioner.

Hon. M. de Jong: If I understood the question correctly from the member…. Why did we choose to follow through on the recommendation from Mr. Loukidelis? Well, I guess the short answer is, one, he is a former Privacy Commissioner, a former Deputy Attorney General. He is well regarded within the field.

Secondly, the recommendation makes sense. This is about empowering that officer of government, that officer within the government who has the authority and the responsibility for maintaining records and making sure that they have the power to ensure that that happens.

It’s probably not a lot more complicated than that — a recommendation from a very reputable source.

[1510]

By the way, I don’t think there’s a lot of disagreement, to be fair. I understand, from the debate and some of what I’ve read, where some of the disagreement may lie. I don’t think there is a lot of disagreement anywhere with the notion of providing the chief records officer with additional powers to create those guidelines. I think that is something that virtually everyone thinks makes sense.

D. Routley: I’m not wanting to directly dispute the words of the minister but to question his assertion that virtually everyone agrees. I certainly don’t agree. Some of the stakeholders I speak to do not agree, including FIPPA, including some of the journalists who have written on the issue — do not agree that this is the effective choice. The chief records officer is not the correct position to be overseeing this creation of documents.

I wonder. Could the minister confirm for me that the chief records officer reports to the minister and not to this House?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, a couple things. Maybe I’ll just return to my original point, and I won’t belabour it. I understand the disagreement that exists between where to place the duty to document — the Information Management Act or the information privacy act. I understand that. The government has made a choice. I think that the member disagrees with the choice, and there are others who disagree with that choice.

But I don’t think, to be fair, anyone would disagree if you asked them about ensuring that the chief records officer has the powers necessary to fulfil the functions that already exist in the act. I don’t think anyone would disagree with that. They might disagree later when we come to the provisions around the duty to document. But I don’t think anyone would disagree with this particular provision, although I acknowledge that there is disagreement on the other point, a significant point.

Secondly, the member’s question about the chief records officer. There’s no question that the chief records officer…. The minister with the responsibility for the Information Management Act is ultimately responsible. Therefore, there is a reporting line that flows through that, and there is a ministerial responsibility and accountability for the work of the chief records officer.

We will come later to provisions which create, for the first time, a requirement that an annual report be presented to this Legislative Assembly. So there is that additional point of contact between the office of the chief records officer and this assembly. But that is something that perhaps we’ll discuss a bit later.

D. Routley: Does the minister believe that the officers of this Legislature are more independent than officers who might be appointed by government?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think that is true. I’m hesitant to guess, off the top of my head, how many legislative officers we have now, but the means by which they are appointed is different. The means by which they report is also different. I don’t think there’s any question about that.

D. Routley: I would suggest that the important difference is that the officers of the Legislature are immune from influence from government, that they report directly to both sides of the House in absolute independence of government,

whereas the chief records officer is both hired and fired by the minister. I think most people would acknowledge that there’s a pretty clear difference there.

I’m really not trying to be difficult or unreasonable. I really do believe that it would have been a better choice to bring this under the scope of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. I just am at a loss as to why the government wouldn’t choose that route.

[1515]

The government finds itself — sure, the minister might not agree with this — mired in difficulties around this issue of creating documents. They’ve been repeatedly rebuked by successive commissioners for failing to create documents or improperly destroying documents or not acknowledging that documents exist.

If the government really wanted to escape from the pressures of that kind of scrutiny, would the minister not agree that handing this responsibility to an independent officer of the Legislature would be a much better statement of commitment by the government to make change and to reform and to bring more effective oversight?

[ Page 14383 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, it might have been politically more convenient, but I will tell the member — and I appreciate he’s not being argumentative about this — he is not alone on this question. There are others who have made a similar argument. There are others who very much agree with the approach that we have taken here.

There are within government, separate and apart from statutory officers, officials that acquire, by virtue of the work they do and statutorily, a different status. I think of the comptroller general, who conducts work on an independent basis and occasionally is required to assert that independence, I’ve been told, in the past. The chief forester exists within the Forests Ministry but, I think most members would agree, conducts their work in an independent way. So whilst there is a difference, I still believe that the powers that exist and are being expanded for the chief records officer, will allow for the work to be done that needs to be done.

I will say, as well, that at the end of the day, where the task, the focus is the creation and maintenance of documentation as opposed to access to that information and privacy relating to that information, therein lies the difference. The latter very much falls within the ambit, the authority and the logical jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. But the Information Management Act exists.

Remember, it took over from the Document Disposal Act of 1936. Its raison d’être, if you will, is to provide the framework around which documents are created and kept. So there is, I acknowledge, not a convincing argument — for the member. But there is a very compelling argument, in my view, and one that I ultimately accepted, for enshrining these mandatory duties to document in this act.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate that Mr. Loukidelis did do a report. But the report that Mr. Loukidelis did, which was commissioned by the government, is one of many reports that have been commissioned by this government. Some of them — I’m not necessarily saying this report fell in that category — more than one of them are found to have been wanting and have been characterized as being whitewashes for government.

I don’t think, once again, when you have a report that is not independent from government…. This was a report that was commissioned by government. I think it actually points right back to the issue of independence from government.

[1520]

I’d like to read from this submission that the Privacy Commissioner made about why she thought it was important to include the duty to document — I know we’re talking about a separate section, but it’s all part of who takes responsibility — and why she thought it was important to include the duty to document in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, rather than through the Information Management Act. She said:

“While I have previously stated that the duty to document could be placed in information management legislation, there are compelling reasons why FIPPA should contain this requirement. The Information Management Act only applies to ministries” — and perhaps the minister can talk about that narrower mandate — “and designated government agencies,

whereas FIPPA applies to all public bodies. Further, there’s an integral connection between the duty to document and access rights. Last, FIPPA contains the oversight framework that is needed to ensure that the duty to create and retain records has the appropriate oversight.”

I’m wondering if the minister would mind addressing the various issues that are canvassed in that statement.

Hon. M. de Jong: I can do so, or will try to do so to the best of my ability, with this caveat, because I think both members have raised a relevant and legitimate issue. It is not a

section 1 issue. It is more properly a

section 5 issue, because what we are talking about — and I acknowledge it as a legitimate issue — and what we are discussing now is whether the mandatory duty that has been created in

section 5 should be created in this act or the information and privacy legislation. I’m happy to have that conversation. I think it’s a legitimate one, as long as we all understand that it is not a

section 1 discussion per se.

I’ll come back, then, to the issue. The member has referenced some of the comments from Ms. Denham. I will say to the committee that I genuinely have a lot of respect for her thoughts on a broad range of matters, and I think it was a great loss to B.C. when she accepted the posting — a great gain for the U.K. and a great loss for us — over there.

On a number of occasions since I assumed responsibility for this area of public policy — I guess a year and a half ago; I think it was a year and a half ago — I had the good fortune to be able to discuss a number of matters with her. As I have said to the member’s colleague, when she made the point that government needs to deal with information in the same way that we deal with money, with the same rigour and the same discipline, I thought that was a very apropos analogy.

On this point, I disagreed with her, and I said to her I disagreed with her. The task of overseeing the access to information, ensuring that citizens have access to the information that government holds, and the task of protecting the privacy of citizens, very much falls within the ambit of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. But under our legislative construct, the task of ensuring that government is organized and does properly hold the documentation — and now properly creates the documentation — is one that statutorily has been placed in the hands of the chief records officer.

[1525]

They are different responsibilities. I believe that that function can be performed by the chief records officer and can be done with a sufficient measure of independence, whilst also fulfilling the other important functions that numerous commentators have referred to, about helping to organize government.

[ Page 14384 ]

Maybe that’s a part of this that I haven’t spoken about before and should. I accept that the member was not trying to disparage Mr. Loukidelis. At least, I don’t think she was. I think his report was not very complimentary of government, and there were good reasons for that because of the circumstances that gave rise to its need in the first place.

His thoughtful — I think there were 27 — recommendations spoke to the need to ensure within government that there is a proper understanding of the importance of the need to maintain records, to hold records and, ultimately, to create records. I find that part of those recommendations from him very compelling.

I acknowledge there was a different view about where to deposit or where to place the statutory duty to document. In the choice between that officer — independent, as the members have pointed out — who is responsible for access and privacy and that officer who is responsible for the maintenance and now creation of records within government, I opted for the chief records officer and the Information Management Act. The member is quite entitled to criticize that choice, as I’m sure she will, but it was ultimately the choice that I made.

D. Routley: This should be the last question, I think. I’m still concerned that the government would make this choice when the Information and Privacy Commissioner explicitly recommended that FIPPA be amended numerous times. She’s made that recommendation, and it was presented to the committee of review.

I feel as though the government has a special committee to review the act every six years. Last time there was a review committee, the government established its own review committee after the work of the legislative committee. At the time, it was perceived that it was…. People who presented to the committee spoke to me about how dismayed they were about the fact that the committee was being undermined, in the minds of some of the people involved. Whether or not the government meant that to be the case, that was the case.

I think that if the minister and the government aren’t careful — if they care about this — they will continue to accumulate this perception that they’re avoiding what would be considered independent, rigorous scrutiny. When I look at the recommendation of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner that my colleague from Burnaby–Deer Lake referred to….

I have also asked the minister to consider the language of the report from the committee, and if he wouldn’t mind, I’ll read some into the record. It says: “Government should create a legislative duty to document within FIPPA as a clear indication that it does not endorse ‘oral government’ and that it is committed to be accountable to citizens by creating an accurate record of its key decisions and actions.”

It further noted that the commissioner had “recommended that government adopt a duty to document to demonstrate commitment to public accountability and in order to preserve the historical legacy of government decisions and as a key records management component of proactive disclosure.”

This same recommendation was made by the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association that this be an amendment to FIPPA rather than either the Information Management Act or any other act.

Mr. Loukidelis encouraged government to consider a duty to document. So I would just question whether the minister is seriously considering the recommendations of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and of the committee that is legislated to review the act every six years when, in fact, the recommendations seem to have been ignored.

[1530]

The final recommendation of the committee was pretty darn simple. Let me read it. It’s pretty long. “Add a duty to document to FIPPA.” That was the recommendation — simple and straightforward.

I just find it difficult to imagine that the minister would portray or characterize this as a simple opting for one or the other — a simple choice. Well, they’re two distinctively different animals. You’ve got an oversight in the case of the Information Management Act, which is not truly independent from the House — not. And then you’ve got the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, which is. So it seems an odd choice.

Even if there was an expediency to it…. I haven’t yet seen that expediency demonstrated or proven. What it winds up doing is perpetuating a perception that the government is resisting independent oversight.

I wonder if the minister cannot acknowledge that that perception is broad spread and that the government, perhaps, should have exercised the extra caution of following the recommendations of this review committee and the Information and Privacy Commissioner to amend FIPPA or create stand-alone legislation.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m reasonably certain that I am not going to convince the member or his colleague of the wisdom of the choice or the correctness of the choice. I am mindful of the fact that in discussions with the acting commissioner — and it is an acting commissioner at the moment — he has described this as a good first step.

We did examine what exists in other jurisdictions. Some of those jurisdictions don’t have the equivalent of a chief records officer. Some of them do. They recognize where there are differences — the difference between the task of protecting access to information and privacy versus the creation and maintenance of records in the first place.

I’m not certain I can say a lot more beyond again pointing to the fact that we have — on the strength of recommendations that have emerged from a variety of sources

[ Page 14385 ]

— endeavoured to create a framework here that capitalizes on the good work that already takes place.

There is a huge paper trail for decisions within government, and I can assure the member of that. The member is going to work hard over the course of the next number of weeks to achieve the privilege to see that for himself, and I will work hard to save him from that burden. But were it to occur, he would certainly see, firsthand, how diligent the public sector is in terms of creating a record of decisions as they’re made.

Ensuring that there is the training, the guidelines and a mandatory requirement that can be pointed to in statute — requiring that to occur — we thought was and think is an appropriate step. I will only conclude that the member and others, and I and the government, disagree on the statutory instrument that should be relied upon to create that duty to document.

[1535]

D. Routley: I had planned that to be the last question, but I think, now, hearing that answer, I need to respond.

I really appreciate the minister. He’s a hockey player, and he’s a good guy, and I don’t want to be a meanie. But you know what? I completely disagree, Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Chair.

The minister, in his answer to one of the questions from the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, referred to the fact that she wasn’t disparaging Mr. Loukidelis. Neither am I disparaging the fine bureaucracy and its members in British Columbia. In fact, I very much appreciate their work and their dedication. But that does not change the fact that one senior bureaucrat in the government’s employ was charged for having not told the truth about the destruction of important documents. That became a huge scandal for government.

We’ve got other examples where…. Mr. Boessenkool, a senior member of the Premier’s staff, was fired. When the investigation was carried out, they found there were no records. The same could be said for the firing of the health researchers. There were no records.

The minister says there is a complete and thorough paper trail. I understand that that’s probably the case in most cases, but these are particularly politically sensitive circumstances and examples, and these, in fact, are the examples where there were no records created. They’re the most politically embarrassing, difficult or challenging for government. Those are the ones where they had no records to offer or no records were produced.

So while I agree with the minister that the bureaucracy does a fine job and is very accountable, something happened that shouldn’t have happened. That triggered the investigation by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and the title was Access Denied — at least the beginning of the title.

Given the fact that the government has had these difficulties, I still would question the minister and the government’s choice not to allow an independent officer of the Legislature to make this review, one which, as my colleague pointed out, has the oversight powers and the structure in place — that FIPPA, the other bill being referred, allows for greater independent scrutiny.

I don’t necessarily need the minister to answer that. He can make comment or whatever. I just really needed to put my view forward about the establishment of records.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

D. Routley: I’d like to move an amendment to

section 2. I have copies of the amendment here.

SECTION 2 by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

(1) The chief records officer may must issue directives and guidelines to a government body in relation to a matter under this Act]

[1540]

On the amendment.

D. Routley: The purpose of this amendment is to delete the word “may” and replace it with “must” to create a positive duty for the chief records officer to issue directives and guidelines to a government body in relation to a matter under this act.

If I may speak to the amendment, this amendment attempts to address the perceived inefficiency in this act — that there is not, in fact, a positive duty to document and that there is, in fact, what amounts to an optional requirement, an optional recommendation, to do certain things.

I wonder if the minister could explain why the amendment that he is proposing to the Information Management Act does not contain the type of positive language that was included in the recommendation from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the committee that there be a legislated positive duty to document government decisions.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member may be surprised to hear this. The practical aspect of the amendment he is proposing in no way offends me. It in no way offends me because I know, with certainty, that the guidelines are going to be issued.

What I am confronted by and must, and will, pass along to the committee is that from the perspective of legislative drafting and legislative counsel…. When we are dealing with the provision for the creation of regulations, the creation of guidelines, the advice is that that is not the place where the mandatory provision exists. Instead, it exists elsewhere in the provisions — in this case, in

section 5, where it is mandatory.

A couple of things. That’s probably thin gruel for the member. I can tell him that at times it’s a little bit frustrating when one is confronted by the advice from experts

[ Page 14386 ]

in drafting where one says: “Well, look, we’re going to do this. It’s going to happen.”

I see no downside to replacing “may” with “must.” Yet the very, very strong advice is that throughout the canons of construction and the drafting that takes place, in the case of the creation, to impose that kind of obligation leads to all kinds of complication if they were ever to be amended, if there was an agency for which a different set of guidelines was deemed appropriate or if it were to take a little bit longer, with respect to a particular agency, to create the guidelines.

[1545]

It’s not that the member’s suggestion in any way offends me. I know that there are going to be guidelines. We have said that repeatedly, and that’s the whole object of the exercise.

The only point I would make is…. Well, maybe not the only point. The key point is that the provisions here that authorize and prompt the chief records officer to create these guidelines…. The determinative language around the duty to create documents is contained in

section 5, and it is mandatory. There is no discretionary authority whatsoever around that obligation that will exist in a statutory form.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate that

section 2 and

section 5 have to be read together, essentially. Again, the point that my colleague from Nanaimo–North Cowichan has made is that, overall, when you look at the scheme…. I’d hope, hon. Chair, that you’ll allow me to refer to

section 5 at this point. The problem is that if you read the two sections together, it is absolutely discretionary.

I agree that in

section 5, it says that there is a responsibility for ensuring that an appropriate system is in place within the government body for creating and maintaining records. But it is,

section 5 says, in accordance with applicable directives or guidelines issued under section (1). In other words, it goes back to the point that it is completely up to the discretion…. There’s a mandatory requirement, but it’s up to the discretion of the chief records officer as to what exactly those directives and guidelines are for the creation of records. Because

section 5 follows the directives and guidelines of

section 2, it is, overall, a discretionary theme.

I hope that the minister can also address the issue that…. No, I’ll leave it at that right now.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, we’re on the amendment, but we’re kind of cross-pollinating. That’s okay with me because I think it is all relevant to the conversation that we’re having.

I would say two things. In my view, the paramount obligation that is created by these instruments is the one that befalls the head of a government body to ensure that there’s an appropriate system in place within the government. That’s the provisions of

section 5.

[1550]

In so doing, they have to be mindful and consistent with the guidelines. Now, there’s a whole body of material about why those guidelines are advisable and how to take account of different agencies and departments within government and how those guidelines might be shaped to properly take into account practical practices within those various agencies of government.

But the other thing I want the members to know — and I suppose, to the extent that pledges, undertakings and whatnot are still meaningful…. Very much the intention and the work is being undertaken now to ensure to have, at the time the act is proclaimed — if it is, if the Legislature sees fit to pass it — those guidelines in place simultaneously so that there is no gap — so that in addition to the statutory obligation created by

section 5, at the moment that becomes operative, the guidelines that we are dealing with under

section 2 of the act would also be in place, and there would be no gap.

D. Routley: I just want to thank the minister. I have to attend a committee meeting, so my extremely capable colleague from Burnaby–Deer Lake will continue the debate.

I’d like to thank the minister for the explanations and clarifications — not necessarily in agreement. But I appreciate the candour and directness of it and would definitely like to thank the staff for their diligent work and dedication to the province and this type of work.

Amendment negatived on division.

K. Corrigan: To go back to

section 2 and appreciating the minister’s agreeing that we discuss more than one

section at a time, because they operate together in some senses….

The decision has been made to essentially widen the mandate, in some ways, or add to the mandate of the chief records officer, in order to essentially provide the guidelines and so on and the directives for creating a duty to document. In practice, when the chief records officer is doing that work of creating the directives and guidelines with respect to the types of records that constitute an adequate record, would the minister responsible oversee or have a final yea or nay on that work?

Hon. M. de Jong: I wanted to cross-reference both what the intention is and what the practice has been. In both cases, the intention is that these guidelines and directives would be generated by the chief records officer without the involvement of the political branch of government, without ministerial-level involvement, though I expect that the chief records officer would want to consult with the head of the government body and below the deputy level as well.

[1555]

But there’s no contemplation, and I’m told there has been no practice, of the chief records officer consulting

[ Page 14387 ]

at the political level with ministers in the development of the guidelines and directives.

K. Corrigan: The minister is essentially saying that is not the practice. There’s nothing…. My understanding would be that the chief records officer reports to the minister responsible. So is the minister, then, assuring me that the guidelines and directives with respect to creating records of this government, which has had a very damning report called Access Denied , criticizing its record in its past and destroying records and so on…? The minister is telling me that there would be no political involvement in the creation of those directives and guidelines, with respect to the creation of records.

Hon. M. de Jong: I took a moment, because I wanted to make sure everything I told the member a moment ago was accurate. I thought there was a slight difference. I heard something slightly different in this last question.

The chief records officer has a delegated level of authority that doesn’t require her or him to consult with the minister with responsibility for the Information Management Act, or any other minister for that matter, and the practice has very much been for the CRO to do that work and not consult at the political level with either line ministers or with the minister, presently the Minister of Finance, with responsibility for the legislation.

Now, there wouldn’t be anything precluding the chief records officer from consulting with the minister with responsibility for the Information Management Act. I should acknowledge that. I don’t think that has happened thus far, but the chief records officer has specific delegated authority to do this work without the need to refer or consult with the minister responsible, or any ministers responsible.

K. Corrigan: Just to be clear…. Well, I guess I’ll ask a question. How is the chief records office appointed? Is it by an order-in-council?

[1600]

Hon. M. de Jong: Under

section 2 of the Information Management Act, it is the minister with responsibility for the act who appoints the chief records officer.

K. Corrigan: Just to make the point again, the reality is that the chief records officer is somebody who is appointed by their superior. The minister can say that there isn’t a practice of interfering. But the reality is that in an area where there have been deep problems for this government in terms of access to information, destruction of documents, a very damning report and, in fact, criminal charges, the reality is that the chief records officer is appointed by the minister and could be terminated by the minister — as opposed to the Privacy Commissioner, which is an independent officer of this Legislature and reports to this Legislature.

We’re deeply concerned about it. We’re not going to spend a lot more time on this bill. I will say that we’re very concerned about this bill, the fact that there is no mandatory requirement to create guidelines. It’s a permissive requirement, and there is really nothing in this legislation that requires that there be a robust system of requiring a duty to document. That’s our primary concern about it. I’m not going to spend too much more time, because I know there is lots of other business in the House.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

K. Corrigan: Just to keep things interesting, we want to ask a couple more questions.

Section 5 is the

section that we’ve been referencing in conjunction with

section 2. Perhaps the minister would again address the issue. It is true — is it not? — that because the applicable directives or guidelines are created under

section 2, really there is nothing in this

section 5 that, in and of itself, ensures that there is going to be a robust duty to document in this legislation.

Hon. M. de Jong: As the member, I think correctly, has said, we’ve canvassed this in part. The member has restated her and her colleagues’ concern, and it is one that others have expressed.

I will restate and reiterate my view and that of the government — the contrary view that very purposely, the objective here is to create a mandatory and statutory obligation, to bestow that obligation on the head of a government body and impose upon them that responsibility for ensuring that an appropriate system is in place for ensuring there are adequate records of that government body’s decisions. I want to restate again that it is…. I believe that obligation exists and will exist — period.

[1605]

The member highlights the reference to directives and guidelines. To the extent that she and her colleagues continue to harbour concerns around that, I want to, as best I can, restate here on the record, for her, that it is this government’s intention to ensure that that directive and those guidelines are proclaimed simultaneously to the enactment or the triggering or coming into effect of the act. That work will take a number of months to complete. But I think that is where our difference of opinion exists. I understand it. I respect it.

But I also want to restate, on the record, why I believe this can fairly and properly be characterized as the first example in Canada of a mandatory statutory duty to document.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 14388 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: With thanks to the member, her colleague and the members of the committee, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:06 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

(DOCUMENTING GOVERNMENT DECISIONS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Bill 6, Information Management (Documenting Government Decisions) Amendment Act, 2017, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 4.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — ELECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

(continued)

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This, of course, is the Election Amendment Act, which requires the attention of this House in a timely fashion, given that we’re about to head into an election. Of course, there’s a bit of history here, in that this bill is designed to address the transparency issues around disclosure of donations to political parties in a timely fashion. This is an important function in our society, and I think it bears notice right off the bat that this party, the B.C. Liberal party, has moved toward timely disclosure within 14 days of deposit of a donation and, the bill proposes, within five days of the holding of an event. This has been done voluntarily.

However, the other major political party of British Columbia, the NDP, has flatly refused to go down this path for reasons that are only known to them. I suspect there’ll be some heckling from the member for Surrey-Newton. But I see he has decided not to.

In any case, the history of this is somewhat relevant in that there has been a huge amount of change in the financing of political parties since World War II. Initially, of course, it was a complete free-for-all with no accountability and no tax credits associated with it. That led to the slow evolution of the political fundraising environment and the accountability for that from about the 1970s onward.

Most of the provinces and the federal government, by about the year 2000, had moved to the point where they provided for tax credits, which would be issued to donors to political parties, recognizing that it was a highly desirable function to have effective political parties in our society and that the level of public sentiment behind them was an important measure of their success. Political parties, by definition, seek to gather like-minded individuals who form around policy goals and leadership. Then they seek to fund themselves so that they can reach out to the electorate and make themselves known, as we all are in these days leading up to the election.

[1610]

Now, the motivation for individuals to get involved, of course, is a threshold that has to be crossed. So limited tax credits were provided from about the 1980s onward, which provided that, to a certain cap of a few hundred dollars, an individual would be recompensed through the tax system for their political donations. This was routine across the country, as I’ve said, by about the year 2000 in all jurisdictions.

Since then, there have been a number of waves that have come in and out in terms of political fundraising, most notably at the federal level, where initially there was a move in about 2003 to cut down the level of donations to a maximum, I believe, of about $6,000. That was later cut down further to about $1,500.

In the midst of all that and the need to recognize the desirability of having political parties which can reach out to the electorate, especially during the election campaign itself, the system of federal grants on a per-vote basis to political parties emerged. This, of course, was a siren song to the Bloc Québécois, who had a lot of trouble raising any money whatsoever. But for about ten years, they received millions of dollars from federal taxpayers in their attempt to break up this country forevermore. This proved to be intolerable. Eventually, those per-vote subsidies were removed in about 2008, and we returned to a system of grassroots fundraising with caps at the federal level.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

We can see that there was an initial wave of misguided reform, shall we say, which came into effect but then was reversed. Now we find, federally, that there’s another wave of this response to pressure to decide what to do about the issue of political fundraising.

Across Canada, we have seen that there are a number of moves to do similar things to what we have done. Ontario is the only other Canadian jurisdiction that requires timely reporting of political contributions, and that arose because of recent issues there. This issue that the members opposite like to raise of who will be a donor has been addressed in half of the Canadian provinces and not the other half.

[ Page 14389 ]

There are many schools of thought on this issue, and I think Premier Clark has shown remarkable leadership in this field by saying, “Let’s clear the air altogether by having an independent commission look into this,” which has never been done anywhere else in Canada, to my knowledge. Usually, parties insist on retaining this issue for themselves, as has been the case with electoral boundaries in the United States, where these absurdly shaped ridings or electoral districts are construed by the parties in mutual self-interest.

In North Carolina, there are ridings or electoral districts that string along an entire river valley because that’s where certain people live, and then the entire area around that river valley is a separate district based on elevation because that’s where the votes are for the respective parties.

That system was completely abolished in Canada in about 1986, when we developed the system throughout the country of electoral boundaries commissions, which are usually chaired by a judge, containing also the Chief Electoral Officer and another worthy individual. They come back with a recommendation for fair and reasonable boundaries, which is then voted upon by the House as a whole.

This is an entirely desirable and workable regime, and that is a metaphor for what Premier Clark is proposing — that there be this independent fundraising commission that looks at this over the summer and comes back to the Legislature, in its newly minted form after the May 9 election, with some suggestions and recommendations.

Now, in anticipation of that, we have the need for transparency. There has been a great deal of foofaraw in the media about supposed foreign donors. Well, in fact, all the donors are listed on the respective party’s disclosure forms. Our B.C. Liberal disclosure forms are current and up to date and show that the number of foreign donors, as they’re characterized, is in fact very small and that the amounts are a tiny, tiny percentage of the overall donation regime. A similar story applies to the NDP, of course. So this issue of who the donors are is resolved immediately by transparency. By timely disclosure, as Bill 4 requires, this issue will be resolved.

Now, one has to wonder about tiny parties, perhaps starting with the Green Party or even smaller parties, and how they would respond to this rather onerous compliance regime. That’s why this bill provides, in the

definitions section, that it only applies to major political parties, within the definition there, which would be, under current circumstances, two parties in British Columbia — Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition and the governing party.

[1615]

This is a large step forward in improving the electoral fundraising regime and its transparency. Some of the members opposite break into smiles and find this amusing. Well, that’s, I think, because they have completely failed to engage in the kind of transparency the public expects. This is a world we now live in where it’s essential that people get to know, on a prompt and timely basis, who is funding the parties, and this side of the House has fully satisfied that expectation.

Now, in terms of fundraising functions, there has been a great deal of media coverage about this across the country in the last year, and again, the responses have been piecemeal across the country. But we are proposing, as I said earlier, a comprehensive approach to this through an independent commission to look at this and come back with recommendations.

In the meantime, this bill provides, in

section 3, that information respecting those fundraising functions will be disclosed — including, as noted in subsection 6, no later than five days after the date of the fundraising function — and that the information be published in terms of the items listed in subsection 4, which are the date and time of the fundraising function, its location and the usual name of the political party, candidate or constituency association that is involved in that event. This would apply to all events where the individual charge was greater than $100. That is a downward revision of the current disclosure threshold of $250.

Once again, the governing party, the B.C. Liberals, is very keen to have a full degree of transparency — disclosure right down to the $100 threshold — and to get this matter out of the public domain so that the public and the media can digest the material, as they have been doing in recent weeks, and come to their own conclusions and so that the full information is on the table and all of the electorate of British Columbia will be informed as to where the funding for these parties comes from.

We’ve also heard some inclinations from the opposition and some of the members of the media that we move toward a system of taxpayer-funded political parties. This, of course, violates a fundamental proposition of our electoral parliamentary democracy, which is that parties must seek popularity. They have to get out to the communities and seek the endorsement of individuals who will actually go to the ballot box and vote.

That also implies, upstream from the election, that they must be able to go out and demonstrate their popularity by raising some money to pay for their signs and their offices and all the rest of it — and, of course, for the comprehensive audits that are required by Elections B.C. at the end of each electoral campaign.

This is a system of remarkable transparency, which this government stands by and which has been successful. We fully intend to pursue the goals in Bill 4 so that all of us in this House can proudly stand, stare at the Chair, see ourselves on the camera…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

[ Page 14390 ]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: …and say with integrity that we believe in disclosing donors on a timely basis, that we believe in parties earning their way with votes and credibility and fundraising and that that is the essence of our democracy.

That is why Bill 4 is an essential step to oblige the members opposite to show their cards, show us where the money comes from before the election and follow the lead demonstrated by the B.C. Liberal Party in a remarkable effort toward transparency that is unprecedented across Canada.

S. Hammell: I rise to support Bill 4, the Election Amendment Act, which is before the House this afternoon. But 16 years later and 55 days before an election, this is the government’s response to the serious and sustained public criticism of their fundraising regime. I am supporting this limp response of the government but do recognize that it is only a feeble attempt to appear to be doing something about the role big money plays in our provincial election.

This bill describes as a major political party those receiving over $50,000 in contributions annually and/or having a representative on the Election Advisory Committee — a little bit of inside baseball there. But you do have to say, “Wow, chump change to the Liberal fundraising machine,” because last year the Liberal Party of B.C. collected around $12.4 million in one year. I mean, $50,000 is just nothing. You could pick that up in two days when the machine is really rolling.

[1620]

The other major move this bill makes is to lower the threshold for reporting contributions from a single contributor to $100 from $250, which is what the member just praised his government for. But who does target? You have to ask.

Nine organizations contributed more than $10 million to the Liberal Party — nine organizations. The vast majority of contributions to the Liberal Party are well, well over $250. Requiring the reporting of contributions to major political parties, candidates and constituency associations within 14 days of their deposits and to post fundraising functions on their website is hardly breaking news. Not much heavy lifting here. Not many earth-shattering advances.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, on the central issue of big money playing an obscene role in our democracy. Not a ban on union and corporate contributions. No restrictions on foreign donations or outside donations. No limit on the size of donations — anything goes. No ban on the Premier’s second salary. The panel of the afterthought is not in the bill. So we can talk about a panel, but there’s nothing in the bill — nothing but a thought, from the Premier on what she might do if she is elected again.

Let me quote one of the pundits from the media. He said:

“This piece of legislation is a little bit like shutting the barn door after the cash cows have bolted. The Premier’s promise of an independent panel to review British Columbia’s out-of-control political fundraising is way too little and way too late. Clark’s Liberal Party has refused for years to modernize B.C.’s obsolete and unlimited fundraising porkapalooza.

“It’s easy to understand why: the Liberals have raked in vast sums of money from corporations, lobbyists and even foreign organizations, giving themselves a massive, massive money advantage over their opponents. But with the next election looming, the Premier is clearly feeling the heat as she moves on to talking about an independent panel.”

Millions of dollars of inappropriate, improper donations. Big donors paying thousands of dollars to attend exclusive dinners with the Premier and her ministers. A second salary for the Premier financed by B.C. donors and ensuring questions on apparent conflict of interest.

The Wild West of fundraising Liberal-style in B.C. appears to look like this. In 2016, $12.4 million raised — $4.5 million from individuals and $7.9 million from corporations in one year. In 2015, $9.8 million raised — $3.3 million from individuals and $6.5 million from corporations. In 2014, $10 million raised, and the list goes on.

The top ten donors have contributed over $9 million. And $20 million from corporations. That figure is actually higher, because it is alleged that individuals have donated on behalf of corporations. That is the reason Elections B.C. referred their investigation of Liberal donations to the RCMP.

[1625]

Again I’ll quote one of the pundits.

“I mean, this is a government that has said for over a year that the current system is fine. They’ve said for more than six years they are not going to change it. They’ve rejected every attempt to reform the system. They say the public doesn’t care about it, and now that the election is only two months away, or even less than that now, and the RCMP is investigating, it’s all of a sudden a problem, and they’re committed to making some minor changes.”

What is the issue? What is the core issue? What is the central value of this debate? The core issue is a level playing field so that the arguments during an election, presented to the public, the people who are voting during an election, can be fairly heard and considered, that the positions of all parties are presented and the wisdom of the electorate respected. That is the essence of a democracy. The essence of a democracy is an informed public.

We put down the might of the sword and chose to determine our governments through the marks of a pen. Big money is threatening the fairness of the system built by generations before us. When the establishment funds one political party at the peril and disregard of the public, and the noise of the cash register threatens the ability of the electorate to hear and to make reasoned judgments, then that is a problem and not good for our democracy.

That is what the big-money argument being made throughout the province is about, and that is why it has been articulated and why it is resonating with the public within our jurisdiction. That is why we are being called the wild, wild west, because there are few rules of sub-

[ Page 14391 ]

stance, and the advantage to those who dominate the airwaves through buying is an outrageous advantage.

I think, if we were really clear, if money were bullets, there would be a massacre. There is so much imbalance in terms of the funding. I know the ruling party thinks it’s their given right to rule on behalf of the establishment in this province. After all, the establishment funds them. They keep them in power, and so the circle turns.

Let me describe the unfair playing ground just for a minute. The Liberals are spending…. I’ll tell you what the Liberals are spending before the election. First off, $15 million in public broadcasting — $15 million — and millions of dollars in Liberal Party pre-election funding.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

S. Hammell: You’ve got $10 million and another $9 million, and you got $12 million last year — millions of dollars through an independent citizens group, plus $11 million spent during the election, plus the established power of being in government. You know, it’s the combined money….

Interjection.

S. Hammell: Obviously, he’s sensitive.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

S. Hammell: A lot of money is pouring down from the establishment into the coffers of the Liberal Party. This combined force of big money is trying to convince the electorate not to vote for the opposition. The elephant rolled over with the endgame of eliminating any threat that the mouse might present. In fact, it’s absolutely amazing that our group of 35 members should pose such a threat that the Liberals would go to this extreme.

It also means that the Liberals do not believe they can compete with the electorate on a level playing field. You just don’t think you can do it, because, otherwise, why would you pervert the funding system around our democracy to such an extent?

[1630]

It is so terrifying — the thought of losing power — that this mound of money had to be amassed to prevent a fair and even review, during an election, of the government’s past four years.

Let me just quote one other source. Another pundit says: “For a government that is all about politics, all of the time, the mounting criticism the B.C. Liberals were facing over the absence of any substantive rules around campaign financing became a threat to the one thing they value above all else, and that is power. There is no other explanation” for the current situation.

It is all about power and control. The thought of not controlling the levers of power of the largest organization in this province, the provincial government, is an anathema to the establishment of British Columbia and a terrifying thought to the representatives across the aisle. But the essence of a democracy is not only about winning, but also about learning to lose.

The