Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 50

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M206 — Court Order Enforcement Amendment Act, 2017

A. Weaver

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Welfare Food Challenge and poverty reduction

M. Elmore

Elmer Derrick

E. Ross

Sikh Nation Blood Drive

R. Kahlon

B.C. Youth Parliament

L. Reid

Indigenous disability awareness

M. Dean

Projects by Douglas and N’Quatqua First Nations

J. Sturdy

Oral Questions

Site C power project report and status

M. Bernier

Hon. C. James

D. Davies

Site C power project and agreements with First Nations

J. Rustad

Hon. C. James

Government funding for communities and businesses impacted by

wildfires

C. Oakes

Hon. D. Donaldson

Disclosure of executive council travel expenses and directly

awarded contracts

M. de Jong

Hon. J. Sims

Massey Tunnel replacement project

J. Sturdy

Hon. C. Trevena

I. Paton

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Special Committee to Appoint a Chief Electoral

Officer

Appointment of Special Committee to Appoint an Information and

Privacy Commissioner

Appointment of Special Committee to Appoint a Conflict of Interest

Commissioner

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 11 — Provincial Court Amendment Act, 2017

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Provincial Court Amendment Act, 2017

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Pooled Registered Pension Plans Amendment Act,

Hon. C. James

S. Bond

A. Weaver

Hon. C. James

Bill 10 — Health Professions Amendment Act, 2017

Hon. A. Dix

M. Bernier

S. Furstenau

Hon. A. Dix

Bill 14 — Sheriff Amendment Act, 2017

Hon. D. Eby

M. Morris

A. Weaver

Hon. M. Farnworth

Bill 12 — Public Safety Statutes Amendment Act, 2017

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. Morris

A. Weaver

Hon. M. Farnworth

Bill 6 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act (continued)

M. Polak

R. Leonard

S. Thomson

L. Krog

M. Lee

D. Davies

A. Kang

J. Johal

N. Letnick

S. Cadieux

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development

(continued)

Hon. K. Conroy

L. Throness

J. Thornthwaite

L. Larson

Hon. K. Chen

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2017

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: It’s an honour to introduce a whole host of individuals who are part

of the Better PharmaCare Coalition. I know that members on the opposition

side met with members of the coalition this morning, and members on the

government side and the Green caucus at lunch. We’re so appreciative of the

work that these people do in the communities, within their groups and within

the coalition.

I’d like to introduce today the executive director, Ganive Bhinder, of

the Better PharmaCare Coalition; and an old friend, Jean Blake, used to be

with Diabetes Canada and now with the Parkinson Society British Columbia,

the CEO. She was here with two people who live with Parkinson’s, Alf Todd

and Jean Fraser.

We also had Gail Attara, the president and CEO of the Gastrointestinal

Society; Maureen McGrath, executive director of the Women’s Health

Initiative Network; George Kaminsky, the B.C. director of the Canadian

Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation; Bob Mellar, who was with George and who lives

with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; Jean Fong, the communications director

of the B.C. Schizophrenia Society; Ellen Stensholt, who is a caregiver to

her daughter with type 1 diabetes and an outstanding volunteer advocate; and

Louise Binder, who is a health policy consultant with the Save Your Skin

Foundation.

I ask the members on all sides of the House to say thank you for their

meetings today and welcome them here to question period.

A. Wilkinson: It’s a pleasure to welcome here today Mr. John Warrington and his

daughter, Mackenzie, who is here on a Take Our Kids to Work Day. This must be

one of the strangest workplaces in the western hemisphere.

Also to welcome about 50 students from Prince of Wales high school,

possibly up here behind me — I can’t see them from here — and their teacher

Mr. Tony Lee, who has a very demanding job today, but I hope he’s enjoying

it.

Hon. C. James: I have a constituent and guest who is in the gallery today. She’s a

longtime, very active Victorian who worked as an administrative assistant at

Queen Alexandra Solarium. She served as secretary for the International

Woodworkers of America, local 180.

She was a terrific volunteer who wonderfully greeted people as they

came into my constituency office. She now volunteers with the Christ Church

Cathedral in a number of areas, including as a member of the Aboriginal

neighbours group, who work with First Nations in our region. Would the House

please make Maureen Applewhaite very welcome.

L. Throness: I’d like to welcome Wendy Noble, a long-term friend from Ottawa, from

another political life. She’s here working for Babcock Canada, which helps

to manage Canada’s four submarines. I’m told that they actually do go

underwater. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. M. Mark: Today it is my pleasure to welcome 13 students from across Victoria

who are participating in Take Our Kids to Work Day. Their names are Mateo

Pavida, Damian Paravick, Nicholas MacLean, Sammy Martinez, Lucy Bellow,

Sydney Whitwell, Jackson Carr, Brandon Spencer, Nathan Spencer, Montage

Gill, Brandon Caveen, Lucy Alexander and Keegan Bondroff.

These students are joining us here today to learn more about the role

of government and how it relates to the work of their parents, friends and

relatives, all of whom work in my dynamic ministry, helping people advance

their education, skills and training. Will the House please join me in

welcoming all of them in this Legislature.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Fraser: Following the theme of Take Our Kids to Work Day, we have four grade 9

students joining us today whose parents or friends work at the Ministry of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. Aurora Ralph is with us from Vic

High. We also have Angela Atwater, Anna-Claire Hallam and Arden Thomas, who

are part of the Claremont pursuit of excellence program. They are joined by

their parents and friends Laurel Nash, my assistant deputy minister, and

Jeff Ralph. Would the House please make them feel very, very

welcome.

R. Kahlon: I didn’t know that it was bring your child to work day. I thought it

was bring your friends to work day. I’ve got three lovely friends here — Raj

Khatar, Abu Khan and Arnie Sandhu — who are visiting the

Legislature.

A special thank-you to the good people in the library who pulled out

the old newspaper clippings from 1914 so that they could see the original

stories around the Komagata Maru . They were quite impressed. Thank

you to them, and thank you to my friends for joining us today.

B. Ma: It’s my pleasure to be able to welcome to the gallery here today a

good friend and key member of my election campaign team, Renzo Koornhof.

Renzo actually lives in the riding of Vancouver-Kingsway and, in the year

leading up to the election, was working full-time in New Westminster. Yet he

loved North Vancouver so much that he voluntarily added an extra two to

2½-hour round trip public transit commute to make it all the way out to

North Vancouver to volunteer up to four or five times a week for almost a

year.

I am so, so grateful to the dedication of Renzo, without which I might

not be here today. I’m also very grateful to the Minister of Health for not

being too upset with me for stealing him from his riding.

Hon. L. Beare: I rise today to introduce Ann Newhook, a very special woman who has

trekked all the way from St. John’s, Newfoundland, to be with us in the

House today. Not only is she the mother of one of my staff, Kelly Newhook,

who has been a true gift to both me and my ministry, but she’s also the

grandmother of young hockey sensation Alex Newhook, a 16-year-old who is

playing hockey in the BCHL and is currently headed to Fort St. John and

Dawson Creek to represent Canada in the World Under-17s next

week.

It’s a world-class tournament supported by our government that helps

us promote excellence in sport and gives young people like Ann’s grandson

Alex an opportunity to thrive. I’d like to welcome Ann to our House and wish

Alex and Team Canada the best of luck. I hope you’ll join me.

Hon. L. Popham: Well, I’m rising today to wish one of our colleagues a very happy

birthday. He’s a colleague that brings a smile to our faces and makes us

laugh. I think no matter what side of the House you’re sitting on, we can

all appreciate his good sense of humour. Happy birthday to my friend the

member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

Hon. R. Fleming: In the gallery today, we’re joined by Karli Reeve, who’s the strategic

human resource planning coordinator at the Ministry of Education. She’s

joined by student guests from Oak Bay High School — Matthew Champion, Jeremy

Restall and Paige Bamford — as part of Take Our Kids to Work Day. I would

ask the House to join me in making Karli and our student guests most welcome

here today.

Hon. S. Simpson: I hope that the House will make Jacob De Wijze welcome today. Jacob is

a grade 9 student from my constituency. Jacob has visited the House of

Commons and has a keen interest in politics. For Take Our Kids to Work Day,

he and his family contacted me and asked if he could come to work with me

for the day. Jacob is here in Victoria, spending the day with me and my

staff. He’s here to visit and learn all about what we do and to watch

question period.

He is joined by my admin coordinator, Val McKnight, who we all know

keeps our lives in order administratively and makes sure we’re where we’re

supposed to be when we’re supposed to be. Please make Jacob and Val

welcome.

Hon. S. Fraser: I have a second introduction to make in the theme of taking our

friends to work, as was pointed out before.

[1:45 p.m.]

My good friend Wolfgang Zimmermann is visiting us in the gallery

today. Wolfgang is the president of the Pacific Coast University for

Workplace Health Sciences. They’re setting the standard for the world in

disability management and return-to-work strategies. He is joined today by

the vice-president for administration, Joyce Gravelle. Will this House

please join me in making them both feel very, very welcome.

R. Chouhan: It gives me pleasure to welcome two of my best friends, Bruce Ferguson

and Merrick Walsh, from the Construction and Specialized Workers Union Local

1611. Please join me to give them a very warm welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M206 — COURT ORDER ENFORCEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT,

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Court Order Enforcement

Amendment Act, 2017.

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled the Court Order Enforcement Amendment

Act, 2017, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper,

be introduced and read a first time now.

I’m pleased to be introducing a bill intituled the Court Order

Enforcement Amendment Act, 2017. Inspired by a discussion on Monday, I’m

reintroducing this for the second time.

Registered retirement savings plans are protected in this province

from creditors in the case of personal bankruptcy. Protecting these

funds provides a small safeguard that individuals undergoing bankruptcy

will not be completely destitute in their old age. It’s good law that

most provinces in Canada have adopted.

However, there is no protection for funds that are part of a

registered education savings plan or a registered disability savings

plan. These are important funds that need equal protection. Recognizing

that a child should not have their education investment seized due to

misfortune that befalls their parents, the Alberta government passed

legislation a number of years ago protecting RESPs. It’s with this in

mind that I bring this bill forward today.

This bill amends the Court Order Enforcement Act to ensure that

RESPs and RDSPs are protected by law from creditors.

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

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M206, Court Order Enforcement Amendment Act, 2017, introduced,

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

WELFARE FOOD CHALLENGE

AND POVERTY

REDUCTION

M. Elmore: The sixth annual Welfare Food Challenge, organized by Raise the

Rates, starts today and runs for seven days. The challenge is, for one

week, eating only what can be purchased with the money a welfare

recipient receives. Even with the $100-a-month raise implemented

recently by this government, a single person now receives $710 a month,

but the allocation that is their food budget is $19 a week for food.

This is to accommodate for the rising cost of rent and the high cost of

living. It’s $1 more a week for this budget than the challenge last

year.

The purpose is to raise public awareness of the extreme poverty of

people on income assistance, the need for change and the need for more

action and commitment so people can live with dignity.

I’m going to be participating this year. I kicked off today. I

advised my family of this on the weekend, and my mother asked if she

could bake some cookies for me to help me through the week, but that’s

not allowed. You can’t accept any charity or any other provisions beyond

your budget. I did some shopping last week for $19 — pretty tough for

the whole week. I bought it last week and prepared it. Actually, I’m

going to be here in Victoria for the whole week.

I think it’s going to be a challenge, but certainly, I’m committed

to really having that insight into the experience and the hardship of

people living in deep poverty and, really, the depths of poverty — to

understand that. That’s also why I’m very committed and our government

is committed to looking into adopting a poverty reduction plan and

really travelling across the province.

We need to understand the high costs of poverty. Investing in a

poverty reduction plan invests in people and ensures that we have

opportunity for people. The message from the organizers and from myself

that we want to get out is that social justice, not charity, is what’s

needed to ensure that everyone has access to food.

[1:50 p.m.]

ELMER DERRICK

E. Ross: I rise today to recognize my late mentor and friend Elmer Derrick.

Elmer was a First Nations leader that I highly respected. He served his

people as a Hereditary Chief of the Gitxsan Nation, as well as serving

on a number of boards of directors. Elmer Derrick also spent a

significant amount of time sharing his wisdom with others, including as

an educator, teaching courses at Northwest Community College.

I remember the times when we met at conferences and in airports

while waiting for flights as some of the best conversations that I’ve

ever had with another First Nations leader. Being a First Nations

leader, wanting change for people is to be alone and highly criticized

regardless of the facts or good intentions. Elmer understood this. He

stayed true to his word and did so even though he knew the adversity

that was coming. He always felt it was worthwhile facing the adversity

if it meant that his people got to a better place. He never wanted to

talk about what he was going through, instead choosing to encourage me

to carry on with the path I had chosen and not to be discouraged, no

matter what kind of abuse I was taking.

His quiet, reassuring words got me through some of the worst times

in my life as a young leader. I owe him a huge debt of gratitude, and I

miss him. Thank you, Elmer Derrick, for your wisdom and guidance.

British Columbia has lost a great man.

I hope this House will join me in recognizing Elmer Derrick’s

contributions to building our province. And to Elmer Derrick himself,

please rest in peace.

SIKH NATION BLOOD DRIVE

R. Kahlon: November 1, 1984. It’s a day and a moment that haunts the people

of the Sikh community. Indira Ghandi had been assassinated, and Sikhs

became the scapegoats for the assassination. Elected officials were

involved. Attackers had voter lists, school registration forms and

ration lists. They went street by street, house by house, attacking

homes which had identified Sikhs.

For four days, organized groups systematically destroyed Sikh

places of worship, homes and businesses. There are reports that up to

5,000 people were killed. However, this is a conservative estimate. Men,

women and children. Muslim and Hindu families hid their friends and

neighbours for days. Turbans and long hair made children targets, and

parents had to make the difficult choice to cut the hair in order to

survive. It was well documented that police simply watched as innocent

people pleaded for help. Many elected officials that were involved

walked free, and many have received promotions.

How does a community respond to such injustice? They give blood,

in order to save the lives of those they could not in 1984. As a tribute

to the events of 1984, a small group of B.C. citizens started the Sikh

Nation Blood Drive. The first blood donation clinic in 1999 took place

in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. It has now grown to include

clinics across Canada, the U.S., Australia and other locations

worldwide. The campaign has saved 120,000 lives and currently is

Canadian Blood Services’ largest partner in life.

This campaign expresses peace and invites people from around the

world to participate in this humanitarian campaign. Today I would like

this House to join me in thanking them for their efforts.

B.C. YOUTH PARLIAMENT

L. Reid: The first British Columbia Older Boys Parliament was held in

January of 1924. The Premier was Walter S. Owen, who later served as

Lieutenant-Governor in the province of British Columbia. The mace was

donated by St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, where Walter Owen’s TUXIS

group met regularly.

The partners that sponsored parliament included the YMCA and

various churches, which joined forces to build the organization. While

taking kids to camp had been a steady part of parliament since its

inception, parliament had always been involved in others. This changed

in December of 1967 when the 37th session legislated Camp Phoenix. The

first camp was held at George Pringle with 36 boys.

Since the fifth session, resolutions have been introduced to admit

girls as members. The women here will know it was a long debate. The

B.C. Youth Parliament came into being for the 44th session in 1974. Our

first female Premier was Susan Hunter of the 49th session in 1977. And I

was the second female Premier.

The Tuxis and Older Boys Parliament has successfully evolved into

the British Columbia Youth Parliament. A long-standing goal of the

organization was the creation of regional youth parliaments. The first

Kootenay Youth Parliament was held as a pilot project in 1987, and many

others followed.

BCYP is proud to stand apart from other provincial youth

parliaments in that they go beyond being a mock parliament, with their

legislation becoming projects in communities.

[1:55 p.m.]

The parliament is also proud of those notables who have worked to

promote the parliament. Many distinguished MLAs, MPs, cabinet members,

clergy, YMCA and community figures have served as its

Lieutenant-Governor. Alumni have taken their parliamentary experience

into such diverse fields as art, law, journalism, politics, business,

religion and medicine. Prominent alumni include Walter S. Owen, Jack

Shadbolt, Robert Bonner, Ray Williston, Allan Fotheringham, Russell

Brown, Maggie Gillatt, Rhonda Vanderfluit, Kerry Simmons, Susan Dent,

Susie da Silva and Darya Ali.

The Youth Parliament is sponsored by the Youth Parliament of B.C.

Alumni Society, which was formed in 1974. Its board of directors is

commonly known as the Senate. The Senate carries on the duty of ensuring

a session is held annually in supporting the endeavours of the

parliament.

For over 88 sessions, young people have made the parliament

flourish. The membership in each and every session contributes to

consistent growth and development while passing on the traditions of the

past.

Come by December 27 to December 31 and see the British Columbia

Youth Parliament in this session, this year.

INDIGENOUS DISABILITY AWARENESS

M. Dean: November is Indigenous Disability Awareness Month and is a great

opportunity to recognize the challenges that face Indigenous people in

B.C. who live with disabilities. Now, we know that the rates of

disability are higher amongst Indigenous communities, so raising

awareness about their challenges is a very important step towards

changing attitudes and creating a more inclusive society.

Today I encourage British Columbians to learn about the many ways

Indigenous people with disabilities support their families and

communities and celebrate their important contributions. We can create

opportunities for greater inclusion when we eliminate barriers, and we

can all have a role.

This government is committed to working with our community

partners to build communities where everyone is included — in

particular, the British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability

Society, BCANDS, which is the only stand-alone, non-profit organization

in Canada dedicated to serving the needs of Indigenous people with

disabilities.

For 26 years, BCANDS has provided culturally safe health services

and programs for Indigenous people with disabilities throughout B.C.,

which also gives them a unique perspective that can inform government’s

policy and program designs. BCANDS has been a strong advocate in

national and international fora for making society more equitable and

accessible for Indigenous people with disabilities.

Indigenous people with disabilities have the rights to equal

access, equal opportunities and equal recognition in our province. This

month I invite you to join me in honouring them as we work towards

building a better, more inclusive B.C.

PROJECTS BY DOUGLAS

AND N’QUATQUA FIRST

NATIONS

J. Sturdy: I’m pleased to rise today to acknowledge the strength of

Indigenous leadership and culture in the more remote areas of West

Vancouver–Sea to Sky. Recently I had the pleasure of visiting the

Douglas and N’Quatqua First Nations to see the work they are doing in

their communities.

The Douglas First Nation has been awarded a $405,000 grant from

the Canada-B.C. job grant program to provide much-needed skills training

and certifications to help community members become work-ready. As part

of the project, the training provider, Indigenous Community for

Leadership and Development, devoted targeted training to meet the needs

of the community. This included the development of a new tourism

product, known as the Sloquet Hot Springs tour, which takes advantage of

the natural hot springs on the east side of Garibaldi Park.

More great work is taking place in the First Nations community of

N’Quatqua, as part of the St’át’im Men’s Building a Nation cabin

project. Situated semi-remotely, these cabins will make traditional use

on the landscape easier and will help the N’Quatqua to be more closely

engaged with their cultural practices. I toured one of the cabins with

members of the program team that have been building them over the

summer. The program has been a great success and has been

enthusiastically embraced by the participants and the community

alike.

Experiences such as this cabin-building program are important for

retaining knowledge of traditional construction methods, sharing

economically valuable skills within the community and building the

confidence to create businesses and to access meaningful

work.

[2:00 p.m.]

Experiencing the progress throughout the St’át’im territory, I am

profoundly impressed by the leadership evident in many of the First

Nations communities located in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. If you’re

looking for inspiration and for leadership in economic development, you

need look no further than the Douglas and N’Quatqua Nations. They are

leading by doing.

Oral Questions

SITE C POWER PROJECT

REPORT AND

STATUS

M. Bernier: British Columbia is in the midst of the largest infrastructure

project in provincial history, and the choice now is in front of the

government, as of today. Are we going to write off $4 billion? Are we

going to break contracts and end up with nothing? Or are we going to

choose to ensure that we have a guaranteed supply of clean, renewable

and firm power going forward for at least another 100 years and for

generations to come?

I know the report just came out today, so I don’t expect nor will

I ask for government to make a decision today, after they’ve put this

review forward that was for only six weeks. But I will ask, since…. I

won’t ask the Minister of Energy and Mines, so I will ask the Deputy

Premier. I think it’s a fair request. I think it’s actually an easy

request. Government made a commitment that, once the report came out, a

decision would be made.

What I’m asking today of the Deputy Premier and of government is:

can we have a commitment that a decision will be made for the province,

for the people in B.C., by the end of November?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member. The member can anticipate that a

government decision will arrive by the end of the year.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peace River South on a supplemental.

M. Bernier: That’s unfortunate to hear, because commitments were made that

once the report came out, a decision would be made for the future of

this province.

We need to remember that we have large hydroelectric projects that

have been built in the province of British Columbia that have allowed us

to have energy stability and sustainability. Site C is one of those

projects that’s going to make sure that for generations to come, we

continue to have cheap, reliable, clean, firm power in the province of

British Columbia.

Site C was reviewed for almost eight years by third-party

independent people. In fact, it had provincial environmental

assessments, federal environmental assessments done — all that were

granted permits to build Site C. This government decided that they

wanted to have a six-week review of this project and make a decision.

The Premier himself said that they would make a decision right after

this report was released. I think it is a very reasonable request to say

by the end of this month, four weeks. Yes, it is 400 pages. We should be

able to have that read in a couple of days and a decision be made. This

is not a surprise to government. They asked for this review to be done.

Obviously, they were anticipating what it would say and should be able

to make a decision.

Again, to the Deputy Premier, all we’re asking for is for

certainty in the province and a decision to be made. I think four weeks

is quite realistic and am asking for that to be confirmed

today.

Hon. C. James: I just want to remind the member and remind people on that side of

the House that the reason we’re at this place is because the previous

government didn’t live up to their responsibility. The previous

government, in fact, refused to send the decision around Site C to the

independent Utilities Commission put in place in this province to do

that due diligence. It is the previous side that, in fact, started

construction without proper regulatory oversight. That was

irresponsible, and it was wrong, and we have righted that wrong by

sending Site C to the B.C. Utilities Commission, as should have been

done in the first place.

We will take a look at the report. We will do our analysis. We

will ensure that we take the time that is needed to make the right

decision for British Columbians, as should have been made in the first

place.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peace River South on a second

supplemental.

[2:05 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Again, the province of British Columbia is the envy of almost

every jurisdiction in North America, because governments have stood up

and made bold, strong decisions to ensure that we have energy stability

in the province for generations to come. That is what’s happened in the

past. That’s what government is trying to do, making surethat for the

next 100 years, we continue to have cheaper, reliable, firm power in the

province of British Columbia.

Unfortunately, in this situation now, we’ve created more

uncertainty. We need to ensure, because we know there is a lot at stake.

We have thousands of jobs at stake. Obviously, this new government wants

to let them know at Christmastime what their futures will be. We have

companies’ futures at stake. We have existing contracts with First

Nations that are at stake.

People deserve to know. To say we’re going to let them know in a

couple more months and continue that uncertainty is unfair to the people

working at the site, to the companies and to the local First Nations who

rely on this work.

Will the Deputy Premier easily say yes or no? All we need to do is

have four weeks, which we think is reasonable — by the end of November,

a decision to be made, so the people of British Columbia

know.

Hon. C. James: The only uncertainty created with this project was created by the

other side, by exactly that side, by not sending it to the independent

B.C. Utilities Commission so that due diligence could have been done on

behalf of ratepayers in British Columbia. They refused. The other side

refused to allow the independent watchdog to examine the project, to

determine if it was in the public interest.

We are going to take the time to fully review the BCUC’s findings.

We’re going to ensure that we engage further with First Nations. We will

make the right decision on behalf of ratepayers and British

Columbians.

D. Davies: I want to first of all start by saying and sending out a big

thank-you to all of the workers that are working right now, that have

worked on the B.C. Hydro clean energy project, for the job well done

thus far.

This project is of particular interest to me. Of course, first of

all, it is a mere seven kilometres from my hometown of Fort St. John,

and it’s also the single-largest employment project in my riding.

There’s nobody doubting the magnitude of this project and the size. It

is the single largest infrastructure project in British

Columbia.

Presumably the government has done their due diligence as well as

examined all of the implications involved in the decision that is before

them now, including the additional costs that are outside of the purview

of the BCUC report. Just recently we’ve learned that the McLeod Lake

Indian Band had said that they would be entitled to reparations if Site

C did not go ahead.

We also know that Site C will result in a total of $40 million in

tax revenues to the local government. As well, the Peace River

agreement, also signed with local governments in the region, is worth

over $1 billion. And there are more.

Can the, I guess, Deputy Premier answer the question and provide

to this House what other analysis has been done for the additional costs

that are at stake, should this project be cancelled?

Hon. C. James: We certainly recognize that this impacts a lot of people. We thank

the BCUC for the work they did. They received more than 600 submissions.

They conducted public consultations. We thank everyone who took time to

go through this process. We will do a thorough analysis, and we will

make the best decision on behalf of British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peace River North on a supplemental.

D. Davies: This is a choice, and this is a choice that’s got to be made

between the government writing off over $4 billion, unilaterally ripping

up contracts and other agreements, versus having a guaranteed supply of

clean, renewable energy.

[2:10 p.m.]

This isn’t just about the billions of dollars that are going to be

thrown away down the toilet. This is about the thousands of dollars that

the individuals that are working and providing for their families, the

people who depend on this project; the thousands of dollars that the

individual businesses in my riding rely on to make a living. Right now

due to the uncertainty, people don’t know what’s going on, and their

lives are on hold. These workers and their families deserve to know if

they are going to be able to put food on their tables as they head into

the holiday season.

I can tell the minister and the Premier what the decision should

be. But at the very least, can the Deputy Premier at least commit to

deciding by the end of this month so that people have some sort of

certainty as they head into the holiday season?

Hon. C. James: Well, it’s a bit rich to hear members on the other side talking

about ripping up contracts. I think teachers and health care workers in

this province might have something to say about that when it comes to

the other side and what they did to employees in our

province.

I will say it again. The only reason there’s uncertainty on this

project is because the other side refused to have independent oversight

on Site C. We corrected that, and we’re going to make the right decision

on behalf of British Columbians.

SITE C POWER PROJECT

AND AGREEMENTS WITH FIRST

NATIONS

J. Rustad: Let’s look at this agreement, or let’s look at what has been

presented in the BCUC report. A $4 billion write-down — a $4 billion

write-down, the largest write-down in B.C.’s history — should this

project be cancelled. Obviously, there’s a tough decision that

government needs to make.

More than 2,000 workers being given a pink slip at Christmas

should this project not go forward. Not to mention the firm power for

100-plus years to help fuel British Columbia’s economy and to meet the

needs of our province for those generations, to make sure we have the

third-lowest and continue to have those lowest rates in North

America.

My question, though, is to the Minister of Indigenous Relations

and Reconciliation. We know about the $4 billion cost associated with

this project. But in the words of one First Nation, they’ll be looking

for compensation with regards to an agreement that they entered into

associated with Site C.

Can the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation

confirm that any costs associated with exiting those agreements with

First Nations would be in addition to the $4 billion write-down that

would be required to end Site C?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for the question. As I mentioned, we are

going to take the time that’s needed to fully review the report. We’re

going to look at issues as well, engaging further with First Nations who

are impacted, and a government decision on the project will be made by

the end of the year.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nechako Lakes on a supplemental.

J. Rustad: It’s somewhat shocking to think, knowing this information would be

coming forward from BCUC, that there wasn’t groundwork done in advance

to look at what the financial implications should be or, for that

matter, the legal obligations and requirements that would happen from

Indigenous nations to agreements that have happened with

this.

This is a decision — it’ll be a tough decision by government — to

take the largest write-down in B.C.’s history, a $4 billion write-down

on a project that can provide that firm power.

Once again, the minister did not answer the question. How much of

those additional costs associated with contracts, in particular with

those agreements…? They were very fair agreements and part of why the

government, B.C. Hydro, has won 14 times in court to challenges, because

of this. These agreements — will they add to that cost associated with

ending the Site C project, the $4 billion cost, if government decides to

do that?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: The member mentions basic groundwork. Well, basic groundwork was

ensuring that this project went to the B.C. Utilities Commission, which

that side refused to do.

The entire reason that the B.C. Utilities Commission was put in

place was to do the due diligence on big hydro projects. That was not

done by the other side. We righted that wrong, and we’re going to take

the time to make the right decision.

GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR COMMUNITIES

AND BUSINESSES

IMPACTED BY WILDFIRES

C. Oakes: We’re not seeing any leadership from government on the wildfire

recovery file — empathy, yes; leadership, no.

We’ve asked the government where the resources are for folks in

the Cariboo who are recovering from the disaster. We’ve canvassed in

estimates how much money is available to support recovery. We’ve talked

to the Minister of Finance. We’ve talked to the Minister of

Transportation. We’ve talked to the Minister of Jobs, Trade and

Technology. We’ve even asked questions to the Minister of Forests, Lands

and Natural Resources and the Solicitor General. Sadly, the government

points all inquiries to local governments.

Would the Minister of Municipal Affairs explain how much money

will be made available to support regional districts and municipalities

so that they are financially equipped to support individuals and small

businesses?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, the impacts of the wildfires throughout the Interior and

other parts of the province have been large and unprecedented. The area

affected and the people affected have really suffered

greatly.

This government cares about the people in the Interior and cares

about the communities. That is why we’re working from the ground up.

We’re asking the communities to come up with the plans that they have

for recovery. We’re assisting communities in doing that by having funds

available for recovery managers in each of these communities.

That’s our strategy. It is to work from the ground up, not from

the top down, and ask communities what they want and then help them

achieve it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo North on a supplemental.

C. Oakes: I’m glad, actually, that the Minister of Forests, Lands and

Natural Resources stood up to answer this question, because I believe it

was six weeks ago, at the Union of B.C. Municipalities, when he talked

to local governments. He said that we would be able to have some funds

available in six weeks. That six weeks is now.

If you have a trapline, this pass-the-buck government says: “Take

it up with your local government.” Same thing if you have guide and

outfitting territory. We’ve canvassed estimates. You need support? You

know what? Go talk to your local recovery person. You need a hydro pole

on private property or septic, wells? Go talk to your local government

recovery individual.

An entire tourism season absolutely decimated. Early estimates for

this, for the first five weeks: $23 million impacted. Does the minister

not realize the scope of the recovery that is needed? Funds are required

to support recovery. We’ve canvassed in estimates. We need finances now,

not next year.

Will the Minister of Municipal Affairs please tell us how much

money will be made available for local governments and regional

districts in order to support individuals and small businesses who have

been affected?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, there’s been absolutely no downloading onto local

governments on the recovery basis. In fact, the member opposite might

want to check with the mayor of her home community — the mayor of

Quesnel, Bob Simpson — who made it clear in a letter to the local paper

that no downloading has occurred on local government on the recovery

efforts. In fact, the strategy we’re taking of building from the ground

up is the strategy your mayor in your community, in Quesnel,

endorses.

DISCLOSURE OF EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

TRAVEL EXPENSES AND

DIRECTLY AWARDED CONTRACTS

M. de Jong: A question for the Minister of Citizens’ Services. Will she

confirm that she and the government are in violation of their

obligations under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act

to proactively disclose and post all of the travel expenses and expense

receipts for members of the executive council?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank the member for that question, and I will get back

with the answer.

M. de Jong: While she’s at it, will she similarly inquire and confirm that she

and the government are also in violation of their legal obligations

under that statute to proactively disclose and post a

summary of all

directly awarded contracts? What are the minister and the government

hiding? Why is this information not being disclosed as it was? She

didn’t have to intervene here. She just had to continue doing what a

previous government was doing.

Hon. J. Sims: I have taken notice of the questions, and I will get back to the

House.

MASSEY TUNNEL REPLACEMENT PROJECT

J. Sturdy: Yesterday we asked the Minister of Transportation two simple

questions: what is the status of the review of the George Massey Tunnel

replacement project, and will she table the terms of reference? She

chose not to or, for some reason, couldn’t answer those questions. But

later in the day her own ministry officials confirmed that they had

already hired someone to conduct the review and that the individual had

already begun work.

Now, I understand that just minutes before question period, the

terms of reference were in fact released and the name of the firm

engaged. My question for the minister is: why did she conceal these

facts from the House yesterday?

Hon. C. Trevena: Yesterday we had not finalized the terms of reference. When the

terms of reference were finalized, they were going to be released. When

we had a signed contract, we were going to be explaining who was going

to be the expert review. We are now proceeding with that. As I explained

to the member yesterday, when you’re working on the terms of reference….

We’ve hired someone who has now got a signed contract, and we’re

proceeding.

Mr. Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky on a

supplemental.

J. Sturdy: Yesterday we asked simple questions on a topic critical to 80,000

people that are stuck in gridlock each and every day. When asked

questions in estimates, the minister was elusive, refusing to answer

those questions that British Columbians do have the right to know.

Either the minister doesn’t know what’s happening in her own ministry or

is unwilling to be transparent with members of this House.

The question to the minister. When was the contract signed, and

why wasn’t the minister informed on a file so important to the people of

British Columbia?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: Unlike the previous government, we want to make sure that we get

the right solution for the problem that is facing people who are…. That

government just rushed ahead with a project, a glory project, for the

previous Premier. We want to make sure…

Interjections.

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

Hon. C. Trevena: …that we are analyzing all the technical options. That’s why we’re

having a technical expert doing this work, and we will proceed with a

review that will be complete in the spring. At that point, I’m sure that

we’ll have many more answers to the many questions that that side of the

House left when they were government.

I. Paton: I’m going to go backwards a little bit to yesterday’s

question.

To the minister, I’m wondering if the minister can answer this

question. There is actually an office — and I believe it’s still open —

in Ironwood, in Richmond. It’s the tunnel replacement office. In that

office, there are no less than 15 binders, about six inches thick, with

information and studies that have been done by engineering firms,

studies, stakeholder meetings in that office.

I would like to know if the office is still open and still

operating. Has the minister actually visited the office of the tunnel

replacement in Richmond, B.C.?

Hon. C. Trevena: We will obviously be looking at the work that was done for the

previous government, but we think that there was not enough work done in

looking at all types of options, that the previous government rushed

ahead with a pet project that pleased the previous

government.

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. C. Trevena: The resulting project, the ten-lane bridge, was only popular —

apart from the Premier — to a very small number of people in the Lower

Mainland. We are engaging with the mayors and with the community to make

sure that we get the right approach.

We announced that we were doing a technical review and that we

actually wanted to talk to people — the elected officials — and include

them in this. The chair of the Mayors Council said at that time: “This

is exactly what Metro Vancouver’s regional district called

for.”

We acknowledge that there’s a traffic issue along the corridor and

that something needs to be done. But the scope of the ten-lane bridge

was too big. They needed to work with local government around the whole

region, including Metro Vancouver. That’s what we’re doing.

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

I. Paton: With a bit of flip-flopping, as we talked about just a minute ago,

this time yesterday we were told that the terms of reference hadn’t been

started and we hadn’t found anyone to get on with the review. Then later

on in the afternoon, we found out during estimates that the review has

begun. Someone has been hired, and the terms of reference are well

underway.

I must say that the George Massey Tunnel has caused us so much

grief in my community. We have employees of Tilbury Industrial Park. We

have employees at the city of Delta municipal hall that have forfeited

their jobs and are remaining to stay in Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam.

They do not want to commute through the tunnel anymore because of the

congestion. We are losing jobs. We are losing employees in Delta and

South Surrey.

To the minister, I ask you one more time: can you tell us when the

terms of reference are going to start, can you tell us who the reviewer

is going to be, and can you tell us all the different stakeholder groups

that are going to be invited to rehash this entire review one more time

over the next five years?

Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the question, but I

hope that the member actually listens to my answer, because clearly he

didn’t listen to my answer yesterday.

[2:30 p.m.]

I had actually said yesterday that we were working on the terms of

reference. The terms of reference are now out. If he wants to know where

the terms of reference are, he can look on the ministry website. The

terms of reference have been released.

If the member wants to know who is doing the review, he can look

on our website. It is an engineer, who is a professional, an engineer by

the name of Stan Cowdell. That, too, is on our website. He’ll be putting

together a technical review that will be presented in the

spring.

[End of question period.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I seek leave to move a series of three motions activating three

special committees of appointment. The full text of these motions has

been provided to the Opposition House Leader and the independent

members.

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO

APPOINT A CHIEF

ELECTORAL OFFICER

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move:

[That a Special Committee be appointed to select and unanimously

recommend to the Legislative Assembly, the appointment of a Chief

Electoral Officer pursuant to

section 4 of the Election Act ,

R.S.B.C. 1996, c.106.

The said Special Committee shall have the powers of a Select

Standing Committee and is also empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees

and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the

Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned,

during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and

during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be

convenient;

(

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the

Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any

adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to

deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative

Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the

sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the

Legislative Assembly.

The said Special Committee is to be composed of Jagrup Brar

(Convener), Doug Clovechok, Adam Olsen, Janet Routledge, and Jackie

Tegart.]

Motion approved.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO

APPOINT AN

INFORMATION AND

PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move:

[That a Special Committee be appointed to select and unanimously

recommend to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of an Information

and Privacy Commissioner, pursuant to

section 37 of the Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Act , R.S.B.C. 1996, c.

The said Special Committee shall have the powers of a Select

Standing Committee and in addition is empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and

to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the

committee and to delegate to the subcommittee all or any of its powers

except the power to report directly to the House;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned,

during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and

during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

and

(

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the

committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any

adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to

deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative

Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the

sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the

Legislative Assembly.

The said Special Committee is to be composed of Doug Routley

(Convener), Anne Kang, Coralee Oakes, Mary Polak, and Dr. Andrew

Weaver.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO

APPOINT A CONFLICT

OF INTEREST COMMISSIONER

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move:

[That a Special Committee be appointed to unanimously select and

recommend to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of an individual

to exercise the powers and duties assigned to the Conflict of Interest

Commissioner for the province of British Columbia pursuant to the

Members’ Conflict of Interest Act , R.S.B.C. 1996,

c.287.

The said Special Committee shall have the powers of a Select

Standing Committee and in addition is empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees

and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the

Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned,

during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and

during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

and

(

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the

Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any

adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to

deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative

Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the

sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the

Legislative Assembly.

The said Special Committee is to be composed of Rachna Singh

(Convener), Spencer Chandra Herbert, Eric Foster, Mike Morris, and Adam

Olsen.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 11, the Provincial

Court Amendment Act; and in Committee A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued

debate on the estimates of Children and Family Development.

[2:35 p.m. - 2:40 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 11 — PROVINCIAL COURT

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 11; R.

Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:41 p.m.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:42 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — PROVINCIAL COURT

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 11, Provincial Court Amendment Act, 2017, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. James: I call second reading of Bill 13, Pooled Registered Pension

Plans.

[2:45 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — POOLED REGISTERED

PENSION PLANS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Hon. C. James: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

These amendments to the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act will

reduce the unnecessary cost for Gazette publication that is

required every time British Columbia signs a multilateral agreement

under the act or amendments to the agreement.

Pooled registered pension plans, or PRPPs, are defined

contribution pension plans that are administered across participating

jurisdictions by regulated financial institutions, which supports

employers with the responsibility of pension plan operations. PRPPs are

the result of a federal-provincial initiative to make well-regulated and

low-cost pension plans available to millions of Canadians who have no

other opportunity to become pension plan members.

Membership is available to employees and self-employed in all

participating provinces, including in federally regulated workplaces

which allow members to move their pensions with them when they change

jobs.

This Canada-wide framework for PRPPs was implemented in 2012 by

the federal government. The act operates within that framework by

adopting the federal legislation by reference, with some modifications

for B.C.’s legislative content.

B.C. entered into the multilateral agreement respecting pooled

registered pension plans and voluntary retirement savings plans in June

2016 with the federal government and with Saskatchewan, Quebec and Nova

Scotia. Ontario joined the agreement in March 2017, and Manitoba is

scheduled to join November 15. Under this agreement, the administrative

burden is minimized as the federal pension regulators responsible for

issuing licences and for registering PRPPs provide administrators with a

single licensing and registered process which, again, saves the burden

on employers.

The act currently requires every PRPP multilateral agreement and

every amended agreement and notices of its effective date to be

published in full in the Gazette . This is costly and

unnecessary. The act already requires public access to be provided on

the Internet, so it is already out there. It is already provided on the

Internet. Every multilateral agreement and amending agreement is posted

on the websites of both the federal and the B.C. pension

regulators.

If this bill is enacted, the requirement for notice alone to be

published would be maintained. The bill will also bring the act in line

with the Gazette publication requirements in other B.C.

statutes for interjurisdictional agreements, such as wills and estates

and succession acts. So they would all follow the same rules — the full

act and changes to be published with public access on the Internet but

not required to be published in the Gazette .

Ministry savings. I think it’s important for the Minister of

Finance to set this as well — that there are savings to be found if the

passage of this legislation occurs. The savings are estimated to be

$7,500 for the next amending agreement in November when Manitoba joins.

Every penny counts. Savings increase by $1,500 for each subsequent

amending agreement if other provinces join or if further amendments are

needed.

The proposed amendments will also make very minor corrections to

clarify two terms in the federal Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act to

ensure they don’t apply to our act because they already define the

existing terms.

With that, I will finish second reading.

Interjection.

S. Bond: I always very much appreciate the Minister of Health’s enthusiasm,

because the Minister of Finance here has indicated there are going to be

some savings, as small as they are. I know he’s probably thinking

they’re coming in his direction anyway.

I do agree with the Minister of Finance that every penny does

count. She knows that she has a lot of promises to end up paying for. I

just wanted to take a moment. I do appreciate the comments made by the

Minister of Finance and bringing forward the amendments to this

bill.

I wanted to just walk back a little bit in terms of the history of

how we got here and why it’s so important, while today we’re talking

about amendments that might seem quite minor to people. When there was a

discussion a number of years ago, the previous government did work with

the federal government and other provincial governments to look at a

framework, which is now known as the PRPP framework. In many ways, it

was to support British Columbians who all want to have the opportunity

to save for retirement.

Nearly two-thirds of B.C. workers at the time, which was in 2014,

were without a registered pension plan.

[2:50 p.m.]

By taking away the administrative burden of pension plans, it

makes offering a pension much more attractive and affordable for

employers. We know, and certainly the Minister of Finance knows, that

pensions are a really important element of a family’s retirement savings

plan.

We recognized, as did the federal and other provincial

governments, that effective ways needed to be found so that current

workers could save for their retirement. PRPPs are certainly an

important option for people who need to save for retirement.

We worked with the federal government, we looked at what other

jurisdictions were thinking, and we were one of the first provinces in

the country to allow businesses to actually offer these pooled

registered pension plans, something that, obviously, we’re very proud

of. The minister also outlined other provinces that have enacted PRPP

legislation, and that continues today.

One of the things that was important for us was the fact that it

needed to be easy for employers to use. Employers, in this case, do not

have to deal with administrative aspects of running a pension plan, and

their contributions are optional. Providing a PRPP is voluntary, as are

employer contributions. If an employer offers a PRPP to employees, the

employees will automatically be enrolled, but each employee has the

right to opt out.

At the time, Alberta and Saskatchewan had enacted very similar

legislation.

In essence, this is a way that…. For British Columbians who needed

an alternative way to look at having a pension plan and looking at

retirement savings, this is one of the important options that’s in

place.

When it comes to speaking to the amendments, I think the minister

has laid out a very compelling case. It really is about avoiding

duplication. Information is already published, and every time we do

this, it mean that it needs to be gazetted. I can say that we certainly

want to make it as easy and streamlined as possible, and unnecessary

expenses do need to be removed. If passed, as the minister pointed out,

only publication of the notice would be required, and full notice will

continue to be published on the Internet.

This is one of those places where we find ourselves, I think, in

raging agreement. It makes good sense, and I can tell the Finance

Minister that we certainly welcome the improvement that she’s brought

forward and we will be supporting the passage of Bill 13.

A. Weaver: I rise to speak in favour and support of Bill 13, Pooled

Registered Pension Plans Amendment Act, 2017. This is one of the rare

moments in this Legislature when all members on all sides of the House

can agree on the importance of moving forward with a particular bill. I

can see that everyone’s happy that we can actually all agree on one

issue here.

As we know, the purpose of pooled registered pension plans is to

reduce the burden on employers and to make pensions more accessible to

people who work for, for example, small businesses, freelance operator

contractors.

Previously, when new multilateral agreements were made, the full

details of these agreements needed to be published in the B.C.

Gazette for public information. Of course, the publishing is

important, but that’s, in some sense, a relic of the past in this

digital era that we are in today.

The requirement didn’t actually fit with other B.C. statutes, as

well, where they just publish the date of the agreements. This initial

legislation, I suspect, was rather hastily put together after the

federal model that required full agreement publication to mirror up with

the federal government. It was a little bit burdensome, the process that

was put in place.

It’s already published on line. The B.C. Gazette is no

longer the primary source that people go to, to refer to information.

What this bill is doing, and why obviously we support it in its

entirety, is it’s removing the requirement for full print publication of

new multilateral agreements but still requires the date to be included

in the Gazette .

All of the multilateral agreement details will still be accessible

to the public, if they so wish, on line. But in essence, what’s really

happening is this bill is reducing publication costs, which were over

$65 a page, and aligning print reporting requirements with other B.C.

statutes. There are a few definition amendments that were previously

made, and the regulations have been brought into the act since it was

opened.

[2:55 p.m.]

In conclusion, these are fairly minor changes, but their

implication is very important. We believe that this is a good piece of

legislation, and we’re very proud to stand with our friends opposite and

with government to support this legislation moving forward.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, minister to conclude the

debate.

Hon. C. James: I appreciate the members’ comments. Thank you for the positive

nature of this legislation coming forward and the support. With that, I

move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 13, Pooled Registered Pension Plans Amendment Act, 2017, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Mark: May I seek leave to introduce guests that are in the

chambers?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Mark: Today it’s my pleasure to introduce some friends in the gallery.

They’re students. Their family members work with the Ministry of Advanced

Education, Skills and Training. They unfortunately missed the entertainment

that goes on in these chambers during question period, but I just want to

thank the family members, the friends, the colleagues that make our ministry

whole and dynamic. I hope you enjoy your day learning about what we do in

government.

Will the House please join me in welcoming — I’m going to say it

really quickly — Mateo, Damian, Nicholas, Sammy, Lucy, Sydney, Jackson,

Brandon, Nathan, Montage, Brandon, Lucy and Keegan. Please join me in

welcoming our guests.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading, Bill 10, the Health Professions Amendment

Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — HEALTH PROFESSIONS

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. A. Dix: It’s my honour to rise, speak and move second reading of the

Health Professions Amendments Act, 2017. We have guests in the gallery,

so for those guests I’ll say that this is a piece of legislation that

changes the way the nursing profession is regulated.

Right now there are three colleges that regulate nurses in British

Columbia. The idea here is to allow the government — by agreement of the

three colleges, all three of which want to come together — to enable

them to come together. Right now under the law, even if they wanted to

come together, they couldn’t come together. So we’ve introduced a bill

to allow that to happen.

That’s what I’m debating today in the House, what my friend the

opposition Health critic will be debating and what my friend the Health

critic for the Green Party will be debating in this session right

now.

Every day nurses throughout British Columbia give their care and

support to patients. They do it in hospitals. They do it in care homes.

They do it in the community. They’re often the first point of contact

for people who are suffering and struggling with their health, treating

patients and their families with respect and doing their best to allay

any worries. Whether they are registered nurses, licensed practical

nurses, registered psychiatric nurses or nurse practitioners, nurses are

a critical part of the health care system. If you need help, they are

critical to you on any given day.

I’m someone who personally, in my life, has received the support

of nurses trained to help people who suffer from type 1 diabetes,

something that happened to me late in life. I spent a day of training

with a nurse who specialized in diabetic care. That training was

excellent, and since then, I have never been back to an emergency

room.

That has a lot to do with the work of nurses every day in the

community. We think of nurses, sometimes, in acute care, and we

understand their role. But their role in the community and throughout

the health care system is central. That’s why, with that in mind, our

government is introducing these amendments to the Health Professions Act

to further strengthen health care in British Columbia.

As I noted, this allows the three nursing colleges to amalgamate.

That is what has inspired the legislation. I’m referring to the College

of Registered Psychiatric Nurses of B.C., the College of Licensed

Practical Nurses of B.C. and the College of Registered Nurses of B.C.

They have been working together in recent years on nursing and on

nursing regulations and standards. They’ve become more aligned in their

efforts, and this legislation lets them take the next step and

amalgamate.

[3:00 p.m.]

I think it’s important to understand that this work has been going

on over a period of time. It is, of course, encouraged by me, and I’m

introducing the legislation, just as it was encouraged by the previous

Minister of Health, Terry Lake. Now all of that work over two

governments is coming to fruition.

In 2015, the three colleges commissioned a business case to

explore the impacts of creating a single nursing regulator. In 2016, the

boards of all three colleges agreed that it would be in the best

interest of the public to create a single regulatory body that would

oversee licensed practical nurses, nurse practitioners, registered

psychiatric nurses and registered nurses.

Under these amendments, the three colleges would be able to form

one organization. This means greater consistency for the profession and

one point of contact for patients and families. There would be a single

set of bylaws for consistent structures and processes. The single

regulator model for nursing is in Ontario, with Nova Scotia exploring a

similar approach. A single regulator also exists in other Commonwealth

countries, such as the United Kingdom and Australia.

What we want to do here is make life simpler and safer for

patients and make the professional efforts of nurses more effective and

successful. Once these changes are made, if someone has a complaint

regarding treatment received by any type of nurse, they would be able to

go to one organization for resolution. This is absolutely, I think, a

valuable change and, as I say, reflects the efforts, over a period of

years, by nurses to come together and by successive governments to

support them in their efforts to come together. That is the main thrust

of the legislation.

There are two other provisions I wish to speak about, but I would

say this: there is one amendment that we’ll be bringing in at committee

stage — I say to members of the opposition and members of the Green

Party — that will allow the legislation to come into effect at royal

assent and not by regulation. I think it’s fair to say the nursing

colleges want to get on with it. This will allow them to do it without

waiting for a cabinet regulation. We’ll be able to discuss that at

committee stage tomorrow, but the purpose there is to provide certainty

and do what often oppositions ask to do with legislation, which is to

have an understood date and not wait for regulation.

As well, and this is the second set of provisions in the

legislation, the legislation will allow the appointment of an

administrator for a health profession college if the board is deemed not

to be acting in the public interest. The Health Professions Act

currently states that it’s the duty of a college to protect and serve

the public at all times. This is merely a safeguard in the unlikely

event that a college board is seen to not be protecting the public

interest — for example, acting in the profession of a health profession

instead of a patient.

A number of other jurisdictions in Canada have already taken the

step of including provisions to allow for the appointment of an

administrator in these circumstances, including Quebec, Ontario, Alberta

and Prince Edward Island. There are also a number of other acts in B.C.

that allow for the appointment of a public administrator. My colleague

the opposition Health critic is an expert on some — these include the

Health Authorities Act, the Emergency and Health Services Act, the

Public Sector Employers Act, the College and Institute Act, the Medicare

Protection Act and the Laboratory Services Act.

Finally, and the third provision, is that patient care will be

further supported by putting changes in place that ensure infection

control breaches can be reported to public health officials in a timely

manner. For example, if poor sterilization practices are observed,

amendments will allow such instances to be reported immediately in the

college process, rather than going through a college investigation

process first. This is in the public interest.

To conclude, and I know you’re riveted by the conclusion here….

But this is, I would say, and I think people understand, really the

conclusion of three years of work, especially in the nursing profession,

and a lot of work to come once we allow these provisions to go ahead.

This is a significant moment for them and a real achievement to be able,

in fact, for people to come together and, in a way, merge colleges by

agreement, work together by agreement to improve care for everyone in

the province. I think it’s a good idea. Certainly, it will do a great

deal to enhance the nursing profession in future — a profession to which

all of us owe a great debt.

M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister for bringing this forward and his very

quick comments on this issue — one of the times, again, that we’re going

to see in the House where there’s agreement. I appreciate the fact that

the minister highlighted that this has been three years. It has been

quite a few years that the three different colleges, the three different

organizations, had been working together.

[3:05 p.m.]

Collaboratively, they had been working together, but in substance

weren’t able to actually work under one organization, one college. I

know we can completely agree that this is the right step to go forward

in. It was something that we were working towards, as well, when we were

in government, so I’m glad to see this government following through and

making sure that that takes place.

The amalgamation, of course, is going to allow for a lot of

opportunities between the three different nursing professions to be able

to have not only efficiencies but discussions, because they do,

unfortunately, sometimes represent a lot of the same people in different

areas in the care that they do.

I do want to acknowledge and congratulate the minister when he

says that he hasn’t had to go to emergency for so long. Unfortunately,

I’m a lot more accident-prone, I guess, than the minister. I have

succumbed to issues where I’ve had excellent care from the nurses — LPNs

and RNs. I’ve been fortunate enough not to have had to have direct

dealings with RPNs.

I would say this is very timely. It’s also maybe past time that

this should have taken place. We do have 22 colleges right now within

the health profession. There are opportunities to amalgamate some of

those where there are not only like minds but like issues that can be

addressed, discussed and moved forward. Whether it’s for patient care,

patient safety and patient efficiency within the health system,

organizations like this can help.

From my side, I’m looking forward to going to committee stage,

where we can have just a few discussions and a few clarifications. But

the crux of this bill we’re fully supportive of moving forward and

helping the nurses, who do such amazing work in the province of British

Columbia.

S. Furstenau: The member for Peace River South is assuming there’s agreement

across the whole House, and in this case, he’s correct. I, too, rise to

support this bill, Bill 10, Health Professions Amendment Act. I’ll get

to swapping my medical stories in a moment.

There is currently legislation in place to create new professional

colleges but no ability to amalgamate colleges, and what I appreciate

about this bill is that it’s come forward from the nursing community and

that it’s government responding to what the professionals have asked for

in terms of their needs and what they see as the most effective ways to

go forward.

Generally, we listen to our professionals. They are in the field.

They know what they need and how to make things better, and this is an

example of when government listens. Both sides of this House have been

participating in that, and this is a good-news story.

It’s also important to recognize the important role that these

colleges and professional bodies play in protecting the interests of

citizens and that this will make that job easier for the colleges.

That’s also very important as we want to make sure that we’re putting

the well-being and the protection of citizens at the forefront of our

minds.

I also appreciate that there will be the capacity to raise issues

concerning unsafe practices or contamination. This is really important,

again, for building that sense of trust and safety amongst citizens so

they can know that if there are issues, they will be alerted to them

immediately, rather than waiting for the investigation

period.

I’m not accident-prone particularly, and I don’t have to visit a

hospital, but we do have a house full of children, so I often,

particularly in the summer months, spend time in the emergency room up

in Cowichan. The care that we’ve received there has been exceptional and

wonderful every time from both the nurses and the doctors. We’re always

very grateful for that. So I support this moving forward.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Health to

conclude.

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you for the comments and support of members of the Green

Party and the members of the official opposition.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Dix: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 10, Health Professions Amendment Act, 2017, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 14, the Sheriff Amendment Act,

[3:10 p.m.]

BILL 14 — SHERIFF

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby: This will not be a long speech. I move that the bill be now read a

second time.

British Columbia sheriff services is responsible for, among other

duties, the safety and security of courthouses and court users in the

province. This responsibility includes the safe and secure transport of

in-custody persons between court, police detachments and correctional

centres.

Within sheriff services, the Integrated Threat Assessment Unit

conducts threat and risk assessments. These assessments directly inform

the management of threats and risks to the judiciary, legal counsel,

court participants, the public and government employees.

When a potential threat is identified, the Integrated Threat

Assessment Unit gathers information about the individual’s level of

violence, criminal history, associations and prior responses to law

enforcement. This information is used by sheriff services to ensure

appropriate risk mitigation actions are taken to prevent

harm.

Over the years, the Integrated Threat Assessment Unit has

contributed to the successful management of a number of high-security

and high-profile trials in our province, including Air India and the

Robert Pickton trial, along with numerous high-security murder and gang

trials.

Although the Sheriff Act and regulation make the sheriffs

responsible for protecting the safety of all users of court facilities,

and of employees of the provincial government, the ministry has been

advised that the threat and risk assessment functions performed by

sheriffs need to be clearly articulated in legislation.

In addition, the RCMP recently implemented tighter requirements

for any agency accessing the Canadian Police Information Centre

database. Although sheriffs currently have authority to access CPIC, as

it is also known, the RCMP has identified that specific legislative

authority is required for any agency accessing the database.

This bill will ensure sheriffs have the specified authorities and

access to the information required to keep courthouses, courthouse users

and government employees safe. The bill addresses the gap between

legislative authority and actual practice by providing specified

authority for sheriffs to perform threat and risk assessments.

Additionally, it will address the need for sheriffs to access the CPIC

database in the preparation of these important threat and risk

assessments.

M. Morris: We’ve had a look at this bill, and we don’t have any issues with

it. It does modernize the legislation and accommodates the change to

some policy nationally, with the RCMP, in respect to CPIC and

whatnot.

We fully support this bill as it stands.

A. Weaver: I, too, rise in support of this bill, Bill 14, Sheriff Amendment

Act. This bill makes one significant change to the Sheriff Act, and it

provides authority for sheriff services to conduct threat and risk

assessments. Sheriffs in some specialized units already conduct threat

and risk assessments, but they currently do not have the legislative

authority to do so — a gap that this bill closes.

In addition, this bill will provide sheriffs with the legislative

authority required to continue to maintain access to the Canadian Police

Information Centre database for the purpose of conducting their threat

and risk assessments.

It is really a very short bill. It’s one of four today that I

think we’re going to see supported strongly by both sides of the House

in all cases.

Section 1 of this bill creates the additional powers for the

sheriffs, and if authorized by the director of sheriff services,

sheriffs will be able to identify and assess threats or risks to a

person, facility, building or property in relation to which they have a

power, duty or responsibility.

It moves on to say that if authorized by the director, sheriffs

may also identify and assess threats or risks to an employee of the

government if the employee may be exposed to a threat or risk at the

employee’s workplace or in relation to the employee’s work.

And of course, it also allows sheriffs, for the purpose of

conducting a threat or risk assessments, to collect personal information

and other information, including things like personal information on the

Canadian Police Information Centre database — or any other law

enforcement database, for that matter — personal information in the

custody or control of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which I

understand the member for Prince George–Mackenzie used to work with, or

any other law enforcement agency.

I, as other members, am very pleased to speak in support of this

bill.

[3:15 p.m.]

As we know, sheriffs provide for the safety and security of

British Columbians in a variety of ways — by protecting the courts of

British Columbia and the participants in the judicial system, employees

in the justice system and government, the public and public

officials.

Sheriffs are responsible for ensuring the safety of the judiciary,

legal counsel, court users, the public and government employees as well.

Sheriffs are also responsible for the safe and secure transportation of

accused and convicted persons to and from court. That sheriffs do not

have the legislative authority to conduct threat or risk assessments has

been identified as a legislative gap — a gap that this bill, as I

mentioned, closes.

Sheriffs in some specialized units already conduct threat and risk

assessments, as I mentioned, and these assessments inform the security

plans and staffing levels required to ensure the safety of all users of

our justice system. This is an absolutely critical service that they

provide for the safety of all of us.

As I’ve mentioned, this is closing some provisions that are

already in practice but not supported through legislation. I’m

absolutely delighted to support this legislation and would like to thank

the sheriffs in British Columbia for all of the work they do protecting

British Columbians and ensuring smooth operation of our justice system.

My only hope is that we can find more of them so that cases before court

aren’t dismissed because of the lack of sheriffs in our judicial

system.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the House Leader to

conclude.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to thank those who have participated in the debate. I now

move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 14, Sheriff Amendment Act, 2017, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Bill 12, the Public Safety Statutes Amendment Act,

BILL 12 — PUBLIC SAFETY STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 12, the Public

Safety Statutes Amendment Act, 2017. The road safety initiative will

modernize the provincial traffic ticketing system and improve public

safety through an introduction of electronic tickets, or e-tickets, that

can be issued by police at the roadside.

Amendments to the Offence Act and the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act,

2012, are required to enable these improvements. The proposed amendments

will allow for a new e-ticketing process that is more efficient, reduces

cancellations of tickets due to error, increases public safety and

maintains the secure capture and transfer of traffic ticket

information.

The amendments introduce provisions to the Offence Act for

e-tickets to be created, issued and served on individuals and for the

violation data to be transmitted from police directly to ICBC and

courts, if necessary, where it will be processed. The current provisions

in the Offence Act permitting paper violation tickets are not sufficient

to enable an e-ticketing scheme.

E-ticketing will increase convenience for citizens by enabling

fine payment on line. Imagine that, hon. Speaker — on line in 2017 —

along with existing options of paying by phone or mail or in person. As

in the past, drivers will be able to reduce their fine amount by paying

promptly.

E-ticketing is already in place and successful in 11 Canadian

jurisdictions, including Nova Scotia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec,

Manitoba, Toronto, York, Durham, Waterloo, Windsor and Ottawa. These

amendments will bring B.C. in line with a modern approach to how traffic

tickets are issued and help us see the public safety benefits that come

with it.

For example, police agencies in these Canadian jurisdictions

report that making the move to e-tickets has streamlined the process for

both issuing tickets and entering them into the system, so much so that

police officers can see time savings up to 60 percent per ticket. When

you think about that across the system…. When my colleague from Prince

George–Mackenzie and I talked about issues such as core policing and the

need to get police less paperwork and more on the road, this is one of

those initiatives that will help that happen.

The reduction in time to complete a ticket increases officer

safety at the roadside and frees them for other duties. Jurisdictions

with real-time data upload of violations also report the benefit of this

information for improved evidence-based policing and community safety

overall.

[3:20 p.m.]

While the benefits to police are significant, the benefits to

courts and the justice sector are even greater. All jurisdictions I

mentioned have experienced significant savings in administrative costs

by improving the data quality of ticket information and eliminating the

need for that information to be entered in multiple systems, multiple

times. It has resulted in a decrease in the number of stayed or

cancelled tickets.

The proposed amendments are required to support the piloting of

the e-ticketing within the following police agencies: Vancouver police

department; Delta police department; Prince George city RCMP; Prince

George north district RCMP; and the capital regional district integrated

road safety unit.

The pilots in these locations are scheduled to begin in early 2018

and will assist in ensuring that the new e-ticket process is effective

and user-friendly for police and citizens and provide the province with

an opportunity to fine-tune the technology and any other required areas

before a provincewide rollout.

The bill also proposes a minor clarification amendment to the

immediate roadside prohibition part of the Motor Vehicle Act. The

amendment proposes a simple removal of a reference to a subsection. The

purpose is to clarify the authority for what is a very complex set of

legislative provisions and, in doing so, to support the continued

success of B.C.’s successful drinking-and-driving legislation, first

passed by this House in 2010.

With that, that concludes my remarks.

M. Morris: This bill is significant in the policing world. I recall back in

my days of writing tickets, starting back in the early ’70s. The process

of writing out a ticket was the ticket book and a pen.

Oftentimes, you couldn’t read the writing. So the officer would

fill the ticket out and put the date of the court appearance on the

ticket and serve a copy on the individual who committed the offence and

then fill out an affidavit of service on the back of that ticket. That

would then go into the office. It would be looked at by a clerk, who

would transcribe the information and put it into a database — once we

had a database; everything was paper-based back in those

days.

Then it would be re-entered again by a different clerk to go into

a different database, and it would be captured at the end of the month

in the month-end returns, in capturing all the data at the month-end

return. So that work will no longer have to be done. It’ll be all

electronicized.

This bill is going to allow peace officers to collect the driver’s

licence from the offending driver, run it through the scanner in the

police vehicle, and all of the information will be downloaded onto an

e-ticket. He or she just pushes a button in the police vehicle. It

prints out a very legible ticket with all the information on it, serves

the ticket on the individual, who can immediately go on line and pay the

fine on line. It’s is an amazing feat in 2017.

This alone will enhance the traffic safety that we have out there.

The traffic officers, the dedicated traffic officers, will be able to

turn their attention to more of the offenders out there, to more of the

distracted drivers we have out there, and write more distracted driving

tickets, unfortunately, because some of these people aren’t even paying

attention to that. I think this will go a long way with respect to

that.

The amendments cover all of the issues necessary for these to take

place, to transform from a paper-based system to an electronic-based

system. There’s been extensive work done already in identifying the

proper equipment for the police vehicles throughout the province to work

in the cold weather that we get in some parts of the province that we

don’t see down here in beautiful Victoria.

As the Solicitor General was saying, there are pilot programs

that’ll be taking place in Vancouver, the capital district here on the

Island and in Prince George. Funny how that was. This was something that

we were working on when I was the Solicitor General. It just so happened

that Prince George fit in very nicely with that pilot project. I am

really looking forward to the results that we will get from rolling this

program out.

The Solicitor General alluded to it a bit there, but the number of

tickets that were discarded every month…. I’m just going off the top of

my head here. It was in the tens of thousands of tickets every year that

were discarded or were thrown out because you couldn’t read the

handwriting on the ticket.

That equates to into the millions of dollars of revenue that the

province couldn’t get and return back to the communities under the

revenue-sharing agreement that we had with all of the different

municipalities in the province here. So in that one area alone…. We’ll

be able to retrieve more fine revenue in the province as a result of

just that one little issue.

[3:25 p.m.]

General duty members in the province…. We have dedicated traffic

members in the province that will be utilizing this system. But general

duty members, as well, oftentimes will pass up the opportunity to issue

tickets for offenders under the Motor Vehicle Act because they’re too

busy, because they’re headed to a complaint, or they’ve got a few

minutes, and they’re writing up the file on the database on the computer

in the police vehicle. I think with this system now, where you can just

run the licence plate through the scanner, we’ll see a lot more interest

with our general duty members and some more contributions

there.

Our studies have shown — the studies from the ministry have shown

— that fine revenue will go up. Hopefully, it will peak, because it’s

not our goal to see the fine revenue going up. It’s our goal to see the

actual offences going down. I think that with more time spent by police

officers in addressing this with the public, hopefully, we’ll see that

at the end of the day.

The other part of this bill deals with an amendment to allow the

seizure and impoundment of vehicles under the Motor Vehicle Act. B.C. is

leading the country on a roadside prohibition program, the immediate

roadside prohibition program. It has reduced impaired driving deaths in

the province by well over 50 percent in the last ten years, which is

significant. All the other jurisdictions in Canada now are looking what

we have done here in B.C.

It’s a tried-and-true system that has been tested right through to

the Supreme Court of Canada. There have been some slight changes made to

the legislation to address those challenges, but again, it’s just a

little housekeeping issue, and it will make it a little bit easier for

the peace officers to do their job out there.

I fully support all the provisions of this bill as they stand, and

I look forward to the outcome that we’re going to see in British

Columbia once we have e-ticketing on line.

A. Weaver: I too rise to take my place in the debates on Bill 12, the 2017

Public Safety Statutes Amendment Act. I too rise to speak in support of

this bill.

This is the fourth of four bills receiving unanimous support today

in the House. It’s too bad the school children that were just here left

— did not see yet another bill be agreed upon. People could actually see

when this Legislature works instead of the fights that often occur in

question period.

This bill, as was mentioned by the former RCMP officer and the

member for Prince George–Mackenzie, makes two substantive changes. It

amends the Offence Act to allow for e-ticketing of drivers. As was

mentioned, current legislation restricts police officers to issuing

paper tickets in a prescribed form. This bill will allow for the issuing

of e-tickets as well as paper tickets.

I can only imagine the multiple translations of a ticket that was

written in my handwriting, and I do understand, as mentioned by the

member for Prince George–Mackenzie, that there must be many an occasion

— and as personal experience, it was many occasions — where illegible

handwriting led to tickets that would otherwise be issued not being

issued.

It does concern me that this will be a money grab by the province.

I’m hoping that the public listening to this, riveted to this on their

TV screens, will recognize that no longer will illegible handwriting get

them away from tickets.

I also do support the introduction of the ability to pay the

tickets on line. I mean, literally, the government, pretty much…. This,

in particular, is one of the last things in our society that allows you

to pay on line. So it’s very timely that this is brought forward….

Timely is the wrong word. It’s about time that this was brought

forward.

The three broad changes in this bill in the first section, changes

to the Offence Act, allow officers, as I mentioned, to issue e-tickets

and make copies of e-tickets, allows officers to create e-certificates

of service and also allows for the transport of electronic records to

ICBC.

It will be piloted in the select regions as a part of a road

safety initiative prior to rolling them out provincewide. These regions

include the CRD, Vancouver, Delta and Prince George. As part of the road

safety initiative but separate from the legislation, as I mentioned,

government will be rolling out a modern, new innovative ability to pay

your fines on line.

[3:30 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The second substantive change in this act is to amend the Motor

Vehicle Act to require a peace officer to impound a car that a person

was driving at the time that person was given a notice of a 30- or

90-day driving prohibition as a result of a roadside alcohol

test.

A review of this act by astute legislative reviewers and lawyers

found that immediate roadside prohibitions for alcohol-affected drivers

didn’t sufficiently cover the immediate impoundment of cars. That is,

there was a loophole in the act that was not providing immediate

coverage for the immediate impoundment of cars. This has been regular

practice since 2010 — that cars would be impounded. But actually, there

wasn’t legislation supporting this to occur.

Roughly, there have been something like 10,000 impoundments that

have occurred since 2010 that relate to this change. The change to

enable this to occur will now, obviously, be retroactive to 2010. So

anyone out there thinking that they’re going to get some kind of

reimbursement for having their car impounded is out of luck, as we

quickly make this retroactive to 2010.

As I mentioned, there are no current or previous legal challenges

relating to this amendment, as we bring it forward, which is a good

thing. I’m not sure if something is going to happen in the next 24

hours. At least that’s what we were told. It’s simply a gap that

government identified, or at least lawyers identified, and they felt it

was prudent to actually close this gap.

As mentioned by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, this is an

uncontroversial bill, something we’re pleased to support and, frankly, I

would have thought, something we could have brought in, along with an

earlier bill we discussed on Red Tape Reduction Day. We’ve made great

steps in the province of British Columbia in reducing red tape without

actually naming a day after the reduction.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I regret the opportunity to be the designated speaker on this

particular piece of legislation and take full advantage of the two hours

that would have been available to me.

I want to thank the members for their comments. This is an

important piece of legislation. It does modernize traffic procedure in

the province of British Columbia, which is occurring in other

jurisdictions. The fact of the matter is that it will be more efficient.

It will save time, which is a good thing.

I can assure the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head that this is not a

cash grab, as my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie said. What we

want to see is people driving safely, and this will help do that by

eliminating, in essence, scribbly or illegible handwriting as a reason

for a ticket being thrown out.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 12.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 12, Public Safety Statutes Amendment Act, 2017, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move continued second reading debate on Bill 6, the Electoral

Reform Referendum 2018 Act.

BILL 6 — ELECTORAL REFORM

REFERENDUM

2018 ACT

(continued)

M. Polak: When last we discussed this bill, I was in the midst of my

comments. So I will just briefly refresh members’ memories as to where I

had gotten to. The approach I was taking was one of not so much speaking

with respect to the pros and cons of proportional representation,

although that naturally enters into the discussion, but more so to

highlight what I believe are the unique benefits of our current system

and how those actually rely on the way in which we elect members to

serve under that system.

I was, at the time, speaking about the role of private members and

reminding this House and members therein that the only members of

government are executive council. Everyone else is a private member with

a choice to support either government or the opposition. I was talking

about how important that is. We had a perfect example in this

Legislature, after this election, of the significant impact that one

individual member can have on this entire chamber and how it functions.

And that’s how our system is intended to function. There are also other

choices that members can make along the way. Those choices, as well, are

impacted by the very structure of our voting system and the system on

which we operate in this House.

[3:35 p.m.]

That revolves around the incentives in place and the potential

negative consequences that shape decisions that are made by members in

this House each and every day. Let’s take, for example, the choice that

a member can make in this House to cross the floor. It has happened in

this chamber. It has happened in our federal chamber. Members do that

for all sorts of reasons, but they never do so lightly. Well, why is

that? Part of that is because of the way in which we elect our members.

Those members know that the consequence of crossing the floor — in other

words, shifting their stated loyalties to that of another party and, in

the case of a sitting, moving to support the different side of the

government or opposition….

The consequences, though, are rather significant for any MLA

choosing to do so. And they should be because of the potential to shift

the balance of power in this House. The consequences that member faces

are things such as an understandable backlash on the part of a community

that voted for a particular viewpoint in majority and feels they have

now been betrayed by the actions of that member. They know they will

have to have a very good explanation for those people who are back in

their ridings. Of course, in British Columbia, those constituents also

have the option of recalling an MLA. Certainly, they could take their

concerns about that forward in the future election that that member may

seek.

A member may choose to sit as an independent. That could be

because they have found themselves not in agreement with any of the

parties that are existing here in this House, or it could be because of

a personal philosophy they have that stands them in favour of being an

independent. We have had independents sitting in this House. Indeed, we

have independents sitting in this House now, although they do have a

party affiliation. Again, they play a very important role.

Sometimes, as in the case of the current independent members, they

decide to formally align themselves with a party. On other occasions,

they decide they will make up their mind not based on which party they

have aligned themselves with but on individual cases of votes on

individual matters. There are a number of other issues that private

members can have a huge impact on, but I’ll leave those as the examples

I’ve chosen to highlight here today.

What does our system have to do with that? Why couldn’t members do

the very same things in a proportional representation system? Well, they

could, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Here’s why. The issues around

the importance and significance of a private member and the choices they

make really only matter with respect to shifting who has a majority in

the House and, therefore, who can act as government to pass laws to

change things, to change the rules of how we live. It is a very, very

important piece of the incentives that affect members’ choices in this

House.

With proportional representation, the idea that any one party is

ever going to hold a majority position in this House is not very likely.

It’s not very likely that we would see that circumstance. I wouldn’t say

it’s impossible, but it’s highly unlikely. So now what have you done?

Well, in the absence of a clear majority that is held by one party or,

perhaps, a coalition that has formally united, there is no incentive for

a member to act in a way that balances their own individual ridings and

the manner in which they get elected there — in other words, the issues

they stand on, how they represent their community — versus the desire to

be a part of government or a part of that party that holds the

philosophy that links to their views.

[3:40 p.m.]

Think, for example, of a member who would be supporting the

government side who comes to a point where they don’t agree. Well, the

prospects of being, potentially, in government, staying in government

right now, would temper that individual’s decision. They would have to,

within their own mind, reconcile: “Well, hmm, let’s see. I want to

represent my community, but I also have a desire to be part of a

majority. Therefore, now I’m going to have to have a talk with my

caucus, maybe have a talk with my Premier.” You’re going to have to find

a way to resolve this issue or leave and face the rather serious

consequences. So it becomes not just your individual decision. Your

individual decision isn’t all that matters.

If at the end of the day, the House is populated by individuals,

some of whom have been elected in their local region, some of whom have

been appointed by a party — we’ll get to that in a moment — your only

incentive is to think about your own re-election in your own situation.

So if you’re one of those elected members, you’re no longer thinking:

“Well, gee, I want to get elected in Langley, but at the same time,

being in majority is important to me.” I want to take Langley’s

concerns, in my case, and try and resolve them around what government

wants to do for the betterment of the whole province — right? — and,

hopefully, find that compromise that benefits your own constituents but

also the whole province.

That is how the existence of a majority on one side of the House —

a majority of one party or a coalition — actually affects and shapes the

decisions of individual MLAs and how they arrive at them. It’s extremely

important, and it’s one of the reasons our system works so well, because

it forces individual MLAs to think beyond just their own election in

their own riding. It forces them to think of the whole province. You

lose that when you lose the ability for one party or a coalition to form

a firm majority.

Then there’s the issue of those who might be appointed. Well, for

those who have been listening to the narrative I’ve been outlining, in

my last speech before we broke and then now continuing today, they will

probably have already formed the conclusion that is obvious. If you are

one of those members who is appointed by a political party, your only

incentive is to act with respect to what that political party would want

you to do.

Contrary to some popular opinions, that is not what currently

happens in this House. Why? Because, going back to the beginning of my

discussion, every Premier and every Leader of the Opposition knows how

to count, and they know that they have to maintain the confidence of

their caucus or they will very quickly find themselves in the situation

of losing their opportunity to lead that group, whether they’re a

Premier or a Leader of the Opposition.

In the case where you are appointed, who are you influencing?

You’re required to adhere to what your party wants. They appointed you,

so you’re going to follow what they want you to do, and there’s no

reason for a leader of your particular group to be concerned if you

don’t like what they’re doing.

Currently if you’re a Premier in the province of British Columbia

and a sufficient number of members in your caucus are unhappy with what

you’re doing, you’re going to be pretty concerned. You’re going to be

very concerned. You’re going to be asking them: “What’s wrong? How do I

fix this? How do we find a compromise position? Maybe we have to change

our position.” You’re concerned because you risk losing your majority.

In the case of an appointed member who owes their loyalty only to the

party that appointed them, that leader has absolutely no reason to

listen to that member or to change anything.

I hope I have successfully outlined for members the very real

tragedy it would be if private members were to lose the very important

role that they play in this House. Each and every one of us can have a

huge impact, well beyond just us as an individual, but it’s because of

the way that this place functions. It’s because of a very proud history

of our parliamentary democratic traditions, which aren’t there just as

traditions.

[3:45 p.m.]

They’re there because they affect and shape how MLAs act, what

choices they make and what types of things they consider when they make

those choices. They force us to think about what’s best for our

communities and what’s best for the overall province.

There is, in my view, no other system on this planet that does a

better job of it. We’ve all heard the old Churchill quote about

democracy being the worst form of government. I won’t repeat it.

Democracy can be messy, but fundamentally, it’s a human endeavour so it

will always be flawed. But I truly and sincerely believe that our

particular system of democracy is the one that best causes individuals

to rise to the occasion and act on their better natures.

R. Leonard: I’m very honoured to rise today in support of the Electoral Reform

Referendum 2018 Act. I’ve heard loud and clear from the citizens of

Courtenay-Comox how dissatisfied people are with the current

first-past-the-post system. This legislation will provide us with the

opportunity to test the will of the people in a clear, simple and

accessible way.

The demand for a review of our system has been a persistent

grassroots effort, fuelled by people — people who are passionate about

our democracy and concerned about losing the freedom it provides. In our

first-past-the-post system, my constituency gained notoriety on May 9

with my nine-vote lead. I’ve already told this House how many people

have come up to me to proudly say that they were one of the

nine.

They really understood how their act to vote made a real

difference, that every vote does count. It’s an important lesson,

because our democracy is struggling with the ever-declining numbers of

citizens coming out to exercise their franchise. We need to have an

electoral system that encourages people to vote because they know it

will make a difference.

There is another lesson there too. There were many close wins in

British Columbia — races which saw Liberals and NDP alike elected. Do

those who voted for the other candidates feel that their vote counted?

Probably not. In a multiparty system like ours, it’s almost impossible

for the majority of voters to elect a majority representative. The last

majority win of a party with over 50 percent of the vote was almost 90

years ago. With consistently more disenfranchised voters than rewarded

voters, no wonder people are not motivated to go to the

polls.

It is a great privilege to sit in this House and represent the

people of our constituencies. I have no doubt that every MLA, no matter

what party, works hard on behalf of all their constituents, no matter

their political persuasion. However, if you are amongst the majority who

didn’t vote for your elected MLA, you most assuredly are not going to

feel satisfied with the priorities and directions of a government in a

first-past-the-post system. This is reflected in the highly adversarial

atmosphere in this House.

The current first-past-the-post system is not about numbers of

seats won. It is about power — power which breeds the acrimony that

echoes through this chamber daily. Why wouldn’t we consider a system

that shifts away from power-based politics to shared

decision-making?

Interjection.

R. Leonard: Members opposite harp on cooperation between parties like it’s

some terrible thing. I just heard a reaction to that. But British

Columbians want a process where everyone’s interests will be represented

in government, where all views can be expressed and compromise can

happen. That’s what the electorate is interested in, in my

community.

The two federal members of parliament in my constituency worked

very hard to consult the public on electoral reform last year. And 85

percent plus of thousands who participated in town halls and answered

surveys sent to every household in the two ridings said that the number

of a party’s seats won should be reflected by the percentage of votes

received. They also agreed that there should be cross-party

collaboration.

[3:50 p.m.]

Let me say that again. That’s 85 percent plus of thousands of

citizens who took the time to respond. The interest is overwhelming.

There is no doubt that government needs to respond, and this legislation

provides that opportunity to hear from the people in 2018.

Last week I had the privilege of joining an all-party women’s

caucus gathering. There was talk about how far women have come in the

political system since we won the vote 100 years ago and also how far we

still have to go. We talked about our responsibility to mentor other

women to join the political fray. But I can tell you from my own

personal experience: enlisting other women to run for office in this

highly adversarial, charged system is challenging, and it shouldn’t be

this way. We have an opportunity to choose a system that welcomes all

voices.

I look forward to the public consultation process as we look at

proportional representation in B.C. and give people the power to decide

on a more responsive and representative government.

S. Thomson: I’m very pleased to rise today to provide some comments and

perspective on Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act and to speak on

behalf of members of the Kelowna-Mission riding and others. I wanted to

start my comments with a thought, or a statement — the importance of

representation and how it is integral to our democracy, and the fact

that I believe in it very, very strongly.

I’ve always tried my best to represent the interests of the

community that I represent — the riding that I represent and the broader

community of Central Okanagan and Kelowna — in the best way I can. I

believe our community has seen the benefits of that direct

representation and stable government in B.C. and in Canada, particularly

when you look and compare the stability and government that we’ve had

over the many years to experiences and situations that we’re seeing in

so many other jurisdictions.

It probably won’t come as a surprise to the members opposite, but

I will not be supporting this proposed legislation. Not because I don’t

believe that it might be appropriate, in a properly structured process,

to consider whether our current approach continues to meet the needs of

voters and the public in B.C. and whether it provides for fair, equal

and equitable representation for all regions of the

province….

In my view, this proposed legislation sets up a process that does

exactly the opposite of that. It doesn’t set up a process that will

provide for fair, equal and equitable representation. It doesn’t provide

for a process that will, on something as significant as this, do it in a

fair, equitable and reasonable process.

I’ve listened to some of the statements and some of the assertions

from the members opposite, along the lines of, “Don’t worry. You should

just stay calm. This is enabling legislation. It isn’t the question. It

isn’t the process,” and that there will be consultation, all of those

kinds of things. You know: “Stay calm. Don’t worry.”

But what we have here in this referendum act, the reform

referendum act, is setting up a process that I think we need to be very,

very worried about and to address directly, because of the process that

is being set up. This bill proposes to change the fabric of our

democracy and affect British Columbians across the province, regardless

of who they voted for, and it has been crafted in a way to tilt the

outcome in favour of a positive outcome for proportional

representation.

[3:55 p.m.]

It’s going to be the third attempt at a referendum since 2005, the

first two failing to meet both of the two thresholds that ensured

regional and majority support. I do stand against this process and

against this enabling legislation that’s in Bill 6, because it is really

enabling a tilted and stacked process for a desired outcome.

It’s all part of a package that’s been carefully and craftily

designed to ensure the members opposite can retain their hold on

government. When you combine it with all the other steps that have been

taken — financing reform, Election Act amendments, Constitution Act

amendments, the timing of election — it’s all part of a package that is

designed for a pre-intended outcome. This referendum legislation is

really part of that whole package that is leading to that pre-intended

outcome the members opposite want to achieve.

In fact, if you look at the legislation,

section 3(2) specifically

exempts this process from the Referendum Act. Apparently, for some

reason, the government doesn’t feel the provincial legislation is good

enough in this process. I haven’t heard a clear articulation of why the

Referendum Act, and the current provisions of the Referendum Act, aren’t

being utilized in this process.

Section 3 specifically says: “

(1) Section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply to this Act or the

regulations.

(2) The Referendum Act does not apply to this

referendum.”

Again, if we have the legislation in place, I haven’t heard a

clear articulation of why the thresholds and the standards in that

legislation shouldn’t be used in this process.

We have serious concerns, also, about how the question will be

determined. Ultimately, the bill ensures that the question will be

decided by the NDP cabinet behind closed doors, maybe within the context

of their secretariat with the B.C. Greens. But again, the question that

will be on the ballot in the referendum process…. The legislation

specifically sets up that that will be determined by cabinet.

As I’ve said, this will be the third attempt at a referendum, as

British Columbians voted on this in 2005 and again in 2009. They’ve

said, twice now, that they do not want proportional representation, both

times following a very extensive engagement and consultation process

with the public and a threshold that was much more appropriate for

something as significant as this — 60 percent in 2005, 60 percent in

2009, both with the requirement for regional support as well; a simple

majority of ridings in 2005 and 60 percent of the ridings in

Additionally, in the provisions here with the legislation, there’s

no minimum voter turnout required. This enables a simple minority in our

population to make fundamental changes to our voting system.

We have further concerns with the nature of the public engagement

process that has yet to be determined. In the 2005 and 2009 referenda,

the independent and non-partisan Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform

defined the process, defined the question. Each time, the assembly

ensured British Columbians from every corner of the province would be

consulted.

I can tell you that on this side of the House, we’re not

expressing these concerns and taking these positions just from a

position of wanting to maintain the status quo or feeling that we would

lose seats. In fact, with the current system, if you look back over

history, there are precedents of the party getting more of the popular

votes and fewer seats in the Legislature. We just have to look back to

1996, when we had that situation. Again, it shows that there are

circumstances where the current system, first-past-the-post, results in

parties obtaini