Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 64

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Speaker’s Statement

Introductions by members and use of electronic devices

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Carson Graham Secondary School

B. Ma

Chilliwack Mt. Cheam Rotary Club and children’s foundation

L. Throness

World scientists’ warning to humanity

A. Weaver

Hospice care

J. Isaacs

Ladysmith Festival of Lights

D. Routley

Christmas celebrations in Cariboo area

D. Barnett

Oral Questions

Government position on Site C power project

M. Bernier

Hon. J. Horgan

Site C power project and action on climate change

T. Redies

Hon. M. Mungall

Hon. G. Heyman

Site C power project and electricity rates

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Mungall

NAFTA negotiations

T. Wat

Hon. B. Ralston

International trade negotiations and Minister of State for Trade

R. Sultan

Hon. B. Ralston

M. de Jong

Potential change to Family Day and impact on tourism industry

D. Clovechok

Hon. L. Beare

Reports from Committees

Finance and Government Services Committee, Budget 2018

consultations

B. D’Eith

D. Ashton

Tabling Documents

Report on multiculturalism, 2016-17

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 3 — Election Amendment Act, 2017

Hon. D. Eby

A. Wilkinson

A. Olsen

A. Weaver

Reporting of Bills

Bill 3 — Election Amendment Act, 2017

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Election Amendment Act, 2017

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act (continued)

E. Foster

G. Kyllo

T. Shypitka

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture (continued)

D. Clovechok

Hon. L. Beare

J. Thornthwaite

T. Wat

D. Barnett

J. Sturdy

S. Bond

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2017

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Speaker’s Statement

INTRODUCTIONS BY MEMBERS AND

USE OF ELECTRONIC

DEVICES

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, before we begin, as a reminder, if I may make a

short statement on two topics: the introduction of guests by members and

the use of electronic devices in the chamber.

On first topic, introductions of guests by members, it is a

long-standing practice to welcome visiting guests and dignitaries

joining us in the gallery. Members are reminded that these introductions

must be brief, non-argumentative and precise. I direct members to the

acceptable guidelines in practice recommendations 2 in Parliamentary

Practice in British Columbia , fourth edition, page

Next, I’d also like to address the use of electronic devices in

the chamber, such as laptops, tablets and smartphones. As members are

reminded, these devices may only be used subject to specific

restrictions as outlined in previous Speakers’ directives. Copies of the

current guidelines are available from the Office of the

Speaker.

In essence, the use of technology in this chamber must never

impinge on the dignity or decorum of parliamentary proceedings. In

particular, I remind members that electronic devices must not be used

during question period or other designated proceedings pursuant to the

established guidelines. Again, those guidelines are available in the

Speaker’s office.

Thank you.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Horgan: Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I’m mindful of your call for

precision.

I’m delighted to introduce in the gallery today a distinguished guest

from the United Kingdom, the new High Commissioner to Canada, Her Excellency

Susan le Jeune d’Allegeershecque. She is joined in the House today by the

current consul general for Great Britain in Vancouver, Ms. Nicole Davison.

Would the House please make both of these diplomats very, very

welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I’d like to introduce a constituent of mine — who is actually coming

with a colleague of hers — Giovanna Boniface, who is in occupational

therapy. She’s the national director of professional affairs of the Canadian

Association of Occupational Therapists of British Columbia. Sarah Slocombe

is the service coordinator for the Canadian Occupational Therapists

Association of British Columbia. Could we please make them

welcome.

L. Krog: Hon. Speaker, mindful of your admonition, I’ll try to be quick,

notwithstanding it’s so rare for people to come and visit me

here.

I’d like the House to please make welcome Theo Boere and Glen Sexsmith

from the Nanaimo Men’s Centre in the gallery with us today.

Notwithstanding my earlier protestations about no one coming to see

me, I have a whole family here today to see me. I’m happy to introduce, in

descending order of age: Raymond Irving, Jessica Irving, Portia Irving,

Archer Irving and Alistair Irving.

Notwithstanding what the governor said yesterday and notwithstanding

what the Leader of the Official Opposition said, I have the three most

amazing grandchildren. We’ll welcome my daughter and son-in-law

too.

Hon. J. Darcy: It’s my great pleasure to introduce a good friend of the family who is

in the gallery today, Rachel Tatrow, also the daughter of some of my very

best friends. As I look up at her, there are many fond memories of Rachel

and my son and other family members playing on the beach on Mayne Island,

building rafts and just having wonderful summers together. Would the House

please join me in welcoming Rachel Tatrow to the gallery today.

[1:40 p.m.]

S. Bond: I am delighted today to introduce someone…. I am sure that others will

introduce the rest of the delegation. I’m very pleased today to welcome

David Halikowski, who is the president of the British Columbia Schizophrenia

Society here. One of the reasons I’m very excited to introduce him is that

when northern residents take up leadership at the provincial level, that is

always a very good thing. David is a passionate advocate for people with

mental health issues and is doing exceptional work with the schizophrenia

society. So we want to welcome David and his colleagues here to the House

today.

Hon. J. Sims: It’s my pleasure today to welcome to this House a Member of

Parliament, Kennedy Stewart from Burnaby South. He and I worked together in

Ottawa and often travelled together. He is an amazing Member of Parliament.

He’s rooted in his riding, and he is a progressive who spends a lot of time

advocating for those who most need his advocacy. So please help me welcome a

fellow parliamentarian from Ottawa.

J. Thornthwaite: I have some more friendly people that are here that I’d like to

introduce, who are absolutely the strongest advocates for mental health:

David Halikowski, who is the B.C. Schizophrenia Society; Andrew Stewart, the

executive director; Jamie Graham, vice-president of the board; Bonnie

Spence-Vinge, who is the regional educator, Cranbrook-Creston region; Jean

Fong, communication specialist; and Grant Morick. Could the House please

make them welcome.

Hon. C. James: I have a constituent who’s visiting me today who is an entrepreneur, a

driving force in the areas of arts and culture and technology. Would the

House please make Ryan Mullins very welcome.

L. Reid: We are joined today by one of the warmest, most philanthropic, best

community-builder woman we know in this of province, Vicki Kuhl. I would ask

the House to please make her welcome.

N. Simons: As we all noticed, today was a beautiful day in Victoria. It was

sunny, it was warm, and it was the perfect day for me to think back 50

years. I wasn’t aware of it at the time, but 50 years ago was one of the

luckiest days of my life. My partner, Slim Milkie, was born, and he joins us

in the House.

G. Kyllo: I’m very proud to rise today and announce the birth of yet another

grandchild, my seventh grandchild. That’s six granddaughters now and one

grandson. Born yesterday, just under six pounds, is Journey Fawn Brenda

Benty. The proud parents — my daughter Brittany and her husband, Alan Benty

— are extremely excited, as is their first daughter and Journey’s older

sister, Nova. Georgina and I just wanted to welcome Journey into this House

and would hope that everybody could please give her a warm

welcome.

Hon. S. Fraser: There are six individuals visiting us in the gallery today. They are

an integral part of the ministry’s communications team. They specifically

said do not introduce them, so what the heck. I’m going to introduce Chris

Harbord, Leanne Ritchie, Edward Hill, Shantel Corderio, Cale Cowan and

Sharon Pocock. Please join me in making them feel very, very

welcome.

Hon. S. Simpson: I’m pleased that we are joined here by Leanne Dospital, the advocate

for service quality in my ministry. The advocate is here, and we’ll be

meeting later today. She plays an integral role in helping to support the

service quality as it relates to Community Living B.C. and the service

providers. I’m pleased to have her here. Please make her welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CARSON GRAHAM SECONDARY SCHOOL

B. Ma: During our week away from the Legislature last week, I had the

privilege of being able to visit Carson Graham Secondary School in North

Vancouver.

[1:45 p.m.]

As the only IB school in North Van, Carson Graham is a popular

choice for families across the North Shore. It boasts many notable

alumni, including mayor of Vancouver Gregor Robertson and, of course,

the member for Maple Ridge–Mission. IB students Sophie, Hon and Oliver

led the tour alongside principal Ian Kennedy, taking me through the

building to meet and speak with students in six or seven classes. I lost

track after a while. I was having so much fun.

We visited social studies classes, a math class, a literacy class

and even a grade 9 engineering class. I didn’t even know what

engineering was until I applied for it in grade 12.

Students wanted to know that we were committed to defending B.C.’s

interests when it came to the Kinder Morgan pipeline project, and they

also asked about post-secondary school tuition waivers for former youth

in care. Students were also concerned about fair wages, rising tuition

fees and post-secondary student debt, and seemed particularly interested

in our alliance with the Green Party.

One thing that really struck me as I was walking through the

hallways of Carson Graham was how open and confident the students at

this school are. It is an absolute tribute to the hard-working and

passionate teachers and staff there who work every single day to build

their students up and prepare them to take on the world.

I guess that’s one reason why students at Carson Graham are

competitive not only academically but also in sports. The Premier and I

love our new Carson Eagles football golf shirts. Thank you so much to

the students, staff and teachers at Carson Graham for their hospitality,

and I look forward to my next visit.

CHILLIWACK MT. CHEAM ROTARY CLUB

AND CHILDREN’S

FOUNDATION

L. Throness: Chilliwack is blessed with three vibrant rotary clubs, and last

week I enjoyed a visit to the Chilliwack Mt. Cheam Club, which meets

early every Thursday morning. The topic of the day was a registered

charity the club started 25 years ago, and it’s still going strong, the

Chilliwack Children’s Foundation.

For a quarter of a century, Rotarians have been raising money and

giving it away to children of low-income families to meet special needs

that include medical, dental, eyewear, tutoring, sports counselling,

clubs and camps — things that mean a lot to growing kids and their

families.

One of the recipients is ten-year-old Zoey, who has a disability

that requires a special bike and a van lift. She applied, and the

foundation made it happen. “It changes our lives,” said her mom, Kari.

“I just want her to be a happy, positive person to do what she’s capable

of doing and what she loves to do.” The foundation helped Zoey bridge

the gap between wishes and reality.

Recently the foundation’s board looked at its accumulated funds

and decided, instead of keeping them for the future, to give more away

now. They found that as they gave away more money, extra also came in so

that the principal today is maintained, even as more children benefit. I

think that’s a wonderful lesson in generosity for us all.

Now the foundation regularly receives 90 applications per year and

last year distributed almost $70,000. The foundation is just one of many

Rotary projects. Rotarians across Chilliwack have such big hearts, and

they do so much for our community.

The thanks of this House goes out to board members Leanne

Adderley; Dan Bibby; Keith Britz; Dave Guthrie; Ryan Huston; Ana Macedo;

Peter Monteith; Tanja Shaw; Jeff Shields; their dedicated board chair,

Luke Zacharias; and all the other Rotarians of the Chilliwack Mt. Cheam

Club for their ongoing service to the children of Chilliwack.

WORLD SCIENTISTS’

WARNING TO

HUMANITY

A. Weaver: In 1992, Dr. Henry Kendall, a Nobel laureate in physics, organized

a statement signed by 1,575 pre-eminent scientists that was sent to

government leaders of all nations. This statement warned: “Human beings

and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities

inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on

critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at

serious risk the future that we may wish for human society and the plant

and the animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will

be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental

changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course

will bring about.”

Twenty-five years later a second warning, now signed by 15,364

scientists from 184 countries, was issued. Published last week in Oxford

University Press’s prestigious journal BioScience , this warning

concluded: “To prevent widespread misery and catastrophic biodiversity

loss, humanity must practise a more environmentally sustainable

alternative to business as usual…. Soon it will be too late to shift our

course away from our failing trajectory, and time is running out. We

must recognize in our day-to-day lives and in our governing institutions

that Earth, with all its life, is our only home.”

The warning quantitatively analyzed the nine environmental issues

identified in 1992, and they show that in all cases but one, conditions

have actually gotten worse and, in most cases, dramatically

so.

[1:50 p.m.]

Yet that one success story offers us so much hope. In 1987, the

Montreal protocol was finalized. All 197 countries in the UN have

ratified this protocol, and it has led to a dramatic reduction in

substances that deplete the ozone layer. And 170 of these 197 countries

have already ratified the Paris climate agreement, which formed the

basis of discussions earlier this month at the 23rd Conference of the

Parties to the UN framework convention on climate change.

Let us collectively reflect upon the warnings of the world’s

scientists, as well as the words of the Gov. Jay Inslee, who addressed

the Legislature yesterday. In reference to tackling climate change, he

noted: “This is one of the greatest challenges of our time. If we are

remembered for anything 100 years from now, this is what we will be

judged on. It is time for us rise to that challenge.”

HOSPICE CARE

J. Isaacs: There’s nothing more exhilarating than receiving news that a

newborn child will soon enter your world. It’s a time of excitement and

limitless possibilities, and it’s a time when parents, grandparents,

family and friends are sincerely grateful for the gift that has been

brought to them. Upon God’s grace, that child will live a happy, full

and long life.

While infinite possibilities abound, there are times when we are

faced with sad and tragic circumstances — unexpected notice that a life

will end, whether it is from a terminal illness or simply the

accumulation of many years lived. When such situations occur, it’s

comforting to know that there is a compassionate and uniquely skilled

group of dedicated individuals that support families through these

feelings of fear and uncertainty.

The important contribution that hospice provides families cannot

be measured in dollars but rather through experiencing an end-of-life

crossing that is uniquely enriched. So when that experience came upon

our family, we were deeply grateful for the exceptional staff and

volunteers at Crossroads Hospice.

Crossroads serves the Tri-Cities and provides emotional, physical

and spiritual care to families who are faced with end-of-life

challenges. My family will always be grateful to Crossroads Hospice. It

was truly a gift to experience the level of care provided at our most

difficult time.

This Saturday, November 25, Crossroads Hospice will be hosting

their annual Treasures of Christmas gala. Each year the gala displays

beautifully decorated Christmas trees, each with a bounty of fabulous

gifts to be auctioned off. Proceeds from the event raise important funds

to provide dignity, choice and compassionate support to those

approaching end of life. I look forward to this event and invite all of

my colleagues to support your local hospice.

LADYSMITH FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS

D. Routley: I’d like to share with the members an event that’s happening at

the end of this month. In fact, I’d like to invite every member, their

families and their friends to Ladysmith for the Light Up, this being the

30th Light Up that Ladysmith has enjoyed. Because Ladysmith enjoys Light

Up so much, so does the rest of the province. Tens of thousands of

people come to the small town of Ladysmith.

The original 1987 Ladysmith Light Up was put together to enhance

the revitalization efforts of downtown merchants. Now there are tens of

thousands of bulbs and tens of thousands of people that come to join us

in Ladysmith to experience a beautiful small town with lovely, colourful

buildings that is reminiscent of a maritime village. It’s absolutely

beautiful.

The people responsible for it…. President of the festival society,

Duck Paterson, is a very unique individual. He’s a longtime city

councillor, for a long time involved in the festival — in fact, the

first one. Mr. Bill Fitzpatrick, who started the event, brought Duck

into it by inviting him to his home. The local paper quotes Duck as

saying: “I arrived at Bill’s house. He opened the door in his fluffy,

white gown and big puffy, pink, fuzzy slippers. Duck said: ‘Fuzzy

slippers.’”

That’s the kind of people we have in Ladysmith. We have a lot of

fun. The member from Mount Pleasant came from Ladysmith, so she can

verify that this is a very welcoming town and that this beautiful

festival is something that all members should experience at least

once.

[1:55 p.m.]

CHRISTMAS CELEBRATIONS

IN CARIBOO

AREA

D. Barnett: It’s been a busy fall season here at the Legislature, and I’m sure

that many members of this House are anxiously looking forward to the

holiday season.

Christmas is a time for family, friends, joy and, of course, Santa

Claus. Sadly, we all know there are some people without family or

friends, who may live or work far away from home or loved ones. They may

feel like there is little to celebrate. But in my home communities of

Cariboo-Chilcotin, the areas hardest hit by this summer’s wildfires, we

know the Christmas season brings out a generous spirit in

everyone.

This was evident last Friday evening at the 100 Mile House Santa

Parade. I had the privilege of making the big flight from the North Pole

with Santa, only to be greeted with dozens of children and parents

filled with excitement.

One of the highlights of this year’s parade was the lighting of

the stars at the 100 Mile Hospital and the long-term care facility. The

event raised thousands of dollars for our health foundation, which goes

towards the purchase of much-needed equipment.

Coming up, Williams Lake will mark the season with their own

parade on December 2. This features a fundraising breakfast in support

of the Williams Lake Child Development Centre that provides a mountain

of toys for children.

Thanks to all the community volunteers, businesses, churches, the

Salvation Army and food banks for making all of our communities a

welcome place for people of all ages during Christmas. Yes indeed, for

communities in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, Christmas is truly about

community.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT POSITION ON

SITE C POWER

PROJECT

M. Bernier: In British Columbia, we have a choice. Actually, more importantly,

the Premier has a choice. He can choose to enable economic development,

or he can turn his back on the task of building for the future of the

province of British Columbia.

We know the government is opposed to growth. We know they’re

opposed to large infrastructure projects — Pacific NorthWest LNG, George

Massey replacement, Kinder Morgan, and the list goes on. I’m sure the

Premier doesn’t want me to continue on the list of things that they

don’t want to fulfil.

But the evidence for building Site C is actually overwhelming.

Surely the Premier himself can see that. He can obviously read these

reports, and he can hear, from what people are saying in the province of

British Columbia, that we need to move on with this project.

My question to the Premier: is he tired of saying no to projects,

and will he finally say yes to at least one?

Hon. J. Horgan: I want to thank the member for being so focused on his question. I

mean, he’s opened up the opportunity for me to talk about the challenges

that this new government has faced as a result of the lack of action by

that government.

When it comes to due process, every major hydroelectric project

built in British Columbia since the beginning of time is a result of

going through the B.C. Utilities Commission. The people on that side of

the House chose not to do that, and now we find ourselves in a place

where we have competing press conferences. It’s between those who

believe that the commission process that we undertook is more than

adequate and then another press conference saying that it’s not

adequate.

We have a group of Indigenous people saying they’ll sue the

government if we proceed. We have another group of Indigenous people

saying: “We’ll sue if you don’t.”

That speaks to the challenge and complexity of the problem, and

that speaks to a government, in its wisdom, that is going to take a look

at all of the evidence before it saddles the people of B.C. with

billions and billions of dollars of debt.

Mr. Speaker: Peace River South on a supplemental.

M. Bernier: So it sounds like we just heard from the Premier that he’s

actually going ahead with Site C, because we don’t want to actually risk

$4 billion of debt and get nothing for it if he cancels it.

If the Premier wants to be focused, maybe he should be focused on

what he should be doing, and that’s making a decision for what’s best

for the province of British Columbia. We have some of the lowest-cost

electricity rates globally, nationally, here.

[2:00 p.m.]

When you look at it, it’s time to make a bold decision. We have

some of those electricity rates because of past good decisions to make

sure we have good infrastructure projects, not political decisions like

the Premier is trying to make right now.

Yesterday the Minister of Energy confirmed that the most

affordable option is to build Site C. The minister also confirmed

yesterday that as of June of this year, the project was on time and on

budget. What I found even more astounding was that the minister also

confirmed they were able to freeze hydro rates — what? — without even

going to the Utilities Commission first.

Sounds a little hypocritical to me. I’m sure the Premier will

stand up in a minute and explain why he was okay with a hypocritical

comment like that that he wants to continue on.

I know the people in the province are accustomed to the Premier

not following through with his promises. Maybe he can finally do one

here. Will he go ahead and finally approve a project that’s going to be

a benefit for generations to come for the people of British

Columbia?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I thank the member for his theatrics. I know, I appreciate,

having spent some time in opposition, that this is the highlight of his

day — to be able to stand up and do what he just did.

For the rest of us on this side of the House, we want to make sure

we’re making decisions in the best interests of the people of British

Columbia, not our political party. We’re not going to grandstand and say

we’re going to get a project past the point of no return. We’re going to

stand and say we’re going to look at this project. We’re going to

examine it, make sure it is in the public interest and make sure that

B.C. Hydro can go back to working for British Columbians, not working

for B.C. Liberals.

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

supplemental.

M. Bernier: Actually, the highlight of my day will be this Premier finally

making a decision, not kicking it down the road.

The minister agreed that the project was on time, on budget as of

June, with historical low interest rates, with low commodity rates —

which is actually helping benefit the project in the costing — and with

skilled workers that are available right now.

This is not the time to be costing $4 billion and getting nothing

for it. This is not the time to be reneging on local contracts with

First Nations who are working at the site and have an expectation going

forward. This is not the time to be firing 2,300 workers. Actually, what

it’s finally time for is this Premier to make a decision.

We actually have…. The Allied Hydro Council of B.C. is even saying

that finishing the project is a hands-down winner, and there is no case

in the BCUC report that ratepayers would be better off to abandon the

Site C project at this time. It’s actually quite easy for the Premier.

He has a chance today to do the right thing. He has a chance today to

not kick it down the road, to put another review or look at some other

option….

Mr. Speaker: Member, the question, please.

M. Bernier: The Premier has an opportunity to do the right thing. Will he

stand here today and finally admit that building Site C is the right

thing to do? Let’s move on, get those contracts going and people

working.

Hon. J. Horgan: The government of British Columbia has been doing the right thing

for the past four months, and that’s consulting with British Columbians

and making sure that we make decisions in the best interests of the

people of this province.

I have to correct the member. The member said that the project was

on time and on budget, effective June. Now, we know….

Interjections.

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

Hon. J. Horgan: We know that there was a tension crack discovered in February of

2017, and there’s an enormous tension crack in the B.C. Liberal caucus

right now — I understand that — between that member, that member, that

member and the one over there.

But on this side of the House, we’re focused on making sure we’re

making the best choices possible for people. We’re going to make sure

that B.C. Hydro can be returned to a Crown jewel, not an instant teller

machine. We’re going to make sure that we make decisions on energy

policy that are not to get it past the point of no return but to make

life better for British Columbians.

That’s what we were elected to do, and that’s why you’re sitting

over there enjoying question period as much as you are today.

[2:05 p.m.]

SITE C POWER PROJECT AND

ACTION ON CLIMATE

CHANGE

T. Redies: The previous B.C. Liberal government brought in a revenue-neutral

carbon tax, something that that side of the House vehemently opposed.

The previous government also brought in the Clean Energy Act. That act

requires B.C. to switch to lower GHG-intensive energy sources, and to do

that requires a massive amount of electricity.

A new report today confirms that cancelling Site C is a wager that

this government will fail to meet the challenge of climate

change.

To the Minister of the Environment, will he be honest with British

Columbians: in addition to writing off $4 billion, why is the government

seriously considering abandoning B.C.’s climate leadership?

Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you to the member for the question. I’ve said this before;

let me say it again. There is no doubt everybody in this House agrees

that we need a public utility that is developing clean energy that’s

affordable for British Columbians.

Unfortunately, when the B.C. Liberals were in power, they thought

they knew best, that everybody else in the province didn’t know what

they were talking about when it came to saying Site C…

Interjections.

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

Hon. M. Mungall: …needs to be reviewed by the B.C. Utilities Commission. I’ve said

this before, and let me say it again, because I don’t think the members

opposite are quite understanding that when they chose not to go to the

BCUC, it was wrong.

We have done that job. We have gotten that important information

from the B.C. Utilities Commission. It is now part of a robust amount of

documentation that will come to cabinet. We will be making a decision,

and our decision is about working for British Columbians — not about

political partisanship.

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

T. Redies: I’m not an expert at politics, but it would seem like the only

political partisanship, when it comes down to Site C, is actually being

exhibited by this side of the House.

The project was on time and on budget as of June 30. When asked in

estimates yesterday, the minister confirmed that the reason why Site C

went forward was because it was the cheapest alternative for B.C.

ratepayers.

Now they have undertaken the BCUC process. Frankly, I’ve got

several reports here that debunk the findings in the BCUC report. So

again, what I wanted to ask, and I didn’t get an answer to, was…. The

BCUC report did not include any electrification initiatives in their

decision with respect to Site C, initiatives like electrification of gas

fields, the e-drive rate to electrify LNG facilities and the clean

energy vehicle program for B.C.

The $40 million was committed for electric vehicles by the

previous government. British Columbians deserve a clear answer from the

Minister of Environment. Will they abandon our climate targets along

with Site C?

Hon. G. Heyman: We sat in this chamber yesterday listening to the governor of

Washington state talk about how people in Washington and people in

British Columbia want to know that we’re going to address the greatest

challenge of our generation, and that’s climate change.

People know that we can have a strong, sustainable economy while

reducing emissions. What they got from the members opposite when they

were in government was a report from a….

Interjections.

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

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: What we got from the previous government was a climate leadership

team report that they ignored. We, on the other hand, have established

the Climate Solutions and Clean Growth Advisory Council, with

representatives from industry, from labour, from academia, from the

environment, from First Nations and from communities. They are working

with us. They understand that we need to electrify our economy. They

understand that we need to support business and sustain business, and

we’re going to work with them to do just that.

SITE C POWER PROJECT AND

ELECTRICITY

RATES

A. Olsen: We don’t need to close our eyes and imagine what will happen if

Site C continues to be built. We can look to another Canadian

jurisdiction that I fear shows us B.C.’s fate if we continue

forward.

When the Muskrat Falls project in Newfoundland and Labrador was

first sanctioned, the cost was supposed to be $6.2 billion, plus

financing. That project is now $12.7 billion, all in. A similar

escalation in cost is occurring with Site C. It started at $6.6 billion,

and now BCUC is saying the actual cost could actually be up to $10

billion or more.

In Newfoundland and Labrador’s version of Site C, the impact of

this cost increase on consumer rates has been profound. Nalcor hydro now

estimates that the cost for Muskrat Falls dam will almost double current

rates for their ratepayers.

Our Premier has said that his decision on Site C will largely be

decided on the net effect on hydro rates. My question is for the

Minister of Energy and Mines. If Site C continues to mirror the Muskrat

Falls project, British Columbians may see a doubling of hydro rates. Is

the minister prepared to make British Columbians pay the costs for the

former government’s boondoggle?

Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you to the member of the Third Party for the question. Just

to let him know, I’ve been following the issue with Muskrat Falls quite

closely. It is a concern.

I’m going to take this opportunity, actually, to talk about

something that the Liberals have mentioned a few times already today and

before. It’s something that they’re actually denying, which is the

reason for the cost overruns that were identified in the BCUC report,

that because we went to BCUC, we’re actually bringing to

light.

Under their watch, in February, under the old government’s

watch…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Mungall: …was the first tension crack. In May, under their watch, was the

second tension crack. These tension cracks are what has caused the

present-day cost overruns and the present-day delays. That was under

their watch, and they need to take responsibility for that,

absolutely.

No doubt about it. We’ve corrected a wrong. We’ve gone to the

BCUC. But at the end of the day, for the B.C. Liberals failure to do

that, failure to go to BCUC, and their mismanagement, it’s going to be

British Columbians having to foot the bill. That’s truly unfortunate,

and that’s why this government is going to be making a decision that

works for British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a

supplemental.

A. Olsen: There’s another parallel between Muskrat Falls and Site C. Just

after Muskrat Falls was sanctioned, a risk management report was

released identifying significant risks. The government at the time chose

to forge ahead regardless — it sounds much like the minister’s first

response — and are now left explaining a project that has spiralled in

cost and time with real impacts for ratepayers. This week we’ve learned

that they are launching a public inquiry into how the project was

allowed to get so far out of control, including why the public utility

board was allowed to be excluded from oversight.

The B.C. government has its own report on Site C from our own

independent regulator. The BCUC report confirmed that Site C is behind

schedule and is estimated to come in substantially over budget. BCUC

estimates the current cost is at least $10 billion or more, and the cost

could even be higher. And we are only two years into a nine-year

project.

My question is once again for the Minister of Energy, Mines. The

lessons from Muskrat Falls are significant. Will you make the decision —

where the government of Newfoundland and Labrador made the wrong

decision — and listen to the report you commissioned that has identified

significant risks and stop this project while we still have a

chance?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: Absolutely, this is a very serious issue for British Columbians.

Due diligence was not done under the old government, but we’ve taken it

upon ourselves, under this new government, that we are going to do that

due diligence, that we are going to look at this appropriately, that

we’re going to put partisan politics aside. We’re going to be working in

the best interests of British Columbians. That’s how we’re going to be

making this decision.

NAFTA NEGOTIATIONS

T. Wat: My question again today is for the Minister of Trade. During this

period of rising U.S. protectionism, all of us are concerned about the

ongoing North America Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, discussions. I’m sure

our Minister of Trade is seized with this issue.

Can the minister tell the House what assurances the federal

government has given him that the provinces will have the opportunity to

directly participate in side-table discussions on areas that impact

provincial jurisdictions?

they have consulted very closely with all the provinces. The minister,

Chrystia Freeland, is doing an excellent job in making sure all the

provincial interests are represented. We indeed have a provincial

official who is at the talks as they take place, whether it’s in Mexico

City, Washington or Ottawa. We are continuously informed of the

provincial issues that arise, and our interests are well represented

there.

It’s important in this turbulent time that we develop extensive

trade relations not only with the United States but with Asia. Indeed,

the Premier, the Minister of State for Trade and I are heading to Asia.

We’ve recently opened new trade offices in Seattle and San Francisco,

and as the visit of the governor of Washington state demonstrated

yesterday, the opportunities south of the border through the Cascadia

connection are immense.

It’s important, and we’re pursuing every trade opportunity

available to the government of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond North Centre on a supplemental.

T. Wat: Undoubtedly, the NAFTA discussion concerns us all. But I don’t

really see the point of having a Minister of Trade if we do not get any

answer from him that he is actually doing something. I want to hear what

the Minister of Trade has done. Has the minister met with his federal

counterpart to outline B.C.’s position on this important

issue?

Hon. B. Ralston: One of my ministerial responsibilities is international trade, and

leading those negotiations with a great leadership and a great aplomb

and working very closely with all of the provinces. The trade strategy

at every opportunity in every turn of the negotiations.

I am confident, given that the conclusions of the negotiations has

now been extended to March as opposed to concluding in December, that

there’s an opportunity for a deal that will be a good deal for Canada

and a good deal for British Columbia.

[2:20 p.m.]

INTERNATIONAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS

AND MINISTER OF STATE

FOR TRADE

R. Sultan: As much as I enjoy listening to my friend the Minister of Jobs,

Trade and Technology, I have a very specific question for the minister

of state for international trade.

We all know British Columbia’s prosperity depends critically on

our performance on international trade. We also know that the most

important trading arrangement affecting Canada, NAFTA, is being

negotiated, with important issues impacting British Columbia on the

table. We also know that the federal government has also been

negotiating a trans-Pacific trade partnership, TPP — vital, obviously,

to British Columbia, Canada’s Pacific gateway.

My question to the minister of state is: whether we’re talking

about NAFTA or TPP, could he inform the House of what face-to-face

meetings he has had with federal officials and what has been the

result?

Hon. B. Ralston: Let me say once again that NAFTA negotiations are vital to the

economic future of this province and, indeed, to Canada. We are fully

informed of what takes place at the table. We have a provincial official

who’s there at the side table, participating in the debrief of each

day’s negotiations, so we are well aware of what’s taking

place.

The member mentions the TPP. It’s important at this time, though,

that we look beyond our trade with the United States and look to the

Asia-Pacific. Indeed, that’s why the Premier is leading a trade mission

to Asia in January.

Mr. Speaker: West Vancouver–Capilano on a supplemental.

R. Sultan: That wasn’t quite the answer I was looking for, but I guess it

will suffice, particularly in combination with this next

question.

We’re hearing the Prime Minister of Canada is planning a mission

to China to explore the possibilities of a free trade agreement with the

second-largest economy in the world — obviously, of more than passing

interest to us here in British Columbia. And of course, we have the

lingering, festering, perplexing softwood lumber file. We do know the

Premier, good on him, took a trip to Washington very early in his

mandate to explore that issue.

My question again is to the minister of international trade. What

has been his engagement in meetings on these two vital files, has he

been engaged perhaps in the Prime Minister’s pending mission to China,

and what have been the tangible results so far?

Hon. B. Ralston: Recently members of the government met with the Canadian

ambassador to China, who advised us of some of the recent developments.

The Prime Minister is apparently contemplating a visit to China, which

may result in some further negotiations. That decision has not been

taken. But I do want to stress that our trading relationship with the

People’s Republic of China is an important one to us. That’s why the

Premier is leading a mission to, among other countries, the People’s

Republic of China in January.

M. de Jong: I’ll only ask the Minister of Trade this once. He has a mandate

letter. He has weighty responsibilities as a minister. Does he believe

those responsibilities include answering questions in this

House?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Obviously, at this time, when the trading relationship with the

United States is under close scrutiny, it’s important to develop new

trading relationships with other parts of the world. That is exactly

what we’re doing.

We’ve opened new offices in Manila and Jakarta. We are expanding

our trade with the ASEAN region. The Premier is leading a mission to

China, Korea and Japan in the new year. That’s the importance that we

place on trade. It’s vital to the economic success of British Columbia

and of Canada.

POTENTIAL CHANGE TO FAMILY DAY

AND IMPACT ON TOURISM

INDUSTRY

D. Clovechok: I have a question, and we’ll see who gets to stand up on this one.

Two weeks ago the Minister of Tourism showed a complete lack of regard

for the industry she is responsible for. When asked in question period

about the potential impacts on the tourism industry from changing Family

Day, she didn’t mention even once, in her talk, the word “tourism” or

that file. She refused to tell this House whether she bothered to

analyze the impacts that such a change would have on this critical

industry.

Well, let me remind the minister that in 2016, tourism was

responsible for $14.6 billion into our economy. That’s close to 20,000

businesses, the majority of which are small businesses. As such, the

tourism industry deserves much better from this minister.

I ask the question, and it’s a simple question: is the minister

moving Family Day in February?

Hon. L. Beare: This is the third question I’ve had about Family Day, and it’s the

third time that the B.C. Liberals have failed to put the word “family”

in their question. I am proud to be part of a government that puts

families at the heart of our decision-making.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, if we may wait a moment, please.

Hon. L. Beare: I’d like to point the members to the Insights West poll which

shows that over 70 percent of British Columbians support this change.

We’re listening to businesses, we’re listening to British Columbians,

and we are listening to families. That is what is at the heart of our

decision-making.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT

SERVICES

COMMITTEE

B. D’Eith: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select

Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. The report

summarizes the committee’s budget 2018 consultation.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

B. D’Eith: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

B. D’Eith: In moving adoption of the report, I’d like to make a few brief

comments. This report summarizes the committee’s consultation on the

2018 provincial budget. Due to the destructive effects of this year’s

wildfire on so many communities, the report highlights the

recommendations aimed at supporting economic recovery and improving

emergency preparedness and resilience in response to natural

disasters.

The consultation process took from September 21 to October 16,

2017. This year an on-line consultation portal was created to provide

the public with opportunities to register for public hearings as well as

to submit written, audio, video submissions and provide their survey

responses.

The all-party committee travelled to 11 communities throughout the

province and heard from 187 individuals and organizations, who outlined

their priorities for next year’s budget. It was a privilege to be

welcomed into these communities, and we appreciate the opportunity to

meet with so many British Columbians. We also received 292 written,

audio and video submissions and 666 responses to our on-line

survey.

[2:30 p.m.]

The report contains 119 unanimous recommendations that reflect

British Columbians’ priorities, including a need for increased

affordable housing and child care; further investments in education;

improvements for accessing and delivering health care and social

services; increased investment in transportation and infrastructure,

including public transit; continuing protection of the environment;

support for the arts, culture and the creative industries — all with

prudent fiscal management.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank everyone who

took time to participate in this year’s consultation process. Thank

you.

I’d also like to thank all of the committee members for their hard

work and dedication throughout this process, especially the Deputy

Chair, the member for Penticton, for his willingness to share his

knowledge from his past Chair experience and for helping with the

cooperation that we shared on that committee. Mr. Deputy Chair, thank

you.

D. Ashton: It’s an honour to rise today also to speak of the Select Standing

Committee on Finance and Government Services. I would just like to echo

what the Chair has said about the presenters that came in and the files

that we received on it.

I would really like to extend congratulations and thanks to the

Chair, the member for Maple Ridge–Mission, who did an incredible job —

it is a challenge sometimes, but he was able to deliver another

unanimous report — and not only to the Chair but to all the members of

the committee. I think it makes a real show of what we talk about here

in this House on numerous occasions. This report continually seems to

come forward with unanimous recommendations. That shows the public that

we can actually work together.

I would be very remiss in not thanking the incredible staff from

the committees office and from the Clerk’s office, also, that help out

on this. It’s their help and their knowledge that really facilitates

getting this report together and being able to deliver it in the form

that it has continued to be delivered in.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to stand up.

Once again, I would be very, very remiss in not thanking the Chair for

doing an absolutely incredible job.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. L. Beare: Hon. Speaker, I rise to table a report. I have the honour to present

the 2016-2017 annual report on multiculturalism.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill 3. In Committee A, I call

the estimates debate of the Ministry of Tourism.

[2:35 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 3 — ELECTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 3; L. Reid in

the chair.

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

section 1.

Hon. D. Eby: Madame Chair, we’re ready to proceed with

section 1.

I move the amendment to

section 1, standing in my name on the

orders of the day.

SECTION 1 (e),

(

a) by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the

underlined text as shown:

(

e) by adding the following

subsection

subsections:

, and

(

b) by adding the following subsection:

(3) Except in relation to sections 228.1, 231, 232, 264 (1) (

b) and (

c) and 283 (m.1), the transmission of an advertising message, for

the purposes of the

definitions of “campaign period election

advertising” and “pre-campaign period election advertising”, includes

the following activities, if the activities are conducted on a

commercial basis:

(

a) canvassing voters, in person or by telephone, to attempt to

influence how voters vote;

(

b) mailing material that contains advertising

messages.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment expands the definition of election advertising to

include additional activities — namely, paid canvassing of voters,

either in person or by telephone and direct mail; incorporates the main

provisions of a similar proposal by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena

in his private member’s bill; ensures that activities undertaken by

third parties that have the same purpose and effect as election

advertising are regulated in the same way by this act; and does not

limit activities undertaken on a volunteer basis, only those undertaken

on a commercial basis.

Just as a side note, I’d like to introduce, with me here, Neil

Reimer, the director of strategic initiatives in the Ministry of

Attorney General, and Kevin Atcheson, senior policy and legislation

analyst.

A. Wilkinson: I have questions about

section 1 but not about this particular

amendment. So I’m prepared to proceed on the basis that we vote on the

amendment and then go on with

section 1.

Amendment approved.

section 1 as amended.

A. Wilkinson: In

section 1, in the definition of “major political party,” it

differs from the previous version of this act that was introduced in

June in that it no longer makes reference to a $50,000 threshold as part

of the definition of what constitutes a major political party. The

question, obviously, is: why is that no longer relevant?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I can’t speak to the member’s private member’s bill, or the bill

that didn’t receive first reading vote that was introduced earlier, but

I can advise the member that this definition applies in a very direct

way to fundraising obligations and reporting obligations. It is

cross-referenced with a separate set of requirements to qualify for the

Election Advisory Committee, which is a specific set of requirements.

One is either sitting in the House — having an elected member sitting in

the House — or running candidates in more than half of the

constituencies in the province.

A. Wilkinson: The next question is about the definition of “pre-campaign

period,” beginning 60 days before the first day of a campaign. I inquire

as to how that works with the existing Supreme Court of Canada

jurisprudence about our freedom of expression and electoral rights prior

to campaigns. My understanding of that, in the broadest terms, is that

the Charter rights were established for pre-campaign expression, leaving

out a window prior to the election. I’d appreciate an explanation of how

they work together.

Hon. D. Eby: The previous jurisprudence dealt with legislation that was much

more restrictive in terms of the restrictions that are proposed to be

imposed under this legislation. That is a significant difference from

what the court has seen before under constitutional challenges to this

type of legislation.

An additional difference is that in British Columbia, we have seen

evidence of organizations in the pre-campaign period — this period

around 60 days before the first day of the campaign period — advertising

extensively and then dissolving right before the campaign period in

order to avoid reporting. We believe that there is a significant public

interest in accountability for these organizations and regulation of

their activities. There is new evidence to put in front of the

court.

In addition, this legislation is different in terms of the

restrictions it places on these third-party organizations.

A. Wilkinson: If I understand the answer, the intent is to provide an

enforcement regime that occupies all space other than that which has

already been defined by the Supreme Court of Canada as a safe space for

expression. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: I understand the member’s question to be asking: are we trying to

do as much as we can…? Well, it’s often called Charter-proofing

legislation. That is absolutely not what’s happening here.

[2:45 p.m.]

This is an intent to try to capture a very specific activity that

has been observed in British Columbia that is of concern to the public.

There are organizations doing overtly partisan or direct political

advertising. “Vote for Joe.” “Don’t vote for Joe.” “Vote for party X.”

“Don’t vote for party X.”

There has not been accountability about the donations to these

groups, where the money is coming from or the membership of these

organizations. Who is backing the activities? So this proposed campaign

period is aimed at that mischief specifically, and it’s not meant to try

to take up all the other constitutional ground that the court might have

left over.

Specifically, this relates to the obligation on third parties to

register and report. There’s no spending limit in the legislation, but

they do have to be accountable for what they are doing, and it is only

for a certain kind of advertising. It is not for issue advertising:

“Save the grizzly bears” or “Hunt the grizzly bears.” It’s about overtly

partisan or direct advertising about political parties or

candidates.

A. Wilkinson: If I understand the intent of the legislation, for the 88 days

prior to election day, there will be this controlling regime on

contributions and reporting, related to anything that names a candidate

or a party, and prior to that, there’ll be no regulatory regime

whatsoever. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s more correct to think of the legislation as an escalating

series of restrictions as you get closer to the election, when it comes

to third parties. Outside of the pre-campaign period, the ability to

make donations in excess of the limit in the legislation is restricted.

The ability to receive donations from organizations is restricted, and

also, these donations must be reported.

As you get closer to the election, as you get to the 60-day

period, the obligations restricting direct advertising start to kick in,

and then as you get into the campaign period itself, the writ period,

then there are spending limits as well, and there is a larger definition

of what constitutes election advertising. As you move into the election

period, the restrictions escalate, with respect to third

parties.

A. Wilkinson: I’ll take you to the bottom of page 3 of the bill. There is

subsection (e), which states that it is adding the following subsection

(2).

Subsection (2)(

a) refers to registered political parties and

subsection (

b) refers to the election of a particular candidate, and it

states that it provides restrictions on the promotion or opposition of a

registered political party or candidate. Yet it goes on to say that

there’ll be anything else prescribed by regulation applying to

both.

The obvious question is: what is the proposed ambit of those

regulations, given that the initial

section under (

i) in both

subsections deals with the candidate, party and image or likeness of the

candidate, identifying by voice or physical description, likeness, logo,

etc.? It raises the obvious question: is there an intent to further

restrict this in regulation so that it becomes more issues-based rather

than likeness- or identity-based?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: You learn something every day. The CEO, Chief Electoral Officer,

of Elections B.C. has broad regulation-making authority under the act,

and government has none. This is one of those powers.

This is meant to give the Chief Electoral Officer the authority

to…. If someone gets creative in attempting to evade the rule that we’re

attempting to convey here — which is that direct advertising around

political parties or individual candidates is captured in the

pre-campaign period election advertising regulations — and identifies a

way to sort of slide in-between these definition terms, the CEO could

respond with the regulation that would capture that activity.

A. Wilkinson: So I gather the intent there is to delegate this regulatory

authority entirely to the Chief Electoral Officer, the perceived

mischief being variance on what is identified in (

i) in both of those

subsections rather than to provide the scope of expanding the controls

provided by those subsections.

Hon. D. Eby: I can confirm the member’s understanding. The intent is to address

the specific mischief as opposed to broaden the scope or attempt to

capture issue-based advertising which, we understand, would be

trammelling on the rights of free speech of individuals.

A. Wilkinson: Sorry. The first part of the question was not answered in terms of

who will be taking on this regulatory authority. Is it the Chief

Electoral Officer or cabinet?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear in my initial response. It is the

Chief Electoral Officer that has regulation-making power here, not

government.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to

section 3 standing in my name in the

orders of the day.

SECTION 3, by deleting the text shown as struck out

and adding the underlined text as

shown:

Section 162 (2) is repealed and the following

substituted:

(2) The information available for public inspection under

subsection (1) must not include the following:

(

a) account numbers required under

section 155 (3) (

j) or 157

(3) (h), as applicable;

(

b) the address of an individual a

contributor .]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: The reason is that referring to “individual” in this

section is

too broad. It would exclude other people, such as parties’ financial

agents, whose addresses are required to be made public by other

provisions of the act. The intent of the provision is to keep addresses

of those who make political contributions from being made public. They

will be reported to Elections B.C., however, under other provisions of

the act.

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

A. Wilkinson: This amends

section 182 of the Election Act by providing that a

person other than an eligible individual must not pay a charge per

individual for a fundraising function, etc. It deals with fundraising

functions.

The question is: what is the mischief that is being addressed

here? The final section, 2.2, saying: “If an eligible individual pays

for more than one charge per individual for a fundraising function, the

payment of those charges is a political contribution by the eligible

individual.”

In other words, clarification of what the intent of this

section

is would be helpful.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Sections (2.1) and (2.2) really need to be read together. The

intent here is that there are small-scale fundraising functions that

we’re attempting to encourage — a potluck dinner or a salsa party, this

kind of activity — where the ticket for the fundraising function is less

than $50. The concern was that if we had this kind of a ticket, where it

might not be a political contribution, somebody could potentially buy

100 $49 tickets, have a $4,900 contribution, and it wouldn’t be

captured.

What we wanted to do was make sure that if an individual pays for

more than one charge for one of these small-scale fundraising events,

that would be captured as a political contribution by the individual.

We’ve certainly seen, in British Columbia, individuals paying for more

than one ticket for events. That was an attempt to capture that kind of

activity, trying to avoid the political contribution reporting

obligations.

A. Wilkinson: If I understand this correctly, if a fundraising event is held

with a $50 ticket, for the potluck party, then if an individual

purchases a ticket for their spouse or their child, they’ll be deemed to

have made a political contribution for the value of the second ticket.

Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m just going to correct myself on the answer I gave before. I

said you could buy 100 tickets at $49 each and have a $4,900

contribution. That $1,200 limit would….

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: Sure. I had said that you could buy 100 $49 tickets, and it would

be a $4,900 contribution. You couldn’t actually do that. It’s a $1,200

maximum. So I’m just correcting my previous answer.

The member is correct. As soon as you buy a ticket for somebody

else — if it’s a child or a spouse or an employee or somebody else —

then it becomes a political contribution by the individual under section

(2.2).

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

A. Wilkinson: Looking under

section 6, division 2.1,

section 185.01, there’s the

statement: “A person may not hold a specified fundraising function that

has a charge per individual of greater than $100 in or on premises that

are used as a private residence.” In conjunction with

section 5, I

understand that I can hold a $50 event anywhere. I can hold a $99 event

anywhere. But I cannot hold such an event at $101 in a private

residence. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: Subsection 185.01(1) restricts the ability to hold what is called

“a specified fundraising function” where the ticket is greater than

$100. In the member’s example, he could hold a $101 ticket event at a

private residence, but if you flip back to

section 1, the definition of

“specified fundraising function” means a fundraising function that’s

attended by one or more of the following: “(

i) a member of the Executive

Council; (ii) a parliamentary secretary; (iii) a leader of a major

political party.” As long as none of those cabinet ministers or

parliamentary secretaries or leaders of any major political parties show

up to the event, it can still be held at a private residence.

[3:00 p.m.]

There are two components to the specified fundraising function

definition. One is: who’s there? Is there a member of cabinet or a

leader of a party? The second is that it’s held for the purpose of

raising funds for a leadership contestant, constituency association,

major political party or so on.

The intent is not to outright prohibit these kinds of fundraisers

but simply to restrict what is understood to be, by some people, a

cash-for-access approach, where you could have at a private residence a

fundraiser where people would have access to a leader of a political

party or to cabinet ministers or so on. The goal is to avoid that kind

of activity.

A. Wilkinson: For further clarification, if the specified individuals, including

the Leader of the Opposition, attend the event, it cannot be for more

than $100 and it cannot be a venue in which any kind of political

contribution is accepted — under subsection (2). Is that

correct?

Hon. D. Eby: I think this answers the member’s question. You just simply can’t

have a fundraiser at a private residence for greater than $100 where one

of the listed groups of individuals shows up. So in this example, as

soon as the Leader of the Opposition shows up, if the ticket price is

$101, it transitions from a permitted fundraiser to an unpermitted

fundraiser. That’s the action of subsection (1).

Subsection (2) — you don’t get to it in that scenario. As soon as

you’re over $100 with one of the listed individuals showing up, it’s

simply not permitted at a private residence.

A. Wilkinson: And there’s no recognition, I gather, here of the overhead of

having the event, in terms of food and the like. This is simply a charge

that is set as a $100 threshold.

Hon. D. Eby: That is correct.

A. Wilkinson: But I understand from reading subsections (1) and (2) together,

that there’s nothing to stop these individuals from going to the $100

fundraiser and soliciting funds that aren’t collected on the spot, in

that subsection (2) says that they must not accept political

contributions raised at a specific fundraising function. So is there

anything to stop the Premier from going to an event with a $100 price

tag and saying: “It would be great if every one of you would send me a

cheque for $1,200 tomorrow”?

Hon. D. Eby: Subsection (2) talks about “must not accept a political

contribution raised at a specific fundraising function described in

subsection (1).” The intent of this is to try…. And recognizing the

difficulty of this, if it’s held at a private residence and someone has

committed to attempting to evade the provisions of the law, the attempt

here is to say that if you’re getting a commitment from someone at this

event that they’re going to make a donation to you later, that would be

a donation raised at the event, and it would contravene the

section and

the intent of the law.

The difficulty — the member, I’m sure, will immediately recognize

— is enforcement. If you have an event at a private residence and people

are making commitments to make donations later, it’s illegal, under the

bill as proposed, and the challenge comes in enforcement.

We have seen examples of cell phone video released of statements

made at fundraising functions and so on, particularly in the United

States, where people have been unpleasantly surprised that the

statements they made at a fundraiser were made public. It’s not out of

the question that that kind of activity could happen in British

Columbia.

[3:05 p.m.]

The

section is clear: you shouldn’t take pledges for donations at

these kinds of events, and you shouldn’t accept donations. You shouldn’t

be engaging in that kind of activity at these events. If you are, then

it’s at your peril that you may be detected and ultimately find yourself

offside of the bill as proposed — and, hopefully, the law.

A. Wilkinson: I take it from the answer that “raised” is broadly interpreted to

mean any kind of mention or solicitation or anything whatsoever, but it

in no way precludes the fundraiser from phoning the attendees two days

later and saying it would be nice to get a $1,200 donation. Is that

correct?

Hon. D. Eby: There was a choice here in drafting subsection 2 around “must not

accept a political contribution,” and the choice here was, must not

accept a political contribution “raised” — rather than “received” — “at

a specified fundraising function.”

The intent was to give it as broad an

interpretation as possible —

that it was raised at the fundraising function, but you didn’t have to

actually receive the cheque or the credit card slip or whatever at the

event. You could have received a pledge for it or that kind of

activity.

The member is right to note that enforcement is a challenge, but

even noting that enforcement is a challenge, I’m not sure that there’s

any issue. Let me just double-check before I say this.

There is no prohibition on calling people who may have attended

one of these events within a certain time period after they attended an

event and attempting to fundraise from them separately from the event.

That is something that is permitted under the act.

A. Wilkinson: So to draw the obvious inference, if the fundraising event is held

on a Saturday afternoon and finishes at five o’clock, as I understand

the intent of the legislation as expressed by the minister, there is

nothing to stop the fundraiser from phoning them at nine o’clock that

evening and saying it would be nice to have $1,200. Is that

correct?

Hon. D. Eby: There’s certainly no restriction on a leader of any party from

meeting anybody for free at any time or a restriction on a fundraiser

being able to call people who the leader of a party may have met with to

ask them for donations.

What this

section is aimed at is the concern around the lack of

accountability in relation to fundraising functions at private

residences that have high entry charges and the perception of the public

that this is cash for access to decision-makers. That’s the intent of

the

section and what has tried to be captured here in subsections 1 and

A. Wilkinson: I’m not sure that’s answered the question at all, in that this is

an

interpretation of the term “raised” in the eyes of the Legislature,

in that the minister is bringing it forward here. If this does result in

a prosecution at some point, then this Hansard transcript will

be brought up in the courtroom.

The obvious question is, if within a period of hours after the

event at which no solicitation was made and no pledges were sought, is

it acceptable for the fundraiser to call the attendees within hours

afterwards and make an independent query about whether they’d be willing

to give $1,000 or $1,200?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, the member is correct. There is no issue in the act with a

fundraiser…. There’s no restriction on calling people based on whether

or not they attended an event at a private residence.

A. Wilkinson: So to reduce this to the colloquial, if the host phones the

attendees four hours later and says, “It was great to see you, Sally.

It’s so wonderful that you’re a supporter of the minister. It’s

necessary to fund political parties, and it sure would be nice if you

would send me $1,200. It was great to see you at lunchtime,” that’s

entirely acceptable, I gather.

Hon. D. Eby: I note that in the member’s example, it’s entirely appropriate for

the person who is called to say no. She didn’t have to pay the money up

front in order to be able to attend the event which the leader of the

political party attended. So it’s different, in that you have to pay up

front in order to get the access, and in the member’s example there’s

somebody calling later and saying: “Hey, I hope you enjoyed meeting the

leader of the party. Now we’d like you to think about making a

donation.” The person could just say: “No. It was a fine meeting, but

I’m not going to pay.”

This is intended to prevent the idea of people paying up front in

order to get access to a leader of a political party or a cabinet

minister or so on.

A. Wilkinson: I’ll try a third time, in that that was a non-answer. If the

solicitation occurs within hours of the event and at the event there was

no solicitation or pledge process, and the host of the event then phones

all of the attendees or any particular one of the attendees and says,

“It certainly would be nice if you would support the party. You met the

minister two hours ago, and I would like to have that $1,200,” there’s

nothing to prohibit that, from what I can see in this section, using the

definition of “raised,” that we have understood here today.

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct that there is nothing prohibiting it. But I

should note that it would not be acceptable to say: “You know what the

deal was. You came to this party, and now I need your $1,200 donation.”

The idea is the separation between the ability to attend the event and

the donation — that an obligation cannot be placed on an individual,

greater than $100, for attendance at an event where the leader of a

party or a member of the executive council was present.

A. Wilkinson: In conjunction with the definition in the

section that you

referred to earlier and the next section, 185.02, this ongoing reference

to the Leader of the Opposition or of a political party seems to be out

of keeping with the cash-for-access idea — that members of the executive

council, including the Premier, are captured, as are parliamentary

secretaries, who have access to the government’s $52 billion budget. But

certainly, leaders of political parties do not. So the rationale for

including political party leaders other than the Premier himself…. Can

you explain that, as it is throughout this act?

Hon. D. Eby: The

section restricts the activities of major party leaders, not

all parties. Again, those are parties that are part of the election or

would qualify for the Election Advisory Committee.

I note that currently we’re in a minority government situation, so

leaders of the various parties have influence that is different than it

may be in a situation of a majority government situation. It is also,

obviously, in the public interest, given the major role that opposition

leaders play in raising issues and initiating discussions in the

province, of participation in various committees and so on.

[3:15 p.m.]

There is a great public interest and transparency around

fundraising and fundraising activities, not just for the government side

but also for opposition and, in the case of our Legislature currently,

the Leader of the Third Party as well.

A. Wilkinson: I take that as an acknowledgement that the Leader of the Third

Party will be captured by this as well, given that he has influence of

some sort with the NDP government of the day. This would also extend,

obviously, to the Leader of the Official Opposition. Is that

correct?

Hon. D. Eby: That is correct, and he would have anyway, just by virtue of his

representation in the House.

A. Wilkinson: So the obvious question is: why is it necessary to include the

leader of an opposition party that has no access, control, influence or

any role with the $52 billion budget of government — and therefore

there’s not much influence to have access to?

Hon. D. Eby: Well, I think the member certainly sells himself short a little

bit. Although not yet the Leader of the Opposition, his amendment is

included in this bill, influenced by the private member’s bill that he

put forward.

It’s government’s opinion that the Leader of the Opposition plays

a significant role in driving the discussion in the Legislature, around

committees and what gets discussed in question period, for example, and

that there is a public interest in transparency. Also, I imagine that in

12 or 16 years, the opposition party may be coming back into power at

some stage. So there is a public interest as well in transparency about

who has been backing them in the interim.

A. Wilkinson: Yet this does not include private members. The minister referred

to committee presence and so forth and the role of questions in the

Legislature. That extends far beyond the leader of a political party to

the private members, both for the Third Party and for the official

opposition.

It’s hard to draw a logical thread through this in that those who

have access to the government budget directly through the cabinet

positions are captured. Those who are parliamentary secretaries are

captured, which would encompass most of the government caucus ranks.

Then out of the remaining probably 40-plus members of the Legislature,

simply one is chosen out for special treatment here in being the leader

of the political party. I must say it seems to smack more of political

control rather than an attempt to address the issue of influence and

access.

Hon. D. Eby: We are the first in Canada to take on this type of initiative. The

federal government has discussed it but hasn’t yet introduced

legislation on it.

The intent here is to capture the distaste that the public has for

the idea that a leader of a major political party is attending a private

residence where large amounts of cash are paid for access. The cohorts

that we’re proposing here in the bill are cabinet members, the Premier,

the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Third Party and the

parliamentary secretaries. I take it from his question that the member

has a different perspective on that.

The intent was to try to capture the power and influence that the

leader of an opposition party has and that the leader of a third party

has and the interests that we believe the public has in ensuring

transparency and accountability about how fundraising takes place with

these individuals, which is at a different level than a backbench MLA on

the government or opposition side.

[3:20 p.m.]

A. Wilkinson: Well, then, the obvious question that arises is: why are the

private members who are part of the government confidence and supply

agreement not captured in this? Surely the two private members in the

Third Party should be captured in this, because they have far more

influence on the government budget than does the Leader of the

Opposition. I’d appreciate an explanation.

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question. He and I definitely have a

different understanding of the role of the Third Party members and the

government and, I think, maybe a different understanding than the Third

Party might have as well.

In any event, the bill focuses on leaders of the political

parties. I know that we’re in a minority government situation, and

arguably, in terms of vote and influence, the leaders of all three

parties are in a remarkably different than usual situation in terms of

the potential for power and influence within the Legislature, including

on the budget and so on.

I simply disagree with the member’s characterization, and I’m not

sure what else I can do to help him out with that.

A. Wilkinson: I think it’s stating the obvious that the two private members who

are a part of the Third Party can defeat this government at any vote at

any time. On the budget, on motions of confidence, on anything

whatsoever they have the power to bring the government down, yet they

are not captured by this section. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: Well, so could, I guess, a group of two MLAs from the government

back bench so defeat the government, if they chose to do that. I’m not

sure that that is particularly helpful, unless the member is proposing

that the amendment would be that all MLAs should be prohibited from

participating in these kinds of events. I mean, that is a position. This

is a less restrictive provision, but I take the member’s

point.

A. Wilkinson: I think the point is that it would certainly seem obvious that any

individual or group of individuals who can bring the government down on

a day’s notice or on no notice whatsoever should be included in this

highly influential group of political actors — including the Premier,

members of executive council, parliamentary secretaries and, for that

matter, any member of the confidence and supply agreement — which could

be expressed, in statutory terms, as part of a coalition or voting

arrangement which is capable of bringing the government down. That does

not include the Leader of the Opposition.

So this is a particularly cherry-picked section, it would seem,

which is designed to control the behaviour of the Leader of the

Opposition while exerting no control whatsoever over the Third Party

private members, who actually have the power to bring the government

down. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: Just in terms of the principle of this section, it’s not about who

brings the government down. It’s about transparency around fundraising

for major political parties in the Legislature and how they raise their

money. I hear the member say that the Leader of the Opposition wouldn’t

be involved in this, bringing the government down, but obviously the

vote of the Leader of the Opposition would be required to do that and

would be voting to bring the government down. So if that was the

definition, if that was how you defined who should be captured by this,

obviously then, every member of the House, especially in a minority

situation, would be captured by that.

The intent of this

section is really to focus on how the major

parties are fundraising, what they are doing — can the public look and

understand what’s happening? — and to bring some transparency to some

activities that were taking place in British Columbia around fundraisers

at private residences. We think that that should be changed, and we

think that the particular concerns that the public had were focused on

particular groups of people — the Premier, the cabinet, Leaders of the

Opposition and Leaders of any third parties. That’s the intent that is

behind this section.

A. Wilkinson: Let’s just be clear. The mischief here was the cash-for-access

allegations over the past few years. Access was to be to decision-makers

who had access to the government budget or could affect the life of the

government. That includes members of the executive council — obviously,

the Premier, cabinet ministers, parliamentary secretaries, as are listed

here.

[3:25 p.m.]

But this statute does not attempt to capture two of the most

powerful people in this room, who are the private members of the Third

Party. Yet it extends across the aisle to Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition

and attempts to control the behaviour of the opposition leader, who has

no ability to affect the government budget and its

expenditure.

If cash-for-access was the mischief, this is an entirely misled

section, in that it captures the leader of the opposition and does not

capture the two individuals who keep this government in power. Is that

correct?

Hon. D. Eby: Given the composition of the current Legislature, it’s very clear

that every MLA that votes on a confidence motion has a significant

amount of power. On the member’s description, it doesn’t draw a line

between backbench members of the government and the members of the

opposition who would be voting in favour of a non-confidence motion or

voting against a bill that could potentially bring the government down.

It would be everybody in the Legislature who should be captured. I mean,

if he’s putting that amendment forward, then that’s an interesting

proposal, and he should do so, but I don’t think he is.

To be blunt, the previous government made an art form of this type

of fundraising. The previous Premier, with her fundraiser-in-chief, Bob

Rennie, held countless — we don’t know how many — fundraisers of this

nature, where she sat down for dinner with people who paid as much as

$10,000 each to have dinner with her and then, the next day, attended at

executive council and made decisions related to those individuals who

had attended those fundraisers. That was, in my opinion, unacceptable

conduct for a Premier.

Now that is why we’re putting forward this particular proposal and

amendment to change the rules. This is what got us on the cover of the

New York Times . I think it’s pretty straightforward. The

member takes exception to the fact that we would include the Leader of

the Opposition. We think it’s fair play.

All major parties should be subject to these rules. It would be an

insult to the role that the opposition leader plays to exclude the

opposition leader, because the opposition leader has influence and has

impact on what’s discussed in the Legislature and what the priorities

are through any number of tools — through committee, through private

member’ bills, through question period, through various political

activities.

This is about transparency for all political parties so that

everybody is participating on the same set of rules and so that the

public has confidence in terms of how major political parties are

raising their money.

A. Wilkinson: To finalize the point, I gather this

section does not apply and

does not restrict in any way the fundraising activity in private

residences for those two private members of the Third Party. They’re not

captured in this at all, and they can use their influence and control

over the survival of this government for fundraising. Is that

true?

Hon. D. Eby: They are subject to the same restrictions that the opposition is.

They can’t hold a fundraising function like this if their leader

attends.

A. Wilkinson: We’ll move on in the

section to sub 185.02(d). This is the

section

that provides that any of the specified fundraising functions that use a

private residence require the disclosure of “the address of the premises

and the name of the person who usually uses the premises as a private

residence.”

I suppose it starts to trigger privacy issues here. I’d like to

get some response from the minister, in that this seems to be on the

point of intimidating or precluding the use of any such residence due to

the level of disclosure required.

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct. There would be privacy issues with the

publication of personal information, which is why subsection (4) of

185.02….

Maybe I’ll start at the beginning of how this

section works. Sub

185.02(1) requires that no later than seven days before the date of a

specified fundraising function, a certain set of information must be

provided to the Chief Electoral Officer. That’s subsections (

a) through

(e).

[3:30 p.m.]

One of these subsections, subsection (d)(i), requires the

reporting of the private residence address where the event is going to

be held and the name of the person who usually resides there, whose

house it is that this event is being held at. Although that must be

reported to the Chief Electoral Officer, if you look at subsection (4),

what’s published publicly is not all of that information that’s

reported. In fact, specifically, subsection (d)(

i) is

excluded.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

What is published to the public is which members of the executive

council or leaders of political parties will be attending, the amount of

the charge, the date and the time and this type of information. What is

not published is the name of the person who usually resides in the house

and at the address. That’s only reported to the Chief Electoral Officer.

It’s not published publicly.

A. Wilkinson: This takes us to subsection (e), which includes into this category

of disclosure to the Chief Electoral Officer any event held by a

leadership contestant who has, I can assure the minister, no influence

whatsoever over anything to do with government. So it begs the question

of why that category is included in this rather onerous and somewhat

oppressive disclosure requirement.

Hon. D. Eby: The current iteration of this Legislature and the leadership

contest that’s going on right now is not the only context in which

leadership races have been held in this province.

It is very possible that a leadership contestant for a political

party, on being named the leader of the political party with the

majority of seats in the Legislature, could become the Premier. So it is

important, in the name of transparency, that a person who, on completion

of the leadership contest, could become the Premier be held to a certain

level of accountability. That is what this aims at, in terms of

transparency around how funds are raised.

The Chair: Shall

section 6 pass?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

The Chair: Are you on

section 6?

A. Wilkinson: Mr. Chair, I’m on

section 6.

Subsection (2), there’s the requirement that no later than 60

days….

I’m being oppressed by the Chair, but I’ll accept that role as his

due power and duties.

Anyway, no later than 60 days after the date of the specified

fundraising function…. The earlier iteration in the statute provided it

be no more than five days after the function. So it’s hard to understand

why the publication of this information should be delayed from five days

to 60 days. Can I have an understanding of why that is?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member why 60 days was chosen for this section. I

can’t advise about the timeline on another bill that has been

proposed.

The reason for 60 days here was that there’s additional

information that’s required to go forward to the Chief Electoral

Officer. In particular, you have to report the number of charges her

individual received for the function as well as the amount of political

contributions raised at the specified fundraising function — so time for

cheques to clear, time for credit cards to be processed, time to compile

the information and remit it to the Chief Electoral Officer for

accountability purposes and transparency purposes around these types of

events.

[3:35 p.m.]

We wanted to ensure that there was sufficient time, given the

nature of the province…. It’s a big place, and there may be activities

for large political parties happening, multiple activities happening,

especially as you get closer to an election. Giving 60 days to be able

to provide this information seemed like a reasonable deadline to get the

information to the Chief Electoral Officer.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

A. Wilkinson: This, of course, describes the political contribution limits. It

states that an eligible individual must not make political contributions

that have a total value greater than the applicable amount that’s stated

below. So the issue of value comes up.

We see that the existing Election Act — I believe it’s

section 185

— provides for fair market value assessments of contributions if they’re

not in cash. I’d like clarification on this issue of total value being

greater than the applicable amount. For the most part, that’s $1,200, so

this obviously applies to normal cash payments — any kind of financial

instrument that can be valued in dollars.

But can this be extended to goods, to in-kind activity, to

volunteer time, to paid time, to assets arriving in the hands of the

controlled entity, whether it’s a party or an individual?

Hon. D. Eby: The member made a list of a number of different items that might

be counted toward the $1,200 limit. One of those on his list is

definitely not. The hope of the government is that parties will work

hard to find volunteers, that people will volunteer and contribute their

time to political parties and to efforts related to political campaigns.

So volunteer time is not included in what contributes up to the

$1,200.

But the member listed another number of examples of what, under

the current legislation, would be considered in-kind donations —

property and services, under

section 185. This

section does not modify

that. Those types of in-kind donations will contribute to the $1,200

limit.

A. Wilkinson: So we should itemize these. Obviously, cash, assets of

undetermined value need to be valued by their fair market value.

Presumably, services such as air transportation, ground transportation —

those should be valued. But when it comes to an individual’s

contribution, presumably if the individual is being paid by someone

else, not by the party or candidate, that contribution would be valued

toward the $1,200 limit and restricted accordingly. Is that

correct?

Hon. D. Eby: The answer to the member’s question is yes. If it’s paid, yes.

Section 185 sets out the rules for valuing any property or services.

Subsection (2) says: “The value of any property or services is (

a) the

price paid for the property or services, or (

b) the market value of the

property or services, if no price is paid or if the price paid is lower

than the market value.”

If it’s a capital asset, subsection (3) deals with it. For capital

assets, the value of the property is “the market value of using the

property.”

Subsection (4) talks about free advertising space and free

broadcasting time. If it’s made available on an equitable basis to all

other candidates in the election, the value of that is considered zero.

But otherwise, it’s valued as described in

section 185.

[3:40 p.m.]

A. Wilkinson: As far as I know,

section 185 does not deal with the issue of

volunteer time. Can the minister clarify that issue? I take it that in

paid time, the donor would be the employer, not the employee. Is that

correct?

Hon. D. Eby: Under the bill as it’s proposed, an employer or a union should not

be contributing paid employee time to campaigns, because they’re

organizations and they’re forbidden from making those kinds of

donations. So the time actually has to be volunteer time. The person has

to be on vacation or on leave and donating their own time. The employer

can’t donate paid employee time. A union can’t donate paid employee time

to a campaign.

A. Wilkinson: Just for clarity, the employer being a union or a company would

fall outside of the permissible group of donors in that they would be an

organization rather than an individual. Does that apply to a sole

proprietorship? If a dentist who is unincorporated has their dental

assistant, on paid time, go and help a political party, is that captured

when it’s a sole proprietorship and the dentist — if the dentist is the

deemed donor — would be an individual donating up to $1,200?

Hon. D. Eby: Mr. Chair, we just want to be 100 percent on this before I answer

the member. Just a few more minutes.

[3:45 p.m.]

There’s absolutely no question that, regardless of the number of

shareholders of a corporation, a corporation could not make a donation.

So a wholly owned corporation of one dentist could not, in the

corporation’s name, make a contribution as the member has

described.

But if the dentist were unincorporated, or if the dentist made a

contribution in the dentist’s own name as an individual who is eligible

to make a donation, that individual could make that contribution, could

pay for somebody else to work on a campaign — for example, a volunteer

coordinator, or so on — but could not do it as a condition of

employment, and only to a maximum of $1,200 for the contribution by that

individual. That would all count towards this individual’s

contribution.

So the way to think about it is that this dentist could just as

easily pay for anybody to work on a campaign, or contribute towards the

salary of an individual who is working on a campaign as a paid staff

member of the campaign, as the hygienist working at this sole

proprietorship dental clinic that we’re discussing.

I hope that helps the member with clarity.

A. Wilkinson: Just a final point, and I believe it was alluded to already. Paid

vacation time. The same dentist, the same dental assistant taking his or

her vacation time. Is that captured by the $1,200 limit, or is it

irrelevant?

Hon. D. Eby: As long as the employee doesn’t get extra vacation time in order

to go and work on a campaign, then it’s permissible. If it’s part of

their terms of employment and they take their vacation and go and work

on a campaign instead of going to Hawaii, then that’s their

choice.

It can’t be part of the terms of employment. It can’t be

additional extra vacation time. It has to be part of the original deal

with the employee.

A. Wilkinson: In

section 8, there’s the provision, in subsections (2)(a), (b),

(

c) and (d), to include leadership contestants, but it does not include

nomination contestants as was included in the prior version of the bill.

Can the minister explain why nomination contestants aren’t included in

this definition?

Hon. D. Eby: I must be misunderstanding the member’s question. So 186.01(2)(

a) includes nomination contestants of political parties within the $1,200

limit. It wouldn’t be included in (b), (c), or (d). So if the member

could clarify his question.

A. Wilkinson: Are nomination contests affected by these limits or, for that

matter, by this bill at all?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, they are. So 186.01(2)(

a) says that individuals are limited

to making a maximum donation of $1,200, which is made up of a composite

of the amount to the political party itself, the candidates of that

political party, the constituency associations of that political party

and/or the nomination contestants of that political party.

So you could give a hundred bucks to 12 different nomination

contestants to make up your $1,200 limit. You could give $1,200 to a

political party. You could give $600 to a political party and $600 to

various nomination contestants. But you can’t exceed that $1,200

composite amount to any of these potential donation targets.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

section 10.

A. Wilkinson: In

section 10, we see that…. These are the disclosure rules around

contributions — $250. The earlier version of the bill said $100. So it

appears that there is no public disclosure related to any contribution

under $250. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: The $250 reporting threshold is consistent with the current

legislation in British Columbia.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

A. Wilkinson: The obvious question that arises here is the rather unusual number

of $1.16, which is attributed as the spending limit during the campaign

period to be attributed to each of the registered voters. I would

appreciate an explanation of why the amount of $1.16 was

chosen.

Hon. D. Eby: Mr. Chair, with the member’s indulgence, I wonder if I might move

my amendment to

section 11, and then we can discuss the

amendment.

The Chair: Proceed.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to

section 11 standing in my name on the

orders of the day.

SECTION 11, by adding the underlined text as shown

and deleting the text shown as struck

out:

Section 198 is amended

(

a) by repealing subsection (1) and substituting the

following:

(1) In respect of a general election , the total value of

election expenses incurred by a registered political party during the

campaign period must not exceed the amount calculated by

multiplying

(a) $1.16, and

(

b) the total number of registered voters on the lists of voters

for each electoral district prepared under

section

47. ,

and

(1.1) In respect of a general election, a registered political

party not represented by a candidate in the election must also

comply with the expense limits set by

section 235.1 (1) for campaign

period election advertising. ,

(

b) in subsections (3) and (4) by striking out

“ $70 000 ” and

substituting “ $58

000 ” . ,

and

(

c) by adding the following subsection:

(3.1) In respect of a by-election, a registered political

party not represented by a candidate in the election must also

comply with the expense limits set by

section 235.1 (2) for campaign

period election advertising. ]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment sets a spending limit for political parties that do

not endorse any candidates in an election but do sponsor election

advertising during the campaign period. This doesn’t happen often, but

it’s not unheard of. Until now, those parties can simply register as

third-party election advertising sponsors and report under the

third-party rules contained in the act. That won’t work any longer

because of the significant new rules governing third parties contained

in this bill.

This amendment provides that a party in this situation must comply

with the spending limit set out for third parties in respect of any

campaign period election advertising they sponsor. This amendment does

not affect the expense limits for political parties that do sponsor

candidates.

Without this amendment, a political party that did not endorse any

candidates, arguably, could spend up to the maximum expense limit

established for parties just on advertising. That is clearly not the

intent of the expense limit for parties.

Amendment approved.

section 11 as amended.

A. Wilkinson: I repeat the question from earlier about the $1.16. I understand

the minister is ready for that now.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: It is a 25 percent reduction from the current expenses limit

calculated as a per-voter number. That’s how you get to

$1.16.

A. Wilkinson: I take it that it’s a completely arbitrary number, that there’s no

benchmarking from other provinces or jurisdictions. There’s no economic

or financial or political rationale. It’s simply a number that was

chosen by an arbitrary reduction. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: This is transition back to a pre-2008 way of calculating expense

limits. Previously, there was a per-vote amount, and then in 2008, that

was changed to a flat number. We’re going back to a per-vote

amount.

The member is correct that there’s no science to election spending

limits. The intent here was to reflect the feedback that the government

received during the election campaign that people thought that the

expense limits were too high. It was our policy approach to reduce the

expense limits by 25 percent from the 2017 general election to indicate

to the public that we had clearly heard that feedback.

We think that the 25 percent figure strikes a good balance in

terms of the aims of ensuring that parties have sufficient resources to

contest an election, and the public can understand the issues at play.

Also, it responds to the concern from members of the public that simply

too much money was being spent in election campaigns and their desire to

get big money out of politics.

A. Wilkinson: Reading it in conjunction with

section 204 of the existing

Election Act, is this indexed for inflation?

Hon. D. Eby:

Section 204(2) provides for adjustment for inflation for this

$1.16 figure in this section.

A. Wilkinson: Again, the amount of $70,000 found in subsection (b), to be

reduced to $58,000…. That’s not a 20 percent reduction. That’s just an

arbitrary reduction of about 17 percent.

Perhaps the minister can explain how that one was changed by a

different percentage than the $1.16 amount — and seems to be equally

arbitrary.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member is on his game today. It is less than 25 percent, but

the trick is that the $70,000 figure, from what is proposed to be the

old act, was indexed to inflation and had inflated to the neighbourhood

of $77,000, and $58,000 reflects the 25 percent reduction from the

inflation-adjusted figure.

A. Wilkinson: I take it that the $58,000 is a reduction from roughly $76,000 to

$58,000.

Hon. D. Eby: That is correct.

Section 11 as amended approved.

section 12.

A. Wilkinson: I see there is some disquiet on the back bench on the other side,

expressing itself as random utterances. But if we can just talk in

subsection (

b) there. Again, $140,000 being reduced to $116,000 — is

that the same history, that there is an inflation markup on the $140,000

which is then reduced to $116,000?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct. It was adjusted due to inflation and then

reduced by 25 percent.

Sections 12 to 15 inclusive approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment respecting

section 15.1 standing in my name

on the orders of the day.

SECTION 15.1, by adding the following

section:

15.1 The following

section is added:

Interim financial reports by registered political parties

eligible for allowances

207.01

(1) Within 30 days after the end of an

interim reporting period, the financial agent of a registered political

party referred to in

section 215.02 (1) must file with the chief

electoral officer, on behalf of the political party, an interim

financial report in accordance with this section.

(2) An interim financial report under subsection (1) must be in

the form prescribed by regulation and must include the following

information:

(

a) the political contributions the registered political party

accepted during the interim reporting period;

(

b) any transfers of money or other property or the provision of

services, as referred to in

section 180 (6), made or received by the

registered political party during the interim reporting

period;

(

c) any political contributions received during the interim

reporting period by the registered political party but returned or

otherwise dealt with in accordance with

section 189;

(

d) any other information required to be included by

regulation.

(3) An interim financial report under subsection (1) must also

include the information described under subsection (2) in relation to an

organization primarily controlled by the registered political

party.

(4) For 2018, the interim reporting periods are the

following:

(

a) January 1 to June 30;

(

b) July 1 to December 31.

(5) For 2019 and subsequent years, the interim reporting periods

are the following:

(

a) January 1 to March 31;

(

b) April 1 to June 30;

(

c) July 1 to September 30;

(

d) October 1 to December 31.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment will require political parties that receive more

than a certain threshold of votes in an election to file interim

financial reports with the Chief Electoral Officer. That threshold is

the same as the threshold established for being eligible for the annual

allowance for political parties that is contemplated in

section 20 of

the bill.

For the first transitional year, these reports will be required

semi-annually and thereafter on a quarterly basis. They are not full

financial reports, but rather, reports of political contributions and

transfers.

A. Olsen: I just would like to raise my hands to the member for

Vancouver-Quilchena, who’s going through this bill in great detail and

doing a great job of making sure that the questions are

clear.

I just want to stand and speak in support of this amendment. This

is one of the measures that the B.C. Green caucus has brought forward.

We thought that it would strengthen the legislation, as well as increase

transparency for British Columbians, as well as for the media to be able

to track more closely who’s donating to the political parties, how much

they’re donating, and ensuring that we don’t have just a single lens to

look through, but perhaps a lens on a more regular basis to see who’s

contributing to B.C. political parties.

Amendment approved.

Section 15.1 approved.

The Chair: Just for clarity,

section 15 has been passed, and

section 15.1

as proposed has also been passed.

section 16.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to

section 16 standing in my name on the

orders of the day.

SECTION 16 (e), by deleting the text shown as struck

out and adding the underlined text as

shown:

Section 209 is amended

(

e) in subsection (6) by striking out “ the next general

election. ” and substituting

“ the next general election and must not

include the address of an individual a

contributor . ” ]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment has the same intent as the earlier amendment, with

the same wording. It changes a reference from “individual” to

“contributor” in regard to making the address of an individual available

for public inspection in annual financial reports filed by political

parties. The reason is that referring to “individual” in this

section is

too broad. It would exclude other people, such as parties’ financial

agents, whose addresses are required to be made public by other

provisions of the act.

[4:05 p.m.]

The intent of the provision is to keep addresses of those who make

political contributions from being made public. They will be reported to

Elections B.C., however, under other provisions of the act.

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

section 17.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to

section 17 standing in my name on the

orders of the day.

SECTION 17, by adding the underlined text as shown

and deleting the text shown as struck

out:

Section 210 is amended

(

a) in subsection (1) by adding the following

paragraph:

(a.1) a registered political party that sponsored campaign

period election advertising, ,

( a

b) in subsection

(2) (

a) by adding “ and those election expenses for

which the political party makes a claim for reimbursement under

section

215.04 ” after “ the applicable election

expenses limit ”,

( b

c) in subsection (2) (

e) by

repealing subparagraph (ii) and substituting the

following:

(ii) for permissible loans, the information recorded under

section 190 (4) and (4.1); ,

( c

d) in subsection (2) (

f) by striking out

“ under

section 190 (5); ” and

substituting “ under

section 190 (5) and,

if applicable, under

section 190 (6); ” ,

and

( d

e) by adding the following

subsection:

(5) If a registered political party is entitled to reimbursement

for election expenses under

section 215.04, the financial agent for the

political party must file, with the election financing report required

under this section, a claim for reimbursement and financial records and

receipts supporting the claim.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment amends

section 210 of the act respecting filing

election expenses reports by political parties. It flows from the

earlier amendment respecting political parties that do not endorse any

candidates in an election but do sponsor campaign-period election

advertising. This amendment requires such a party to file an election

expenses report so that there is a public record respecting its

advertising expenses and contributions that supported it. It takes the

place of reporting under the third-party sponsor provisions, which such

parties previously would have filed under.

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

section 18.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to

section 18 standing in my name on the

orders of the day.

SECTION 18 (c), by deleting the text shown as struck

out and adding the underlined text as

shown:

Section 211 is amended

(

c) in subsection (5) by striking out

“ the next general election. ” and

substituting “ the next general election and must

not include the address of an individual a

contributor . ” ]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment is the same as the previous two amendments

respecting changing a reference from “individual” to “contributor” in

regards to making the address of an individual available for public

inspection in information filed by political parties under this act.

This amendment makes that change in

section 211 of the act respecting

election expenses reports by leadership contestants.

Amendment approved.

Section 18 as amended approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment respecting

section 18.1 standing in my name

on the orders of the day.

SECTION 18.1, by adding the following

section:

18.1

Section 213 (2) is amended by adding

“ an interim financial report under

section

207.01 or ” before “ a

supplementary report ” . ]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment excludes the interim financial reports discussed

earlier from the requirement to be audited. These reports are not full

financial reports, but rather reports of political contributions.

Because they are due 30 days after the relevant reporting period, there

isn’t time for proper auditing to be undertaken. Full audited annual

reports by political parties will continue to be required, as they are

now.

Amendment approved.

Section 18.1 approved.

section 19.

A. Wilkinson: The section, as stated in the traditional way, says the Chief

Electoral Officer “may publish” on an Elections B.C. authorized Internet

website “a report that must be available for public inspection.” Why is

it that it is not mandatory in saying that the Chief Electoral Officer

shall publish that report on the website?

Hon. D. Eby: Under the existing legislation, there is no requirement or in fact

legislative authorization for publishing reports on the Elections B.C.

Internet site. This is a new…. No one is suggesting that previously it

was not permitted, but this is an explicit authority for the Chief

Electoral Officer, in the event that someone challenged it, to put

reports on the Elections B.C. website. It has been their practice to do

that. There is a requirement in the act, which is mandatory, that the

report must be made publicly available.

Certainly, the belief and the understanding of the government,

given the practice of the Chief Electoral Officer and the mandatory

requirement of public availability, is that there is really no issue of

non-compliance or requiring publication. The issue was more about

ensuring that the Chief Electoral Officer had statutory authority to do

what was already the practice of the office.

Section 19 approved.

section 20.

[4:10 p.m.]

A. Olsen: I’m expecting that this

section of the bill will receive some

considerable debate. The B.C. Green caucus has taken a close look at the

merits of introducing public financing into our system. If we look

across western democracies, almost without exception countries have

opted to balance private election financing with some elements of public

financing. The simple fact is that this is good public policy and worthy

of implementing ourselves in principle.

There is, however, one element of this public financing regime

that our caucus has some issues with, which we expressed to the

government over our conversations once this bill was tabled. It relates

to one aspect of the reimbursement provisions contained within this

section.

At this time, I’d like to rise to propose my amendment to

section

20 of this bill, one that’s been on the order papers. I’ve got copies of

the amendment here for the minister and the critic. So I’d like to move

this amendment, a straightforward change striking out the 10 percent

threshold that parties must meet in order to receive a rebate of their

election expenses, replacing that with a new threshold of 5 percent, as

has been expressed on the order papers for the last couple of days, or

day and a half.

SECTION 20, in the proposed

section 215.04 (5) (b)

(

i) by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text

shown as underlined:

(

i) in the most recent general election received at least

10% 5% of the total number of valid votes

cast in the election, or]

The Chair: Member for Saanich North and the Islands, can you speak to the

amendment?

On the amendment.

A. Olsen: Yes, I can speak to the amendment.

All of the changes that we’ve brought forward in this bill and,

indeed, our commitment in the election campaign and in signing the

confidence and supply agreement — to see this to be among the first

pieces of legislation tabled by a new government. It comes from a belief

that people, not special interests, should be what drive political

campaigns in this province. In order to accomplish this, we need to

ensure that a level playing field exists between political parties and

that changes we introduce do not entrench the existing parties in an

unfair manner.

It is our belief that small parties that receive the votes of one

in 20 voters should be able to receive the same level of public support

that has been provided to larger political parties. For new parties just

emerging in British Columbia, 10 percent represents a significant hurdle

to overcome, especially when established parties that will no doubt

spend considerably more money are receiving a 50 percent rebate. But

simply, the current threshold of 10 percent creates an unfair playing

field in British Columbia, entrenching large, established parties,

providing them with additional resources inaccessible to smaller

parties.

I believe that this is against the spirit of the legislation that

is before us today. It is not the intention of anyone in this House to

create such an imbalance in our political system, especially as we move

to finally remove the imbalance and unfairness that having corporate and

union donations in our system creates.

[4:15 p.m.]

This isn’t a concern that we alone have raised. In fact, the

interim leader of the official opposition also noted that this

legislation shouldn’t be unfair to smaller parties. This amendment is a

step to correct one area that creates an imbalance.

Our amendment is also advanced within the context of ensuring that

good public policy is driving the development of legislation in this

House. In 2016, the OECD published a report titled Financing

Democracy, which outlined that electoral finance systems that

allow only private donations can have a corrosive effect on democracy

and that healthy democracies strike a balance between public and private

funding, with 33 of 34 other OECD countries having some form of public

funding.

However, this same report makes clear that in introducing a better

balance between public and private resources, we must ensure that we do

not create an unlevel playing field between parties. Establishing a

threshold is fine, but it should not foster undue unfairness between

political parties. The current 10 percent threshold does just

that.

I hope that this amendment finds the support of others in this

House and that we are willing to ensure that the new system we set up

today is fair for all parties that wish to take

part in our democracy

and in our elections.

The Chair: Member, there are procedural difficulties with this proposed

amendment, but as a courtesy, the Chair allowed the member to make

some comments. I’ll read my ruling now regarding this amendment, and

then we can talk about that afterwards.

Hon. Members, the ruling on this amendment, the amendment to

section 20 as proposed by the member for Saanich North and the

Islands, lowers the threshold required for a political party to

qualify for reimbursement of election expenses. A political party

that has received in the most recent general election 5 percent of

the vote instead of 10 percent proposed in the bill will qualify for

reimbursement of reimbursable election expenses up to a maximum of

50 percent, as set out in Bill 3.

I refer members to Standing Order 67, which states: “It shall

not be lawful for the House to adopt or pass any vote, resolution,

address, or Bill for the appropriation of any part of the public

revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been

first recommended to the House by Message of the Lieutenant-Governor

in the Session in which such vote, resolution, address, or Bill is

proposed.”

MacMinn Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia

sets out the types of amendments that are permissible at committee

stage and those that are inadmissible. As noted in MacMinn on page

219, an amendment is inadmissible if it imposes a charge, extends

its objects or purposes or alters or qualifies the definition of

grants. These amendments are available to the government on

message.

The amendments to

section 20, if adopted, would increase or

impose an additional charge on the public revenues, as more

political parties could qualify for reimbursement of election

expenses and is therefore out of order in the hands of a private

member.

I should add that the same amendment, if moved by the minister

of the Crown, would fall within the scope of the original message of

the Lieutenant-Governor, recommended in Bill 3, Election Amendment

Act, 2017, to this House.

Amendment ruled out of order.

Point of Order

A. Weaver: I rise on a point of order — not to, of course, question your ruling.

We appreciate the time and effort that’s been put into this. My concern is

not with the ruling per se. It’s about the functioning of the House here and

the process by which amendments are dealt with.

In this case, we agree with your ruling. We recognize and we

understand the thought that has gone into it. However, it is not uncommon

for us to receive amendments from members opposite with no notice, yet we

don’t rule on these. We imme