Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, October 19, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 38

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Constitution Amendment Act, 2017 (continued)

R. Kahlon

P. Milobar

A. Olsen

Hon. S. Simpson

D. Barnett

S. Furstenau

S. Gibson

J. Rustad

N. Letnick

Hon. M. Mungall

Hon. D. Eby

Bill 9 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor

Corrections) Amendment Act, 2017

Hon. D. Eby

M. Morris

A. Weaver

Hon. D. Eby

Bill 8 — Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2017

Hon. D. Eby

L. Throness

Hon. M. Mungall

A. Olsen

M. Morris

Hon. J. Sims

D. Barnett

Hon. B. Ralston

R. Sultan

M. Elmore

A. Weaver

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education

Hon. R. Fleming

M. Polak

D. Davies

N. Letnick

S. Cadieux

L. Throness

J. Isaacs

A. Weaver

J. Thornthwaite

S. Bond

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2017

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

J. Yap: It’s my honour to introduce some visitors to the precinct of the

Legislative Assembly. We have a group of students from Steveston-London

Secondary School, in my riding of Richmond-Steveston, who are presently on a

tour.

This is a regular visit by the class of Mrs. Christie, who brings with

her today 48 grade 10 students and, along with them, two adults. She has

been regularly visiting the Legislature with her students — part of her

commitment to providing a great socials education to her students, by

bringing them here to the people’s House. Would the members of the

Legislative Assembly please join me in giving Mrs. Christie and her class a

warm welcome to our parliament.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to introduce to the House today…. Four of the best

high schools in the province are located in my riding, and all four of them

are equal.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hey, I’m channelling our former member Dave Hayer, who used to say

just that.

Anyway, the school of Terry Fox is visiting the precincts today. They

have been touring, and then some got to watch question period this morning.

I would ask the House to make them most welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this House, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 5 and, in

Committee A, debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Education.

[1:35 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — CONSTITUTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

R. Kahlon: I rise again to finish my remarks in this House to support the

Constitution Amendment Act. I spoke at great length yesterday. I think I

only have a little bit of time left. I thank the member from Kamloops

for being here again to listen to my remarks. He was here yesterday as

well. He didn’t heckle….

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: Okay. It’s not because he cares. He’s next.

These changes, if passed, would reduce the number of seats

required for recognized political party status from four to two. The

change would bring a fixed election date to October, from May, and

strengthen the institutional stability of government in the event, for

example, of a natural disaster.

Just yesterday, as I was listening to some of the remarks, the

member for Vancouver-Quilchena raised some queries and some questions

regarding the consultation. So I went away and did some digging, and I

thought I would address those.

One of the questions that was asked was: “Well, why on Saturday?

Why not Wednesday? Why not Thursday, or whatever?” That portion was

actually consulted on with Elections B.C., and Elections B.C. advised

them that…. The stats that Election B.C. has show that advance voter

turnout for the 2017 general election was 170 percent higher on

Saturdays than on weekdays in 81 of the 87 electoral districts. That’s

quite a large number.

Overall advance voter turnout across the electoral districts was

on average 51 percent higher on Saturdays than on weekdays. So we

believe that changing the election day to a Saturday will increase voter

turnout, which will strengthen our democratic process, and engage more

citizens in B.C. in our electoral process.

There also will be less safety issues using schools as polling

stations on Saturdays. As many people know, when the elementary schools

are open and people are going to vote, kids are coming in and out.

Parents are coming in and out and picking them up. There are some safety

concerns around that. Considering that the election day is the day when

people vote the most, I think it’s the prudent thing to do to ensure the

safety of young people going to school.

The second piece which was raised by the member for

Vancouver-Quilchena — I think it was an okay question to ask — was

around the Jewish community and whether they were consulted in doing

this, considering it is a religious holiday. I’ve also found out that

the Orthodox Rabbinical Council of B.C., the United Synagogue of

Conservative Judaism and the Canadian Council for Reform Judaism were

just a few of the organizations that were consulted.

Essentially, things were slightly changed according to the

recommendations that came back, and an extra day during the week was

provided to ensure that they had the same amount of days to vote. So

that issue was a concern, and the member for Vancouver-Quilchena had

raised it. We’ve consulted with the Saturday Sabbatarians as

well.

We heard from some religious groups. We accommodated the religious

groups by ensuring that there are plenty of opportunities to vote on

other days. Currently the Election Act allows six advance voting days,

including two Saturdays. We made the change to only having the election

day on Saturdays to accommodate. So we didn’t have two days on Saturday.

We only have the election day on Saturday. We eliminated one of the

advance votings on Saturday to accommodate various groups and to ensure

that their beliefs were respected.

With that, I’m, again, honoured to speak on behalf of and to

support this act and change. I want to thank the Attorney General for

the good work he’s done to put this forward. It’s one of the things I

heard in my community of North Delta. People wanted to ensure that this

system, this building and this structure represent all voices and that

all voices are represented. I believe this is an important step, along

with the other steps that the Attorney General has taken, to address

those things — changes to the lobbyist reform act and financial changes

as well.

With that, I will end my remarks. I thank everyone for

listening.

P. Milobar: It’s my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 5 today in this House.

I’m going to try to stay focused in on the bill and, hopefully, won’t

wander too far off the path here.

[1:40 p.m.]

There are some aspects of the bill that I would like to touch on —

namely, the changing of the number of a party from four to two, the

fixed election date, around Saturday voting, as well, and the advance

voting days. On balance, I don’t think anyone in this House is opposed

to modernizing and always looking at ways to make sure that people can

get out and vote, can be engaged in the democratic process — and to make

sure that legislation is reflecting the realities and the situations

that we sometimes find ourselves in.

There’s no real big issue with that as a starting point and a

premise. In fact, we had, in our short-lived few weeks as government

after the last general election, offered party status to the Green

Party. It’s unfortunate they did not want to read the bill and not vote

for it, but nonetheless, we are here today essentially trying to look at

some of these same situations.

The big difference, though, was the bill that we had presented

would have recognized the Greens as a party of three and not of two.

With all of the changes that we see potentially coming forward with us,

as a province, around electoral reform, the move from four to two is a

little more problematic than four to three. In fact, even the four to

three….

Given the uncertainty that we have in this House, given the

unprecedented makeup that we have currently in the House, one has to

question if the government and the Green Party and their deal around

campaign finance and making sure that taxpayers are funding political

parties with tax dollars…. If they’re able to have that conceivably

expire — although I think we’re all somewhat questioning whether or not

that will ever actually be removed from legislation as the clock gets

closer to the year that it’s supposed to expire on.

But if they’re able to have clauses like that built into a piece

of legislation, one has to wonder why there was not a clause, in this

case, to recognize the Greens as a party with a termination clause,

awaiting to see what would happen with the proportional representation

by-election and referendum, to see what exactly we would be dealing with

in terms of a form of government, moving forward. Because once you

instill something in, it’s much harder to remove that from practice and

operation.

Personally, I do not begrudge the Green Party being recognized as

a party during this session and the duration of this government. I think

that does make sense, but I do question why, other than for purely

self-serving political reasons, you would not want to have a review of

that built into a system, given all of the other changes that we’re

looking at within our electoral reform system.

One then has to jump to the natural question: is the reason that

the Green Party did not want three but wants two because they’re not

confident that they’ll have all three members stay within their party

for the duration of this term? They want to make sure that they hang on

to a party.

It’s not unusual to see people cross the floor in this House, and

it happens federally as well. It happens in legislatures all across this

land. It’s part of our democratic process, and it can happen. So one

does have to, though, question: have there already been some rumblings

of potential fracturing of the coalition? And they want to make sure, by

ensuring a number of two instead of a number of three, that they could

remain on as a party.

The other reason to…. I question whether or not the government had

given full thought to the number two versus three. It does make it much

simpler. I know there are some very long-serving members on the side

opposite that were probably, sorry to say, expecting cabinet positions,

and with it come a lot more remuneration and responsibilities. With this

move to two, it could very easily see some of those members that were

expecting to attach a cabinet position looking and saying: “Well, if we

create our own party, we would then be treated as a leader and as a Whip

and a few other duties and see that same bump in

remuneration.”

I would look forward to the day that you see a Nanaimo–Sunshine

Coast party, for example, in this House, because that’s what going from

four to two opens the door for.

I think that any time we want to look at changes to our democratic

process and our procedures and our policies in this House, you have to

do it very carefully.

[1:45 p.m.]

Again, if there’s a willingness to put an expiration date on

taxpayer subsidies for votes into a bill, I don’t understand why

something as fundamental as changing the number around what constitutes

a party in this House, especially in light of a proportional

representation referendum coming, would not have some sort of clause in

it as well that would say that we recognize that this is a very unique

situation. We have a minority government situation. We have a situation

where the public did not actually elect the current sitting

government.

We have no dispute that they are duly constituted as the

government, but they did not win the majority of seats in the election,

as a standard government would. They are held together as a coalition

with the Green Party — again, well within the rules of parliamentary

procedure. No one is disputing that in the least, but let’s face it;

they were not elected by the public in a majority situation. They were

appointed to be government. That’s always the concerning point when you

have this type of fundamental change being proposed, when you have a

non-duly, majority elected government in place.

In terms of the dates…. This is perhaps more troubling than the

move from four to two, and I’m not quite understanding that side of it.

But moving the date to an October date…. Again, October. Let’s not get

caught up in spring or fall. I’m not hearing a lot of people on this

side of the House saying that there’s a problem around the October date.

We, in fact, have municipal elections now starting in 2018 in October

instead of November. I don’t think that October is really the salient

point of concern for this side of the House.

What is interesting, though, again, in an appointed minority

government situation — as I say, not elected as government but appointed

as the government — we have a government willing, instead of taking an

extra six months off of their term, feeling that they somehow have the

authority and the right, a mandate from the public — which I think I’ve

already established was not a voted mandate but an appointed mandate,

procedurally — to suddenly extend it by another six months. So instead

of having it in October of 2020, we’re seeing a reach to try to hang on

to power for that extra six months.

Now, the members opposite will make many comments about how we

were clinging to power in the early days after the May election. We

weren’t clinging to power. We were simply following parliamentary

procedures, testing the House and seeing…. We fully accept the results

of that vote, and we moved on. There was an orderly transition of

government, so there was no clinging. This, however, is nothing more

than a flat-out cling for an extra six months, to change the

parliamentary rules to get yourself the extra six months as a

government, to try to make sure that you could hang on to government for

that extra six months.

Again, why does moving it back six months make more sense in this

situation, this current makeup, where we have a minority appointed

government? Well, I think it’s fair to the taxpayers of this province,

if they’re going to see these changes happen, that they get closure and

a firm vote on what the makeup of the parliament looks like. But also,

it would push the election back to 2020, which, when you look at the

municipal election calendar, actually makes a lot of sense.

Now, I coached hockey and lacrosse and helped out in other sports

and played many sports in my life. The one thing I would always tell the

athletes that I was working with was: “Always worry about focusing and

controlling what you can control in your own game and your own sport,

and don’t worry about what’s going on in the other areas of things that

you can’t control.”

I raise that because what we can control, as the province of

British Columbia, as the government of British Columbia, as the

Legislature for British Columbia, is municipal election dates, and we

can control provincial election dates. We don’t have a lot of say on

what happens federally, but by rolling it back to 2020, we can guarantee

that there’s always a two-year break in between municipal elections and

provincial elections. By making it 2021, you’re always going to be

sabotaging the upcoming municipal election, because the next municipal

election would be in 2022. Therefore, you are actually making sure that

voter fatigue in a form of government that already has very low voter

turnout is a very real problem.

[1:50 p.m.]

That is another reason why 2020, for the good of democracy in this

province — again, dates that we can control in this Legislature — makes

a lot more sense. It gives a little more stability to local governments

around their elections. It gives more stability to the public around

provincial elections, and it provides everyone a very clear road map

forward. Frankly, it says that a government is confident enough of the

job they’re doing that they will actually be elected and not appointed

in a general election and that they’re willing to test that with the

public at 3½ years and not try to reach and stretch and extend to 4½

years.

It’s those types of actions that wind up making people very

cynical about some of the decisions that do come out of this House —

when they see blatant things such as that nature of moving timelines in

terms of the extra six months instead of six months less.

Now, in terms of Saturdays and advance voting days. Advance voting

days and extra advance voting days are, I think, a wonderful idea, and I

think everyone agrees with that. I would point out that we have been

hearing facts and figures around advance voting days and the great voter

turnouts that you see on a Saturday and that that’s going to correlate

to a general election. I would note that we’re now proposing to remove

one of those advance voting days.

In fact, even though we’ve seen record levels on advance voting

days, we’ve seen the same voter turnout that we’ve always had. It just

seems that people are finding it to fit into their

schedule when it’s

convenient for them if they can advance vote. I think that’s wonderful,

but although we’ve seen a large increase in advance voting numbers, both

municipally and provincially, we have not seen the correlation to a

higher voter turnout at the end of the general election.

Why this is concerning is…. Again, fully support more advance

voting days. But we’re removing an advance day on a Saturday to put a

general election day in on a Saturday. Now, why Saturday is a little bit

concerning to me is that the data for voting on a Saturday is actually

very clear when you look at elections. There is no provincial and no

federal election ever on a Saturday in this country. Not one

jurisdiction does it. They’re all weekdays. The only time that we go and

vote on a Saturday is for municipal elections. Municipal elections, if

you’re running in a municipal setting, average about 33 percent voter

turnout. Municipal elections, if you’re running in an unincorporated

rural area, get out at 22 percent.

I would point out that there are, historically, almost ten times

as many people running in municipal campaigns than run provincially.

There were almost 3,400 or 3,500 people in the last municipal campaign.

There were about 370 or so in this last provincial campaign, which means

that you have ten times the people going out and encouraging their

friends and their families and their supporters to “please get out and

vote” and “please get out and support me,” and we see half the voter

turnout than you do on a provincial election.

So no, I don’t think moving to a Saturday for the general election

day is a good idea. History in this province has very clearly

demonstrated that we have a form of government…. You get very low, not

very high, voter turnout whatsoever, and to me, that’s the data that you

need to look at. That’s the same voter. We always talk about one

taxpayer. Well, that one taxpayer is also the one voter. So for those

reasons, I have some problems with the bill.

I do wish that the two parties had actually put a little more

concern into the general electorate in terms of their ability to vote,

their willingness to want to engage in the democratic process. The

concern about what our parliament and our Legislature may look like,

moving forward, after the results of a proportional representation

referendum, which could fundamentally change how this House operates

forever.

We need to take all of those into consideration. So to not have

clauses built in so that after the next general election, there’s not an

expectation that this is the new law and, for sure, it’s two members in

a party…. Could you imagine if there are several smaller parties that

get elected if proportional representation was to come to

fruition…?

Could you imagine the cost to the taxpayer to run this exact same

House with who knows how many different Leaders of the Official

Opposition? Could you imagine how long something like question period

would take if you had six parties in this House, all demanding their

same equal time because we have six parties of two in this

House?

[1:55 p.m.]

Operationally it becomes very problematic to try to deal with.

Again, no problem at all offering party status to the Green Party with a

number of three. I would prefer to see it with an expiration clause,

just as we have seen in the legislation where we’re trying to line

political parties’ pockets with taxpayers’ dollars. There is supposed to

be an expiration clause, so one has to wonder: will that clause ever

actually be enacted?

That’s the overall problem, I think. Instead of this being one

large piece of legislation that the public could really sink their teeth

into on the whole scale, we’ve seen bits and pieces introduced. We’ve

seen the finance reform bill come in, with the surprise hidden gem of

millions of taxpayers’ dollars going to make sure that the NDP have

their debts paid off. Then we see this piece of legislation. And oh, by

the way, there’s this other piece of legislation off to the side around

proportional representation election.

One would think…. We’ve heard for — well, I’ll say it before you

say it — 16 years, right? That’s the term, 16 years? For 16 years, we

have heard from the members opposite…. For 16 years, we’ve heard lovely

buzzwords about open and transparent and democratic and not

democratic.

Here is the perfect opportunity to be open and transparent and

democratic. And yet, with a willingness to study everything right now

that might have any type of economic benefit to this province, we’re

seeing the government put that completely on hold and make sure that

there is a study layered by a study layered by a study. I believe it was

actually the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head during the election that

said: “Their plan is to have a plan for a plan.” And it seems to be

coming true.

Why we don’t see these three pieces of legislation having been

bundled together to have a proper discussion with the public around what

their democratic future of this province would look like, instead of

piecemeal, one piece of legislation after the next? That — to the

average person who doesn’t necessarily pay that close attention to what

goes on in this House….

I know that’s shocking, because I’m sure our ratings have spiked

heavily this week. But for the average person that’s worried about

getting around and making sure that they’re getting to and from work and

their kids to and from activities, they’re not paying that close

attention, because they’ve put a lot of trust into us.

For them to not have the benefit and the courtesy, frankly, of the

government to make sure that all of these new changes are being

presented as one package — because that’s what they really are; they all

deal with our fundamental democratic rights as a society — does not seem

open and transparent to me. It does not seem very democratic to me. And

it does make one always question…. The words are very nice, but the

actions are what really count.

Now, yesterday the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head went into some

quite elaborate calculations around how many members from each party had

how many votes and that’s how many people they represented. I believe we

were at about 18½ thousand, the NDP were about 19½ thousand, the Green

Party was 105,000. Unfortunately, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head

kept saying: “So that’s how many people we represent each in this

House.” Well, I have news. First off, there was not 100 percent voter

turnout, and obviously, not everyone, because of age, can

vote.

So no. Members of this House all represent a great more than the

19,000, probably closer to 105,000 that the Greens do. But I want to go

on the record and be very clear here. I don’t represent 19,000 people

that voted for the B.C. Liberal Party. I’m in this House representing

everyone from Kamloops–North Thompson, whether they voted for me — which

is their democratic right not to do — or not.

When they come into my office and ask for help, I make sure they

get the help that they need from the government. And for the most part,

the government is very good at making sure that those files are looked

at and people’s issues and concerns are being dealt with in a very

non-partisan way to make sure people get the supports and the help that

they need in their daily lives.

I just wanted to really emphasize that point, because it struck me

as a little odd yesterday that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head would

choose to characterize that the only people that get represented in this

House by the Green Party are the people that voted for the Greens,

regardless of where they live in the province.

I don’t think that the member from the Green Party that’s sitting

here right now believes that. I think he does his level best, as we all

do, to make sure that our constituents are looked after, after an

election is over, regardless of their political stripe, to make sure

that their needs are met by the government and the help that they need

coming their way is happening.

[2:00 p.m.]

I just wanted to really touch on that because, to me, if that’s

the logic that we’re using to somehow come up from four to two, to come

up with a later election date, six months of extra power time grab…. If

that’s what we’re using to try to rationalize the numbers and the logic

around voting on a Saturday, when no one else in the country

does….

I’ve said this on a couple of other bills. It’s interesting. When

there’s a province doing something that we want to, as government,

justify our actions on, we seem to cling to what that province is doing

and say: “Well, we should be doing it like Alberta” or “We should be

doing it like Ontario” or “We should be doing it like Quebec,” even

though they get $11 billion in transfer payments. A lot is from B.C.,

actually, of that $11 billion.

However, in this case, when there is not one province that

actually votes on a Saturday, we suddenly go silent on trying to emulate

what other provinces are doing. Suddenly, we can do it better and

different than those other provinces. That’s always a little problematic

when that seems to happen. We grasp for the example that best suits the

narrative, when you’re in government, to try to cram through some

legislation that does not serve the public the best that it actually

could.

I would have preferred that these bills all get presented at the

same time. We could have had the public take a good look and understand

the inner workings and the complexities of what each of these decisions

means. As a stand-alone decision, each one doesn’t seem that dramatic.

When you look at the whole package, though, it’s very large and very

different in terms of what we will see moving forward on

this.

No one has ever said democracy was an inexpensive form of

government, so I’m not as worried that we will now see another Leader of

the Opposition receiving those types of remunerations. That’s totally

fine, and I understand that, especially when it’s three parties in the

situation we do have.

But I think the taxpayer has the right to try to wrap their head

around what happens if we do have six, seven, eight parties of two in

this House. What does that cost structure look like to the taxpayer?

Again, one voter and only one taxpayer, and they’re the same person. I

know sometimes we lose sight of that, but they’re the same person that

is going to be impacted by this.

Ultimately, when you’re not looking after the pennies, the dollars

start to add up in a big hurry. There is a very real financial cost to

even this piece of legislation long term and the implications of that. I

guess, at its core, I’m a little disappointed, given the $1 million

secretariat that we have — again, taxpayers’ dollars — that there wasn’t

a little more thought put in.

I don’t know. Maybe a little bit of, for lack a better term,

goodwill by even the Green Party to say: “You know what? There are three

of us. We don’t need two. Let’s just go to three in this legislation.

Let’s not push it. This is a minority appointed government situation. We

want to make sure that we get this right. We want people to be

comfortable with it. And you know what? Since we have a sunset clause on

dipping into the taxpayers’ pockets to pay off our party’s debts, maybe

we’ll have a sunset clause on the number of people for a party, as well,

just to be fair to the public and make sure that people get a little

more comfortable with this system and make sure that the system is

actually working as intended.”

If there’s one thing that is for certain with government, it’s

that the law of unintended consequences seems to kick in almost every

time — something happens — when there’s a rush to try to make something

come forward. These three packages, because they’ve been brought in

separately, do seem to be trying to either rush or wind up with people

not paying enough attention so that things can get slid through. The

very thing that, for 16 years, we heard from members opposite they did

not like to see done is, in fact, happening.

I thank you for the time. I see my time is almost up. I will give

this a little more consideration and look forward to the vote today, to

see what will happen with Bill 5.

A. Olsen: It is very interesting to be in this place, hearing the conspiracy

theories, the rewrite of history and the reduction of our citizens to

simple taxpayers. I respect the contribution that every citizen makes to

our society, in both casting the ballot and participating in our

democracy. But I would never reduce the citizens to simply just

taxpayers, as we continue to hear over and over and over in this

place.

I’m pleased to be speaking today in support of the Constitution

Amendment Act. This bill makes important changes that I feel are

necessary and overdue to strengthen and update that very democracy which

we all hold so dearly.

[2:05 p.m.]

First, I’d like to say I welcome the change of the fixed election

date from May to October. This is an important and long-overdue change

that all members of this House should be able to get behind.

The B.C. Greens campaigned on changing the fixed election date to

October in order to separate it from the February budget process.

Separating the election date from the budget will result in significant

changes in how our province is run — important changes. It will end the

practice of government creating these pre-election budgets where

financial goodies are trotted out and handed out to segments of the

population in order to secure votes, since the May election date is only

a few months after the February budget. It will also stop the budget

debate from sounding more like campaign stump speeches than reasoned

debate on the provincial books.

I hope that this will enable more substantive engagement from all

members of this House on future budgets and more nuanced and honest

conversation about what aspects of the budget members support, what they

don’t support and why. Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of having the

February budget closely followed by a May election is that the budget

cannot be passed before the election and that the Auditor General’s

audit of the public books doesn’t come out before July. So it just ends

up turning into theatre. The budget often gets substantially edited or

even rewritten after the election, and it often bears little relation to

what was promised in February. This, I believe, misleads British

Columbians, or it leaves them vulnerable to being misled.

It also creates a situation where the new government, after an

election, is under significant pressure to reconvene parliament and pass

a new budget. I believe that we felt that this summer, the pressure that

that creates. The government is also under pressure, in their budget

update, to make significant changes and fulfil campaign promises. Of

course, we know that in the transition of government, it takes time. The

new ministers take time to fully understand their portfolio and to

understand what might be behind the walls as you tear the drywall off

and find out that there might be some dry rot and some things that need

to be fixed. But this is without the time that’s needed to do the policy

work and the consultations necessary to marshal the evidence.

I find it quite interesting that we keep hearing about the

consultations like it’s a dirty word. The fact of the matter is that we

do need to be connecting with the various stakeholders. In fact, when

the government is not connecting with the stakeholders, then we hear

about how they didn’t connect with the stakeholders. So I think that

it’s important that we do commit to connecting with the citizens of our

province and the stakeholders to ensure that the work that we’re doing

in this place is informed and it’s based on evidence, and that’s the

commitment that the government makes.

The way it is now, it wastes resources and the time and energy of

the Finance Minister and the public service. Most importantly, it

undermines the public trust in government, as British Columbians have

rightly become deeply distrustful of this whole process as the budget is

being put forward and then substantially rewritten after the election.

Moving the election date to October will eliminate these problems, and

it will create a less partisan budgeting process in the

future.

In my view, most decisions in politics are difficult, and it

requires tough trade-offs and the weighing of benefits and drawbacks of

any policy change. I’m certain that anybody who has been a minister in

this House, whether current or former, can attest to the difficulty of

the decisions that are in front of them.

This change, though, is an exception. I think that this change

should have been made years ago, and it will create a less partisan

budgeting process, improve public transparency and eliminate wasted

time, energy and resources in government. Most importantly, it is a step

government can take to improve public confidence and trust in

government.

[2:10 p.m.]

I would also like to touch briefly on the second change this bill

makes, extending official party status to any group of MLAs elected

under a party banner, whether it be two or 22. Of course, today this

change affects me and my colleagues in the B.C. Greens caucus, the MLAs

from Cowichan Valley and Oak Bay–Gordon Head. We’re, of course, thrilled

that our caucus will be represented under one party banner, and the

little banner that’s going to be right under my name here that says

“Independent” will be changed to the party that I ran under, the Green

Party, and the values that we ran under.

But this principle of this change goes far beyond us and far

beyond the Green Party. It’s the right that any group of MLAs who

campaign together under a party banner and who are united by a set of

values and shared platform commitments should be officially represented

in our Legislature as an official caucus, a united caucus.

This is a principle of fair recognition of all parties who

participate in our democracy and elect voices to sit together and work

together in the Legislature with all of our colleagues in this place.

It’s important that we remember that these and other changes that we

pass in the House today affect not only us but all future members of the

House as well.

In sum, I’d like to restate my support for this bill. It takes

important steps to update and modernize our democracy. Extending party

status to parties with two seats or more in this House and changing the

fixed election date are commonsense and overdue changes that I hope

members on all sides of this House will join me in supporting.

HÍSWḴE

SIÁM .

Hon. S. Simpson: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to join in the debate on Bill

5. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson was talking about how some of

these issues will affect potential turnout and the scope of some of

these issues. I would suggest that as the changes that have been

proposed by a number of pieces of legislation brought forward by this

government, we are likely to see those significant increases in turnout

if they occur. We all hope there will be greater numbers in

turnout.

I think we’ll see that, should the referendum on proportional

representation be successful and we move to a new system of proportional

representation, because I think there are many people in this province

who don’t believe their vote is valued. They cast a ballot for their

party of choice, and that’s not reflected in the results.

Instead, we have a Legislature here, regardless of which side,

where power is given to one side or the other side, usually with

significantly less than a majority of the votes cast in the province.

With the exception of the anomaly, really, of 16 years ago in 2001, we

haven’t elected a government in this House that’s had more than 50

percent of the vote. That’s the reality, and I think that people get

frustrated, and they wonder whether their vote counts.

If we move to that system, should the voters of British Columbia

choose to make that change, what we will see here in British Columbia is

a system where the composition of this Legislature reflects the choices

of the voters of this province in terms of the percentages that each of

the respective parties in that election is able to garner. I think that

is probably going to do more to drive turnout than whether we have an

election on a Tuesday or a Saturday, quite honestly.

But I do want to just walk through the changes that are

contemplated in Bill 5. The first is the change of the date to the fall.

I think that the reason…. We’ve been talking about this change for years

in this House. It’s been back and forth. Members on both sides have

talked at different times about this change. Always the fundamental that

has been underlying that change is the issue of the timing of the

budget.

We’ve seen budgets that are, of course, introduced in the spring.

They take an extensive period of time to complete, and without

exception, when we’re in an election year, we are adjourning this place

before a budget is resolved into an election, when the numbers have not

been confirmed by public accounts. There is always at least perception

about whether those budgets are accurate, because they haven’t had that

independent evaluation done that we get out of public

accounts.

[2:15 p.m.]

This change to the fall, in fact, removes that. A government then

does come into an election, campaigning on its record, including its

financial record and including its most recent budget and all of the

things that are included in that.

It has been pointed out that that budget will presumably have been

passed prior to the election so that the new government coming in, in

October is not under the pressures to scramble to complete a budget

process in order to allow the government to continue to function,

operate and have the dollars to continue to operate. That, I think,

becomes a very important thing. That in itself is more than ample reason

to move the election into October and to allow us to vote at that

time.

I heard one of the members earlier. I’ve heard a couple of members

on the other side go back and forth about whether this should be the

fall of 2020 or the fall of 2021. Well, we’ll have a difference of

opinion on that. But I would note, for all members here, that the

reality of this — and this is certainly a reality here, where we have a

minority parliament — is that we could have an election at any time, and

it is about a government being able to hold the confidence of this House

and the majority of members of this House.

We could have an election at any time, and I am confident that we

will have an election in the fall of 2021, when that date is planned,

because I am confident that this government will hold the confidence of

a majority of members of this House. But at the end of the day, we all

know that you can put any election date you choose into legislation, but

unless the majority of the people sitting here are prepared to vote on

matters of confidence, in favour of a government, we will be having an

election at the time when a government can no longer garner that

confidence. That will be the issue moving forward, I’m sure, and I’m

sure that we’ll have a number of confidence votes over the next four

years in order to test that issue.

The question was raised about elections on Saturdays. We know we

all have experience with elections on Saturdays because our local

elections have been held on Saturdays for a significant amount of time.

Elections B.C. has certainly deemed, in discussions, that Saturdays tend

to be good days, in many ways, around a vote. They have seen that in

advanced polling. They certainly don’t seem to have an issue with

that.

I watched the last election. I watched the actions, and I thought

that, really, the positive work of Elections B.C…. I think the thing

that probably most resonates with me about increasing turnout is

understanding that elections aren’t about one day. We have the day that

we call election day, but our success in elections and in getting

turnout, I think, is in having significant advanced voting days,

significant numbers, and creating as many opportunities as we can create

for people to exercise their franchise, to create as many opportunities

in the days and weeks heading up to election day, after the writ has

been dropped, for people to cast their ballot. That’s what’s going to go

the farthest, I think, in creating greater turnout. It will be creating

those opportunities where people get to go and vote — and that we don’t

put artificial impediments in their way.

The notion that you have one day that is election day, and it is

the be-all and end-all, whether it’s on a Saturday or Tuesday, is that

kind of error. I think we do much better when we have six or seven days,

at least, that people get a chance to go vote and, as we know, the

opportunity, of course, on the other days to go to your returning

officer if you need to and cast a ballot as well. I think that becomes a

much more significant issue in terms of turnout. Whether it’s a Saturday

or a Tuesday, that’s really much less of an issue.

The good thing, I think, about Saturdays, though, a couple of

things that are positives…. One is that we all know — I certainly know

in my constituency, and I’m going to presume it’s true for most of us —

we rely pretty heavily on schools as voting places, as voting stations,

polling stations.

[2:20 p.m.]

I’ve got to believe that the notion that you’re using schools on a

day when kids aren’t in school becomes not only an easier and more

convenient situation for the school boards and the people who have to

operate the schools…. Arguably, it is a safer situation in the schools,

as well, to not have the kids there when the voting is going on. So I

think there are lots of arguments to be made for Saturdays.

We get up at throne speech time, and we talk about, especially

throne speeches right after elections…. We all come to this place. We

thank the people who helped to get us elected, and we thank the

volunteers who work hard for all of us in our constituencies to help

bring us to this place and give us the privilege of being in this

place.

It’s quite possible that in terms of that team of volunteers,

which we all need every election to help get us elected, come election

day, their availability may be better on a Saturday than on a weekday,

in many cases, simply because the majority of people are employed Monday

to Friday or in school or whatever. So it may enhance the ability to get

volunteers out. As we reduce the amount of money in elections, we’ll

find that we’ll all be depending more significantly on volunteers, as

well, and that’s a good thing. I don’t think that the Saturday creates

any particular issue there.

I want to talk to the issue of reducing the number of members for

party status. The debate here seems to be…. I hear members on the other

side saying: “Well, it’s okay. I guess we can go down to three so that

the Green Party can be an official party, but maybe we should review it

after this election or put a sunset clause on it. Why should it go down

to two?”

Well, I think, as we heard our friend…. The member from the Green

Party, Saanich North and the Islands, in his comments, talked about

this. I think he’s correct when he said that this isn’t…. Let me just

step back. Absolutely, the beneficiaries of this change here will be our

three colleagues who are members of the Green Party. But this isn’t

about them. This is about how this place works, and this is about the

democratic process. It’s about whether people who come to this place and

are elected in this place under a party banner should have the right to

fly that banner and to have the supports that come with being an

official party.

I believe that the vast majority of us in this place, regardless

of whether we are B.C. Liberals or NDPers or Greens, would not have been

elected to this place if we were not under the banner that we ran under.

We ran in constituencies where, certainly, our personal reputations and

maybe our contributions and our work have contributed to the votes we

get. But we are in a province where party politics is a significant

aspect of our political life.

We are in a province where many people determine their vote based

on their political party of choice. They look at those parties, they

look at their platforms, and they look at their values. They say: “I’m

going to vote for the member of party X here because they most closely

reflect my interests or my family’s interests, and they’re who I think

represents me best.”

Part of the reason that happens is because there is a level of

party discipline here, politically, that we don’t see with our friends

in the United States. There is a level here where, on most issues, you

can determine how people are going to vote based on their party

affiliation. That’s the reality of what we see. It’s not entirely the

case, but in most instances, it absolutely is.

What that does is it provides people with some confidence that….

If I choose to vote for the NDP because I like what the NDP says in

their platform, then I’m relatively confident that the person that I

send to the Legislature….

Interjection.

Hon. S. Simpson: I’ll let you finish over there.

If you do that, then people are relatively confident that they

know they are voting for a candidate who, in fact, represents the party.

And that’s what we see.

Interjection.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Simpson: The member on the other side is prattling on about something about

parties that I can’t quite hear. What I would say to the member on the

other side…. This is the party on the other side…. Let’s talk about this

for a minute.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: The minister has the floor.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, wait for….

Hon. S. Simpson: This is a member who stood up and voted for a throne speech that

betrayed his party. This is a party that has demonstrated time and time

again that they have no values. They don’t believe in anything. In fact,

all they believe in is power. This is a party, on the other side, that

after the election was desperate, hanging on by their fingernails to

power. They tried to manipulate this Legislature. They misrepresented

what they believed. They threw their presumed values out the window to

embrace the NDP and Green platforms in a throne speech, and now they

have the audacity to talk about principles. That side of the House and

principles haven’t been in the same room for 16 years.

Getting back to the issue of two members versus three members. The

issue that we see here and the question was: why go to two instead of

three? Well, I want to tell you why I think two is important. I want to

take us back to 2001. In 2001, the current opposition won a massive

victory — 77 to two. There were two New Democrats and 77 members of the

B.C. Liberal Party elected. The Premier of the day, the government of

the day, chose not to recognize those two members of the NDP. That was

their prerogative as government, though pretty much the consensus in the

province from…. Many people, including many people who supported that

government of the day, said they should be recognized.

The reason that they should be recognized is because this place

works best when you have parties, when you have different views and when

you ensure that to the greatest degree possible, based on their level of

seats and representation, they have the resources to be able to

effectively either make that case as government or make that case as

opposition. But there was a mean-spiritedness in 2001, and that was the

decision: to refuse those two members party status.

In this legislation, this is more a recognition than anything else

that that should never happen again. If two members get elected here,

coming to this place under a political banner, supporting a set of

values, principles or a platform, there should be an acknowledgment that

they were sent here to advance those views and to advance those

positions. And part of that recognition is to acknowledge their status

as a party.

How we support them is a matter that…. LAMC and the structures of

this place decide how those supports are put in place. The question for

us is the question of whether we think that the democratic process is

better served by recognizing parties and people who come here under

common cause and common banners. This legislation says yes, we should.

This legislation says that’s what we should do, and it says we can do

that with two members, not three. That’s why I think it becomes

important that we’ve made the decision to do this and to move to two

members.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

This piece of legislation, combined with legislation that will

change electoral finance, combined with legislation that, should the

people of British Columbia choose in a referendum to support it, will

change to proportional representation and change how we elect people in

this province…. As one of the members on the opposition said, and he was

quite right, it will change politics in this province forever. I’ve been

in this place long enough to know that some change is a good thing and

that that change will have value. I know that if those changes all come

forward, we will look at politics in a very different way moving

forward.

[2:30 p.m.]

There will be growing pains, and there will be questions about

whether this system works as perfectly as it could. Not so much, always.

There will be those questions. But we will have created a system where

money doesn’t determine politics, where people’s values and principles

are recognized when they come to this place. It will determine that we

elect people and we elect a legislature that, in fact, looks like the

votes in the place. That’s what we’ll get.

We’ll no longer have politics here where it’s just simply about a

party that desperately hung onto power for 16 years, that in the last

few years was vacuous in terms of its policy and its beliefs. In fact,

at the end, the only thing that was important was trying to manipulate

the Lieutenant-Governor and trying to manipulate the Legislature in

order to hang onto power.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Hon. S. Simpson: Now, I know that the member on the other side misses his cabinet

office. He’ll get over it. He’ll do well as an opposition

member.

We need to change, and this legislation will effect that change.

This legislation and the combined other pieces will effect that change.

When that change comes, if the voters decide next fall to choose to move

to a system of proportional representation, we will all and should all

be very proud that we will have changed for the better the democratic

processes in this province. That will be a legacy we should all be able

to take away.

D. Barnett: I am pleased to rise on behalf of my constituents of the

Cariboo-Chilcotin on the subject of Bill 5, the Constitution Amendment

Act.

The purpose of this piece of legislation is twofold. In the first

instance, it intends to move the provincial election date to the third

Saturday in October from the current fixed election in May. Currently

British Columbia has a fixed election date on the second Tuesday in

May.

As a matter of fact, in 2001, it was the B.C. Liberal Party that

brought in fixed election dates in British Columbia. We led the nation

in being the first province in Confederation to do so. Since then, many

other provinces and the federal government have followed suit. We

adopted fixed election dates because it was perceived that under the old

system, a government could call a snap election at its own convenience.

So we changed that. Ever since then, holding a fixed election on the

second Tuesday in May has served the people of British Columbia well —

in 2005, 2009, 2013 and 2017.

The question is: why do we have to change things? I understand the

reasoning behind this is the budget cycle. In British Columbia, the

provincial budget is delivered each February to coincide with the end of

the fiscal year ending on March 31. Most provinces and the federal

government adhere to this budget cycle.

Some are concerned that holding the election in May is too close

to the budget introduction, that it occurs before the Auditor General

has a chance to examine budget forecasts. This is a rather weak

argument. This is a government that delivered five consecutive balanced

budgets in a row. A Liberal government did that.

We are not talking about the fudge-it budget of 1996 that the

former NDP brought in. That was a deliberate attempt to mislead the

public of British Columbia in order to win an election. Back in 1996,

the NDP government promised a two-year surplus of $201 million that

turned into a two-year $703 million deficit. And it worked. The NDP and

then-Premier Glen Clark called a snap election that very same day and

won the election under false pretences. That’s why the B.C. Liberals

brought in fixed election dates in the first place.

[2:35 p.m.]

Now, once again, the NDP is conspiring with the Greens to change

the election date to the third Saturday in October. This will have the

effect of extending the current government’s presumed mandate by 23

weeks, or nearly six months. What is the benefit to the average voter in

British Columbia? Nothing.

I am astonished by the fact that the legislative agenda of this

session is dedicated to preserving the NDP and Green Party government

coalition. Why are we not focused on growing the economy or trying to

make life better or affordable for the average British Columbian? People

in my riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin are rather angry.

This bill follows the sudden surprise of campaign financing. This

was a surprise announcement by the Premier that taxpayers now would be

on the hook for subsidized political parties whether you voted for them

or not. Originally, all three parties had agreed to support legislation

that would limit corporate and union donations to political parties and

place an annual cap on the amount an individual could donate. But the

Premier took that one step further and announced that political parties

will be receiving almost $28 million in subsidies courtesy of the

taxpayer. That means the NDP and the Green Party are going to get a

taxpayer subsidy of $28 million over the next four years. Nobody voted

for that.

The bill also creates a permanent taxpayer subsidy for 50 percent

of election campaign expenses, such as advertising, the rental of

campaign offices, staff salaries and the printing of campaign signs.

That would amount to an extra $11 million, based on what was spent in

the last election. I don’t agree with this. I don’t support it, and

neither do most of my constituents. And I don’t think it’s fair to

voters. If someone makes a choice and casts their ballot for a

particular party, why should they be expected to make a financial

contribution to each and every other party they don’t support? No one

voted for this in the last election.

The next piece of the puzzle comes in the form of so-called

electoral reform. When it comes to electoral reform, why not let the

people decide? In my opinion, no government should be allowed to change

the rules to favour their own re-election, but that is exactly what the

NDP and Green Party are attempting to do by introducing their Electoral

Reform Referendum Act.

The NDP and the Green Party signed a pact last May to put

themselves into power. Part of that agreement outlined plans to hold a

referendum on electoral reform. There is nothing wrong with exploring

ways to improve our democracy. The B.C. Liberals held two referendums,

in 2005 and 2009. But the process was handed over to the public through

the 161-member B.C. Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. It was the

citizens’ assembly’s task to determine what kind of improvements to make

and how the referendum question would be proposed.

Fast-forward to 2017, and the NDP and the Greens say the

government will ultimately determine the outcome after they hold

non-binding public consultations on a new system of proportional

representation. They are in such a rush to do it, the government is

breaking its promise to hold the referendum in conjunction with

municipal elections and is instead conducting a mail-in ballot next

fall.

In 2005 and 2009, the government remained neutral and provided

public funds to groups who wanted to support one side or the other. This

time around, the leaders of the NDP and the Green Party are going to use

government resources to actively campaign on behalf of their plan. To

improve their chances of success, the NDP and the Green Party have

dropped the threshold to a 50-percent-plus-one majority vote.

[2:40 p.m.]

With densely populated areas like Metro Vancouver, it makes it

mathematically impossible for the Interior and the north to have an

equal voice. Under the NDP-Green version of proportional representation,

rural parts of the province will lose half our seats in this House. They

don’t care. None of their seats came from the rural parts of the

province.

I say political parties should stay out of the process and let the

people decide, but that’s not what the NDP and the Green Party are

attempting to engineer. Not only do they want to rig the outcome of the

next election, but they want the taxpayers to pay for it too.

This leads me to the second part of this piece of legislation.

They want to grant party status to the Green Party in the Legislature.

This would entitle the Greens to enjoy more privileges here in Victoria.

The B.C. Liberals are not opposed, but the NDP wants to change the

constitution to a threshold of just two seats in the Legislature to

qualify for official party status. But there are currently three members

of the Green Party. I have to wonder what the reason is behind this. Is

the NDP expecting a member of the Green Party to cross the floor and

join their caucus? Would this prevent the collapse of the so-called

confidence and supply agreement between the Green Party and the

NDP?

It just seems to me that this coalition government is more

concerned with preserving their own arrangement than having any concern

for the average British Columbian.

S. Furstenau: I’m pleased to be speaking in support of the Constitution

Amendment Act. The bill is short and only makes a few changes to

existing legislation, but they are significant. The bill modernizes our

democracy through two changes: expanding party status to smaller parties

in the Legislature and changing the fixed election date from May to

October.

Democracy thrives when there is a multitude of diverse voices

participating in all levels of politics. Government is at its strongest

when diverse voices representing a variety of backgrounds, experiences

and points of view are heard on all sides of the House. Our democratic

institutions are at their strongest when these voices are empowered to

participate in their full capacity.

By expanding official party status to parties with two or more

elected members, this bill moves the dial forward on the issue and

establishes the capacity for more parties to add their voices to B.C.’s

democratic landscape. It recognizes that if MLAs are elected under a

single-party banner, running on a shared set of policies and values,

they constitute a party, no matter how large or small their seat

count.

I’m deeply proud that the voters of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, Saanich

North and the Islands and Cowichan Valley elected the first B.C. Green

caucus in our province’s history — indeed, in Canada’s history, in North

America’s history, and the first Green caucus elected under

first-past-the-post in the world. I’m delighted that this amendment will

mean that we will have official party status and be represented under

one unified banner, rather than having to sit as three

independents.

The change is not just symbolic. It also has important effects

that enable MLAs to participate more fully in the Legislature as a

unified caucus. In enables all caucuses to have regular questions in

question period in order to better hold the government to account. It

provides for an ability to respond to minister’s statements and more

time to respond to bills.

When politics becomes an entrenched system of large, monolithic

parties, it becomes too adversarial and brittle. It becomes less able to

adapt and respond to rapid changes in our province and to the evolving

needs of our citizens. A system that formally recognizes only large

parties squeezes out strong voices from diverse backgrounds and

perpetuates our tired, old two-party system.

Consider the quagmire that we see south of the border, where

partisanship taken to the extreme means that one party sees its sole

purpose as being obstructionist to the government’s agenda.

[2:45 p.m.]

At the Commonwealth Parliamentary Congress that I attended last

week, MLAs from across Canada lamented the rise of partisanship in their

legislatures and the toxic effects that partisanship is having on

governance. Moving away from an entrenched two-party system helps us to

have more voices, more perspectives and, hopefully, less partisanship in

our parliaments.

We should keep in mind that the changes in this bill and in all

rules we make in this House apply not only to the members who sit here

today, but to all future members who will join this House.

I’d like to take a moment to respond to the comments made earlier

today by the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, who suggested — and

I’ve heard them a couple of times — that Greens may be in danger of

losing a caucus member. I’ll point out that the only party that has seen

any members leaving in this parliamentary session has been

his.

Also, let’s be clear. This is a government. The three of us sit in

opposition. This is not a coalition. If it were a coalition, there

wouldn’t be the possibility of crossing the floor. If we’re going to

start hurling all sorts of interesting accusations around, at least have

our facts straight when we’re going to do it.

I’d like to put it on the record that Kermit the Frog didn’t have

it right. It is actually very easy being green.

And since electoral reform — not actually in this bill — keeps

coming up in the debates today, let me just say one thing. By joining

nearly every other OECD country and bringing in proportional

representation, we continue in British Columbia on the journey of

suffrage, where votes count and every vote would count under

proportional representation. The system we have today leaves people

feeling disenfranchised, feeling that if they’re voting in a particular

way in a riding that they know will go to a certain party, their vote

doesn’t count. This leads to lower voter turnout and increased cynicism,

which is very unhealthy for democracy.

The second significant change this bill makes is changing the

fixed election date from May to October. This is entirely logical.

Changing the election date was a B.C. Green campaign promise, and I’m

thrilled to see it realized.

Why does changing the election date matter? For a number of

reasons. First, it separates the budget from the election campaign. As

it has stood now, in an election year, the party in power is able to use

the February budget as a campaign tactic. But by changing the fixed

election date to October, we will separate the budgeting process from

the campaign by a number of months, ensuring that politically expedient

budgets are not cynically introduced simply to score points prior to an

election. It’s also important for transparency and for informed

decision-making.

The current date means that voters head to the polls without

getting the end-of-year financial results of the previous budget, which

are usually completed in July. This means that British Columbians have

to vote without adequate information to make their decisions. Changing

the election date will fix this.

Having the election date in October leaves time for the February

budget to be debated and passed at year-end and public accounts to be

passed in July, which provides greater transparency and greater

accountability. Voters will be able to make informed choices based on

audited public accounts and full budgets, and this is

critical.

Changing the election date will also end the practice of wasting

time, energy and money on a budget before the election, which simply

goes unpassed, and on a budget update after the election. I hope that we

will see widespread support for this commonsense change in this debate.

It’s simply the right thing to do.

I’d like to conclude by saying that this bill takes important

steps to modernize our democracy, increase the strength of diverse

voices in this House and improve transparency and accountability of

government by decoupling the budget process from the campaign period and

election. These are important amendments that will change this House for

the better and make it a more vibrant and more honest one. I’m very

pleased to be supporting it today.

S. Gibson: It’s a pleasure for me to be here today and to speak to Bill 5,

the Constitution Amendment Act. I appreciate this opportunity on behalf

of our colleagues on this side of the House.

[2:50 p.m.]

It’s an interesting piece of legislation for a number of reasons.

I’ll enumerate those here today. It’s notable for the actual proposals

within the bill, and I’ll address those a bit more specifically in a

moment.

The bill proposes to move our fixed election date to the fall. Our

former B.C. Liberal government was very proud to bring in fixed election

dates — historical in many ways. It’s something we just take for

granted, but of course, our government brought that in. It’s standard

practice in virtually every other jurisdiction in Canada, the

Commonwealth and Europe.

As members of the House well know, our elections have

traditionally been held in the spring, and this is provided for in the

current legislation. This proposal, rather, recommends shifting our

elections to the third Saturday in October. On one hand, moving election

day to a Saturday may be more convenient for voters and could very well

improve turnout. This would be a desirable outcome. But there are some

other issues we could address as well.

On the other hand, it’s hard to fully believe that the government

has introduced this bill with objective intentions, when moving the

province’s next fixed election date to October 2021 would give the

NDP-Green coalition nearly an extra six months of governing and possibly

the chance to pass one more budget in the election lead-up.

If this bill had in fact been written with objective reflection

and in good faith, I think they would have adjusted it otherwise. We

have seen the government concede rather than expand six months of

government. To be truly altruistic, this bill should propose the next

election date to be the fall of 2020 rather than the fall of 2021. I

have no issue with that and would support it. But due to the obvious

self-interest contained within this bill, I’m somewhat

cautious.

I’d be happy to have a discussion in this House about the

advantages and disadvantages of moving the province’s election date. But

it’s difficult to objectively do so and to fully appreciate and believe

in the discussion when, in this case, the government hasn’t even tried

to disguise what I would characterize, perhaps, as self-interest in the

process. So it’s a bit of a disappointment.

I come from a university background, and I appreciate the value of

what I’d characterize as neutral discussions around this part of the

political process — a difference between theory and practice — and

making fair recommendations on how we can improve it. No political

system is perfect, and we live in a province that’s changing at a rapid

place. I think for all of us that have arrived here, even recently, we

realize…. I heard the discussions and remarks a moment ago here from the

member across the floor that I think we sometimes struggle with

understanding how we make the system more accountable. It’s not perfect,

but we’re certainly working to make it better.

It’s a system I’m extremely proud of, having been here over four

years, and it’s important to continually analyze the system of

government and make sure it’s continuing to work for our citizens. It’s

something I believe in, and I believe both sides of the House would

share that view. So it’s a little disheartening to see the politics,

perhaps, found in this bill.

If this part of the bill was truly focused on strengthening our

institutions of government, it wouldn’t be proposing moving back the

election date, which I think would make a clear advantage to the tenuous

— and I say tenuous, sir — relationship between the NDP government and

the Green alliance. I would find it hard to believe this perk is just a

coincidence or mistake, especially given the legacy represented here.

But over ten years of an NDP government in the ’90s, the NDP only

returned to the public twice, calling two elections over the whole

decade.

This bill also proposes to lower the threshold of party status.

While currently parties must have four members in the Legislature to

earn this recognition, this bill proposes lowering that to just two

members. Evidently, this legislation would have immediate effects on our

three Green Party members, but it’s reasonable to expect it may apply to

other parties, of course, in the future.

In June, our former government proposed a similar move,

introducing legislation that would change the requirement for party

status from four to three, a move that would also have recognized the

three Green Party MLAs as an official party in the

Legislature.

[2:55 p.m.]

But instead of supporting this bill, our three colleagues across

the aisle refused to even read it — just voted it down, despite the fact

this bill would clearly have benefited them and was put forward in the

spirit of cross-partisan cooperation, which I think is something that we

encourage here even today.

Now we see the new government introducing similar legislation, but

lowering the party status from three down to two. If passed, this will

mean British Columbia has one of the lowest thresholds for party status

in Canada, matched by Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, while the first part

of this legislation I discussed seeks to extend the mandate, and by

extension, the disproportionate influence of their junior

partners.

This

section was put forward strictly as a condition, I believe,

of the power-sharing agreement. That means that, while this bill is

presented, offering improvements to the way we do government, really, I

think it’s more of a self-serving motivation here, frankly.

I think this government sits on its hands with regard to

legislation that would make a real difference, calling for more and more

consultation on issues where consultation has been done. When it comes

to helping the coalition remain in power, this bill definitely fills the

bill. Where are the bills on ride-sharing? What about discussions on

transportation improvements and the future of Site C?

The government is reluctant to take a solid position on many of

these issues, which are of interest to the public. Instead, we have a

publicly funded, political secretariat and bills for public education

funding, fall elections and electoral reform. Amazingly, when it comes

to some of these substantial decisions, they have real implications for

our democracy. I think a level of cynicism could be present, frankly, as

we hear more about this, and it doesn’t necessarily have positive

implications for our democracy.

To some extent, I would say it trivializes our system of

government when government can hide behind consultations for political

motives and then make fundamental changes to the way we govern with

little or no consultation. This worries me. I think it’s potentially a

slippery slope.

I want to thank this House for the opportunity to speak to this,

and thank the government for putting forward this initiative. We hope

that we can have an opportunity to contribute to a more constructive

dialogue as we proceed here in this House.

J. Rustad: It’s a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 5. I wanted to get a few

comments….

Interjection.

J. Rustad: The member for Nanaimo says it’s good legislation.

Well, I want to talk a little bit about this piece of legislation.

I want to talk about it particularly from the perspective of what the

members opposite have been asking for, for quite some time. When I think

about it…. In particular, the notion of moving the election date to the

fall has been around and debated for a long time. So I accept the

premise.

I mean, there was a fudge-it budget in 1996, and everybody

understands that’s what happened. If the election had been in the fall,

then the fallacy of the ’96 budget would have been revealed and that

would have potentially changed it so that a party with 38 percent of the

support wouldn’t have ended up governing for five years. I think that’s

actually not a bad idea to have this conversation about moving the date

to the fall.

But here’s the thing I find most interesting about this. In 2017,

there was a bill, M209, that was moved forward by the members opposite

that called for the election to be held by, I believe, the first Tuesday

in October. That’s fine. Notice the date, though. That’s a Tuesday, not

a Saturday. There’s no other jurisdiction in Canada that holds a

provincial or federal election on a Saturday. I wonder why. When you

think about it, election dates are about the working business of the

province.

Saturday, for some people, for certain religions, is the Sabbath.

It’s a day of rest. Weekends are days that people like to go away and

spend with family. Maybe they go out hunting. Maybe they go fishing.

Maybe they go camping. Maybe they go doing other activities because

that’s what the weekend is. It’s time to be able to spend with

family.

Moving the election date into that Saturday, particularly for a

major election as a provincial election, means that for those people,

they no longer can participate on those days. Yes, there are other days

to vote, but the bottom line is: this is a general election. This is the

date for it. It should be available for the majority of people of this

province to be able to participate on that election day. Moving it to a

Saturday does not actually allow that.

[3:00 p.m.]

What I find interesting…. That bill in 2017, moved by the members

opposite, called for the first Tuesday. Also, Bill M204 in 2015 called

for the first Tuesday in October. Bill M205 in 2011 called for the

second Tuesday in October — Tuesday. Where did this sudden epiphany come

from, from members opposite, that moved three bills at least, if not

more, calling for a Tuesday? Suddenly they want it on a Saturday? I

don’t understand, and it hasn’t been explained well by the members

opposite, so I look forward to committee stage, to having this

discussion around what exactly they mean by that.

There is one other interesting thing to look at in their bills

that they moved. These private members’ bills all called for the

election to be in the fourth calendar year following a general election

— the fourth calendar year.

What they’re proposing to do here is to put this into the fifth

calendar year following an election — suddenly, another epiphany. Could

it be a desperate grasp to try to hold on to power for an extra six

months before they face the electorate in this province to ask for a

true mandate? Could that be what is really driving this as a mandate?

Say it isn’t so.

I find it interesting. And you know what? Why don’t we look at

this and say: why don’t we use the bills that you have introduced

before, these private members’ bills? Why don’t we make it that in the

fourth year? That would put it in the fall of 2020, the very thing that

our members have been arguing for through the course of this particular

debate. Then you could uphold the integrity of private members’ bills

that you actually put forward, that you argued for, for years and years,

rather than showing to the public that you really are just trying to

grab for extra time to potentially be in government.

Makes sense? It’s your own private members’ bills that make that

so, so why not move that forward? This place is a wonderful place

because it does allow you to look back at arguments that have been made

so passionately by members that have an opportunity now to be thinking

about those words that they have said.

There’s another thing I want to quickly touch on, as well, which

is…. When you look at the bill, it talks about the two-member status.

You know what? I’m am in full support that the three members from the

Green Party should be considered an official party status. They achieved

15 percent, 16 percent of the vote. I don’t think there should be any

challenge to that, even though the member from North Cowichan is

obviously talking about moving over, which is why they want to go to

two, but that’s fine. We’ll see.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: Sorry. Cowichan Valley. Thank you for that, to the leader of the

Green Party, to clarify the move from the member of the party over to

the NDP.

However, speaking of that, there’s another bill on the floor

that’s coming up, which is going to talk about proportional

representation. We’re going to have a chance to be able to debate on

that. Why are we talking about the number of members and not about the

percentage of vote? If a party receives a certain percentage of vote,

they should be considered a party status, whether it’s one member, two

members, three members, four members. It doesn’t matter. I’m thinking

that could be something that we look at in terms of how you define a

party.

There’s a reason why I’m suggesting that, and I’m glad that the

member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head is considering this as a compelling

argument. The reason why I’m suggesting this is because if you ended up

in a situation where, say, two members from the NDP decide they’re not

going to run again, and they’re going to go form a party…. That’s what

could happen. You could end up seeing…. Maybe it’s two members from a

different party that decide to do that. The point is you could end up

having a number of parties that could get created through this

process.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: It could be, very easily, from the Liberal Party as well. But the

point is that you might end up with a situation that is unintended

consequences, but if you do it based on a percentage vote, then you’re

in a situation where that type of situation wouldn’t happen. And perhaps

it’s four members or more, or a party that receives a certain percentage

of vote. In any case, I look forward to moving that in this.

For these reasons that I mentioned, clearly, this bill, in my

mind, has not been well-thought-out. It doesn’t actually follow the

integrity of private members’ bills that have been brought forward by

the members of the NDP in the past. It doesn’t meet the standards that I

believe should be met, which is that this government shouldn’t be asking

for additional time, because it is a minority government, in this case.

It should actually be showing what it’s doing and then going to the

people at the earlier date of the fall of 2020.

[3:05 p.m.]

For these reasons, I can’t support this bill in this current form.

Having said that, I am fully in support of making some modifications to

this bill to see an election that would come in the fall of 2020, rather

than 2021, so that it meets the standards that the NDP had asked for,

for many, many years, and also to explore this option of the percentage

of vote that a particular party gets to be able to form party status as

being one of the conditions to be able to actually become a party in

this Legislature.

Like I say, for those reasons, I’ll be voting against it. But I

hope to be able to make some reasoned amendments to this bill, to allow

it to be able to garner full support from all members of this

House.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Kelowna–Lake Country. [Applause.]

N. Letnick: Thank you to the members for that warm welcome. I am going to be

the last speaker for the opposition, just to advise the minister. My

speech is rather short. So perhaps the minister can take that into

account, because I believe the minister will be speaking after me — a

word to the wise.

We’re talking about Bill 5, fixed election dates. My colleagues

have definitely discussed many aspects of the bill — in particular, the

aspect of the bill to move the election date to give the government

party six extra months of governing, over a 4½-year mandate, should they

last that long. Of course, the speculation is: who knows how long it

will last? But by passing this bill the way it is, that’s exactly what

would happen. So obviously, that’s a big issue.

There are other parts of the bill that I do agree with. But in

particular, I don’t support the bill, as presented, because I believe

reducing official party status from four to two, being the lowest

possible number greater than a single individual, will not serve the

interests of the people of British Columbia.

I believe we’re all elected as independents or as members of a

political party, and we should be acknowledged in this Legislature as

such. So those that are voted in as a member of a political party should

actually be acknowledged that way, and I agree with the Green Party that

they should be acknowledged as members of the Green Party. Indeed, even

an individual who was elected under a party banner should be recognized

in B.C. as representing a political party and not as an independent

member, for they clearly are not independent from the party apparatus

that helped them get elected.

My concern, which I believe is shared by a majority of my

constituents, is not with the number of members required to be

recognized as an official party in this important institution, but with

the rights and benefits that accrue to an individual, or a small

collection of individuals, afforded them under the law in British

Columbia.

Rights and benefits such as increased costs to taxpayers for

higher MLA salaries over that of other MLAs for no greater work; the

potential cost to taxpayers for setting up opposition offices in

Vancouver; and the guarantee of at least one pair of questions

multiplied by every official opposition party of two, if this passes,

every day, during a short 30-minute question period, potentially

disproportionate with the relative size to the official opposition of

the province.

Let me say that again: the guarantee of at least one pair of

questions multiplied by every official opposition party of two people,

every day, during the short 30-minute question period, potentially

disproportionate with the relative size to the official opposition of

the province.

Indeed, this bill, along with a series of other bills currently

introduced by the government, has only one purpose and one alone, and

that is to improve the NDP’s chances at staying in power over subsequent

elections by attempting to fracture their opposition and simultaneously

make it easier for more of their traditional political base to get out

and vote. Sun Tzu, the author of The Art of War , would be proud

of the NDP.

I have been listening to the government’s arguments in support of

reducing the number from four to two, and I find them unconvincing. The

only reason that makes sense to me, given the clear attempt by the NDP

to turn our fragile democracy into a game of political chess, is that

either they wish to attract a Green member to the NDP ranks, leaving the

Greens still with party status, under the proposed bill, or to encourage

the members of the opposition, now or in the future, to form their own

parties, thereby strengthening the NDP’s hand — or both.

[3:10 p.m.]

Therefore, I will, at the appropriate time, be advancing an

amendment to Bill 5 to change the number required to form political

party status in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia from two to

three. Let us see if the NDP truly want to give the Green Party members

the resources they believe they need or if what we are witnessing here

is a blatant attempt by the NDP to pull the wool over the eyes of

British Columbians in an effort to turn their minority into a

majority.

Hon. M. Mungall: I rise to speak to Bill 5. I would like to start my comments with

expressing my incredible support for what this bill is actually doing.

As somebody who has studied our democratic processes since I was 19 — so

that’s about 20 years now — somebody who’s participated in them…. I’ve

been interested in our democratic processes since as long as I can

remember.

I often tell the story of when I was six years old and the 1984

election. My parents were very proud of who they were voting for at the

time. I won’t mention it because it was not this political party that

I’m a part of now. I took it upon myself to go door to door to see if my

neighbours were voting the same way my parents were. I had no idea that

I was, effectively, campaigning for that local candidate. My passion for

our democracy has existed for a long time, and I’ve been actively

learning about it.

One of the things I think is really important in terms of how this

House functions is addressed here, in the very first

section of this

bill, and that’s changing what constitutes a formal political party, a

caucus, in this place — from the existing four members to two or more

members. The reason why I think it’s important that we finally do that

is that any two people that are aligned in terms of their membership in

a political party will be working together. That’s just what’s going to

happen. Therefore, I think we need to be formally recognizing that very

fact.

If there’s two people here, they’re going to be working together.

That’s what they communicated to the people, their voters, when they ran

and they said: “I’m with the B.C. First Party.” “Hey, me too”— in

another riding — “I’m with the B.C. First Party.” They come to this

place, and they were both elected to this place. Obviously, they’re

going to be working together. So it’s very important that we recognize

that in a formal way.

I’m glad that finally, after years and years of advocacy on this

particular issue by people throughout British Columbia who watch our

democratic process, we are moving to that transparent, formal

recognition. Two people, two members of the same political party who are

elected to this place will have official party status, and it will be

recognized formally and transparently that they will be working

together.

I also think it’s important that we recognize that voting day

should be done when the public has access to the actual formal

information about our budgetary process and, therefore, how government

has actually spent money. I will admit that when I’m on the doorstep

every election, between elections, the No. 1 issue that people bring up

may not be line item 62 in Public Accounts . But that they have

that opportunity to do that is very important.

With that, noting the agenda for the day, I will end my comments.

I think this is a very good piece of legislation. I thank the minister

responsible for bringing it forward. I look forward to voting in favour

of it.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes the

debate.

Hon. D. Eby: I’ve had the opportunity to hear a number of the member’s comments

in relation to this legislation. I very much appreciate their feedback

on it. This is an important piece of legislation and one part of many,

in terms of our shared effort to modernize our democracy here in British

Columbia.

[3:15 p.m.]

I think that the Saturday voting day will be a very important

initiative around trying to improve voter turnout. I was glad to hear

some members raising concern around certain groups that have religious

observances on Saturday. That is why it was so important that we reached

out to those groups and provided an additional number of advance voting

days for them, so they have just as many voting opportunities under this

bill as they did before the Saturday voting day. I wanted to

particularly address that, because it was raised by a few different

members.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 5.

Motion approved on division.

Hon. D. Eby: I call second reading of Bill 9, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor

Corrections) Amendment Act.

BILL 9 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(MINOR CORRECTIONS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be now read a second time. This bill makes

minor corrections in housekeeping amendments to various statutes.

They’re all straightforward, non-controversial corrections and all minor

in nature. The contents of the bill, when read, reflect that.

The office of legislative counsel gathers minor corrections as

part of the routine statute revision process. The result of that work is

what we have in this bill. The office of legislative counsel takes pride

in the work they do and serves this House very well. The changes in the

bill are presented before the Legislature so that this Legislature can

approve all changes to statutes no matter how small or minor they may

appear.

In other words, there’s a very important principle here that

people cannot go in and change statutes. They have to have the approval

of the Legislature before any changes may be made. The changes need to

be done with the authority of this House to ensure B.C. statutes are

orderly and correct.

Deputy Speaker: One moment, please. Attorney, there’s a motion that you need to

make.

BILL 5 — CONSTITUTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

Hon. D. Eby: For Bill 5, I neglected to move this motion. I move that Bill 5 be

referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 5, Constitution Amendment Act, 2017, read a second time and

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

sitting of the House after today.

BILL 9 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(MINOR

CORRECTIONS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

(continued)

M. Morris: I will be the only speaker on this side of the House for this

bill, given that the official opposition is in favour of this act and

the salutary goals that it sets out to achieve.

When one considers the many statutes that are brought into force

over decades, it’s inevitable that grammatical and other minor errors

occur. Societal norms also change, requiring small changes to references

to gender and corporate entities. I think all members would agree that

as elected officials, we’re very well served by our professional

legislative drafters, like the minister referenced. They’re highly

informed on all these matters of legal importance, and they pay great

attention to detail.

So our hats go off to these folks that spend all their time

looking at these issues. Despite that, slip-ups do occur and the

laudable intent of Bill 9 is to clean up some of these minor mishaps.

Indeed, a miscellaneous statutes bill is not the only vehicle available

to keep our statutes in good order.

I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is

actually a law in place called the Statute Revision Act. This act

empowers the chief legislative counsel, after a consultation with

government, to undertake detailed revisions to any statute that by

virtue of being amended multiple times has become impossible to easily

navigate or understand.

In my previous life, I often faced statutes that were like that.

They were increasingly difficult to work with from an enforcement

perspective. The resulting refresh statute is in place before a select

standing committee of the Legislature for final approval. I must

emphasize that the contents of this statute remain exactly the same, but

stakeholders and the general public are now able to more easily navigate

and appreciate its intent, to navigate its many, many

sections.

[3:20 p.m.]

A few years ago, when government on this side of the House

supported such a revision of the Insurance Act…. This is a huge act,

which over many years was amended many, many times and became incredibly

dense and complex. It’s

an act which, by its definition, is often

referred to by industry professionals and the general public. The

resulting refresh statute was greatly welcomed and appreciated by those

groups. It’s yet another excellent tool available to elected officials

to provide citizens with workable, concise and accurate laws affecting

their lives. We are in support of this bill.

A. Weaver: I see that the Attorney General was very excited and wanted to

close debate on this very important bill that corrects quite a number of

small, minor issues over quite a number of statutes that have occurred

over many, many years.

I take my place to speak, obviously, in favour, but I’d like to

cover this in a little detail. I think it’s important that we get to the

bottom of some of these changes to see how things are playing out. And I

must admit these are not trivial changes in some cases.

As the hon. member for Prince George–Mackenzie was able to point

out, this, of course, is…. Other tools of doing this…. We have an

incredible legislative counsel working with the Attorney General’s

office to keep our bills and statutes updated. But as I was reading

through this and as I was going through the various bills, checking why

a comma was changed, and so forth, it became clear to me that it’s not

as easy as one might think to see why the changes occur.

For example, if we start with the very first change in this bill,

under Administrative Tribunal Statutes Amendment Act, 2015: “1

Section

70 (

b) of the Administrative Tribunals Statutes Amendment Act, 2015,

S.B.C. 2015, c. 10, as it amends

section 12 (2) (

d) of the Farm

Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 131, is

amended by striking out ‘purposes’ and substituting ‘purpose.’” So

rather than having purposes, there’s only one purpose.

But this is where it gets confusing. I went to

section 10.3, where

it said the following. In

section 10, for the purposes of

section 10.3,

we’re directed to the Farm Practices Act. It says “stop a person whom

the inspector….” I would have thought that the legislative drafters

would have caught that it’s not “whom the inspector,” it’s “who the

inspector….” That is grammatically incorrect. I’m not sure that, in

fact, the Farm Practices Protection Act was changed in this. But I will

point out that later in this, we do have a change in this act where the

word “whom” is changed to “who.”

Just bear with me for a second. It’s a very complex and long bill

here. Look in the Animal Health Act, No. 2 of the changes. It said:

“Section 23 (1) (

a) of the Animal Health Act, S.B.C. 2014, c. 16, is

amended by striking out ‘whom’ and substituting ‘who’.” I agree with

that — grammatically correct, very important to do.

But what I cannot believe was missed in this bill — and frankly,

shame on government for missing this — in the change on

section 1, it

refers specifically to

section 12.2(

d) of the Farm Practices Protection

(Right to Farm) Act, which says: “stop a person whom the inspector

reasonably believes is the person responsible for an animal or an animal

product or byproduct.” Shocking, reckless indifference to

grammar.

I jest, as I’m sure you might imagine.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Vancouver–West End isn’t sure whether I’m jesting

or not.

There will be more of these to come. But it is kind of ironic. As

I was actually going through these, I did notice in the first reference,

the “whom” wasn’t corrected to “who,” where in the very next thing, the

“whom” was corrected to “who,” which is kind of interesting. But it gets

complex.

[3:25 p.m.]

When you go to the farm act again, it says: “For the purpose of

section 10 (3), respecting engagement or retention of specialists and

consultants by the board….” The problem I’ve got here is that it then

refers to

section 10, which was repealed. So it seems to me, in that

we’re correcting something that refers to another act — from “purposes”

to “purpose” — which refers to another

section that was repealed. So I’m

confused. I’m sure that I’ll probe this in thorough detail during

committee stage of this bill as we try to get to the bottom of this

critical missing section. I could just be in error.

There are many, many such changes here, most of which I’m sure

have compelling reasons to actually support…. For example, the third one

says…. In the Assessment Act, we’re striking out “sea going” and

substituting “sea-going.” Now, that’s important because “sea going”

could mean the sea is going, but “sea-going” implies sea-going. There’s

a very important difference there, and I’m glad that this is picked

out.

Also, in (4), it’s “under the Canada Pension Plan .” But

should you not know that the Canada Pension Plan needs to be

highlighted…. We’re changing that to highlight Canada Pension Plan in

italics, which is an important change for those who recognize that this

needs to be brought forward and illustrated as significantly different

from the rest.

We can go forward to the Budget Transparency and Accountability

Act. There’s an “and” added here. It’s very important. Of course, I

could see that. We’ve got some

section issues. There’s a comma that was

needed as well. We’ve got “paragraphs” changing to “paragraph.” Heaven

forbid we refer to “paragraphs” instead of just the

“paragraph.”

There are many more. One of the more important ones is

section 15

of the bill, where we talk about the Forensic Psychiatry Act. It’s

critical. This is the Forensic Psychiatry Act. In today’s society,

mental health issues are first and foremost in what we’re doing, and

heaven forbid that we refer to an “inpatient” rather than “in-patient.”

Now, I’m confused about that, and it’s causing me some mental anguish,

particularly as it’s in the Forensic Psychiatry Act.

When I look it up in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “inpatient”

is “inpatient.” I know it sounds like “impatient,” which I’m sure the

members are right now, as I’m speaking, but “inpatient” seems to be

okay.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Surrey–White Rock suggests that I do not jest when

I say that.

There are many. The Great Bear Rainforest Act,

an act brought in

very recently. Instead of now saying “new-non GBR,” it’s “new non-GBR.”

Not sure quite what the change is in that…. Oh, sorry. The hyphen was in

the wrong place. It was “new-non GBR,” and now it’s “new non-GBR.”

Another important change.

I could go on. I could on with the many, many changes.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Oh, the member for Chilliwack-Kent would like me to go

on.

I want to come to the schedules at the back, where the changes

are. There are so many of these commas and others, which are important,

obviously. We come to the schedules, and these are some of the most

dramatic changes that need to be done.

On page 10 of this bill, it says “in so far” as opposed to

“insofar” with no spaces. It’s replacing that in so many places, in 12

different bills. Sloppiness, going back to the 1990s, heaven

forbid.

We look at the error. It was made in all the bills. The

Arbitration Act, 1996. The Cooperative Association Act, 1999. The

Creston Valley Wildlife Act, 1996. The Frustrated Contract Act, 1996. I

didn’t know such

an act existed. The

Interpretation Act, 1996. The

labour relations code, 1996. My good friends the NDP here shouldn’t have

made the mistake in that one. The Land Title Act, 1996. The Ministry of

Provincial Secretary and Government Services Act, 1996. The Offence Act,

1996. The Railway Act, 1996. The Securities Transfer Act, 2007. This

error clearly, while originating in the decadent eras of the 1990s,

perpetuated through sequential Liberal governments and was not corrected

in the 2007 bill, brought in as the Securities Transfer Act. I’m so glad

it’s being changed. Grammaticists and spell-checkers around the world

are celebrating today.

[3:30 p.m.]

On

Schedule 2, I must admit that I don’t understand this. I guess

I do. In 13 — 13, no less — bills, most of which were done by the B.C.

Liberals, “mail box” is corrected to “mailbox” with no space. Now,

that’s important. It is not “male box.” They’re not saying “male box.” I

get why some males should be in a box. They’re saying “mail box,” being

replaced by “mailbox,” no space. Now, I don’t understand that one. I

thought “mail box” was pretty clear that it’s a mail box, but apparently

not. So I do appreciate these changes, and I thank government from the

bottom of my heart for bringing these changes forward.

We also have, in

schedule 3, “merit based processes” being

corrected to “merit-based processes” in many, many spaces as well. And

finally,

schedule 4 on this bill, at the end….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin is taking such an aggrieved point

of view about this bill. Oh my goodness.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Cariboo North. I’m so sorry. I’m looking forward to her standing

and speaking passionately in support of this, as I’m about to head to

Education estimates in about one minute.

The final change that I think needs to be celebrated here today is

“self propelled” being corrected to “self-propelled.”

With that, I will self-propel myself back into my seat.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney closes debate.

Hon. D. Eby: I want to thank the member from the opposition for his comments

and recognizing the work of legislative drafters and the interesting

remarks in relation to the ability of government to reform acts, to

improve legibility for members of the public. I also want to thank the

leader of the third party for bringing us all together in a way that I

had not anticipated through his remarks.

With that, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that Bill 9 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 9, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act,

2017, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Eby: I call Bill 8, the Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act,

BILL 8 — LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby: I move that Bill 8 now be read a second time. This bill introduces

a new two-year prohibition on lobbying for all former public office

holders, which runs from the date the individual ceases to hold public

office. The definition of “former public office holder” includes all

those individuals who are currently included in the definition of the

act, with the addition of former parliamentary secretaries.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Currently the act does not prohibit former public office holders

from lobbying for any period of time after leaving public office. Senior

public officials and decision-makers who become lobbyists at least for a

time can have more insider knowledge and influence over former

colleagues than lobbyists who did not formerly work in similar

positions.

The bill also provides a registrar of lobbyists with the

discretion to grant exemptions from the prohibition on a case-by-case

basis if such an exemption is in the public interest. For transparency

and administrative fairness, the registrar will be required to make

the reason for the granting the exemption. Non-compliance with the

prohibition on lobbying will attract administrative penalties and will

be subject to the offence provision in the act.

These reforms will balance the interests of having well-informed

policy-makers who contribute to the democratic process and ensure a

level playing field for all lobbyists. They will eliminate the potential

for undue influence and the improper use of insider knowledge in

lobbying.

The bill also adds a new registration requirement for lobbyists

who are lobbying a person on the staff of a minister or MLA in order to

influence the minister or MLA. In this situation, the act only requires

that a lobbyist disclose the name of the minister or MLA on their

return. Lobbyists will now be required by law to disclose both the name

of the staff person and the name of the minister or MLA in their

return.

The new registration amendments will address the public’s concerns

with lobbying in the province by increasing transparency and openness in

the business of lobbying.

L. Throness: I rise to address the Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, Bill

8. It’s a pleasure to do that.

Before we get to the legislation before us, I want to talk for a

moment about the job of lobbying and how it works in this place. It

stems from experience I’ve had in another life, when I worked in the

House of Commons as a political researcher and assistant for a total 12

years. After some years in opposition, the Conservative government came

to power, and I worked for several ministers in four different federal

departments, and as such, we were visited daily by stakeholders who had

an interest in government policy.

[3:35 p.m.]

bigger, in the Canadian context, when it comes to stakeholders. The

department of agriculture, for instance, has 14,000 employees. They

serve nearly 300,000 farmers and an untold number of agribusinesses

right across the country. The department regulates on every aspect of

farming and on country life right across the nation, so there are strong

interests right across Canada.

In this and other departments I’ve worked in, I met with literally

thousands of stakeholders over the years when I worked in Ottawa. As a

result, there are many lobbyists that I also met with. Although

lobbyists generally seem to have a bad name, I think this is

unfortunate, because I found them to be good people, people of

integrity, and they fill an important niche in how public policy is

made.

Let me tell you how lobbyists work to assist the progress of

public policy in Canada. Let me give you an example. There may be a

business, say in northern B.C., far from Victoria, the owners of which

don’t think about politics or politicians. They may not like politics or

approach government. They hear that a certain ministry is going to put

in place a regulation that will affect their business in a negative way,

and they need to act.

What do they do? They have to do something. Well, they might visit

their MLA, and that’s probably a good idea. They might write a letter to

the relevant minister or even to the Premier. But really, if they want

to be effective, they need to take a more aggressive approach and make

themselves known to public servants to explain their objections and let

them know just how the new regulation will affect them.

How do they do that? Who do they call? Sometimes they try a direct

approach, but they often don’t have time for that or the knowledge to do

that. They’re busy doing what they do best. They’re operating their

business. In that case, they always have the option of hiring a

representative, say in Vancouver or Victoria, usually a lobbyist, to

speak on their behalf.

The best lobbyists know their policy files intimately. They’ll

lobby in a certain subject area for a long period of time, so they

really become experts over the entire span of a career. I’ve met

lobbyists who are widely known and appreciated within government and

within industry alike. They’re sensible people. They’re trustworthy

people. They’ve worked with public servants on files in the past, so

they know how government works, and they know who to talk to.

They’ll come in alone or maybe with a business person, their

client, along with them to make a presentation to the minister or the

minister’s staff or people in the department or ministry so that

government officials can understand the impacts their proposed

regulation will have on the stakeholder community and make the required

adjustment in the regulation.

This is a genuinely important function. Without it, government

would often be ignorant of the unintended consequences of its

regulations. So as a ministerial assistant, I would breathe a sigh of

relief when I heard that a lobbyist was going to come in with a certain

stakeholder, because I would know that the lobbyist would have thought

carefully about how to explain what is often a complex problem in a

short time.

They might have created a PowerPoint presentation and have already

decided on a communications and policy approach. They knew exactly what

changes were needed to help their industry succeed. This is all very

helpful in communicating with government.

Communication from business to government also worked in the

opposite direction. For political reasons, there were times when I

didn’t want to confront a stakeholder directly — for example, to tell

them that they were simply mistaken about a certain policy issue or,

more usually, that what they wanted was motivated by their private

interest and was not actually in the public interest.

It was a relief to be able to tell the lobbyist that in a very

clear way so that he or she could figure out how to communicate that to

their client and perhaps come back again with some kind of a negotiated

suggestion — without having a big confrontation directly with their

client. The lobbyist acted as a kind of mediator that both sides could

trust.

The profession of lobbying is a beneficial one in the context of

public policy, and that’s why we have a Lobbyists Registration Act. The

act itself is an acknowledgment that lobbying has a legitimate place in

B.C. Yes, we want it to be transparent. We want it to visible. We on

this side of the House passed that legislation way back in 2001. We

created this window of transparency into how government works, so we are

fully supportive of the concept.

Moreover, the Lobbyists Registration Act was amended in 2010 to

make lobbyists registration mandatory, to expand the powers of the

registrar, to enforce the act, to create an on-line registry to allow

citizens to see who is lobbying which public officials with respect to

which issues. We were at the vanguard of openness and transparency, and

we are proud of that.

[3:40 p.m.]

Now to the bill before us, Bill 8. There are really only two

relevant sections we need to look at:

section 2 and

section 5. The

first,

section 2, adds the definition of “former public office holder”

to the other

definitions at the beginning of the existing Lobbyists

Registration Act. The government is simply taking that definition from

another place in the existing act — which has always been there, purely

for reporting purposes — and moving it into the definition section, as

is, except for the addition of parliamentary secretaries in the bill

before us. For our purposes in this bill, then, former public office

holders include former cabinet ministers, parliamentary secretaries,

political staff who work for either and, in addition, several categories

of senior public servant.

The second clause that we need to look at in this bill, the most

important clause, is

section 5, which simply prohibits former public

office holders from lobbying for two years after the date the person

ceased to be a public office holder.

Now, in general, on this side of the House, we think that a

cooling-off period is a reasonable idea, so we will, in the end, be

supporting the bill. I would point out that federal public office

holders are banned from lobbying for five years, which some think

unreasonable. Indeed, it has proven to be a hardship for some of my

colleagues who worked with me for many years in Ottawa and desired to

stay on to become lobbyists after their political work was done. So we

think that the two-year period is generally a reasonable

thing.

However, I would point out that the two-year period differs from a

report in 2013 by Elizabeth Denham, who was then the lobbyist registrar.

As we know, the registrar is an independent officer of this Legislature,

and she put out a report called Lobbying in British Columbia: The

Way Forward in 2013. This final report, which followed an

earlier report and extensive consultations, recommended several

legislative changes, but in respect to the cooling-off period, Ms.

Denham recommended something quite different than this legislation

offers.

While the registrar considered a 24-month ban on lobbying after

employment, she finally rejected that idea and recommended a 12-month

cooling-off period instead, not the two-year period laid out in this

legislation. Allow me to quote from her report. “In making a

recommendation on this point,” she said: “I recognize the need to

balance the public benefit of having well-informed policy-makers

contribute to the policy process and the goal of fair access to

influence government decision-making for all citizens.” To the

registrar, it was a matter of balance. We don’t want undue influence,

for sure, but neither do we want to deprive good people of a good career

while their knowledge is still relevant in this fast-moving, fast-paced

information age.

The registrar herself considered the two-year period carefully and

rejected it. Why would the government not follow this recommendation? On

this side of House, we don’t quite understand that, and we’ll be

questioning the minister about that in committee stage.

Now I want to address a negative aspect of this bill, which is the

retroactive nature of the bill. It reveals for us, whether intentional

or not, a nasty side effect of this legislation. This legislation will

be retroactive. The two-year ban on lobbying will apply to former public

office holders. That includes any former MLA who worked as a cabinet

minister or a parliament secretary and anyone who worked in their

offices as political staff.

Now, the two-year ban would not be applicable to several

categories of people, and I want to name those categories. It will not

apply to someone who left the office more than two years ago. That’s

obvious. They’re not at all prohibited from lobbying now. It will have

no effective impact on former cabinet ministers and parliamentary

secretaries either, because they’re already covered by the Members’

Conflict of Interest Act, which already requires a 24-month cooling-off

period. So as I understand it, this legislation, while redundant, will

have no additional impact on former cabinet ministers and parliamentary

secretaries and is really not relevant to our debate here.

Finally, NDP or B.C. Liberal political staff who work for MLAs who

are not cabinet ministers or parliamentary secretaries and who lost

their jobs in the turmoil of the election are not covered by this bill

either. They can lobby right away if they can get a job in that

field.

So who will it impact? Who am I talking about? Well, the election

on May 9 caused a lot of unrest in this place, on both sides of this

House, because not all members were re-elected on either side, and their

political staff had to find other jobs. In particular, about 120

political staffers on the government side were ejected from the offices

of ministers and parliamentary secretaries after the election, and this

legislation will apply to them — all those political staffers defined in

this bill as former public office holders who worked for a cabinet

minister or a parliamentary secretary.

[3:45 p.m.]

Now, most former political staff are young people who need to

continue to work. They need to find jobs right away. A number of them

will naturally want to stay in the business of public policy. Some of

them have already received jobs in the past months. As lobbyists,

they’re already working. This legislation could cause them to lose their

jobs or make them unemployable in the industry for the next year and a

half, which by then, may be too late for them to join in the

industry.

In fact, they had no idea that this legislation was coming or what

the legislation would say. They may have made decisions about their

careers. They’ve passed up good opportunities and made other decisions

that may be irrevocable. They may have been putting their lives on hold

for the past six months, preparing for a career in the industry, and

have been now blindsided by this piece of legislation. We feel that this

is deeply unfair to them, and it leaves the government open to the

possibility of lawsuits, to the cost of fighting those lawsuits and the

cost of compensation if and when they lose those lawsuits.

If someone is working in a perfectly legitimate and legal

profession, the government can’t simply make that occupation illegal

when it was legal before. I think the government will lose in court

should they try to find someone in breach of this law if they received a

lobbying job prior to the law’s passage. So the risk of a legal

challenge is a needless liability for the taxpayer, while being simply

unfair to former staff members.

Now, I want to be fair here myself. I want to note that under

section 5 of this proposed piece of legislation, the lobbyist registrar

can choose to exempt someone from the 24-month requirement of the bill