Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 29

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

Statements

Mid-Autumn Festival

Hon. K. Chen

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Constitution Amendment Act, 2017

Bill 6 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act

Hon. D. Eby

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Twyla Roscovich

R. Glumac

Barriere Lions Club

P. Milobar

Protection of animals and Paws for a Cause fundraiser

A. Kang

Navvy Jack House

R. Sultan

Sisters in Spirit vigils and REDress project

M. Dean

Mission Chamber of Commerce

S. Gibson

Oral Questions

Employee severance payments by Office of the Representative for

Children and Youth

L. Throness

Hon. K. Conroy

Hon. M. Mark

S. Cadieux

M. de Jong

Hon. C. James

Regulation of ride-sharing industry

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. C. Trevena

J. Isaacs

Trans-Canada Highway four-laning projects

T. Stone

Hon. C. Trevena

Massey Tunnel replacement project

I. Paton

Hon. C. Trevena

Vancouver school district trustees

M. Polak

Hon. R. Fleming

Tabling Documents

Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, report, Missing

Pieces: Joshua's Story

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Election Amendment Act, 2017 (continued)

R. Coleman

Hon. J. Sims

M. Bernier

Hon. G. Chow

S. Furstenau

N. Simons

S. Cadieux

A. Kang

P. Milobar

L. Krog

M. Polak

M. Elmore

Hon. C. Trevena

Hon. D. Eby

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture (continued)

N. Letnick

Hon. L. Popham

I. Paton

P. Milobar

D. Barnett

J. Tegart

C. Oakes

17:45:07, dougfir, Hon. L. Popham, paragraph (with identifier) added

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2017

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

J. Brar: Visiting us today in the gallery somewhere here is a friend of mine

from Surrey, Peter Leblanc. He is joined by his beautiful daughter. Her name

is Rory. Peter used to work with me quite a few years ago and is a very nice

human being who always tried to do his best to serve the people of British

Columbia. Rory, who was very little at that time, used to come to my office.

She’s around here, maybe going to grade 5 or 6. I would ask the House to

please make them feel welcome.

Hon. J. Darcy: It’s my great pleasure to welcome a group of people today who are

visiting from New Westminster. Actually, some are visiting from

China.

My friends Dee Beattie and Ron Beattie are good friends and very, very

active in our community. Their foster daughter is Zaira Tenzola. Joining

them today is Peter Leblanc and his daughter, Rory Leblanc, also from New

Westminster.

And all the way from Lijiang, China, from a sister city of our city of

New Westminster, are four students who are visiting. I will ask in advance

for your indulgence about my pronunciation of their names — Jin Wa Hu, Rui

Cheng, Ja Fan Chow and Mungan Gan Jilong. We had a chance to have a short

conversation in my office about our parliamentary system, and I tried to

prepare them for the fact that this is our parliamentary system and that

question period is an essential part of it, although perhaps not the

prettiest and politest part of it.

I ask the House to join me in making them very welcome in this gallery

today.

S. Bond: I’m very pleased today to be able to introduce three guests that are

here from Prince George. Now, we don’t often get that opportunity, so I’m

very pleased today to introduce and welcome Tracy and John Calogheros and

Alyssa Tobin. They’re here for the British Columbia Museums Association

conference that’s being held here in Victoria. They are active volunteers in

our community, but they are probably best known for their work at

Exploration Place.

Exploration Place is known for the Little Prince steam engine

— I’ve had the opportunity to ride it many times with my grandsons — and for

being a fantastic science museum, with dinosaurs and interactive exhibits

and events for kids and adults alike.

Most recently a very special day at Exploration Place was on National

Aboriginal Day. A memorandum of agreement was signed with the Lheidli

T’enneh, and a new gallery was opened. The name of that gallery, when

translated, is “place of learning.” The gallery was constructed in

consultation with the Lheidli T’enneh elders, and the hope is that it will

foster greater understanding of the history of our region and enhance our

relationships with the Lheidli people. I know it was a labour of love for

everyone at Exploration Place.

Thank you, Tracy, John and Alyssa, for making Exploration Place one of

the must-visit places in Prince George. We appreciate all the work that you

do. Please help me make them most welcome to the Legislature

today.

[1:40 p.m.]

Statements

MID-AUTUMN FESTIVAL

Hon. K. Chen: I’m so thankful to share with you that today, in the lunar

calendar, is actually the Mid-Autumn Festival, which is celebrated by

many immigrant families here in B.C. Normally, this would be a time for

families to reunite together and celebrate the moon when it’s usually

the roundest and fullest during the year. It is also a time to be

thankful for the things and the loved ones that we have in our lives and

also think of other people in our community who may not be as fortunate

as we are.

So today, while I’m honoured to celebrate the Mid-Autumn Festival

for the very first time with all the members and my colleagues in this

House, I’m also thinking of the people in our community who are still in

need and am proud to be part of this government that is working hard to

invest in people and make the lives of British Columbians better. Happy

Moon Festival, everybody.

Introductions by Members

L. Reid: My former ministerial assistant is in the gallery today. Please

welcome Jennifer Lawrence.

Hon. B. Ralston: I want to introduce staff from the Rick Hansen Institute, well known

to British Columbians and, indeed, around the world, an innovative,

world-leading research and commercialization organization designed to help

those challenged with spinal cord injury. In attendance here today in the

gallery are Bill Barrable, CEO; Penny Clarke-Richardson, director of

strategic implementation; Christiana Cheng, research associate; Jonathan

Miodowski, manager of commercialization and industrial relations; Carey Lee,

marketing and network engagement; and Tova Plashkes, national clinical

liaison. Would the House please make all of these people welcome.

M. Polak: On behalf of the member for Parksville-Qualicum, I would like to

introduce members of the Christian Fellowship Centre in Qualicum Beach. They

are joining us today on their Legislature buildings prayer journey. Jason

Goertzen, from Leading Influence ministries, has guided them on a prayer

walk of the grounds and building, and they enjoyed lunch in the

parliamentary dining room.

I would like to mention one member in particular, Shayne Blandin, who

is also one of the constituency assistants for the member for

Parksville-Qualicum. Will the House please make them welcome.

R. Kahlon: It’s my honour today to stand in this House and welcome a

Victoria–Swan Lake resident, an Olympic silver and gold medallist and a

Canadian icon, Simon Whitfield. We met in 2000 at the opening ceremonies,

and the next morning I woke up, with many Canadians, to watch him come back

and win a gold medal for Canada. Then he was a flag-bearer. We competed in

almost all the same games, but — I was joking with him — he won in almost

every game, and I didn’t. I welcome him and his friend Heidi Hopkins, who is

here visiting. I hope the House can make him welcome.

Hon. R. Fleming: I see that sitting up next to my constituent, Mr. Whitfield, is a

former legislative assistant of mine who worked in these buildings some

years ago. It’s great to see him back. He left the B.C. NDP caucus to pursue

the muddy life of farming in the fertile, long growing season of

Newfoundland and Labrador some years ago. He’s back here today in the

legislative precinct. It’s great to see Brian Kowalski here with us here

today.

D. Davies: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce a good friend and

colleague of mine, also one of my constituents. I’ve known him for the last

20 years. Would the House please make Jeff Kelly feel welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — CONSTITUTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Constitution Amendment Act,

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

now.

I’m pleased to introduce the Constitution Amendment Act, 2017. The

bill will reduce the number of members that are required to become a

recognized political party from four or more members to two or more

members. This change will enable a party that holds two or more seats in

the Legislative Assembly to access the legislative tools only available

to recognized political parties.

[1:45 p.m.]

The bill will also change the general voting day to a fixed fall

election date, and it will provide the authority to appoint acting

ministers to ensure the continuity of government leadership in the case

of a catastrophic disaster.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 5, Constitution Amendment Act, 2017, introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 6 — ELECTORAL REFORM

REFERENDUM 2018

ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Electoral Reform Referendum 2018

Act.

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

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum

2018 Act. This bill provides the legislative framework for the conduct

of a provincewide referendum, in fall 2018, on whether to change from

the current first-past-the-post voting system to a form of proportional

representation.

The referendum will be conducted by mail-in ballot in a manner

similar to the 2011 HST referendum and the 2015 Metro Vancouver

transportation and transit plebiscite. The threshold for the referendum

will be 50 percent plus one for the result to be binding on government.

If a proportional representation system is successful, the bill requires

government to take steps to implement the new system in time for a

general election called on or after July 1, 2021.

The bill enables the establishment of registered proponent and

opponent groups that may receive public funding for the purpose of

stimulating public debate and education about the referendum.

The precise ballot question, the designation of proponent and

opponent groups that may receive public funding, the dates on which

voting packages will be mailed out by Elections B.C. and on which dates

they must be returned and most administrative details respecting the

conduct of the vote will be established by regulation following a public

engagement process.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 6, Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act, introduced, read a

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

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

TWYLA ROSCOVICH

R. Glumac: There are times when you can see a light in someone, a radiance.

Twyla Roscovich had this light, and she used it to help us see justice,

fairness and hope. She was only 38 years old when she passed away,

leaving behind a four-year-old daughter and so many people that believed

in her and the work that she did.

I had met her on a few occasions and corresponded with her, and

she certainly left an impression on me. She was well known for her

documentary work and her incredible dedication to the environmental

protection of B.C.’s coast. She was a powerful and tireless champion for

wild salmon.

[1:50 p.m.]

I’ve been reading through all the tributes that have been shared

on Facebook about Twyla. It’s clear that she has touched many lives.

She’s been called a fearless warrior; a bright, valiant spirit; a kind

and compassionate force of nature.

The passion with which she carried herself has been an inspiration

for me. We need more people like Twyla in this world, people that are

generous with their talents, their energy and their hearts. Although

she’s gone, her light will keep shining, and her work will carry on in

all those that she will continue to inspire.

BARRIERE LIONS CLUB

P. Milobar: It gives me great pleasure today to rise to acknowledge the great

work of the Barriere Lions Club in my riding. Much like many other

community groups that we have heard of in this House over the last short

while, the Barriere Lions Club recently celebrated their 50th

anniversary of doing great community work and service in the great town

of Barriere.

Now, Barriere has only been an incorporated town for around ten

years now, so for the first 40 years, they were actually doing it as

part of an unincorporated area. It’s about 1,000 people — 1,200 people —

that live in the area, and these gentlemen have provided great work, be

it a gazebo in Fadear Park, their famous pancake breakfast, cutting of

wood for people, early reading programs, the fall fairgrounds. The

amount of work they do in that community is strictly

immeasurable.

They’ve raised a little over $1 million over that 50 years, which

again, for a town of 1,000 people, is quite some feat, and they really

have lived up to their pledge of doing good for the community. True to

the spirit of giving that the Lions Club provides, they provided their

hall to the municipality once they became a municipality.

In terms of the true act of working selflessly for your community,

they, in fact, did not organize their community dinner for themselves to

celebrate their 50th anniversary. It was the community themselves that

actually got together, and all of the groups that have been touched by

them, to make sure that they were properly acknowledged for their 50

years of great work, and they expect to see 50 more years.

It was a great evening to attend, and I’m glad to be able to bring

it forward to the House.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS AND

PAWS FOR A CAUSE

FUNDRAISER

A. Kang: When I was sworn into the chamber, I pledged to help the helpless,

to give hope to the hopeless and give voice to the voiceless. In British

Columbia, there happens to be a group that often feels helpless,

hopeless and voiceless. Last year the BC SPCA, for prevention of cruelty

to animals, conducted almost 10,000 new cruelty investigations. This is

a staggering number and one that continues to rise.

Our respect for our province, our land, includes our respect for

all beings that live here. We coexist with the animals, whether they are

wild animals, farm animals or our companions. Diversity is not just

about different countries, different origins or different languages, but

it is also about the different numbers of legs.

If we believe in the value of diversity, we should protect our

animals from cruelty. How we treat our most vulnerable members reflects

the values of our society. We’re collectively responsible for providing

animals with care, whether it’s protecting their habitats, ensuring

they’re handled humanely or that they are raised with good health,

environment and genetics.

It is essential to ensure that the most vulnerable animals facing

abuse and neglect receive assistance and that people who abuse animals

are held accountable.

Now, let me pause for a moment and turn our attention to the BC

SPCA annual event, Paws for a Cause walk. It was hosted in more than 30

communities last month. Participants and their four-legged animals, or

four-legged friends, enjoyed entertainment and activities while raising

essential funds that would rescue animals from cruelty and provide

countless animals with shelter, medical treatment and a permanent

house.

It is truly incredible to see thousands of people come together

across our province to fight animal cruelty and protect our most

vulnerable friends. I am inspired by the love and compassion that I saw

that day, so thank you from the bottom of my heart to all of those who

participated.

Through my statement, I hope to provide a reminder, increase

awareness and call for support for those who have no voice.

[1:55 p.m.]

NAVVY JACK HOUSE

R. Sultan: Navvies were labourers who dug canals by hand over 150 years ago.

Around 1870, one of them, a Welshman named Jack, deserted from the Royal

Navy, married our local Squamish Chief Joe Capilano’s granddaughter,

built a house on the beach in West Vancouver and made his living digging

gravel off the beach and taking it over to Vancouver in his rowboat,

where it was mixed to make concrete. Thus was born the term “navvy

jack,” used even today to describe a type of gravel.

Jack was also famous for carrying a piano on his back from Quesnel

to Barkerville during the gold rush. But that’s another

story.

The house which Jack built still stands on Ambleside Beach, the

oldest continuously lived in frame house on the Lower Mainland. With

prodding from Bill Chapman and Liz Leduc, two local preservationists,

West Vancouver finally repaired the roof. Now Lloyd, the elderly final

occupant, moved out.

What becomes of Navvy Jack’s house now? The nature house society

was formed to preserve it as an intergenerational environment-based

information hub. The sideyard will become salmon-rearing habitat. The

house stands next to Lawson Creek. About one million persons a year from

all over Vancouver and the world will soon walk by each year since it

faces our waterfront Spirit Trail.

Welcome to West Vancouver’s Navvy Jack Nature House.

SISTERS IN SPIRIT VIGILS

AND REDRESS

PROJECT

M. Dean: Today we honour the lives of missing and murdered Indigenous women

and girls in Canada. October 4 is a day focused on supporting families

who have been tragically touched by violence and the loss of a loved

one.

People across the province are gathering today at Sisters in

Spirit vigils to shed light on a crisis that affects too many families

and communities in our province. Families and friends are remembering

the lives of sisters, daughters, mothers, aunts and grandmothers

tragically taken from us. Each candle lit at these vigils is a beacon of

hope and strength.

The annual Sisters in Spirit vigils have become one way in which

the ongoing epidemic of murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls

is recognized and those lost are honoured. Part of the remembrance

includes displaying empty red dresses in communities and along highways,

including here today in the upper rotunda.

A Métis artist, Jaime Black of Winnipeg, Manitoba, created the

REDress project seven years ago, describing it as an aesthetic response

to the issue of violence against Aboriginal women. The dresses are a

visual reminder of the staggering number of Indigenous women and girls

who are no longer with us. There are over 2,000 missing or murdered

Indigenous women in Canada, and that number keeps growing.

Together, we remember those who are lost, support their loved ones

and work to reduce the incidence of violence against women and girls. We

work together so that we can create a future where all women and girls

are safe from harm.

MISSION CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

S. Gibson: I am proud to represent much of Mission here in the Legislature

and am especially proud of our vibrant commercial sector.

I want to acknowledge today the Mission Chamber of Commerce.

They’re fantastic community builders. It was the second chamber to open

in B.C. 125 years ago. Today they have 500 members, one of the largest

per-capita memberships in our province. They do an amazing job. They

serve business. They promote tourism. They encourage economic

development. They’re strong advocates to the federal government,

ourselves and local government.

[2:00 p.m.]

The good thing to note about the Mission Chamber of Commerce is

they’ve got a lot of young members. It’s vibrant. When I go to their

meetings, there’s a lot of young energy there.

The chamber serves all of Mission and also into the unincorporated

area, right to Harrison River and Stave Lake. They’ve got a great board,

headed by President David Sawatzky, and a fabulous management team —

Kristin Parsons, Jo-Anne Chadwick and Janessa Derksen.

They sponsor lots of great events: the Strawberry Festival, Fraser

Valley trade show, and so many more. I am proud to represent Mission

here in the Legislature. It’s a privilege, along with a colleague from

across the floor representing Maple Ridge–Mission.

I want to express my gratitude for the outstanding work done by

the entire team of the Mission Chamber of Commerce.

D. Routley: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: I’d like to introduce a group of students from Cedar Elementary. Cedar

is a rural community in between Ladysmith and Nanaimo, a beautiful place

with many long-rooted families and many new families as well. Immigrant

families have settled there very recently.

It’s my pleasure to introduce a friend, a teacher in the school,

Michael Moynihan. My notes say that there are 30 people — six students and

24 adults. Now, I know class sizes have gone down since this government came

into power, but I think it’s 24 students who I met and six

adults.

Can the House please make them welcome to their House.

Oral Questions

EMPLOYEE SEVERANCE PAYMENTS BY

OFFICE OF THE

REPRESENTATIVE

FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH

L. Throness: My question today — and I believe it’s the first question for the

minister — is for the Minister of Children and Family

Development.

It has come to light that an employee of the Office of the

Representative for Children and Youth left that office in March of 2015

to seek her fortune elsewhere. After eight years of employment, the

representative could not have been more clear on the reason for her

departure. I want to quote the representative. She said: “I can just say

she chose to leave to work on new opportunities.”

Well, there’s nothing wrong with an employee choosing to leave for

something bigger and better. But there is a fly in the ointment here.

Why would an employee who chose to leave a provincial government office

get 11 months of severance payments from that office?

Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question. I’m pleased to be able to

stand to answer a question in the House, although I thought the first

question might be something around children and families in this

province.

I also want to talk about the Representative for Children and

Youth and the excellent relationship that we’re developing with the

office. I’m happy to say that a report is coming out this afternoon. I’m

happy to say that I’m glad to talk about the representative and the work

they’ve done, because they’ve done incredible work in this

province.

They’ve done work that’s stood out and raised the issues for

children and youth in this province, for some years now. I think it’s a

really important position. I’m glad that we have it in the House and in

this province because there are issues with children in this province

that we need to deal with. I’m really grateful to that position, that

it’s here.

Mr. Speaker: The Member for Chilliwack-Kent on a supplemental.

L. Throness: Wow. That’s not really an answer to the question at all. The

minister can try and sidestep the question. But last time I checked, the

representative’s office is paid for with taxpayer’s money. Somebody on

that side needs to take responsibility for the money that was

spent.

The public accounts tell us that the employee in question was paid

11 months of severance, totalling $105,791. But according to public

agency rules, a voluntary departure does not trigger severance

payments.

[2:05 p.m.]

So I ask again: why was severance paid to an employee who chose to

leave the office to pursue another opportunity — perhaps a political

opportunity?

Hon. M. Mark: I’ve been an advocate for 20 years in this province, both locally,

provincially and nationally. I served as the child and youth advocate

with the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, which is

an independent office of the Legislature, from 2006. For two years, I

spent time as the Associate Deputy Representative for Children and

Youth, responsible for advocacy for the most vulnerable children in this

province. I was responsible for the advocacy program

provincially.

In 2013, the mandate of the representative’s office changed when

they included advocacy for young adults, to advocate for young people

receiving services from Community Living B.C. In that time, there was a

massive change at the organization, which triggered a corporate

restructuring. As part of the corporate restructuring, my position was

eliminated in 2015, and I received severance.

When I was elected to serve in these chambers for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant, I immediately contacted the RCY to end those severance

payments to me.

S. Cadieux: No one is doubting the value of the representative’s office nor

the individuals who work there and care deeply about the work that they

do. But, Mr. Speaker, employees of the provincial government are

required to adhere to the rules and regulations outlined by the B.C.

public service. Those who choose to leave the government’s employment

are not entitled to severance pay.

The previous Representative for Children and Youth is quoted as

having being said that the specific employee “left the representative’s

office in March of 2015 to pursue other job opportunities.” There are

reports that the employee, having chosen to pursue other job

opportunities, did receive $106,000 from the taxpayers between April 1,

2015 and March 31, 2016.

Can the minister responsible for the public service please explain

what the circumstances would be in the case of a voluntary departure for

that employee to receive severance?

Hon. M. Mark: I have great pride standing in the House as the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Training, but I’m happy to entertain this

question in this House.

As part of a corporate restructuring at the Representative for

Children and Youth when they extended their mandate in 2013, my position

was eliminated. I appreciate that the member opposite is trying to imply

that I left. I did not leave voluntarily. I was given a severance, which

is in accordance with the severance terms and agreements clearly laid

out in the public sector management and executive employees act, under

the public sector employees’ regulations.

Clearly, the law informed this decision. I disclosed immediately

to the RCY to stop payments, and as soon as I had my meeting with the

office of the complaints commissioner, I also disclosed to ensure there

was no conflict.

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

S. Cadieux: I’ll just clarify, again, that the former Representative for

Children and Youth made reference to the fact that the employee left to

pursue other opportunities and clarified her remarks. Again, the former

representative said: “I can just say she chose to leave to work on new

opportunities.”

What the minister now is saying in this House is to suggest that

the representative was incorrect in those statements.

I would ask, then: why is it that the minister did not at the time

correct the statements made by the representative and instead choose to

leave the impression that the employee left of her own

accord?

Interjections.

[2:10 p.m.]

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

Hon. M. Mark: As part of a restructuring at the representative’s office, my

position was eliminated. I was given severance.

For the record, the member opposite who is raising the question

was the minister at the time who not only worked closely with the

Representative for Children and Youth, but I might add…. When we talk

about an independent office of the Legislature in these chambers, to

imply that they are not following the regulations that are clear, the

clear allegations about management and executive employees who are given

severance…. There is a regulation that guided that decision. I did not

make that decision. It was from an independent office of the

Legislature.

For the record, at no time was there ever any overlap between

severance payments, when I was on severance, and when I started as MLA,

as is being implied by the members opposite to put in question my

integrity.

M. de Jong: My question is for the minister responsible for the Public Service

Agency, and it’s a simple one. In what circumstances, if any at all,

would a public sector employee who voluntarily chose to leave their

position be entitled to a six-figure severance package?

Hon. C. James: This question has already been answered. The individual that the

question is being asked about — her position was terminated in a

reorganization. According to the rules of the public service, she

received her severance. End of story.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the official opposition on a

supplemental.

M. de Jong: I hope the minister won’t mind if others decide when the story

ends and not her.

Another straightforward question. Since coming to office, has the

minister or the government made any changes to the policy governing when

severance is payable to a departed employee?

Hon. C. James: No.

REGULATION OF RIDE-SHARING INDUSTRY

J. Thornthwaite: The Minister of Transportation has displayed trouble with

timelines of late. She’s made Highway 1 a parking lot and won’t give us

any answers on the George Massey bridge replacement. Now it appears

she’s breaking her promise on ride-sharing.

The minister and her colleagues had this to say in May. “The now

Premier and the B.C. NDP support the passing of new rules to introduce

ride-sharing to B.C. in 2017.” But last week the minister said: “It’s

too complicated. The previous government wanted it by the end of the

year. I don’t want to do that.”

The minister may not want to do that, but 2017 is what she

promised the voters. My question to the minister is: is the promise made

on May 4 by the NDP, by the now Premier, just another broken

promise?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’ve got to say the previous government, on that side of the

House, that was in office for 16 years did make an announcement on

ride-share, but it was premature because they did not have a plan. They

set an unrealistic….

Interjections.

[2:15 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may hear the question when somebody is

speaking.

Hon. C. Trevena: They set an unrealistic time frame that didn’t look at the

complexities, and we are committed….

Interjections.

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s very interesting. When people are listening to this, they

can’t actually hear all the heckling, and they wonder why I stop. I stop

because the people who ask the questions don’t want to listen to the

answer. If the opposition wants to listen to the answer, they can be

quiet.

J. Thornthwaite: Let’s be very clear. The commitment she ran on was to introduce

the new rules in 2017. But last week at UBCM, she said: “At the moment,

we’re working in general on getting to a stage where we can assess what

we do next.” Yesterday she had a different position. Today she has a new

one. And apparently next week she’ll have another one. I get that you’re

announcing another policy next week.

I know campaign promises don’t mean much to the Greens and,

increasingly, the NDP, but this is clearly a broken promise. So tell the

House: will the minister be breaking the Premier’s election

promise?

Hon. C. Trevena: The opposition, when they were government, had a sham consultation

for two years. We are absolutely committed to a….

Interjections.

Hon. C. Trevena: Do you not want to actually hear an answer?

Interjections.

Hon. C. Trevena: Okay, well….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, please proceed.

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are creating a made-in-B.C. solution. We have people who work

in the taxi industry who have jobs and investments there. We have people

who want to bring in new technologies. There is clearly need to move on

this. We’re going to have more to share on our engagement plan — a real

engagement plan, not sham negotiations — next week.

J. Isaacs: One of the consequences of all these broken promises is anxiety.

Taxi drivers and their families are anxious. The tourism industry is

anxious. And municipalities are anxious.

The minister, as stated, had one position last week at UCBM.

Yesterday the minister suggested that Uber drivers should apply for taxi

licences if they wanted to operate in B.C. That would suggest she thinks

we should just issue more licences for taxis. Today there is yet another

position and a change in what she had said. The minister is dithering,

and this back and forth is creating uncertainty and anxiety for a lot of

British Columbians.

[2:20 p.m.]

Question to the minister. She and her colleagues ran on a platform

to provide ride-sharing to British Columbians in 2017.

Interjections.

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

If you could repeat the question.

J. Isaacs: Why is she breaking her word?

Hon. C. Trevena: As I said in my previous answer, we are going to have

consultations.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on a

supplemental.

J. Isaacs: British Columbians deserve certainty on this issue, and we’re just

getting whiplash going back and forth. We’ve had three different

positions in just a matter of weeks.

To the minister again, given her recent comments and the fact that

she and her colleagues used this issue to seduce British Columbians to

vote for them, will she come clean and confirm that she actually has no

plan to implement ride-sharing in British Columbia any time

soon?

Hon. C. Trevena: We are going to have consultation. We are going to announce our

plans very shortly.

TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

FOUR-LANING

PROJECTS

T. Stone: The Trans-Canada Highway from Kamloops to the Alberta border moves

$2 billion in trade annually…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, could we please hear the question? Thank you.

T. Stone: …and 12,000 vehicles per day. It’s arguably the most important

highway corridor connecting B.C. to the rest of Canada, so continued

investments in safety and capacity improvements are absolutely

critical.

Now, the previous B.C. Liberal government presided over $1.5

billion worth of work on Trans-Canada projects, including a new $200

million investment just east of Kamloops. In fact, the first of this

project’s three phases, from Chase Creek Road to Chase West, has been

tender-ready for weeks and was supposed to be under construction by

now.

My question to the Minister of Transportation is this. Can the

minister confirm that the construction start date of this project has

been delayed and will no longer take place in 2017, as originally

planned? And if so, why is the minister dithering and delaying on this

much-needed highway improvement project?

Hon. C. Trevena: We know what a vital link the Trans-Canada is east of Kamloops.

That’s why we are accelerating — accelerating — the work that that

government promised and never delivered on.

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

supplemental.

T. Stone: The fact of the matter is that this project was on track to being

tendered weeks ago so that construction would begin before the ground

actually was frozen this year. All the minister had to do was, well,

nothing. Just stay out of the way of the process and let the project

proceed.

Perhaps it’s not surprising, though, that they’re actually not

accelerating this project, because they have opposed every major

Trans-Canada investment. Whether it was Malakwa and North Fork bridges

outside of Sicamous, whether it was the Illecillewaet project near

Revelstoke, whether it was the Salmon Arm west project…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Members, may we hear the question, please?

T. Stone: …the NDP opposed. Or how about the Kicking Horse Canyon, phase 4,

which was a $450 million project opposed by the members opposite? The

minister says that she wants to accelerate these projects, but folks in

the Interior are seeing exactly the opposite on the ground.

My question to the minister is this. Will the minister confirm

today that she’s going to stop delaying and get on with the much-needed

Trans-Canada four-laning projects that are ready to go — near Golden,

near Revelstoke, near Salmon Arm and near Chase?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: The member opposite was Transportation Minister. Under his watch,

that project — Highway 1 repairs — was delayed. If the member doesn’t

understand what “accelerate” means, I can find him a dictionary. We are

accelerating work on the Trans-Canada.

MASSEY TUNNEL REPLACEMENT PROJECT

I. Paton: The inability of the Minister of Transportation to meet timelines

has serious consequences. She has condemned tens of thousands of people

across the province to spend more hours in their cars instead of with

their families.

Nowhere is this felt more than in the communities south of the

Fraser. The George Massey Tunnel is the worst traffic bottleneck in the

province, and I certainly do not want anyone to be gridlocked inside the

tunnel during a serious, major seismic event.

This is not just about commuters. This is about a trucking

industry that is furious, goods attempting to move north and south to

the U.S. border, Deltaport, Tilbury Industrial Park and the B.C.

ferries. Construction should be underway right now, but instead, I am

receiving an outpouring of calls and emails from commuters and truckers

angry about the minister’s callous decision to cancel the

bridge.

My question to the minister: when is the start date for this

project — any sort of project — to improve the crossing over the Fraser

River to fix the congestion? Can she give me a specific date?

Hon. C. Trevena: We are in this position because the previous government chose a

pet project against the wishes of communities in the region. Unlike the

previous government, we are working with people and working with the

mayors to develop fair, long-term solutions to transportation needs in

the Lower Mainland, including the best solution for this

bottleneck.

Mr. Speaker: Member, Delta South, on a supplemental.

I. Paton: Without a start date, it is clear that the minister likely has no

intention of doing anything. Commuters are missing family gatherings,

appointments, kids’ soccer practices, or worse, they may be stuck in an

ambulance trying to get to a hospital in Vancouver and they can’t get

through the tunnel. They deserve a better answer.

The minister has not been forthright. This is not just a review.

It is a cancellation with very real impacts on people’s lives.

Construction workers were blindsided by her decision. Many of the

workers and contractors that I spoke with are devastated. They were told

to pack up and leave and go tell a lot of people that they’re laid off

and out of work.

Will the minister admit that she made a mistake and get on with

building the bridge for the sake of commuters, the sake of workers and

the sake of our economy?

Hon. C. Trevena: This will be a multi-billion dollar project — billions of dollars

of public money. Unlike the previous government, we’re not going to

spend billions of dollars until we are absolutely sure that it is the

right project.

VANCOUVER SCHOOL DISTRICT TRUSTEES

M. Polak: For those who are concerned about bullying in schools, there’s

lots of very good information on the ministry website. In fact, I’ll

quote from some of it. It says: “If you or someone you know is being

bullied, talk to a responsible adult right away.” It goes on to say:

“Intervention is vital. It takes courage to report. Reporting helps keep

everyone safe. It’s important that the truth be out there.”

Earlier this week I asked the Minister of Education to release the

full, uncut versions of reports into bullying and harassment by

Vancouver school trustees.

[2:30 p.m.]

Now, I have listened for many years in this House to those members

pleading for reports to be released, pleading for openness and

transparency. I mean, I guess I’m not surprised that when it comes to

covering up for their Vision friends, maybe they’re singing a different

tune.

I hope, now that the minister has had a chance to think about it,

that he will do the right thing and release the full reports.

Hon. R. Fleming: You know, it’s interesting. Again, no questions about kids,

parents and the school system from the opposition. It’s almost like the

people that use the school system are the furthest thing from the B.C.

Liberal Party’s mind.

What’s interesting about this question is that they’re asking the

government to do two things that they would never have done. One is to

restore democracy in Vancouver, and the other is to release a report

that they wouldn’t release when the minister responsible had the chance

to do it too.

Now, I suspect the former minister had legal advice at the time

that instructed him not to do it, not to compromise confidential

investigations because of the precedent that would set in other

workplace investigations, but they ask for it now anyway. So it’s a case

now, from the critic, of: “Do as I say; don’t do what we didn’t do when

we were in government.”

As to the accusation from them….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. R. Fleming: As to the accusation from that party — of all things — that we’re

playing politics, I have to quote a tweet from the former Minister of

Education the other night: “Great to see so many friends at the NPA

Vancouver event.” And there he is with school trustee candidates. So

maybe the political interference coming from them is something they’d be

ill-advised to pursue. Let Vancouverites choose their board.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report of the

Representative for Children and Youth — Missing Pieces: Joshua’s

Story .

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In Committee A, I call, for the benefit of members, the continued

estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture. After those estimates are complete, I

will call estimates of the Ministry of Labour. In this chamber, I call continued

interesting, scintillating debate on Bill 3.

[2:35 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — ELECTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

R. Coleman: I’m pleased to rise and speak to this piece of legislation.

Obviously, I will outline as to why I don’t think we can support the

legislation as we come through, particularly with relevance to the one

section that takes taxpayers’ money to fund campaigns for people who are

running for elected office in the Legislature of British

Columbia.

I was elected to this House in 1996. At that time, my riding

didn’t have a lot of money, so I actually went and got a line of credit

to be able to run a proper campaign on my own dime. After my campaign

was over, friends of mine helped me put together a little fundraiser for

about 200 people at $50 a ticket. We were able to pay back my initial

debt and then look at how we would raise money on a regular basis so

that we would be able to fund elections in my riding over the next

however many decades we could.

Last November was the 20th annual — I won’t say my name, obviously

— MLA fundraiser. Tickets are $150. The event has about 700 people at

it. It’s an annual event, and most of the people that buy tickets to

that event are buying them individually.

I think the challenge we have today is people think that somebody

else should pay for my election. I don’t agree with that. As a matter of

fact, even in the all-candidates meetings we had just in the previous

election…. When I was at the chamber of commerce all-candidates meeting

and the one with the seniors in my riding, I was asked the question. I

said that in no circumstances did I think that somebody in that room —

who may be NDP, may be Green, may be independent, may be a Conservative

or a B.C. Liberal — should pay for my election. I should not demand that

they universally fund me to run in an election. If I can’t go out and

raise the money to run my election, why do I expect the taxpayer to do

it?

Now, the taxpayer does not like this, by the way. I know what my

emails have done — lighting up on Twitter, etc., simply because of the

thing.

I sat in this House yesterday afternoon and listened to those who

were debating this bill for a few hours and heard some interesting

comments and accusations related to my political party and raising

money. What I didn’t hear from the people opposite, though, is how they

justified the money that they were getting from organizations as

well.

It’s interesting. One of them was actually saying how much one

group of five people with the same last name donated about $900,000 to

our party over a ten-year period. They happened to be successful

business people, and I’m not sure they’re all related.

However, they didn’t mention $2,221,532.06 that has been donated

to the NDP by the United Steelworkers. The United Steelworkers, who

represent the people working in sawmills and pulp mills and other

operations in British Columbia and whose leader, out of Pittsburgh,

obviously dictates to the NDP, is actually running a protectionist thing

to have duties put on B.C. lumber to hurt B.C. jobs of the very union he

represents. As a matter of fact, if nothing else, I think this is hush

money. “Don’t bother us with it. We’ll just give you $2 million, and

maybe that’s the way we’ll do it now.”

Interestingly enough, of the money that was given, $675,000 was

given after the Vancouver Sun printed a leaked memo from the

United Steelworkers. Here’s the quote that was in the article. “The

party views labour unions as an ATM. The only time our views are heard

is when they are attached to a cheque.” Attached to a cheque. That’s one

of the donors to the NDP.

But let’s not think it’s just the steelworkers. The Canadian Union

of Public Employees: $1,927,921.51. The B.C. Federation of Labour:

$1,414,139.14. The B.C. Government and Service Employees Union:

$2,160,457.29. The Hospital Employees Union: $1,134,274. And a few other

unions in the range of about half a million dollars.

[2:40 p.m.]

The only reason I bring that up…. In the context of this

discussion, hearing some of the accusations and comments from people

across the way, thinking that they’re trying to convince people that

they’re not people that would take money from anybody else, or that they

don’t have big donors. They have bigger donors than any political party

in B.C.

The other thing I didn’t hear yesterday, when I was sitting and

listening to the debate, was this. The people from the NDP…. I’ve got a

lot of friends who have donated to my political party over the years.

They’re out there basically putting the hammer on them right now — all

the corporate donors. They’re actually using, as one fellow told me….

They had the list of donors in their hand when they came in to the B.C.

Liberal Party and said: “You gave them X. You should give us X, too,

because we’re now the government, and you need to donate to

us.”

That’s gone on and on and on. So you know what? From one side of

your mouth, you’re saying one thing, and from the other side of your

mouth, you’re doing completely the opposite. That’s why it’s disturbing

to look at this piece of legislation in the light of what’s been said

and what’s going on. But let’s go to what’s been said.

This a quote from CFAX radio, September 19 last year. Again, this

is the Premier of today. Again, more distortion and more fabrication,

more “making up stuff” by the then Premier. “At no time have I said I

prefer to make public dollars responsible for political parties.” Again,

“the Premier is just making stuff up. I believe we need to get big money

out of politics.”

He’s right. The only problem is that the big money he wants to put

back into politics is out of the taxpayer’s pocket — $27 million. Also,

in addition to that, he has a number of other ones where he says things

like: “I don’t want to think I’m running away from this, because I’m

not, but it’s not what we are making it out to be.” He’s talking about a

transition fund that will be gone at the end of his mandate, which isn’t

actually true. It has to go to a committee. Somebody has to make a

decision four or five years from now. But they’re going to dump the

taxpayers’ money into the people’s pockets across B.C.

The other interesting thing about it is how they structured how

they want to spend that money. They’ve actually decided….

Interjection.

R. Coleman: They have been misled, actually, hon. Member.

This is January 24, 2017. “There is no proposal in our legislation

for public financing of elections. There is a proposal to have a group

of prominent people, through Elections B.C., look at what the rest of

the world is doing.” He didn’t do that. He just came with a piece of

legislation to take taxpayers’ money to pay for campaigns. So he didn’t

finish it.

In actual fact, the interesting thing is this. The money that they

want to send, if you look at the legislation — and they won’t like to

hear this — is actually geared, the way they’ve structured this, to make

sure no other political party in British Columbia has the opportunity to

compete, because there are only three political parties under the

taxpayer subsidy they’re putting into elections that will see any

money.

They decided to do this in order to prop them all up. They want to

take care of the NDP’s future, and they want to take care of the Greens’

future. The fact of the matter is, as they do that, they’re turning

their backs on the very people that voted for them when they said to

them: “We won’t do public money.” The Premier of the day said he

wouldn’t do it. Now it’s public money.

Interjection.

R. Coleman: You know what? You’re right about that, hon. Member. They do want

big money out, but they don’t want their money becoming the big

money.

At $1,200 a person, I can run a political party. I don’t need you

to go out and subsidize every political party in the

province.

Interjections.

R. Coleman: It’s not.

It’s okay. It’s okay.

You know what happens when you heckle me, eh?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

[2:45 p.m.]

R. Coleman: You know what happens when you heckle me. I’m sure the people in

Powell River–Sunshine Coast are going to be really happy to be

subsidizing your re-election, if you choose to run in the next election,

or whoever is going to be there. I’m sure they’ll be happy.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

All comments through the Chair, please. No personal

comments.

R. Coleman: Through you, Mr. Speaker.

To the people of Powell River–Sunshine Coast…. I don’t think they

want to subsidize anybody’s election in Powell River–Sunshine Coast in

the next election. I know they don’t want to do it in Langley

East.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

R. Coleman: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, there is a nerve over there for the member

for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

I’m talking about…. The people who vote in that riding won’t be

impressed that somebody wants to take their tax dollars to subsidize the

election of people running in the next provincial election, over the

next four years, to the tune of $27 million. I don’t think a whole lot

of British Columbians want to do that either. I know they don’t, that I

talk to.

This bill is really a situation being created that will actually

take out of the game all but three political parties in British

Columbia. They’re the only ones that are going to get the dough. The

other guys have to start from a standing start at $1,200 a person. I’m

happy to stand on $1,200 a person and do a right and fair competition.

Let’s have it.

We’ll get the people to donate at $1,200. We will build a

database, which we have. We will build our operation that way, and we’ll

do it under the rules that are in front of us. But we don’t need you

guys….

Interjections.

R. Coleman: Well, we will, actually. It’s interesting you say that.

I can tell you what’s not going to happen. There will be an

amendment in committee stage, but I can tell you what’s not going to

happen when the division call comes. You’re not voting for the

amendment. You’re not voting for the amendment because you want the

dough. You’re gonna take the dough. That’s what you want. That’s what

you desperately want, and you don’t care what the taxpayers of British

Columbia say. If you were listening to them, they’re saying: “Whoa,

whoa, whoa.”

One of the funniest things I’ve had with this is…. I have a friend

who….

Interjections.

R. Coleman: Are you done yet?

Interjections.

R. Coleman: You will, if you keep it up. I’ll become the designated speaker,

and you’ll be listening to me for two hours. Believe you me, I’ve got 21

years of stories. So I’m okay. You just let me know.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the Chair appreciates the passion, but let’s hear one

person at a time. Thank you.

R. Coleman: Yup. We’ve touched a nerve. We definitely have touched a

nerve.

In actual fact, we all agree in this House about one thing. We

want to eliminate corporate and union donations to political parties in

British Columbia. We agree on that.

I don’t think that the United Steelworkers union out of Pittsburgh

should be putting $2,221,532.06 into the B.C. NDP. I personally don’t

think you should take the money from that particular organization,

particularly when they are a protectionist organization whose leader has

already been to Washington to put duties on B.C. lumber products which

are made by United Steelworkers in British Columbia.

I mean, who are you in bed with? The unions? It’s certainly not

their members, not the people whose jobs are in Quesnel and Williams

Lake and the other places around this province. The very people that

gave you $2 million are trying to get duties and additional taxes put on

B.C. lumber products. That’s what they’re doing. Imagine. They’ll be the

ones that will cheer on the backs of their workers if the softwood

lumber deal is done and there are quotas and duties and taxes on B.C.

lumber products. They’re playing up to their guys, and they don’t really

care about us.

Interjections.

R. Coleman: Actually, never done it. It sold out within two months of the day

that it was announced — $150 a ticket. That’s what it is.

As we go through this bill, I’ll have some questions, like

everybody will. My first one will be…. This is the second piece of

legislation to come before this House.

[2:50 p.m.]

My experience on legislation was, when I was a minister, that if

you tried to do something retroactively, the courts always shut you

down. So the legal counsel to government, the Attorney General’s office,

would red-tag the legislation.

Legislation is either green-tagged, red-tagged or yellow-tagged.

If it’s yellow-tagged, there are some issues, whether about Charter

challenges or whatever, but it can probably withstand the challenge, and

that’s why that legal advice is given to government.

Anytime somebody’s ever looked at doing retroactivity in

legislation, it’s usually been red-tagged. I can tell you I don’t know

of a government that’s done retroactive legislation that’s actually

withstood the courts.

This piece of legislation has an odd piece of retroactivity in it.

It’s odd because…. We had a briefing on the bill yesterday by the

government staff. Really, what it says is this. Going back forever, any

dollar that was ever given to a political party in British Columbia that

came from a corporation or union has to be tracked now and cannot be

used in the next election — that’s not that hard to do — and cannot be

used for certain things.

It’s retroactive. The question in committee will be…. This is a

forensic accounting nightmare, to try and go back decades to find out,

when some company donated to a political party or a union donated to a

political party, when, where and how, and then where the dollars went.

Did it go to an individual riding? In some cases, some parties have

individual ridings. In the case of the B.C. Liberals, it’s easier,

because we only had one bank account. We just ledger to our ridings, so

our tracking will be easy. But it will create some challenges for

Elections B.C. and the costs for them to be able to manage this piece of

legislation going forward. I’m not sure that retroactivity will

work.

The second piece of the legislation that’s interesting is we’re

dealing with the writ period. One of the members yesterday got up and

was railing about the U.S. and Russia, which was interesting in its own

right, and railing against PACs — you know, political action groups or

committees or whatever they’re called in the United States — who get

millions of dollars given to them so that they can actually support

campaigns and what have you.

Like I said to one of my colleagues on the other side of the House

when we were having a chat, really what this legislation does is it

actually crystalizes PACs in British Columbia. It won’t be that they

will put the money into the 28-day period. Groups like unions,

businesses, organizations, environmental groups, whatever, could

actually create a PAC, spend all the money they want in advance of the

writ, advertising and promoting whoever they want to support in the

campaign, and down tools on day 1 of the writ. There’s nothing that

actually reaches back to deal with any of that going forward.

I know it’s always been a challenge. We did try a couple of times

with the Election Act to deal with that 30-, 60-, 90-day pre-writ period

with regards to spending. I think they probably got the advice that we

got in the end, that you just couldn’t do it.

I think there were two legal challenges, one under the former

government to us, then under us. Maybe we’re not going to see our third

this time, because the…. They won’t be doing that, but don’t kid

yourself. Somebody will be complaining four years from now, going into a

writ period, that somebody dropped a whole bunch of advertising in the

marketplace from an organization that isn’t spending it during the writ

and therefore cannot be controlled. That will be something everybody

should be aware of.

The other piece of the legislation, obviously, that concerns us

is…. One is the taxpayer-supported piece. We have no concern whatsoever

with the $1,200 per person. In actual fact, I think that’s quite

manageable if you know how to run your databases and your people. There

will be confusion for some people out there who may do something like

this. A person may decide that they like an independent candidate or a

party candidate and give $1,200 to each party, or whatever the case may

be, and get caught in the rules here that say you’ve overdone your

donation. You’re now fined double what your donation is. The person that

took the donation is also in trouble here as well.

I think there’s going to be some clarity needed, as we go through

the committee stage, on how they see Elections B.C. dealing with that

and how they’re going to deal with it in such a way that people aren’t

just going to get charged because somebody made an honest mistake. I

think that’ll be an important part of the discussion of the

bill.

[2:55 p.m.]

As we go forward with this particular piece of legislation, I look

back at 21 years in elected office. I know that I’ve always taken

personal responsibility for properly raising the money that I needed to

run an election. I know that there are narratives out there that people

like to have, and I’m going to tell you that they’re wrong. And I can

actually tell you that — guaranteed wrong.

The people that have donated to me over the years have never

compromised me once. They’ve never asked for a single thing from me

once. They supported me as an individual and as a party because they

believed in what we were doing. I also know some of the folks that have

supported me have also donated to other political parties for some

reason. They may like something in a policy or whatever the case may be.

And I would suspect they never compromised those people

either.

There’s a narrative out there that somebody is being compromised

all the time. I can tell you it’s just not true. It’s just not true. I

can make a joke about, you know, the hush money type of comment that I

made about the steelworkers, because I heard those types of comments on

the other side. But I don’t think for a second that the people who run

our parties, who do their work, who sit in public office, should be put

into question of character because somebody decides to put a narrative

out there that they cannot substantiate or prove.

It dishonours the members of this Legislature, and it dishonours,

I think, the honest people who actually run our political parties. They

do a good job for us. They work hard. The volunteers come out and work

for us in elections. They put up signs, and they make phone calls. They

help to raise the money so we can buy the signs, get the wood — all the

things you need to do to run an election. And I’ve never seen anything

compromised in that relationship. I doubt that it occurs over there

either.

I actually believe that the people who do run for public office

are honourable. I know people like to build narratives around some of

this stuff. But the reality is, I think you will find, as we go through

the debate into the committee stage of this bill, that everybody is okay

with taking union and business donations out of the equation.

I think you’ll also hear in the debate they’re quite happy that

you can’t get it from anywhere else unless it’s from inside British

Columbia. I think everybody’s trying to figure out how that world works

for them going forward, as they try and build the databases and the way

they’ll go out and raise money by phone, mail or whatever they do. But

they’ll do it within the rules. They’ll do it the right way because, I

think, that’s what we all do.

As you go through the legislation that gets you to where you want

— this transparency that everybody is talking about, and you want the

fairness in this thing — I think the one thing that is wrong, wrong,

wrong is to say: “We want the taxpayers to subsidize the political

parties because they can’t go raise the money $1,200 at a time.” If

you’re going to put a threshold on it and you’re going to say we want

this and we want this out of the game, then don’t go and ask the

taxpayer who doesn’t vote for me to fund my election.

Now, in my riding, 60 percent of the people voted for me. That

means 40 percent didn’t. I don’t think those 40 percent would want their

money going to me. I think they would probably want a percentage to go

to the NDP candidate, a percentage to the Green candidate, the

independent.

They don’t get to make that choice. They don’t actually want their

taxpayers doing it. They want to be able to make the choice whether they

would donate to a particular campaign personally. And that personal

donation is just that. That’s something that’s really important because

that personal donation of both time and money is what actually makes

democracy work in this country. People will actually step up to the

plate, take a position, support who they believe in and move

on.

You know, we’ve changed the amount of money that can be spent on

an actual riding campaign in this particular piece of legislation. I

don’t have a problem with the change because I know how much my

campaign’s done. I can certainly be within that.

I don’t know if, as they drafted this legislation, they talked to

some of the guys in rural B.C. There are ridings up there — North Coast,

Bulkley Valley–Stikine — that might have 10,000, 15,000 or 20,000 less

voters than a riding in Surrey. They also take 12 hours to drive across

and, in some cases, can’t get to villages in their riding without going

by float plane or boat. We think we can actually treat the formula the

same for those ridings, when I can leave my office, on the border of my

riding, and drive across it in 15 to 20 minutes.

[3:00 p.m.]

Everybody in my riding, unless they don’t want it, has Internet,

and they have high-speed Internet. They have email. In those ridings I’m

describing…. Some places don’t have any of that. If they have Internet,

it’s like the old dial-up speed. We don’t understand sometimes when we

make decisions in this House that there is an area of this province that

has a different paradigm around how they can elect people, and we have

to recognize that as we come through.

So the questions in and around that piece of this legislation, on

the spending caps, are important for those particular ridings. Somehow

you’ve got to make this fair, and ignoring the geography and the weather

and the time it takes to do the job, for anybody that wants to run in

those ridings, should not happen.

The other things like the third-party advertising limitations — do

not include canvassers and poll voters in an attempt to influence how

they vote piece…. That will have to be discussed in committee. But the

fact of the matter is that we really have, in this legislation, taken

smaller political parties and independent candidates and effectively

excluded them from receiving a subsidy. And I dare say that if this was

done six years ago, it might be a fact that the Green Party wouldn’t

have got their first seat in this House, especially if you only gave the

money to two parties who were actually getting seats in the Legislature

and getting a percentage of the vote.

Right now it’s $6.77 million to us, $6.75 million to the NDP and

$2.825 million of a subsidy to the Green Party. And that’s from people

who work hard every day, expect us to manage their money and expect us

to be prudent in how we do things, who now find out that we aren’t going

to be prudent and we’re not going to be fair. We’re taking your tax

dollars.

Now, I know that in 1996, we worked hard to build an organization

in my riding so that we would never have to have a situation again where

the candidate…. The riding that I got nominated in didn’t have a lot of

dough but wanted to run the right campaign to take the risk, and I have

no qualms about that. I would have been accepting of the outcome either

way. But afterwards we built the database. We built people, $50 a ticket

at a time, to actually build the war chest year to year going into an

election so that it was always there for people.

I can’t see it. I can’t see how you justify it. Now, obviously,

the two parties have a majority in this House. They’ll pass the

legislation. They’ll put the taxpayers’ financing in place if they get

through the debates, and at that point in time we’ll live in a different

paradigm — not one that I like, not one that I support, and not one, I

think, that is right at all, in any way whatsoever.

I’m prepared to tell my constituents, as I go through this

legislation and it hits the floor, that somebody is selling out their

tax dollar. It’s not the B.C. Liberals, but it’s the people that vote

for this

section of the bill in particular that actually take their

taxpayer dollars and sends it to political parties. That is really,

fundamentally wrong with regards to this legislation, and it is up to

your conscience whether you can tell your constituents that that’s okay.

I don’t think it is.

Hon. J. Sims: It’s my honour today to be able to stand here in this House and

speak in favour of Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act. Like everybody

else in this House, every time that we stand up to speak in this House,

we are always reminded that British Columbians from all over the

province sent us here to do the work to make life better for British

Columbians. I personally am always in awe of the responsibility that is

put upon us, and I especially want to acknowledge and thank

Surrey-Panorama for giving me that honour to be able to sit here and

represent them and bring their voices into this august House.

[3:05 p.m.]

It’s also a time when I do want to thank all of the volunteers,

who worked very hard during the last election. But I want to remind

people that once the election process is over, we are MLAs for every

person who lives in the riding, and I plan to be a strong representative

for Surrey-Panorama.

I’m reminded of the platform that we ran on, and that was: making

life more affordable, improving the services people could count on, good

jobs and a sustainable economy. But in there was also to give people of

British Columbia a government that wasn’t the wild, wild west of

political fundraising, so that we here in British Columbia would not be

on the front page of the New York Times and other international

newspapers, making history or some point or other, and being called the

Wild West of campaign financing in B.C.

Up to now — and currently, what we’re living under — there are

basically very few rules that limit who donates and how much they

donate. That opens up a very, very serious consideration for each and

every one of us, because when you have a system that is as open-ended as

it is now, there is the possibility and potential for abuse and the

appearance of power peddling or power buying. We heard about some of

that from the Leader of the Official Opposition, and I want to make a

few points on that as well.

What this bill does — and it’s really important for us to

understand: it cuts out all donations from corporations, from businesses

and all unions. The Leader of the Official Opposition sort of listed,

previously, how this side of the House did take some money from some

unions. That was within the rules then, and the rules need to be

changed.

Our commitment was that we were going to change the rules when we

were in government. By the way, it wasn’t through lack of trying,

because it is my understanding — and I know this to be true — that the

official opposition of the day, sitting over on that side of the House,

made innumerable attempts to put some limits and to change the

legislation so that we could get business and corporate fundraising out

of our political system. Now, this legislation bans corporate and union

donations, but it also does something else. It puts strict limits on

individual contributions and bans out-of-province donations.

I was quite shocked when it became public, and it shows you how I

hadn’t really paid that much attention previously, that under the

provincial legislation that existed, people who live in other countries,

other nationals, could actually contribute into the B.C. electoral

process by making contributions to political parties — I think that was

just outrageous, and I’m so pleased that we’ve taken care of that in

here — so much so that international individuals and international

companies could donate without any limits. I don’t think there is

anywhere in the world where they would think that is just

a-okay.

[3:10 p.m.]

Democracy is a very, very fragile thing. As a history teacher for

I can assure you that our parliamentary democracy is maybe one of best

options out there. It may not be perfect at times, but compared to all

the other options out there, it is absolutely amazing, and it needs to

be protected. It needs to be protected from interference by big money

from outside of the country as well as from within the

province.

Of course, now, under this current legislation, the individual

contribution is going to be $1,200. That, actually, is the second lowest

in the country. I’m very, very proud that it sits at that. The only

other jurisdiction that has a lower limit is Quebec. And of course, we

know that they have a very substantial voter subsidy there.

What we have in this legislation is a transient — and let me

stress that: transient — allowance for transitioning from one type of

electoral financing system into another. That is there for a

time-specific period, and it decreases with time and then comes to an

end.

Part of this unlimited money that could be donated…. There was

also the very high ceiling of expenditures. I’m proud that in this

legislation, we have lowered campaign spending limits for individuals,

for individual campaigns. This will help to reduce the barriers for

people who may be thinking about running for office and serving in their

communities. Finances should not be a burden on attracting the diversity

of our population to run for office and to get elected and to come and

sit in this House. I’m a firm believer that the makeup of this House

should reflect the diversity of our population, and in order to

encourage that, we need to address the barriers that exist.

British Columbians want to know that their government is working

for them and not for the highest bidder. That has been a real problem.

We know that people should be at the heart of our politics. They should

know their government is working for them, not just for those with deep

pockets who can make big donations.

Our government has made a commitment to improve services British

Columbians can count on, especially in health care and education. For 16

long years, the former government, now sitting across the way, made

choices that resulted in generations of students learning in overcrowded

classrooms. They wasted millions in the courts fighting against teachers

and hurting our kids. We are going to change that.

Unlike the previous government, our new government will invest in

student success. We will give students the support they need and fully

restore class-size and composition requirements. In my constituency of

Surrey-Panorama, kids have spent their entire education learning

experience, from kindergarten to grade 12, in school portables. This is

completely unacceptable, especially for B.C.’s fastest-growing

region.

With this legislation in place, our focus is going to be the

people of Surrey-Panorama and other ridings across this province. Our

focus is going to be about providing services and not dealing with the

top 2 percent or the top donors who donate to a political

party.

I have heard my colleague across the way saying, you know, “Stick

to the legislation,” and I am. It’s about priorities of a government.

While they were in government, their priorities seemed to be more about

raising funds and getting a really fat bank account for the Liberal

Party. Their focus wasn’t on providing the services that students and

people who need to visit a hospital needed in my riding of

Surrey-Panorama.

[3:15 p.m.]

Our focus is going to be — and our government’s budget update

includes — record levels of capital investments, and building schools,

hospitals, roads and transit people depend on. That’s where our focus is

going to be.

I’ve heard the colleague across the way commenting. And you know

what? This is about growing decent-paying jobs in communities around

this province. That’s what our focus is, and we’re going to keep focused

on that.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the wild, wild west of B.C. is coming to

an end — and of course, of political fundraising. My colleagues across

the way are finding it hard to come to terms with that, so I can imagine

why they are feeling so disturbed and a little bit of anxiety on that

side today, because they know that as soon as this bill passes and royal

proclamation takes place, their big donations from the corporations and

the business industry are going to come to an end.

Let me assure you that’s what British Columbians want, because

they no longer want to live in a province where the wild, wild west

rules exist. They want a government that works for them, not for the top

2 percent.

Let me tell you what this legislation will actually do. I’m hoping

that it will actually receive support, because even though, for 16 long

years, people across the way resisted any kind of change to electoral

financing, I notice that they had an aha moment recently, over the last

few months, and now are beginning to realize that maybe some kind of

change is good after all.

As a matter of fact, they’ve even put a bill across, so I’m hoping

they’re going to see this bill, the legislation we put forward, and we

will see overwhelming support. They will have to take a bite and say:

“Well, you know, we have to let go of some of our freewheeling-dealing

fundraising for now.”

This piece of legislation is actually going to take $65 million in

big money out of B.C. politics by ending corporate and union donations.

That is a huge amount of money — $65 million.

This legislation is going to ban out-of-province donations. That

means out of province. Across Canada, they will not be able to interfere

or donate into B.C. elections, nor will people who live in other

countries.

It also restricts third-party election spending, and that is very,

very important, because we can all learn a lot from what happens to the

south of us. I am really, personally, very, very happy to see the

provision in here that the third-party election spending is going to be

brought to an end.

We’re also ramping up transparency in fundraising events to

address cash-for-access concerns. We’re reducing election spending

limits to make democracy more accessible to small parties and those

without deep pockets.

This is may be the rub that is getting some of my colleagues so

excited. We’re determined to end the Wild West of political cash and to

give British Columbians their government back. That is why we’re

bringing in the toughest political fundraising restrictions in the

country — to make a government work for people, not just for the wealthy

donors.

British Columbians deserve a government that puts people first,

and we are going to do that. What did the former government do? They

took $8 million from the real estate developers while delaying action on

the housing crisis, which has led to huge affordability issues felt by

people in the Lower Mainland and over here in the capital region as

well.

[3:20 p.m.]

They took $55 million that came from 177 top donors. And guess

what. Fifteen billion dollars’ worth of public contracts and government

payouts went to a very few of those people.

That party took $3.6 million from big oil companies, and then —

wait for it; this is a real shocker — they basically let them rewrite

B.C.’s climate plan. So millions from big oil companies and they get to

write our climate plan. I think that was a pretty good deal for the oil

companies in that case.

With this legislation in place, we will make sure that we protect

our democratic processes from being tarnished and even remove from them

the appearance that there is outside influence from out of province, out

of country, by unions, businesses, corporations — period. It will give

the people of British Columbia confidence that at long last, they have a

government that is prepared and willing to work for them.

I am so proud that our government, led by the Premier, is bringing

this legislation in so early after the election process. I know some

people seem to think we’ve been here forever. But I want to remind

people that it’s been less than three months since we’ve been sworn in,

and during that time, we’ve managed to do some pretty, pretty amazing

things. And I am so proud of those, as I am proud of this legislation

that is here.

We are cutting MSP premiums in half, saving families up to $900 a

year. We’ve cut tolls, and that, I can tell you, people celebrate

because that’s going to put money back in their pocket: $1,500 per year,

and for commercial drivers, $4,500 a year.

We have waived the tuition fees for youth from the care system and

learners. We’re investing $681 million more over three years to help our

kids to get the education they deserve. You know, I could go on and on,

because I have quite a few pages here of the accomplishments of this

government in a very, very short time.

As promised, we also have legislation right before this House now,

which I’m hoping there will be unanimous support for, that will address

the issue of electoral financing in our province. I am finding it hard

why people across the way would not support this piece of

legislation.

It creates more opportunities for people because the funding issue

isn’t a barrier for them. It takes the big money out of B.C. politics.

And what it does is it gives British Columbians what they’ve been asking

for, which is: “Take big money out of politics. Give us our democracy

back.” Let’s restore faith in our democracy by making sure that we are

not on the front page of the New York Times as the wild, wild

west of electoral financing.

M. Bernier: Normally, I’m usually pleased to stand in the House and speak to a

bill. This one here…. At first, I thought I wasn’t going to be pleased

to speak to it, but I actually had to change that because I’ve had so

many people come to me and say: “You need to speak about this bill.”

It’s an important bill in front of the House, but it has some

flaws.

Now, we’ve talked about this bill. I think both sides of the House

have all stood up and said there are parts of it that they like. In

fact, I know the government…. I’m thinking that a lot of the members on

that side, especially the private members, probably never had a chance

to even see the bill before it was presented in the House. So it’s

interesting — them getting up and defending it without knowing what was

even in it.

[3:25 p.m.]

It’s really important now, hopefully, as they’ve heard some of the

debates and the some of the discussions…. Well, I know the member for

Oak Bay–Gordon Head might have seen it because he’s part of this

agreement.

Interjections.

M. Bernier: It’s interesting that they want to debate something that’s already

tabled. I’m talking about before it was tabled, but that’s fine. We can

talk about that one after, as well.

When we’re sitting here talking about Bill 3 in front of the

House, both sides of the House agree that it’s time to move on. The

general public has said that it’s time to make changes. One of the

things that they didn’t say, though, was that we can actually take the

money out of taxpayers’ pockets and give it to political

parties.

The speaker before me was saying that over the last 16 years, $65

million, I believe she was referring to, is how much money has been

donated by private groups, by private citizens as their choice. Well,

over the next 16 years, the way this bill is in front of the House now,

we’re going to have more than that coming involuntary from private

citizens, being donated to political parties whether they choose to

donate or not.

I was really fortunate in my riding in the last election. I

received the highest vote percentage in B.C. Liberal history with just

under 80 percent of the vote, which means that there are 20 percent of

the people still in that riding that didn’t vote for me. But now they’re

not going to have a choice. There are 20 percent of the people in my

riding, and probably more, that didn’t even donate to a political party.

But now they’re not going to have a choice.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: It’s interesting that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head says that

it’s only $2.50, the price of a coffee. I might want to remind him that

not everybody drinks coffee, either. With that, they should have a

choice whether they drink coffee; they should have a choice whether they

donate to a political party.

It’s one of the interesting parts here, that we see the amount of

money that’s going to come from taxpayers. Where they choose not to,

they’re going to be forced to pay to give money to political

parties.

The member from the Green Party — since he’s heckling me, I’ll

keep going after him — bragged about the fact that, I believe, his

campaign only cost about $800,000 or so. Now he’s going to get $800,000

of taxpayers’ money to help subsidize his campaign. Congratulations on

that, because now the people don’t get to choose who they donate

to.

Every member in this House, in government, is standing up and

saying that it’s time to take big money out of politics. I hate to

remind you now, but you actually haven’t done that. There’s still big

money in politics. The only difference is that the big money is now

coming from taxpayers, where they don’t get to choose where that money’s

coming from.

There’s still big money in politics. The same amount of money is

going to be in politics, but people who choose not to donate are going

to be forced to donate.

We’ve said that we’re in favour of making changes. We’re in favour

of eliminating the corporate and union donations. It’s interesting that

the members opposite still want to say that it’s been 16 years. Through

that same time, they were more than proud to collect money every single

year, because their argument was: “The rules were in place, so we were

following the rules.” It was a bit of hypocrisy. If they truly were

thinking that way, they wouldn’t have taken it.

It’s no different than what we’re saying right now. We don’t want

to take taxpayers’ money. The members opposite are actually going to be

taking taxpayers’ money, which is wrong. If they take that out of the

bill, it will probably be unanimous. If they take that part out of the

bill, we’re probably going to support that. That’s what needs to be

taking place now.

The biggest problem that we have through this, I would also say,

is not only the “do as I say, not as I do” that we see under the NDP,

but it’s the fact that the now Premier stood up and said: “Trust me.

Don’t worry. If we’re elected, we’re going to bring this bill forward

first thing we do.” Congratulations. They did that.

He also said: “Don’t worry. We will not be making taxpayers pay

for political parties.” Well, I hate to warn people now and remind them

that it’s another one of those broken promises of the NDP. It’s hard to

say: “We’ll put the bill in front of the House and not put taxpayers….”

The credibility is now just lost on this bill.

I heard from the last speaker, too, that it’s time to bring

democracy back to government. It’s not democratic if you’re telling

people what they have to do. This bill is telling people that they have

to support us. This is telling people that they have to actually donate

to political parties. This bill is very clear, too, on that

note.

[3:30 p.m.]

Another part of the bill that needs to be removed is the fact that

this could be going on in perpetuity. I know that the members opposite

are going to say that it’s transitional. Well, if it’s transitional, I’m

hoping that they will actually amend their own bill and remove the

transitional component out of there.

First of all, that

section shouldn’t even be in there at all. But

if they’re going to be voting in favour of taking taxpayers’ money, they

can’t, in good faith, say, “There’s an end date to this,” when, in fact,

the bill itself says it could go on. They need to be more clear with the

taxpayers of B.C. on what they’re planning to do with this

bill.

There are a lot of hard-working taxpayers in the province of

British Columbia. They should get to choose. They get to choose where

they live. They get to choose who they should donate to. They get to

choose who they vote for. That is democracy — when people have a full

choice on what they get to do. That’s the problem that I have with this

bill.

I think the NDP members opposite are now going to have to go back

to their constituents and say: “I know I told you during the election,

before the election, that I wouldn’t do this. But the now-Premier also

said that. Sorry, we changed our minds.”

They’re going to have to go back and say, “I’m taking your money

out of your pockets” — on top of raising taxes, on top of all the other

promises that they did about $10-a-day child care, which isn’t

happening; the B.C. Ferries freeze, which isn’t happening; the B.C.

Hydro rate freeze, which isn’t happening.

It’s really interesting because they’re saying it’s only three

months, but they had the opportunity here to present a budget. They had

an opportunity to present a budget, which they did, which is in front of

the House right now, which is going through estimates and being debated.

No increases in there. They stand there and talk about how, in the

budget, they’re going to be putting more money into health care and

education. But there’s, like, no extra money in the budget for

it.

Well, actually, I shouldn’t say that. Maybe they should be

standing up and telling taxpayers: “Tell you what. We’re not going to

take your money, either, anymore.” There could be tens of millions of

dollars of taxpayers’ money now going to political parties, while in the

same breath, they’re saying: “We need to spend tens of millions of

dollars helping people, for services and programs in the province of

British Columbia.”

They need to be doing just that. They need to be telling people in

the province of B.C. exactly what their plans are.

When I look at elections, when I look at political parties and the

roots of political parties — how they’re founded, how they start and the

involvement of people in their communities — it’s truly grass roots.

People want to get involved. People want to…. When they choose to,

they’ll be out there, and they’ll be campaigning. They’ll be knocking on

doors. They’ll be putting up signs. They’ll be promoting you and your

party, if that’s what they choose to do.

The problem now is that they are forced to do that. They’re going

to be forced to actually put money into a party, whether they want to or

not. This is one of those things, again, when I look at the inequity,

not only in this bill, but in a lot of things….

When you look at rural British Columbia…. My riding is 36,000

square kilometres, the size of Belgium. I only have about 20,000 voters

in my riding. One of those challenges that we have is when you look at

36,000 square kilometres under this bill here, I’ll be treated the same

as a riding of six kilometres with 100,000 people in downtown Vancouver

and expected that everybody will treated the same.

They put the bill forward and say it’s about democracy, but they

didn’t put in the fundamental changes about this. The whole point is

making sure that we have a fair system in place.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: People should have a choice, exactly, and that’s what this bill

doesn’t have.

When you look at…. They’re trying to say big money coming from

Calgary. Opposite, they have no problem, at the same time, cashing a

cheque from Pittsburgh or from Dallas if it’s from a union supporting

their party. Maybe they should be a little bit more clear. “Take big

money out of politics, unless they’re donating to us.” That’s what the

NDP has been saying.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Again, I want to be clear. The public has been clear and said:

“We’re sick and tired of this argument. We’re sick and tired of big

money going into politics.”

[3:35 p.m.]

We agree. We’re willing to stand up here and vote in favour, if

that was the only part of the bill. In fact, when we put our bill

forward in the House, it actually made sure that it addressed all of

those concerns, but it did not follow through with making taxpayers of

British Columbia have to pay for things themselves whether they chose to

or not.

It is a bit of smoke and mirrors that we need to be dealing with.

Again, the people in my riding, as I’ve been travelling around the

province, everybody I talk to on this issue…. People need to be more

aware. At first, people are saying: “I’m glad you’re bringing a bill

forward that’s going to be making things fairer, making things equitable

and making things proper when it comes to fundraising, when it comes to

the opportunities for elections.” Then when I remind people that they’re

going to be contributing, they say: “Well, that’s not what people are

talking about. That’s not what we were promised by the NDP. Why is that

in this bill?” I keep having to say: “Well, you’ll have to ask the NDP,

because they promised they wouldn’t do this, but they have.”

When you look at paying for elections…. It’s an important

democratic process, obviously, when we go through elections. You know,

I’m very proud of the people in my riding who have decided to support

me. I’m very honoured when they do that. Also, there are people in my

riding and every other riding that support other parties, other views,

other opinions. That, to me, is democracy, and that’s what elections are

supposed to be about: putting ideas forward, having opinions and then

letting people decide.

We have a process, every four years now in the provincial

government here, to allow for people to share their opinions by casting

a vote. It’s troubling, though, when, again, they’re going to be asked

to not only share their opinions on who they vote for, but whether I

like you or not, I’m going to be subsidizing your party.

Having the individual donations and the caps they put in there, as

well, under this bill.... We agree with that. It goes back to the whole

fundamental rights of people to be able to contribute, support a policy,

support a party, support a person, support an idea. I’m completely in

favour of that. When we look at lowering the spending limits under this

bill for elections, if we want to say that that makes things more fair,

I’m okay with that as well.

The problem under this bill, though, if it goes through as is,

without amendment…. They say we’re lowering the spending limits so that

under the democratic system, it allows more freedom, more ideas, more

people to run. But in the same breath, under their bill, they’re saying:

“But we’re not going to help subsidize you going forward in your

campaign because you’re not going to meet the criteria.”

It’s really, again, smoke and mirrors. Who cares if the spending

limit is lowered if it’s still not going to allow the opportunity for

individuals to exercise their right and come forward and actually be

part of the democratic process under this bill, and then be penalized

for basically not being part of the NDP party, or part of the B.C.

Liberal party, or part of now — congratulations — the B.C. Green

Party.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: You’re welcome, to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who

received official party status today of only two. If I knew it was going

to be lowered to two, I could have, I guess, grabbed one of my

colleagues and started up my own party. We can call ourselves a party,

and I can get an automatic raise like the now leader of the Green Party

just did.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, Members.

M. Bernier: When you look at the systems that we have in front of us…. I’ll go

back to the bill at hand, hon. Speaker. I’m pleased to be talking about

it only because it gives me the opportunity to address the inequities,

the flaws and the parts of the bill that actually, fundamentally, are

wrong. They’re fundamentally not fair, and they need to be

addressed.

I’m hoping, through this discussion, that the members opposite in

the NDP government have heard not only from us, but I’m hoping that they

went and heard from taxpayers in their ridings, who have said: “Please

don’t take my tax dollars. I agree with everything else in this bill,

but this is something that I can’t stand for.”

[3:40 p.m.]

I’m hoping the members opposite have been hearing the same thing.

If they haven’t, that’s unfortunate. They need to get out and,

hopefully, talk to the people in the ridings and around the province

that I’ve spoken with who are not in favour of this.

Hopefully, through that time, they’ll hear from us, through an

amendment, and from other people in the province. They will see that a

good portion of the bill we’re in favour of. A good portion of this bill

we can all agree on. On a good portion of this, I think, the general

public in the province of British Columbia will say: “It’s a good thing

to do, and it’s time to do it.”

I’m hoping, also, they’ll agree — with any amendments that are

being put forward to take money out of taxpayers — that they’re not

going to be taking their money.

I just want to end by again saying that I think we acknowledge —

and I’ve heard it from people — that this is timely. It needs to be

done. We do know that this is something we can’t agree to, though: the

taxpayers’ money going in. People work hard for their money. They work

really hard to ensure that they get to spend that money where they

choose to spend that money.

There are a lot of people in the province of British Columbia who

get very engaged in elections, and that’s great to see. I’d love to see

more people get out and vote, more people get involved in the grassroots

components of politics, get out and support a candidate, support a

party, whoever that is, because it’s fundamental for democracy that

people do that. But I’m just ending by saying it’s not democratic when

we tell people that they have to do it, that they have to support, that

money is coming out of their pockets, whether they like it or not, to go

to a political party.

That’s why, as the bill stands, I can’t support it. If the members

opposite are willing to help make amendments to get rid of that, I think

they would find that then I will be able to support this bill. Until

that happens, I will continue — not only in this House, but publicly —

to speak against it.

Hon. G. Chow: I rise to speak in favour of this Bill 3, the Election Amendment

Act, 2017. I support it because it’s a well-thought-out process. It’s

going to help the democratic process. I just heard the previous member

say that we need to support democracy, that we need to get people to

come out to vote. I think one of the reasons people don’t come out to

vote is that people are feeling cynical about the whole process of this,

because they look at the amount of money and influence that wealthy

donors and supporters have on political parties.

For example, speaking from experience, I had been a Vancouver city

councillor for six years, from 2005 to 2011, after a career in

engineering for 30 years. I was not always in politics, but I immersed

myself into civic politics because it was closest to the people, and we

want to contribute to the community.

People put this question to me, at the end of my term in 2011,

when I left politics. The major parties in the city of Vancouver spent

over $5 million for the election. Those are the two major parties in the

city of Vancouver. We, as engineers, always like to do the math. Now, if

you look at it, we’re electing ten councillors and one mayor, so 11

people. You have two major parties. Collectively, we spend $5 million.

That works out to be about $270,000 per position.

This person, who was also an engineer, asked me: “How much do you

make?” I said: “Well, about $65,000 a year.”

“And your term is three years, so you make less than $200,000.

You’re spending $270,000 for a position that only pays $200,000 for the

whole term. Is there something else that you’re looking for?”

Of course, I said: “Well, that is what it is.” There is nothing

other than the fact that we want to contribute our ideas and our time to

this process.

[3:45 p.m.]

He said: “Well, people would be looking at you, thinking there

must be some other benefit that you gain as a politician.” To me, the

public is saying: “Look at you guys, getting all this big money, big

donations. There must be something in it for you.”

I think that was proven now with the last election when the former

Premier took a salary from the party using money that was donated by

other people — businesses and individuals. I don’t think it helps the

democratic process by having big money. This is the reason why I think

we need to put a stop to that.

For the same reason…. During the 2011 election in the city of

Vancouver, one major party received the largest donation ever in Canada

— $970,000 from one donor, almost $1 million. Now, that’s a lot of

money, and people will say: “Hey, you could almost buy an

election.”

I think we need to change, and I’m very happy that our government

is now putting forward something that would actually help this process,

that would help what the previous speaker was saying — that we want

people to be supporting democracy. We want people to come out to vote,

but people are cynical. That’s why they don’t want to come out to vote.

They believe that it’s a controlled process. It’s controlled by people

who are well connected, people who are wealthy. I think we need to

change that.

The plan is good. I don’t have to repeat what other members have

said. We’re taking big money out of politics, and we’re banning union

and corporate donations. That, certainly, is something very

important.

We’re also putting a limit on donations — $1,200 a year, which

amounts to $100 a month. We’re also restricting third-party election

spending. Certainly, that’s something we want to make sure — that you

don’t restrict the individual donations to parties, but at the same

time, you allow third-party spending.

We are also specifying transparency in fundraising events, so that

you actually tell the voters who you’re seeing, who was there and how

much money you’re taking in. I think those are all good

plans.

We’re also reducing the spending limits from the present average

of $78,000 to about one-quarter less, about $58,000. I think that’s a

good thing. That way, we can concentrate on going out there and

convincing voters that…. We have ideas. Let’s debate the ideas. I want

to serve the community. Let’s see what you have. I think that’s a good

thing. Otherwise, it’s just about the money — how much money you can get

from donations, how much money you can spend on ads. I think it’s a good

plan. I certainly will support it.

Let me give you another example of big money. I’m from the city of

Vancouver, and everybody knows that we have a real estate company owned

by Mr. Bob Rennie, who is also the Vancouver Condo King. He was able to

raise over $5 million through private dinners and donations in

What did he get in return? Well, at least the appearance was such

that, when the former government introduced the speculation tax on

foreign buyers, he was able to have some way of letting his buyers know

that that was coming, and he was exempted from that speculation condo

tax.

I think people look at that and they obviously will be very

cynical. I think, certainly, taking big money out of politics is a very

important agenda.

The other thing the member was saying is, “Well, you’re now asking

the taxpayer to fund political donations.” But I would beg to

differ.

[3:50 p.m.]

I came from Hong Kong, where there was no democracy when I came.

We were saying that democracy is about building community so that the

community will reach a consensus as to what you want to do, as a

community.

I have thought about other ways that you could fund. Right now the

political donations from businesses, unions or even from wealthy

individuals are not free. It actually comes out of the taxpayers’

pockets in the form of tax deductions. Businesses are able to write off

the entire expense as a cost of doing business. I think that is the

drawback.

I think having a system that would subsidize a political party if

they got a certain percentage of the vote is a good thing. It would help

democracy. It would help to bring back voters. Just like any other

system we have, such as our public schools…. We all contribute to public

schools because we believe in public education. We believe in people

having a good education, regardless of your background or your wealth.

You could go forward and be a contributing member in society.

If you agree with that kind of premise, I would think that

contributing, as a community, to political endeavours like elections is

certainly a very worthwhile thing to do. The plan we are putting forward

is actually self-limiting in that after five years, it will not be in

force. It will not be renewed unless we come to an agreement that we’re

going to renew it. I think that’s a good strategy, a good

idea.

I just want to close by saying I’m very proud of the government

that I am in. I got elected in May. I have waited long enough to see a

government actually put this kind of innovative and just idea in front

of us. I think the voters would definitely support it too. We’d really

like to see big money out of politics. We want to concentrate on the

process. We want to concentrate on the people who have ideas to

contribute.

I don’t need to say any more. I think a lot of the members have

said some of the technical items. I think it’s very well thought out. I

certainly have listened to the opposite members as well. I don’t agree

with the idea that we are telling the taxpayers to pay when we actually

have some kind of system whereby you subsidize the political process.

There’s a process for all people.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Cowichan Valley. [Applause.]

S. Furstenau: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and thank you to the caucus for the

applause.

The way our political parties can raise and spend money strikes at

the heart of our decision-making processes. There is a real and present

threat posed to our democracy when people in this province feel that

special interests are getting preferential access to decision-makers. It

makes people cynical about politics and cynical about politicians, and

this undermines democracy.

We are already in a time of great change, with new forces

impacting our global and provincial economies and putting new pressures

on society. The pace of change in technology, the ever-increasing

impacts created by climate change, the challenges facing youth and

Millennials as they attempt to prosper in the emerging economy…. All of

these forces present us with new challenges and new

opportunities.

It will be up to all of us in this chamber to help this province

navigate these tumultuous waters. We need to ensure that we advance

proactive solutions to the challenges we face and that the choices we

make don’t simply push the burden to future generations. We need to

seize real solutions that offer opportunities for British Columbians to

lead healthy and prosperous lives.

[3:55 p.m.]

The ability to do any of this depends on us earning the trust of

the people of this province. All of us in this chamber have a

responsibility to take head-on any threats that would undermine this

trust. More than anything, this is what should unite us in this chamber.

This is why this bill is so important.

For too long, our campaign finance laws have been allowing to

drive cynicism in our politics. Even as we became the last jurisdiction

in Canada to have almost entirely unregulated campaign finance laws,

little action was taken. With our new minority government in place, I

believe this is changing. I also believe that the legislation before us

is only possible because our situation now incentivizes parties to work

together, rather than giving any one party complete power, based on a

false majority.

With campaign finance, our caucus wanted to see five broad themes

incorporated into the legislation. We wanted to eliminate the influence

of special interests in B.C. elections. This meant removing all forms of

corporate and union donations as well as ensuring that only British

Columbians would be able to donate to our political parties. We wanted

to see B.C. put in place one of the lowest contribution limits in the

country, to show British Columbians that where we once were a laggard,

we can and should be a leader.

We wanted to see an overall reduction in spending limits in

British Columbia elections. Too much money was being raised, and too

much was being spent without any consideration of the public benefit

from the spending. It was time to end the arms race with strong

rules.

We wanted to ensure that every loophole was closed, to avoid a

U.S.-style super PAC system, where money flowed to unaccountable third

parties. In regulating political parties, we need to ensure similar

regulations are brought into place for third parties.

Finally, we wanted to see action on this right away, with

legislation tabled in the first session of the new government. I am

proud to see all of these elements in the legislation before us today in

one form or another. But most of all, I am proud to be speaking in

support of a piece of legislation that takes a crucial, long-overdue

step towards restoring British Columbians’ trust in

government.

This legislation closes a bad chapter, where B.C. stood alone as

the Wild West of political financing, as millions of dollars from

corporations and unions flowed into political parties and people

questioned on whose behalf government decisions were being made. This

period eroded public trust in government, but I’m hopeful that we, that

all of us, can rebuild that trust.

I’m hopeful for a better democracy. A democracy that puts people

at its centre, rather than special interests. A democracy that earns the

trust of British Columbians through demonstrating, over and over again,

that it is with their hopes, their desires, and their needs at the heart

of how we make decisions. People should never need to question whether

government is acting with their best interests at heart, versus the

interests of corporate donors. To have to ask this question, a question

that became so dominant in B.C. politics, is to strike at the heart of

democracy.

With this legislation, we are removing the corrosive influence of

corporate and union donations in our politics. But the effort to restore

trust in government doesn’t end here. It is up to all of us, all of the

members in this House, to do this together through our words and our

actions.

As elected members we must be open, engaged and accessible to our

constituents and British Columbians. We must be responsive. The growing

frustration with the Wild West fundraising fell on deaf ears for far too

many years, and cynicism was allowed to grow.

[4:00 p.m.]

We must be honest and transparent about why we make decisions and

take the stands that we do, including when those decisions are difficult

and when the conversation is uncomfortable. This bill is one step — one

crucial step — that government must take to restore people’s faith in

government, and I’m pleased to support it.

N. Simons: Thank you very much to all those here in the House debating an

important piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that I think is

really a long time in coming. This is a piece of legislation we’ve been

arguing for, for many years, tabling legislation, as opposition members,

and private members’ bills, hoping that the minds and the ears of

government would be open to the suggestions that we made. But they were

not, and for a long time, the proposals we made were simply

ignored.

I think we’ve come together, in a certain way, here, all in

agreement that we need to ban big money, all in agreement that the

system that has existed for the past number of years is no longer really

serving the public interest. Fundamentally that’s at the core of the

reason why we’re doing this. The public interest is not served by the

current system of election financing. We’re referred to in other

jurisdictions as the Wild West. This will prevent that from continuing

as the impression people have of British Columbia.

I’m glad, because it’s not just our reputation. It’s really,

fundamentally, the public policies that we institute here that are at

issue. The reputation is one thing. And I hope it doesn’t take long for

us to be seen as redeeming ourselves by implementing important and tough

legislation, with contribution limits among the lower levels in the

country. I think, when we realize that the public is often under the

belief that it’s connections that get contracts, connections that get

favouritism in terms of legislation and regulations, that’s the kind of

thing that needs to change.

We want people to have confidence in their elected officials —

that they’re working for the people that they represent and that they’re

working for the constituents that have voted for them, those who haven’t

voted for them and those who haven’t voted. There are many people in our

communities who don’t vote. We still are responsible to represent them

and their interests in this House. This House is for everyone, and it’s

for the entire province.

That’s why I’m very proud to be part of a government caucus that

has seen this as important and among our first of many important steps

towards fulfilling our campaign commitments. I heard, pretty

universally, during the campaign that banning big money was important —

not just a symbolic thing to do but an important policy decision to

make.

When I saw the legislation at first, I thought that, obviously,

people are going to have opinions about it. Not everyone is going to

like the limits, the reduction in how much we can spend in all our

ridings. Some of the fundraising stuff is confusing and complicated. But

I think, for the most part, the legislation has been accepted even from

members from the opposition. They’ve said, for the most part, they agree

with the legislation that’s tabled. They have one small point that

they….

Interjections.

N. Simons: Yeah, and I’ll go into that detail, because there are three or

four members here who haven’t been explaining it accurately, if they’ve

had a chance to explain it.

What we want to do is get big money out of politics. We want to

get the corporate and the union influence out of our public policy

decision-making. They accuse us of being beholden to certain sectors. We

accuse them of being beholden to certain sectors. The purpose of this

legislation is to alleviate and to extinguish that thought that we are

beholden to anyone. In fact, we are beholden to the people who have put

us in this chamber.

Their sticking point in this legislation is that for five years,

as we make one of the most fundamental changes to our electoral system —

one of the most fundamental changes…. We have five years of transition

funding proposed in the legislation. I’m sure there are going to be

amendments proposed by the opposition, and I will read those amendments,

and we will have discussions about those amendments.

[4:05 p.m.]

Fundamentally, what is at issue is a five-year transition period

where the public will contribute to the system that is on its way to

becoming much better. I think that that transition period is worth what

we’re getting rid of. I really do. And I can look at the people in my

constituency and say with confidence and with assuredness that the

system that we are transitioning to is going to be better than the

system we have now.

The system we have now is not a good system. That’s universally

understood. The system that we’re going to is going to be way better. I

actually think that in this House, that’s also universally accepted.

It’s the transition period. It’s that going over that threshold that

seems to be at issue with members of the opposition.

They say it’s because other things were said in the campaign, and

they’re saying that taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay. You know, taxpayers

already pay for our elections. Taxpayers are part of our…. We are all

taxpayers. We pay for the system we have in place. I would rather pay

$2.50 a year for five years…. And it’s actually going down to a buck 75

for 2021 and 2022. It’s a transition period. I would rather that than

know or even think that anyone in this House is being unduly influenced

by big money, by big corporate, by big union, by anyone.

We need to have a system where we stand in this House and we make

decisions based on what we think is best for our constituencies, and we

do that proudly, and we do that with confidence. But what has to happen

is we get to this place where we are not influenced, nor are we seen to

be influenced, by where we get our donations. I think it’s a small price

to pay for a five-year transition plan that will get our system to one

that is 100 times better than the one we have now.

I would wish and I would urge and I would hope that members of the

opposition can see past this temporary period of transition and see

legislation that is better than what we have now, far better than what

we have now. A legislative framework where elected officials don’t have

to spend huge amounts of money just to get elected is…. There will be

less money available to use to get elected, and I think that’s a good

thing, too.

You know, there are a lot of ways we could make the system better,

and I think that the legislation that’s been proposed by the Attorney

General, and here proposed by our government, is a very, very good piece

of legislation that is worthy of support. Sure, it’s worthy of some

criticism. I don’t have a problem with hearing criticism, but when it’s

so simplistically based, as if we’re burdening taxpayers and that

taxpayers are furious about it…. I have not heard…. I have not had any

negative email about this proposal.

I know that there are some fundamentalists in this chamber —

fundamentalist free enterprisers — who think that, actually, government

has no role in their lives. I prefer to see a community that is built on

the foundation of mutual principles, and I think those mutual principles

mean looking out for those without a voice and making sure we have a

robust economy so that those who can benefit from that do so. They’re

not mutually exclusive.

But we’ve seen 16 years… And not universally bad policy. Let’s be

frank. There are some good things that have happened, obviously. But for

16 years, we’ve seen an impression that legislation and regulations and

decisions that have been made have benefited certain groups or certain

individuals more than others. I fundamentally reject the idea that we

should put corporations and unions on the same playing field, but since

this opposition says that these go together, they do go together. It’s

big money.

We don’t want anyone with deep pockets to have any quicker acce