Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, November 2, 2021

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 122

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 (Standing Order 25B)

Community forest management by Westbank First

Nation

B. Stewart

Indigenous Disability Awareness Month

K. Paddon

Caledonia Nordic Ski Club

M. Morris

Diwali and Bandi Chhor Divas

J. Sims

Volunteer garbage collection by Wilber

Saunders

L. Doerkson

Support for persons experiencing domestic

violence

B. Anderson

Oral Questions

Service model change for children with support needs

and funding for autism services

S. Bond

Hon. M. Dean

K. Kirkpatrick

Affordable rental housing

A. Olsen

Hon. D. Eby

Forest policy changes and socioeconomic analysis of

impacts

M. de Jong

Hon. K. Conroy

Forest policy changes and consultation with First

Nations

J. Rustad

Hon. K. Conroy

Forest policy changes and socioeconomic analysis of

impacts

P. Milobar

Hon. K. Conroy

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, Fraud Risk Management Survey Report,

2020-21

Office of the Human Rights Commissioner, Building a Culture of Human

Rights

Guarantees and indemnities report, fiscal year ended March 31,

Statement of 2020-21 borrowings, schedules A and B

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 27 — Election Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. D. Eby

M. de Jong

J. Sims

Hon. B. Ma

A. Mercier

J. Brar

Hon. N. Cullen

Hon. D. Eby

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2021

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: G. Kyllo.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Dean: I rise today in this House to introduce Danny Charles. They are the

recipient of Right to Play’s 2019 Canadian Youth Hero Award.

Danny is here with

members of the Scia’new Right to Play program, program officer Jamie-lee Wesley

and program manager Jake Winn.

[10:05 a.m.]

Danny is a dedicated youth leader who’s passionate about spending time with

their community Elders and supporting youth members.

Congratulations to Danny. We are grateful and blessed to have you in our

community.

Will the House please join me in making them very welcome today.

G. Lore: I am very thrilled today to make my first introduction of classes visiting.

Joining us for question period today are two classes of grade 5 students from

Glenlyon Norfolk junior school in my constituency.

T. Wat: It is my great pleasure to welcome the founder and chair of the Bai Gong

International Buddhist Society in Richmond, as well as the members here. The

founder and current chair is Diana Ko, and the three members are Yanhua Meng, Qing

Feng and Suxia Hu.

Established in 2007, Bai Gong is a recognized charitable and religious

organization, which promotes Buddhism, equality and care for each

other.

I’m so proud of B.C.’s diverse tapestry, which embraces all

religions.

Here in the gallery are my two constituency assistants, Tony and William.

William came a couple of weeks ago to this chamber, and he was so excited to watch

us in action in question period that he has come back again. This is Tony’s first

time.

I hope, Tony, you will be just as excited as your colleague, William, and

come back all the time and watch us in action.

Will the members all welcome my guests today.

Hon. M. Rankin: I, too, would like to welcome a school group that’s visiting this chamber

today, students from the Maria Montessori Academy, located in Oak Bay–Gordon Head,

joined by their teacher Mr. Aaron Gillatly. They are 20 students who are in grade

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

B. Stewart: It gives me a great honour today to welcome two people in the gallery that

are here for the honourable ceremony tonight. The first is Chris Foreman. Chris

Foreman joined me just under two years ago as a CA. He’d moved from Coquitlam,

where he had recently graduated from Royal Roads University.

Who would have known, when he joined me in March 2020, that he would have

been faced with COVID, whether it was orders, re-openings or passports that the

government had to go through. Needless to say, we’ve recently had the wildfire

situation in Kelowna. Chris has been on the front lines with that. But more

importantly, Chris is a baseball fan and a successful Little Leaguer, who played

in Coquitlam and is looking forward to the World Series.

Secondly, my granddaughter, the oldest of five grandchildren in our family,

Ruby Analena Dobbener, is here joining us. She’s in grade 6 from Constable Neil

Bruce. I first got elected in 2009. Ruby was born on November 11, 2009. Ruby loves

to cycle as well as ski.

Welcome to both of them here in the gallery today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT

BY WESTBANK FIRST

NATION

B. Stewart: Since 2004, Westbank First Nation has thoughtfully and effectively

managed their community forest. What started as a five-year arrangement under

the community forest pilot agreement has grown to a 25-year renewable community

forest agreement licence.

Their work on the land is a balance of forestry management and

harvesting, along with maintaining the forest for traditional uses, including

hunting, trapping, food gathering and spiritual use. Split into two parcels,

they manage more than 46,000 hectares of forest in the Kelowna area and have

set a great example of what community forests can look like. But it’s not just

me that thinks this.

[10:10 a.m.]

In fact, this year Westbank First Nation was awarded the Robin Hood

Memorial Award, which recognizes excellence in community forests around the

province, of the 50 that are in existence. Specifically, this is meant to

honour community forests that have been exemplary in their progressive forestry

practices, environmental stewardship, community benefits and

employment.

However, this year Westbank First Nation was especially recognized for

its leadership in wildfire risk reduction, which included taking the lead on

developing and planning a community forest wildfire risk management

strat­egy, part of which comprised a ten-kilometre buffer zone. One of

two community forests selected to win this award this year, out of more than 50

community forests in B.C., they also received a $10,000 grant to continue their

work and further invest in their forests.

It’s a huge honour for Dave Gill, the Westbank First Nation community

forest manager; Chief Chris Derickson and his council; and for everyone

involved in the management of the forest. They’re incredibly proud and grateful

for this recognition.

I hope everyone in this House will join me in recognizing the work of

Westbank First Nation on this project and congratulating them on a

well-deserved honour.

INDIGENOUS DISABILITY

AWARENESS MONTH

K. Paddon: Did you know the Academy Award–winning song “Up Where We Belong,” made

famous by Joe Cocker and Jennifer Warnes, was actually co-written by Cree

superstar Buffy Sainte-Marie?

I mention this not only because she is still singing and working to

improve the lives of Indigenous people, at the majestic age of 80, but she

recently made a short video to highlight Indigenous Disability Awareness Month

and the work of the British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society,

known as BCANDS.

She’s a hard act to follow, but I rise today to proclaim November as

Indigenous Disability Awareness Month in B.C. This awareness month was created

by BCANDS in 2015 and is now recognized by hundreds of Indigenous and

non-Indigenous communities and organizations across Canada, including the B.C.

Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit, the Union of B.C. Indian

Chiefs and Métis Nation British Columbia. With what is believed to be the only

Indigenous-specific disability awareness observance in the world, B.C. is

leading the way in recognizing, raising awareness and celebrating the

contributions of Indigenous people with disabilities.

In light of the tragic recoveries at the Kamloops residential school and

elsewhere, it’s also important to acknowledge the role intergenerational trauma

and poverty play in disability and how this contributes to higher rates of

disability among Indigenous peoples. We must continue on the path of

reconciliation this month and every month as we take action to ensure equity

rights, access and opportunities for Indigenous peoples living with

disabilities.

I would like to thank BCANDS for their ongoing leadership and support in

this area. Recently BCANDS shared their expertise with government as we created

the Accessible British Columbia Act, and we look forward to continuing to learn

from them.

I won’t sing, but I’d like to leave you with a few lines from the song

“Up Where We Belong.”

The road is long

There are mountains in our way

But we

climb a step every day.

Let’s climb together and continue to remove barriers that prevent

Indigenous peoples with disabilities from being included fully in our

communities.

CALEDONIA NORDIC SKI CLUB

M. Morris: I’ve spoken loud and proud before about our world-class Nordic ski

facility in Prince George, the Caledonia Nordic Ski Club. Over the years, the

club’s membership has included former Olympians such as Megan, “Tandy,” who was

a member of the 2014 and 2018 Canada Olympic team; Sarah Beaudry, a member of

the 2018 Canada Olympic team; as well as world championship competitors like

Emily Dickson.

Over the past few years, the ski club has upgraded trails and installed

snow-making equipment to ensure that world-class conditions exist no matter

what the weather. Caledonia Nordic have 55 kilometres of groomed trail,

including several kilometres that have lighting, extending ski opportunities

into the evening hours.

One of my favourite ski events in Nordic skiing is the biathlon,

endurance skiing over challenging trails with intervals of precision shooting

at small, dollar-sized targets.

The Caledonia Nordic Ski Club has hosted world championship events in

the past and had the privilege of hosting the Nordic events for the Canada

Winter Games in 2015. It’s about to host another. The Canadian National

Biathlon Championships will be held in Prince George from March 13 to 17,

This event will attract 250 of Canada’s best biathlon athletes, along

with their coaches, support teams and families. Prince George will once again

deliver our world-class hospitality, as we have in past events. Volunteers were

ready to sign up as soon as the event was an­nounced at the end of

September.

[10:15 a.m.]

Biathlon Canada has recognized the Caledonia Nordic facility as one of

the best in Canada. I wish to thank them for choosing this Prince George jewel

for this event.

I also want to thank the generous community donors who have contributed

so much to making our facility what it is today and the club members and

volunteers who generously give their time and energy in making this club so

successful.

DIWALI AND BANDI CHHOR DIVAS

J. Sims: Diwali, the festival of lights, is being celebrated this week in India

and around the world. Diwali celebrates the victory of light over darkness,

good over evil, knowledge over ignorance and hope over despair.

Unlike last year, friends and families will be gathering for this very

special occasion. Homes are decorated with diyas and lights, new clothes,

fireworks. This is a festival filled with joy, family, friends. They gather to

share great food and exchange gifts.

Diwali is an opportunity for all of us to reflect on the past year, to

look forward and to plan for the future with renewed optimism. As we reflect on

this past year, filled with uncertainty and challenges at every turn, we need

to consider what we have learned. We have missed out on so much and have been

impatient with the ever-changing new normal.

Diwali is a time to reflect on what life in a pandemic has shown us.

This past year has shown us the importance of being kind, patient and grateful.

It has reminded us of the significance of family, of friends and of community

and has taught us to appreciate the smaller things and to look out for each

other.

Diwali celebrates the light within each of us. As we look forward, we

need to remember to focus on the good within each of us and to open our hearts

and our minds towards a better understanding of each other. We need to raise

each other up. As we plan for the future, let us listen more, judge less and

learn from each other.

Alongside Diwali, we celebrate Bandi Chhor Divas, a Sikh holiday when

Guru Hargobind Singh led 52 prisoners out of captivity and returned to

Amritsar.

I wish those celebrating in Surrey-Panorama, British Columbia and around

the globe a very happy Diwali, happy Deepavali and happy Bandi Chhor Divas.

Sab nu lakh vadhaiyan.

VOLUNTEER GARBAGE COLLECTION

BY WILBER

SAUNDERS

L. Doerkson: Today I have the privilege of speaking about the incredible Wilber

Saunders. It is a rare occasion to find someone who will give the kind of time

to enhance the community that Wilber contributes.

He’s been acknowledged as a Rotary Daybreak honorary parade marshal and

has been recognized as a community hero. His almost daily commitment to making

our community a better place is incredible, and it does not go

unnoticed.

Wilber has for years, in his retirement, picked up gar­bage

throughout our community. Very often he will share pictures of his

accomplishments on Facebook, highlighting his thousands of steps taken during

the course of his day, along with scenic pictures and beautiful photos of local

wildlife in our parks and, of course, pictures of the bags upon bags of trash

that he has collected.

He will often show images of the types of trash he has had to collect

and pick up. He’ll show images of recyclables, fast-food wrappers and cups. Of

course, the most recent addition to his pickings is face masks.

Unfortunately, I have rarely seen Wilber post that he has picked up less

than a few big bags of garbage in a day. He, sadly, never is short of work, but

he does it willingly. He doesn’t just pick up garbage once in a while but,

rather, multiple days per week. Fortunately for all of us in the

Cariboo-Chilcotin, we have Wilber as a community member.

Wilber asks for nothing in return. Well, that’s not true. He asks that

you don’t litter. Other than that, he does this incredible volunteer work out

of the goodness of his heart and commitment to improving our community and for

no other reason.

From all of us in the Cariboo-Chilcotin and, of course, from all of us

at the B.C. Legislature, thank you very much, Wilber Saunders.

SUPPORT FOR PERSONS

EXPERIENCING DOMESTIC

VIOLENCE

B. Anderson: Today I’m going to read you a love letter. Before anyone gets too

excited, this is not a romantic letter, but it is about love.

“Dear….

“You know who you are. I love you. You’re incredibly strong, kind, loving,

smart and resilient.

“You deserve to thrive. You deserve to live up to all of the incredible

potential that you have. You deserve to be happy and safe.

[10:20 a.m.]

“What you have gone through has been tremendously difficult. The fact that

you get up every day and function in society is a testament to your

perseverance. What I want you to know is that you are not alone, and I mean

this in two ways.

“You are not alone as you have a community and family that love you. You

are also not alone in the fact that many people — way, way, way too many people

— have also suffered physical, emotional and psychological abuse from their

partner.

“These are strong, powerful, smart, kind people, just like you. You are

not alone, and you do not deserve this. No one does. It can happen to anyone,

but disproportionately women, Indigenous, racialized, transgendered and

gender-diverse people are targeted.

“This does not define you. You determine what defines you. This is not on

you. This is on them — the people who commit violence against their

partners.

“Your home should be a safe space. Abuse is not love. Love is a verb, and

it’s about actions.

“As I end this love letter, I just want to restate that you are loved. You

are worthy. You deserve better. We are here for you, and we want better for

you.

“Love, Brittny.”

If you find yourself in an unsafe situation, please reach out. Your MLA

office is a safe space to start. We can point you to confidential services in

your community that can help protect you.

Oral Questions

SERVICE MODEL CHANGE

FOR CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT NEEDS

AND FUNDING FOR AUTISM SERVICES

S. Bond: Jen Biddlecombe is the parent of an autistic child who watched the

Minister of Children and Family Development in question period yesterday. She

says: “The minister did not respond to any of the questions. No straight

answers on how anything will work. My concerns were not addressed. In fact, I

was angry at her response.”

Can the minister tell Jen and thousands of other parents across the

entire province why she has decided to claw back essential funds for parents

who want to support their autistic children?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for their question.

I do understand that there are many concerns out there in the community,

and I really want to hear from families. We now have the opportunity to be

listening to families and listening to stakeholders, not only families with

children with autism but also all those other families that have been shut out

of a system for far too long.

What I can reassure families is that there will be services available.

Rather than having to wait two years for a diagnosis and then have to scramble

and build a patchwork of services for their child, parents in the future will

be able to bring their child into a hub, connect with a professional and work

with the multidisciplinary team and build a system of services around their

child’s needs.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, what the minister conveniently leaves out of her answer is the

fact that this is nothing more than a claw back. There are parents in British

Columbia who have worked tirelessly to ensure that their children have the

services that they need today and in the future. It is a claw back of existing

funding.

The minister stood in the House yesterday and repeat­edly said

that it’s important to listen to parents. Well, I can assure you that we know

this minister’s in-box is overflowing with feedback from parents who are upset,

who are anxious and, in fact, as we heard earlier, who are angry.

She’s received more feedback in the last week than in all the time that

she was discussing this decision. Where? Behind closed doors.

[10:25 a.m.]

Let’s have a listen to what else Jen had to say. “I am all for families

getting the care they need, but it shouldn’t come at the cost to others. The

minister did not answer whether support systems that are already in place will

be able to continue. In fact, families don’t want what they have in place

currently to end.”

Will the minister reverse her decision to claw back essential funding

from parents all across British Columbia who simply want to continue to provide

for the care of their autistic children?

Hon. M. Dean: Nothing immediately is happening in terms of autism funding. I can

reassure members of this House that our ministry has been making investments

every single year in my ministry, including in respite, a budget lift of $13

million this year, and a $10 million investment, the first time in 20 years, in

really vital equipment.

I will be listening to families, and I will not be listening to the

other side of the House…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Dean: …who brought in $4 billion in cuts and cut $15 million from children and

youth with support needs.

K. Kirkpatrick: Parents and advocates that listened to the minister yesterday in

question period were mystified by her suggestion that the right time to consult

is after a decision and announcement have already been made.

I’m quoting AutismBC. I think that’s very important for you all to

understand. “We, AutismBC, deny that MCFD had consulted us in their decision to

terminate autism funding. We met with the minister for the first time for 30

minutes on October 15 to highlight our concerns and the lack of consultation

from the 6,000-plus members of the autism community. They disregarded our

requests.” That was AutismBC.

Can the minister tell us why she would claw back individual autism

funding instead of increasing overall support?

Hon. M. Dean: We have been increasing support. Children and youth are very important

to us. Our budget has increased, year on year, since 2017. The other side, when

they were in power in 2001, cut $34 million from child and youth mental health

supports…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just…. Minister, hold it.

Hon. M. Dean: …and $185 million in child protection.

Mr. Speaker: Member for West Vancouver–Capilano, supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: The minister may want to look at some of the Twitter comments about the

great work that the B.C. Liberal Party did in their time, supporting increases

in the autism community.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s listen to the question, please. Order.

K. Kirkpatrick: This is the same minister who rejected the recommendations of the

Representative for Children and Youth to extend pandemic funding that was cut

last September.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

K. Kirkpatrick: So it’s a little hard for parents to take the minister at her word. The

minister is wrapping herself in the idea of improved services, while doing the

exact opposite and clawing back support.

Ashleigh Gordon has this to say: “This is doing our children and

families an injustice. Clearly the decision was made by people who have no idea

what it’s like to live with autism and how difficult it’s going to make it for

families who struggle to even get out of the house.”

Will the minister stop this injustice and stop clawing back funding from

Ashleigh’s family?

Hon. M. Dean: I can reassure the member and families in British Columbia that services

will continue to be pro­vided to families where their children have been

diag­nosed with autism.

In addition to that, the other families that I hear from — with children

with brain injury, with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, with other

developmental delays — will also get services. They have not been receiving

services until now.

We’re going to build a public system so that there’s a safety net of

supports for all children and youth with support needs, including children with

autism.

[10:30 a.m.]

AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING

A. Olsen: B.C. has the highest rent in the country. In fact, a report published in

October found that B.C. had the highest quarter-over-quarter change in average

rent. Rent increased 7.2 percent over the last quarter. The results are in the

listings. In Vancouver, in October, the average price of a one-bedroom

apartment was $2,155 per month.

These numbers impact people. People are spending so much on rent that

they’re unable to save up or to pay off student debt. They can’t find housing

near work or their families. The constant worry is having negative health

effects. Researchers call this housing-affordability stress, and it’s

exacerbating mental health challenges. All of this is because rent is out of

control.

To the Attorney General and Minister of Housing, does the minister

realize just how difficult it is for millions of British Columbians to pay

rent?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question and for his spotlight on

housing. I think housing is one of the most important issues in the province,

and the shortage of rental housing is one of the most profound challenges we

face.

We are making some traction on getting new rental housing built. We have

an issue where our population is increasing far more dramatically than our

rental housing supply is. In that situation, rents are going up. There’s huge

pressure placed on tenants that are in lower-rent housing, as landlords want to

evict them and bring in folks that can pay more.

What we need to do is build housing, and rental housing in particular,

at a very large scale. We have $2 billion going into the HousingHub to build

rental housing. This is just the start, as we work with municipalities to

streamline approvals. We’ve got 11,068 new rental housing units registered

already in 2021. When you look at the previous government, not even close. We

have more purpose-built rental units registered for construction by June 2021

than the old government ever registered in an entire year.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Saanich North and the Islands, supplemental.

A. Olsen: The minister is correct. There have been a number of actions that have

been taken over the last three years. The problem is that over that time…. The

affordable rentals are out of reach — they don’t exist — because the rental

market is out of control.

The programs the minister referenced are all programs that are going to

fix a problem in the future. The problem exists now for British Columbians.

affordability in their housing. The extreme challenges that our cities and

towns are facing are challenges that are being faced now.

These efforts that the government has outlined have not gone far enough.

People need support now.

What is the minister doing now to make rental housing more

affordable?

Hon. D. Eby: One of the great challenges of the housing problem that we were left

with is that there’s a real lag between government programs starting and the

delivery of that housing. The member is absolutely right. So that’s why we put

a number of….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: I’ve already outlined how much better we are doing on rental housing

starts than the previous government. I think they should be a bit cautious, the

opposition, about jeering.

With respect to what we’re doing right now….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s listen to the answer, please.

Attorney General.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Yeah, that’s fine, Member. That’s okay.

Carry on.

Hon. D. Eby: I hear the opposition.

So far this year over 11,000 purpose-built rental homes registered in

B.C. That’s five times the yearly average when the opposition was in power,

just to give a reality check. That would be inflation plus 2 percent rent

increases of the old government.

We put a ban on rent increases during COVID. We have limited rent

increases to inflation only. We have increased the availability of the SAFER

subsidy for seniors so they’re able to stay in their housing. We’ve increased

money available for seniors to retrofit housing so they can stay in their

housing longer. We have increased resources to the residential tenancy branch,

with the enforcement branch, by the way, that the previous government put in

but never funded to support tenants and landlords.

[10:35 a.m.]

We’ve got a lot more work to do. The pressure is continuing, and we will

continue that work.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

FOREST POLICY CHANGES AND

SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF

IMPACTS

M. de Jong: My question is for the Minister of Forests. I understand the minister

and the government are poised to make an announcement that will have profoundly

negative consequences for people who derive a living from working in B.C.’s

forests. As the details emerge, experts and stakeholders are already sounding

the alarm bells.

The imposition of these land use decisions, we are told, will result in

the closure of upwards of 12 mills right across British Columbia, an overall

reduction in the AAC of be­tween 15 and 20 percent and the loss of

somewhere between 12,000 and 15,000 jobs.

My question to the minister is: has the government completed a detailed

socioeconomic study on the impact these land use decisions are going to have

for British Columbia’s forest-dependent communities and forest-dependent

families, and will she release it now so people will know how many mills are

going to close and how many thousands of British Columbians are going to lose

their jobs?

Hon. K. Conroy: I want to thank the member for the question and thank him for his

interest in forestry now, something that they didn’t have when they were

in….

We have a new vision for forests in this province. One where our oldest

and ancient forests are protected. One where Indigenous peoples are full

partners in sustainable management of the forests. One where workers and

communities benefit from a sustainable, innovative forestry that will have jobs

for generations to come. We are online to make sure that we are meeting the

commitments of the recommendations of the old growth strategic

review.

Of course we are doing economic analysis, but for now, we were going to

be announcing our process for deferrals. We also will be announcing how we are

going to move forward in working in collaboration and cooperation with

Indigenous nations, because that was the number one recommendation from the

strategic review.

I think it would be highly inappropriate to put people at risk, to say

that we’re going to defer and not have socioeconomic analysis done but also not

have the supports in place for communities, for workers, to make sure….

Something that the previous government never did when over 30,000 people lost

their jobs in this forest industry in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Abbotsford West, supplemental.

M. de Jong: Well, we’ll come to the issue of First Nations involvement and their

response here just in a few mom­ents, because it is emblematic of the

response the minister is getting from virtually every quarter on

this.

Look, she apparently is not going to release a socioeconomic report, and

the reason she’s not going to is because her own ministry has confirmed they

haven’t done one. They haven’t completed one.

The minister is about to, and I think a moment ago just did, confirm

that she and the government are about to defer and suspend existing cutting

permits without compensation. They are apparently going to cancel the

very….

Interjections.

[10:40 a.m.]

M. de Jong: B.C. forest-dependent families won’t be smiling at the end of the day. I

can guarantee you that, Mr. Speaker.

They are poised to cancel the very B.C. Timber Sales licences the

value-added sector rely on for their survival. And they are embarking upon all

of this in the absence of a detailed socioeconomic report that will confirm not

just where those mills are going to close but the impact that is going to be

felt by thousands of forest-dependent families.

Will the minister confirm that the reason she’s not releasing a detailed

socioeconomic report is because she doesn’t have one?

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, I’m really happy to have this discussion with this

member.

I’ll be making further announcements this afternoon, and I will be more

than happy to show the opposite side of the House how it is we support workers

in this province, how it is we support communities in this province but also

how it is we actually have a vision for a forest industry that not only is

sustainable but is going to be here for generations to come.

We are supportive of forests that also are not only here for harvesting.

They are here for clean water and clean air and to ensure that they’re

providing all of the biodiversity they need to provide. We have a vision for

forests in this province. We are going to be sharing it, and I’d be happy to

discuss it with the member opposite.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Abbotsford West, second supplemental.

M. de Jong: You know what part of that strategy in­volves, which the minister

seems so proud to tout, at this point, in the House? It’s to bridge people to

retirement. Bridging people to retirement is hardly a strategy for long-term

economic stability.

Is there a worse time in the history of this province to layer on

uncertainty for families and British Columbians? We’ve come through this

incredibly difficult time, and the minister and the government choose this

moment to make land use decisions that we know are going to put thousands upon

thousands of people out of work.

I’ll ask one more time. Will the minister release the detailed

socioeconomic report? If she won’t, will she confirm that she’s not prepared to

because one simply hasn’t been done?

Hon. K. Conroy: I look forward to releasing all the information this afternoon, and I’ll

be only too happy to discuss it with the members opposite.

FOREST POLICY CHANGES AND

CONSULTATION WITH FIRST

NATIONS

J. Rustad: You know, what I find interesting is that we just heard earlier today,

on autism funding, how the government says one thing about consultation yet

does another. We just heard now from the Minister of Forests how Indigenous

people are full partners.

I want to actually quote the Premier from back in June when the Premier

said, around forest management, that the first step must be respecting

Indigenous land management rights in their territory. Well, the B.C. First

Nations council has already issued a press release regarding the minister’s

announcement coming this afternoon, saying the NDP has done just the opposite.

NDP: no delivered promises.

Chief Bill Williams put it simply: “The honour of the Crown cannot be

met through fundamentally flawed consultation.”

To the minister, why have First Nations been left out of the decisions

that will impact them directly?

Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question.

He’s right. We are very passionate about the collaboration,

government-to-government discussions, with Indigenous nations and also on

ensuring that it is with the rights and titleholders.

I respect and really appreciate the work done by the First Nations

Forestry Council. The work that we are doing and are continuing to do has been

with the rights and titleholders, and we will continue to do that.

[10:45 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Member for Nechako Lakes, supple­mental.

J. Rustad: I find that comment quite interesting.

I want to quote Klay Tindall, the general manager of for­est

operations for the Líl̓wat Nation, who says

any suggestion that the province has involved First Nations in forest decisions

is absurd. “The Líl̓wat First Nation just

spent several million dollars to purchase a forest licence in their territory

so they could have a bigger say in decisions regarding forest management in

their territory, and now the government comes along and is trying to tell the

nation what they can and cannot do.”

That’s a quote directly from the press release from the First Nations

Forestry Council. First Nations have re­peatedly offered to work

collaboratively with this government. This government has stood up and touted

working with First Nations. But the NDP, according to the First Nations

Forestry Council, has “chosen to do their own thing.”

Can the minister explain why she has chosen to do her own thing instead

of working with First Nations?

Hon. K. Conroy: I will reiterate: our government is committed to

government-to-government discussions with Indigenous nations’ rights and

titleholders. We are doing that, and we will continue to do that.

FOREST POLICY CHANGES AND

SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF

IMPACTS

P. Milobar: Well, none of the minister’s answers actually stand up today to any

scrutiny whatsoever.

We’ve heard about reports from industry and concerns from industry of

what will happen, on the lack of socioeconomic reviews and planning by this

government on what their decisions will actually mean to those workers in those

communities. We’ve heard about a lack of consultation. The First Nations

themselves are saying this. This is not us inventing quotes. This is from a

press release that gets released, right out before the minister’s announcement,

from the First Nations Forestry Council.

Here’s a fax from one of the industry reports. That’s a current and

recent report. Four of the mills and a third of the shake and shingle industry

will close on the coast.

I know the members from Surrey on the other side seemed to think that

this was a laughing matter. Shortly, they might want to talk to their shake and

shingle mills in Surrey about this.

Five mills and two veneer plants in the Interior will close. The pulp

and paper mills will close and be on severe curtailment throughout the

province. This is going to lead to at least 12 mills closing across

B.C.

Again, where are the minister’s analyses and plans to help communities

and the impacted workers from the decisions that this government is embarking

on?

Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member, but I think it’s highly inappropriate to speculate

on deferrals that haven’t been made yet, to speculate on mills that are going

to be closed if we haven’t even had those government-to-government discussions

concluded with Indigenous nations on whose traditional territory those mills

are.

We have been doing the work.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Conroy: Industry knows, workers know, communities know and Indigenous nations

certainly know that we have been doing the work. After we re­ceived the

report from the old growth strategic review, we have brought together a

technical advisory panel looking at the different areas of the province,

looking at those rare, iconic, ancient old-growth trees that are at risk of

irreversible loss.

We’re looking at how we’re going to manage our forest industry so that

it’s managed in a sustainable way that is here for generations to come. We will

continue to do that. That’s what’s right for the province, that’s what’s right

for workers and for communities, and that’s what’s right for our

forests.

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

P. Milobar: These are very serious concerns from in­dustry, from Indigenous

leadership and Indigenous communities, and from the businesses that are

impacted by the work that they do in the forest industry. The minister, to date

and so far today, has not been able to provide any assurance whatsoever, or

actual verification, that they have done proper socioeconomic modelling on what

will happen with decisions that will be made and announced this

afternoon.

There are over 10,000 businesses that work in forestry. This includes

30,000 indirect jobs like equipment sales, machinery repair and environmental

consulting.

[10:50 a.m.]

There are also extra jobs like in diners, cafes and grocery stores that

rely on forestry workers to shop there. All of that needs to be looked at, but

it hasn’t been by this government. This minister refuses to acknowledge that

they avoided that.

Again, why on earth won’t the NDP share a study on what the impacts of

today’s announcement will be, or have they not done a study at all?

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, the member is fearmongering. He’s speculating on an announcement

that hasn’t….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s listen to the answer, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Members, let’s listen to the answer.

The minister will continue.

Hon. K. Conroy: I’m from a forest industry. I understand the forest industry. I

understand the repercussions of what happens in forest industries when there

are downturns, when mills are closed. I understand what happens because I lived

through it. I lived through 30,000 people in this province losing

jobs.

I lived through 30,000 people losing jobs without any supports from the

government that sat here, that are now the opposition across the

way.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, the question has already been asked, and now is the

time for the answer, please.

Hon. K. Conroy: Unlike members opposite, we are ensuring that there are going to be

supports in place. We are ensuring that if there are going to be any

repercussions, there will be supports in place.

I will be announcing those this afternoon. I will make sure that the

members opposite get a full briefing on what we’re announcing, a full briefing

on the supports we are announcing, a full briefing on how we are moving forward

with a vision for forestry in this province, a vision that none of them ever

came forward with.

Our vision includes that we protect the most ancient, the most rare old

growth in this province. Our vision is about Indigenous people who have a full

voice in the management of the forest on their traditional territories. Our

vision is about securing work for workers, for communities, that will benefit

from a secure, sustainable forest in­dustry that will be here for

generations to come.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour of tab­ling the Auditor General’s

report Fraud Risk Management Survey Report, 2020-21 , and the British

Columbia Human Rights Commissioner’s report Building a Culture of Human

Rights .

Hon. S. Robinson: I have two reports to table. I res­pectfully present the approved

guarantees and indemnities report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2021, in

accordance with the Financial Administration Act,

section 72(8).

Pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I am pleased to present

reports for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2021, on all amounts borrowed by

government and all amounts loaned to government bodies. These reports provide an

overview of the province’s borrowing activity in fiscal ’20-21.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 27.

[10:55 a.m.]

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 27 — ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

The bill implements the recommendations from the report of the all-party

Special Committee to Review Provisions of the Election Act on annual allowances

paid to political parties. The bill makes annual allowances permanent and

establishes how they are to be calculated. For 2022 and 2023, eligible

political parties will receive $1.75 per vote received in the most recent

general election. In 2024 and each following year, the per-vote amount will be

adjusted by the change in CPI for the previous year.

The amendments also move the payment of dates of annual allowances to

non-statutory holidays on the recommendation of Elections B.C. Annual

allowances were introduced in 2017 when corporate and union donations were also

banned and individual contribution limits reduced.

To be eligible for annual allowances, a party must have received at

least 2 percent of the total valid votes cast in all electoral districts in the

most recent general election or 5 percent of the total valid votes in districts

where the party had candidates.

Making the annual allowance permanent aligns B.C. with other

jurisdictions in Canada, which have also provided annual allowances after

making similar changes to campaign financing rules. I thank all members of the

all-party committee for their work on this issue.

M. de Jong: On second reading of Bill 27, first of all, I should acknowledge, as the

Attorney General has just pointed out, that the bill before us is reflective of

the recommendations presented by the all-party special committee and, to that

extent, I think is faithful to those recommendations.

It is a short bill. I can advise the Attorney General that at committee

stage, there are some technical matters that we may wish to explore briefly as

it relates to the calculation methodology and, perhaps, also the government’s

thinking to eliminate the review mechanism that was incorporated into the first

act.

I think everyone is aware, and I think the Attorney General would

acknowledge undertakings made at the time of introduction, that this would not

become a permanent feature of the electoral financing landscape in B.C. This

act, following in the footsteps of the all-party committee recommendation,

chooses to do that.

I suppose the question that flows is: was it necessary, though, to

eliminate an automatic mechanism by which the regime could be reviewed either

every three years or every five years? That feature disappears, along with the

amendments in this act, from the act.

Those are matters that we can explore at the committee stage of

discussion for the bill. In keeping, again, with the recommendations, the

government should anticipate support from the opposition at second reading to

move the bill forward to committee.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers….

Before Surrey-Panorama, Members, recall that if you’re crossing to the

other side, you’re supposed to pay respect to the Chair.

J. Sims: It’s my pleasure to rise today and speak in support of this legislation.

What’s significant is that this legislation is coming forward as a result of

collaborative work being done by all parties in the House. There was absolute

consensus to bring forward this legislation on the financing of

elections.

I think this is a significant legislation because it keeps, along with

other measures that our government has taken, big money out of the electoral

process.

[11:00 a.m.]

The other area where it really assists is not everyone who wants to run

in an election has the financial whereabouts or the financial support from

their specific community to run campaigns. When you have money that is

provided, democracy is able to proceed in a much more inclusive way.

We’re not unique in this piece of legislation. Other pro­vinces

have taken these steps to make sure that there is a per-vote subsidy that is

provided to all parties who qualify.

Once again, in order to make sure that everyone can participate in our

democratic structures, it behooves this House to make sure that we make it

possible, that we enable that and that we reduce the barriers that stand in the

way.

Also, by providing these supports, along with the limits on how much can

be donated, and making sure that businesses and unions cannot make direct

contributions, we’ve made sure that there is more of a level playing field for

people who do want to run in elections. We’ve made sure that the pressure that

comes with people being able to donate large sums of money, as was, in the

past…. There was a time we were known as the wild, wild west when it came to

election financing.

I’m pleased that this legislation has come forward to help to support

getting that money out of the electoral process but also to ensure that our

democracy remains healthy and that people are able to participate. That

participation is very, very important.

The size of your income or your savings or your house should not

determine who can run to be an MLA in British Columbia. Our democracy needs

representation in this House from the full diversity — economic diversity,

socioeconomic diversity — to make sure that the voices of the people are really

heard in the people’s House.

Once again, I am delighted that this work was done. I do want to thank

the committee members who worked on this, from both sides of the House, to make

sure….

I was kept on this. One of the things that’s very, very clear for me in

this is…. We wanted to make sure — the committee did, and their recommendation

was put into legislation — that we did not fall behind with inflation. Of

course, these sums of moneys will be adjusted with the cost of inflation. That

will make sure that the real moneys that are being allocated are kept in

demand.

I know that there are provinces — like Ontario, Alberta, Quebec and

others — that already have annual allowances. They’ve made similar changes to

campaign financing rules.

The sum of moneys…. I know the public was listening and will want to

know. The amendments will ensure that in 2023 those parties that are eligible

will receive $1.75 per vote received in the most recent general election. That

is going down from $2.50, when the allowance was first introduced.

This is a very fiscally responsible step being taken. It is, as I said

previously, one that…. All political parties and everybody who participated are

in full agreement.

Often the question is asked: “Well, how does this compare to other

provinces?” You know what? We all love comparisons. The allowances in other

provinces range anywhere from $1.60 per vote to $2.54. So I think that the sums

being suggested here are very prudent and, along with that, as I said, the cost

of inflation will lead to adjustments.

[11:05 a.m.]

As I said earlier, this system of an allowance was brought in, but it

was temporary. This makes it permanent, on an ongoing basis, and it ensures

that we have a very healthy…. We have a democracy that is more inclusive, that

is more inviting and that removes some of the barriers that people might face.

So I support this legislation.

Hon. B. Ma: It is my great honour to be able to rise in support of Bill 27, the

Election Amendment Act, today.

For those who are watching — I know there are many people who watch the

B.C. Legislature live from the comfort of their own homes — Bill 27 was created

following the unanimous recommendation of the all-party Special Committee to

Review Provisions of the Election Act. The all-party special committee means

that it is committee that consists of people from all the different political

parties represented in the House, including the B.C. NDP, the B.C. Liberals and

the B.C. Greens as well.

In particular, Bill 27 is

an act to introduce a perma­nent

per-vote allowance to political parties. Now, for those who are unfamiliar with

how the per-vote allowance came to be, it was originally introduced in 2017 by

our government when government moved to take big money out of politics. Big

money meaning corporate and union donations as well as large amounts of

donations, sometimes tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars

from people who potentially didn’t even reside in British Columbia.

Now, I wholeheartedly support keeping big money out of politics. I think

that that move has been one of the most important changes to the way that our

system of democracy functions here in British Columbia in the last many, many

years. That was done back in 2017, and I want to make sure that it stays that

way.

I feel that prior to the banning of big money in our politics, the

presence of big money was a rot on our democracy. It degraded public trust in

its politicians and government. That’s saying something, because, let’s face

it, politicians are not exactly seen by members of the public as the most

trusted professions around the world. So having a system in place that further

degrades that trust is really, really problematic from the perspective of

keeping faith in our democratic systems. It caused citizens to question who

their governments really worked for, when their campaigns are potentially

bought and paid for by special interests.

When I ran in my first paid election campaign…. I say paid as in it

involved a lot of money, because I’ve run in student politics before and those

campaigns generally didn’t involve very much money at all. My first major

election campaign involving a lot of donations and a lot of spending was for

the 2017 election. When I learned about how much money it would take to

successfully run an election campaign, how much resources I would need to

acquire and raise, I did as most candidates did, and I set to work

fundraising.

I started off seeking donations from family and friends, as one does,

but before long, it became very apparent that I could not raise the staggering

amounts of money required for a successful election campaign if I did not

pursue even larger amounts of money from organizations and wealthier

donors.

The pressure to seek out and accept these large donations and these

large amounts was tremendous. Even when you’re running for the right reasons —

and I would say, in particular, if you’re running for the right reasons — you

recognize that the stakes around winning and losing are so tremendous because

it has nothing to do with the success of yourself. It has everything to do with

the success of your community, the well-being of the families around you and

the prosperity or the potential suffering of people across the

province.

The pressure to fundraise from those groups who could cut cheques larger

than a couple of hundred dollars here or there was enormous. But with all of it

came the ever-present weight of what might come tied to that money and make you

question whether or not this was something that was right, even if the outcomes

that you were seeking were right. Said or unsaid, you wondered what they were

expecting of you. Not all donors donate in good faith, and I think we would be

naive to think that.

[11:10 a.m.]

When I became an MLA, after the election, there was an issue that was

brought to my attention almost immediately. The issue was later written about

in the North Shore News by a reporter named Brent Richter, who

headlined his piece “Sweetheart Port Tax Deal Questioned by North

Vancouver.”

It was a story about a specific industrial port company in North

Vancouver that was given what Richter had des­cribed as a “sweetheart

deal” on its property taxes by the previous B.C. Liberal government, leaving

other municipal taxpayers to pick up the tab. According to the municipality,

the company owed more than $1 million in back taxes and penalties at the time.

This was only a part of the very bizarre story and bizarre issue at

hand.

Former B.C. Liberal MLA Ralph Sultan was actually quoted in this

article

as someone who fought his own government on the deal that they had cut the

company. I’m going to read to you what he said in the article. I’m quoting from

the

article now. “In an interview, Sultan said he has been very definitely on

the side of the district in the dispute.” This is now a quote from

him.

“‘The forestry industry was struggling, and this was an attempt by the

B.C. Liberal government to help the forestry industry with one of their

channels of distribution. But of course, from the perspective of the North

Shore, they were the ones who were being asked to ante up the subsidy, not the

provincial government. They were off-loading this wonderful gift to the real

estate tax payers of North Vancouver. I pointed that out to the minister and

said this is not going to sell very well, but I think the question is whether

you, in fact, have the right to do this.’”

This ends Mr. Sultan’s quote. The

article further goes on to read:

“Sultan said it was the ministry’s position that it was within their

rights.”

I’m continuing to read from the article:

“Since 2005, Fibreco has donated $48,363 to the B.C. Liberal Party, its

candidates or its leadership contestants, according to Elections B.C. In that

same time, it gave $1,290 to the B.C. NDP. Tolko, a company whose affiliate is

Fibreco’s majority shareholder, has donated more than $300,000 to the Liberal

Party or its candidates since 2005.

“The terminal also hosted then Premier Christy Clark during the 2017

election for a campaign stop to talk about the importance of the forestry

industry to B.C.’s economy.”

To quote former Premier Clark:

“‘The biggest forest-dependent town in British Columbia is Metro

Vancouver,’ Clark told the gathered press. But even at the time of the campaign

stop, Fibreco’s leadership had already set a plan in motion to drastically

scale back its wood export business in favour of grain exports. The company had

filed applications with the Vancouver-Fraser Port Authority and the district of

North Vancouver to demolish the wood-chip export infrastructure and build an

$85 million grain terminal.”

Now, why would the North Shore News tie donation and election

activities to the story about the back taxes? Surely a government wouldn’t make

decisions based on who their donors were, would they?

Dermod Travis, who was the former executive director of IntegrityBC and

who we said goodbye to in 2020, following a life dedicated to transparency and

accountability, was quoted later on in the article, which might help answer

this question. This is his quote:

“Definitely, I think what radiates off this particular case is the fact

that something was going on behind close doors, which suggested that a

sweetheart deal was struck between the provincial government and a major

corporation in British Columbia, also a major donor to the B.C. Liberal Party,

and it’s the district of North Vancouver that’s getting stuck with the bill.

That would demonstrate, quite frankly, that a lot more sunshine needs to be put

on this…to determine whether or not it’s an isolated incident or whether there

are similar incidents in other parts of the province as well as Metro

Vancouver.”

Now, the reality is I do not know if those donations had anything to do

with the decisions that the B.C. Liberal government of the day made.

[11:15 a.m.]

Just like I do not know if big money had anything to do with the sale of

B.C. Rail or the sweetheart deal at Little Mountain or whether it’s merely a

coincidence that according to IntegrityBC, top B.C. Liberal donors at the time

had received $15 billion in government handouts and that half of all appointees

to the various boards and agencies and Crown corporations were B.C. Liberal

donors.

I do not know, and I don’t believe, necessarily, that anybody here can

say for sure. But what I do know….

Deputy Speaker: Minister, I think you’ve made your point. Do you want to move back on to

the bill, please? Thank you.

Hon. B. Ma: Oh yes. Absolutely.

I do know, however, that the fact that we even have to ask is an affront

to our democracy. What the New York Times described as the “Wild West

of Canadian political cash” damaged the trust of British Columbians in their

government, in their elected officials, in the entire parliamentary

system.

There should be no question in the minds of the British Columbia public

that their elected officials are working for them, because they are the ones

who pay for them, not some oil and gas company in Alberta or numbered

corporation registered in a different country altogether. A person’s ability to

become a candidate and run a successful election campaign should not be

dependent on their ability to cozy up to wealthy donors.

Now, I want to take a moment here and apologize briefly to the members

opposite, my B.C. Liberal colleagues in this House, because I used a lot of

examples that were from their time in government simply because those were the

examples that were familiar to me. But they were not intended to offend them.

In fact, a lot of the members of the current opposition were not even around at

the time that happened.

The point of the matter is that the structure of our election campaigns

and the framework within which we fund them opens up even well-meaning

governments to questions like this that should never have to be asked. My

understanding is that all members of this House will be supporting this bill

because it’s the right thing to do, and I’m glad to know that, because I know

that we’re going to be doing the right thing together.

A. Mercier: It’s a pleasure to rise and speak to this bill, the Election Amendment

Act.

I’d like to begin by thanking the members of the special committee for

reform and amendment of the Election Act. I had the pleasure of participating

as a member of the committee, and I’d like to especially thank the Chair of the

committee, the member for Surrey-Fleetwood, and also the Deputy Chair, the

member for Kamloops–North Thompson, as well as the member for Saanich North and

the Islands.

I think the work of the committee, the work the committee engaged in, is

some of the best work that I’ve seen in this House in the past year, in terms

of looking at the bipartisan and cross-partisan nature of consultations, and

just the work of the committee. That’s really, for the folks at home and the

folks who may be listening to this, something to consider and to look at when

you’re looking at the work of this House — that is, how much of it is done by

committees and how much of it is done very effectively across party lines by

committees.

The Minister of State for Infrastructure touched on this, but I’d like

to talk a bit about the context and the ban on big money. I’m not going to go

so much into particular examples. Suffice to say that a dollar should not equal

a vote. That’s something that I think is fairly uncontentious and something

that’s pretty broadly accepted in our democracy. Whether you’re taking big

money from unions or corporations, that should not determine how many people in

the province of British Columbia you are allowed to speak to and reach as a

candidate for office.

Now, I ran twice for provincial office. I ran first in 2013 and then

again in 2020. So I ran under both regimes. The differences are striking, and I

can say that the perception by the public of politicians and of our democracy

varies greatly. The level of distrust folks have when they know that

politicians are attending big-money events behind closed doors with all types

of, frankly, interest groups….

It’s not a good look. It doesn’t smell right, and it’s not something we

ought to have in our democracy. However, to take that out of the equation and

to put a cap on donation limits, like we have, which was the right thing to do,

also leaves a hole in the financing of political parties.

[11:20 a.m.]

The stark reality of it is that there are fixed and rising costs to

political campaigns in the modern environment, especially with what we’re

seeing in terms of an increasingly fractured media environment where it’s more

and more difficult to reach voters. I’ll give an example.

Just this past election, I didn’t engage — I think like most folks in

this House — in door-knocking, with the concerns around social distancing and

the coronavirus. So we relied heavily on phone canvassing. Now, I grew up in

the 80s and 90s, back when everybody had land-line phones. My parents had

land-line phones. You could look up numbers in the phone book and correlate

them to the election list. You can’t do that anymore.

Folks have cell phones, and cell phone data that’s available to

political parties and to candidates running for office to contact voters is

very, very poor. What ends up happening is you start to look for other means to

reach people, all of which have a dollar value, and the costs rise. Whether

voice-automated phone calls or advertising in the paper or on television, all

of that costs money.

That loss of ability to finance is particularly, I think, acutely felt

by smaller political parties. So while it’s absolutely the right thing to do to

ban big money and take money out of politics, we need to make sure that we’re

also supporting our democracy and supporting political parties. That’s what

this financing does and what the financing has done.

I just want to say a bit…. I’ll talk a bit about the committee, but what

we heard from the committee, as well, from the academic experts that we spoke

to about the role of political parties in our democracy and in our province, is

parties are a good thing. They help make government intelligible. They help

organize elections on lines of choice, where folks know what they’re voting for

and they know what they’re getting.

You could look at today’s political system in pretty stark contrast to

the B.C. political system before Richard Mc­Bride, our great Premier that

introduced the party system to B.C. Before that, you’d vote for your local

candidate, and you’d have no idea who would be Premier coming out of that.

You’d have no idea who would be Attorney General or Minister of Finance because

it was sorted out by caucus, behind closed doors. You’d also have no idea what

kind of policies or, frankly, who was funding them would come out of that

process.

Political parties play a very important brokerage function in our

democracy and a very important function for transparency. So I think making

sure that they’re well resourced so that we can have competitive elections

where folks have choices and where there’s a variety of options and alternative

parties is a positive thing. Now, that being said, smaller parties ought to be

able to demonstrate a sufficient level of popular support to merit that, and

that’s how we set up the system.

The committee was an all-party committee, like I said, and we did three

broad days of consultation with invited experts and stakeholders that presented

to us. We got a whole range of opinion there, different takes, but it all kind

of landed broadly in the middle. There was very broad support for financing

political parties and for the role political parties play in the process. But

there was also very broad support for making the allowance permanent. When you

think about it, that just makes good sense.

What you don’t want…. I’ll harken back to the federal Harper

Conservative government, which removed financing for political parties and kept

the donation limit in place. Who was punished by that? Smaller parties. Who

ultimately loses from that is the voting public, who is less likely to hear of

the opinions and the positions put forward in a political campaign by those

smaller parties. So it makes perfect sense to keep it permanent, to keep it

non-political and to provide that level of certainty to political parties

engaging in the electoral process.

As part of the public consultation, the committee went out and asked

three questions: whether the annual allowance to political parties should

continue after 2022 and, if so, the amount of the allowance and the number of

years it should be paid.

[11:25 a.m.]

It’s noted in the report that was produced by the committee and tabled

in this House that the recommendation was that the allowance should stay at

$1.75 per vote, which is significantly lower than the allowance was when it was

introduced in 2017, as well as to index it to CPI.

I think this is a pretty conservative policy in terms of funding

political parties. As a member of the British Columbian public myself, I think

that members of the public should be heartened that we’ve taken a fairly

conservative approach with how to do this.

We heard from the member for Surrey-Panorama that the allowance ranges

from about $1.60 in New Brunswick to $2.54 in Ontario. We’re right above the

lower end of that and making sure it’s indexed to inflation, like I said, to

make sure that we’re keeping up with those continuing and rising

costs.

Most importantly, I think, are the eligibility requirements to ensure

that what this doesn’t do and what we don’t want is to create a cartel of

bigger parties where smaller parties can’t break through. The eligibility

requirements mean that you have to have 2 percent of the total valid votes cast

in the previous general election or 5 percent of the total votes where you’ve

run candidates.

That is so important, because there are five eligible political parties

right now for this: the B.C. NDP, the B.C. Liberal Party, the Green Party, the

Conservative Party and the Rural Party. What you’re seeing there with the

Conservative Party and the Rural Party are two small parties that are growing

in British Columbia that primarily run candidates and represent rural areas. I

think that’s critically important — that we make sure that those voices are

heard. They’re not penalized by this eligibility requirement, which is, I

think, a benefit to all of us and a benefit to our democracy.

I strongly support this bill. I think this is a positive bill. I think

it’s relatively uncontentious, and I think it’s for the betterment of our

democracy.

Deputy Speaker: I’d like to thank the Minister of Health and the member for

Cariboo-Chilcotin for taking their conversations outside — much appreciated —

so it doesn’t disturb those people that are speaking in the House. Thank

you.

J. Brar: I would like to join other members to say I am very pleased to stand up

in this House today to support the Election Amendment Act, 2021, introduced in

this House by our government last week. The good thing is that we see some

young people up in the gallery sitting there, and looking at the future of this

province as to where the political process is going, moving forward.

I also want to say…. Before I start making my comments, I convey my

sincere thanks to the committee members from all parties, from the B.C. Liberal

Party, from the Green Party and the NDP Party, who were part of this special

committee. I had the rare honour to be the Chair of that committee. I want to

say thanks to them for their dedication, deep commitment and unbiased approach

to this very important public policy issue. So my sincere thanks to

them.

It is important to note that an all-party special committee to review

provisions of the elections finance act was established in March 2021 to

consider the following things. First, whether an annual allowance paid to

political parties should be continued to be paid after 2022. Second, if an

annual allowance to a political party is to be continued, the amount of the

annual allowance and the number of years the annual allowance is to be paid.

Those were the key questions the committee was supposed to respond to. That was

the mandate of the committee.

[11:30 a.m.]

This all-party committee launched a public consultation process in April

2021, inviting British Columbians to pro­vide written, audio or video

submissions prior to May 28, 2021, focused on the above set of questions. An

advertisement was subsequently placed in major provincial and community

website were also used to promote the consultation process.

The committee’s 2021 spring public consultation process engaged academic

experts, stakeholders and individual British Columbians to review the annual

allowance paid to political parties in the province. The committee heard a

total of 11 presentations and received 103 written submissions and one video

submission providing input on whether the annual allowance to political parties

should continue to be paid after 2020 and, if so, the amount of the annual

allowance and the number of years it is to be paid.

The Chief Electoral Officer, Anton Boegman, and officials from Elections

B.C. also appeared before the committee and provided a briefing on the

statutory framework and administration of the annual allowance paid to

political parties.

A large majority of the written submissions and oral presentations by

academic experts made the following three strong arguments in favour of the

continuation of the annual allowance to political parties. First, this annual

allowance levels the playing field of political parties and keeps the influence

of big money out of politics. Second, a modest vote allowance is a good

investment in a strong and fair voting system. Third, by allowing increases

with inflation, this system provides all parties with predictable and

dependable funding so we can keep the big money out of politics.

As a result of this extensive public consultation process, the all-party

special committee made the following three recommendations to the Legislative

Assembly of B.C. First, an annual allowance paid to political parties be

continued to be paid after 2022. Second, the annual allowance paid to political

parties be calculated as follows: in 2023, $1.75 per vote received in

accordance with the applicable

section of the Election Act and, in 2024 and

each following year, by adjusting the per-vote amount by the change in the

consumer price index for the previous year. Third, the annual allowance paid to

political parties be made permanent.

Those were the three recommendations made by the special committee, and

that’s why we are here today talking about this bill. Therefore, at the

unanimous recommendation of the all-party Special Committee to Review

Provisions of the Election Act, proposed amendments to the Election Act will

make the annual allowance for political parties permanent.

In 2017, government moved to take big money out of politics by banning

unions and corporate donations. At that time, an annual allowance was

introduced — it was to expire in 2022 — to support political parties and so

that they can transition to the new election financing systems.

[11:35 a.m.]

The amendment, if passed, ensures that in 2023, eligible political

parties will receive $1.75 per vote received in the most recent election, down

from $2.50, when the allowance was introduced first.

Making the annual allowance permanent aligns B.C. with other

jurisdictions in Canada, including Quebec and Ontario. We have also provided an

annual allowance after making similar changes to campaign financing rules. Both

Ontario and Quebec have done that too.

The committee received information from Elections B.C. officials, and

public hearing presentations on annual allowances for political parties in

other jurisdictions. An­nual allowances range from, as was said earlier

by members, $1.60 per vote in New Brunswick to $2.54 in Ontario. Elections B.C.

officials described Ontario’s annual allowance as being most like that of B.C.

— what we are putting together today.

It should be noted that the Ontario Legislative Assembly recently

adopted legislation to extend the provincial annual allowance at the rate of

$2.54 per vote until 2024 and maintain eligibility criteria which mirror those

in British Columbia. Most other jurisdictions with annual allowances provide

annual adjustments as well to per-vote amounts to reflect changes in the

consumer price index.

There are some important questions people ask when we talk about the

annual allowance to political parties. Questions like: what is the eligibility

criteria to receive the per-vote allowance? To receive this funding, a party

must have received at least 2 percent of the total valid votes cast in all

electoral districts, or 5 percent of the total valid votes in districts where

the party had candidates in the most recent provincial election.

At present, as members said earlier, there are five political parties

eligible to receive funding as per the formula today, including the B.C. Green

Party, the B.C. Liberal Party, the B.C NDP, the B.C. Conservative Party and the

Rural B.C. Party.

The other question is…. The annual allowance was originally due to

expire in 2022. Why are you now making it permanent? That’s a good question.

These changes are being made at the unanimous recommendation of an all-party

special committee. It’s a unanimous recommendation by an all-party committee to

review provisions of the Election Act following the public consultation in

April and May 2021, which invited British Columbians to share their thoughts on

whether political parties should receive an annual allowance, how much it

should be and how long it should be paid.

The third question is: why should taxpayers subsidize B.C. political

parties? That’s also a question people ask. The previous model of big money

donations benefited parties with the wealthiest supporters. Therefore,

competitive elections are good for democracy. It strengthens our democracy.

Public financing for political parties helps give people the confidence that

political parties are working for the people, not particular donors. It helps

ensure that parties focus on the issues that matter to most British Columbians,

working to earn every vote.

Therefore, I would like to conclude by saying that I fully support the

Election Amendment Act 2021, because the per-vote allowance levels the playing

field for political parties and keeps the influence of big money out of

poli­tics.

[11:40 a.m.]

A modest vote allowance is a good investment in a strong and fair voting

system. By allowing increases with inflation, this system provides all parties

with predictable and dependable funding, so we can keep big money out of

politics.

Therefore, I fully support this bill because I think it’s a good bill

for the people of British Columbia. This is a good bill for democracy, to

strengthen our democracy, and this comes from the unanimous support of an

all-party committee.

Hon. N. Cullen: It’s a pleasure to join with my colleagues today in talking about Bill

27, a relatively small act compared to many bills that are introduced in this

place, but I would suggest that its consequences are much larger than the few

pages and the few amendments that exist within this piece of

legislation.

Bills like this, changes like this that our government, this

Legislature, is making to the way that democracy exists in British Columbia,

have far-reaching effects, and I, along with many others, would argue that

those effects are overwhelmingly positive.

Now, for the place that I represent, northwestern British Columbia and

Stikine, the largest and one of the more remote ridings…. Many small

communities, not necessarily a lot of wealthy and well-connected people to this

place, the powers of this place, yet they need voices and representation that

can do the job on their behalf as well as any other British Columbian,

regardless of their income, their political connection, their family,

etc.

For rural and remote British Columbians, for people who don’t have a lot

of money — middle income, low income, people just struggling to get by…. They

need to have that faith that is oftentimes shaken, if not outright broken, that

when we send someone to the Legislature, when we send someone to town council,

when we send someone to parliament, they’re working and speaking on our behalf.

One of the things that comes into that question, for many voters, is money —

the question of who’s paying for campaigns, the signs, the door-knocking and

all the rest. Is there any link in the contributions that people make into

corrupting the system?

I use that word very specifically because it’s such a dangerous element

in our politics, the question of money, the question of equity, access, not

just for the wealthy and well-connected — who, in my experience, always find a

way to take care of their interests and needs — but for the vast majority of

British Columbians that we hope to serve each and every day.

It is important, and it has been underlined that this bill is coming

forward with all-party contribution and all-party support, not necessarily a

common thing, especially when talking about things like campaign finance reform

and elections, which can be, by its nature, very divisive. This bill has been

able to achieve, I believe, support from all of the represented parties in this

place.

That is a good thing, because it beats back that energy of cynicism,

those thoughts of conspiracy that we so often see if you ever read the comments

state of affairs that we live in today, the great potential of unification that

I’m looking at the Health Minister right now in particular. I encourage

him, generally, not to read the comments because it’s a place in which,

oftentimes, legitimate concerns get swirled up into the more conspiratorial end

of things when talking about who politicians work for, who we represent.

Sometimes you see that cynicism come through in letters to the editor, for

those of a more traditional bent, but also in the comment

section on any social

media post that you may put up.

In this place, we understand, those of us who come from rural B.C., that

there is sometimes, not sometimes — there is — an outnumbering between the

rural and urban votes that are cast in this province, the representation that

comes forward in this place. We understand that fully, that the urban parts of

this province have always been larger, and they’re growing, in fact, faster

still.

The ability for us to understand the connection back to money, the

connection back to those in our society who have a great deal of money, not

having an even more outsized influence on what happens in British Columbia —

this bill deals with that.

Many of my colleagues have touched on the basic mechanics of the bill,

which are very important in terms of a logical and sequential step to making

sure that big money stays out of politics. That’s what our government committed

to, based on what I would call some pretty telling and dangerous experiences of

what it was like in British Columbia prior to the changes that we

made.

[11:45 a.m.]

It’s been cited. It wasn’t just the New York Times . It was many

commentators across this country and around the world. When looking at the

rules, or, if I could say, lack of rules that guided political donations in

British Columbia, that it was legal, under previous governments, for numbered

companies, offshore donations, to arrive in this province disclosed

somewhat.

It was the experience of a previous Premier who went to Calgary. In just

one dinner at the Petroleum Club, a former B.C. Liberal Premier was able to

raise $1 million in a night — 1 million bucks — from a neighbouring province

from one sector in particular at the Petroleum Club, while we were debating

many important energy issues that were going on.

There’s a connection of people wondering: how does that work? How do you

raise 1 million bucks in a neighbouring province from one particular sector? Do

you have to be nice? Is that enough? Do you have to consider policies? Do you

have to consider the laws that are coming?

That’s where the trust starts to break. That’s where peo­ple start

to say: “Well, the person I sent to the Legisla­ture…. Maybe their voice

is being overridden. My influence as a single individual voter and my family’s

influence is diminished somewhat when there are just simply no limits

whatsoever to those who have money being able to drop a million bucks in an

evening to support one candidate or another.”

I spent a fair amount of time in Washington, D.C., south of the border.

There, of course, they’ve had, all the way up to the Supreme Court, cases where

money has been equated with voice and rights. It’s a most unfortunate decision,

but that’s their jurisdiction. But it’s informative and instructive for us

within our rules and our laws that when we, as a government, banned big money

out of our politics, what does it look like when big money is in

politics?

For anyone to stroll the halls of power in Washington and bump into who

you bump into — pharmaceuticals, energy, private health insurers. The gun

lobby, somewhat — not so much for money but for other things. But certain folks

walk those halls of power on a consistent basis, and they’re not just walking.

They’re talking, and they’re influencing, and they’re able to either make

commitments and promises of extraordinary amounts of money to our counterparts

south of the border but also the withholding of that money for future

elections.

There is an equation that is not perfect but exists within western

democracy, that those that tend to raise the most have a much better chance of

being successful at the polls, because they can simply pay for more

advertising. They can hire people to knock on doors. They can do all those

things that money enables in an election.

Watching that influence happen in an extreme and an almost obscene way

as it was taking place, I would argue, in our province for far too many years

and in other jurisdictions like in the U.S., one doesn’t have to be a genius to

know that there’s going to be some cause and effect.

If there are simply no limits, and there are no rules, and there’s no

understanding that the influence of money will play on our politics, then they

say money in politics is like water on the sidewalk. It’s going to find its way

through all the little cracks and the little nooks and crannies that you leave

unless you seal it, unless you say this is no longer acceptable. So we capped

donations but, I think, at a reasonable rate that most working people can

imagine that amount of money, and we also just outright banned

donations.

Then, the third piece of it, I would argue — there are probably more

pieces that the minister can speak to — was ensuring that parties had

sufficient money to exercise the democratic process and run campaigns to some

sufficient level.

The starting at $2.50 per vote is now going to be reduced down to $1.75

and then connected to inflation. Not in my jurisdiction, anyways, you can’t get

a cup of coffee anymore for a buck seventy-five. I don’t know. I’m looking at

the Health Minister, definitely not in his riding is coffee going for a $1.75

anymore.

The idea of that being a reasonable amount, the exercising right…. I’ve

actually done a fair amount of campaigning outside of my jurisdiction. There

are times when people will say: “I know candidate X isn’t winning.” They

traditionally get 5 percent or 10 percent of the vote. When we had this

federally, this was in place for a small amount of time. “But I know my vote’s

going to mean something important to them in their ability to represent my

views even though they may not represent me as a riding.”

Electoral reform is another issue we’ll talk about another day

maybe.

[11:50 a.m.]

The effective voice and the connection back to effective voice, and that

we all go into what I consider a sacred place — the ballot box. Our ability to

put a tick beside the name that we think will best represent our hopes and our

dreams and the dreams and hopes of our families and our communities is a place

that we should jealously guard — that power, that connection to citizen power

in that moment, where the advertising doesn’t matter, where all that try to

influence and the spin doctors no longer have effect, where that person, that

voter can sit there and exercise their right.

I took my kids, who are now 11, into the ballot box with me — well, it

was a voting station; it wasn’t a box, you know, how it works — to demystify,

in fact, the process. I think for a lot of young British Columbians, a lot of

young Canadians…. They don’t get into that part. We know, in practice, that

when we get young people to vote early, they’re much, much more likely to vote

the rest of their lives.

The reason that’s important is because when people vote, they’re much

more likely pay to attention. And when people pay attention to what’s going on

in their world, they hold us more to account. When cynicism overrides the

system, when people no longer feel connected to the folks that they send to

this place, they stop paying attention, and bad things happen.

We know sunlight is the best disinfectant. It’s talked about far too

much.

I’m conscious of the time and eager to hear some of the, perhaps,

closing remarks from the minister.

There were hard lessons learned in this province when there were no

rules, when it was simply, sometimes, elections to the highest bidder. That

caused serious and significant problems, not only in the minds and the views of

voters and how much they could trust their connection to their elected

representatives. I think it made for very bad policy from time to time, when

it’s big condo developers and significant resource sectors that are able to

drop, in some cases….

We have all the examples here. I don’t want to raise them. I don’t want

to hurt the feelings of any of my colleagues across the way, who are

understandably somewhat sensitive to some of the past records of fundraising

shen­anigans that took place and in which millions and millions of

dollars were showered down upon their party. I’m sure there was never a promise

made….

Interjections.

Hon. N. Cullen: I know, as we can hear, Mr. Speaker, sensitivities remain. It’s okay. I

don’t know if they doth protest too much, but it’s probably something to that

effect.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Just one moment.

We’ll let the minister finish, please. Thank you.

Go ahead.

Hon. N. Cullen: I’ll finish on a positive note, for both my friends on this side of the

aisle and across the way.

We understand that there are things that ought to unify us. One of those

things is the fairness of our election, the fairness of the vote, the free vote

of citizens that we seek to represent.

We do our best. That connection must be maintained and sustained. It

can’t be left to just the vagaries of the market. It has to be something in

which the public conscience of good governance implores us to pass legislation

like this, which can then rebuild or establish the trust that has sometimes

been eroded between us and the people that we seek to represent.

I’m proud to support this legislation and look forward to even more

excellent legislation from the minister.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further members, the minister would like to close the

debate.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker.

I would adopt the conclusion of the Minister of State for Lands and

Natural Resource Operations, the positive note he finished on, about the

importance of this legislation for democracy. I appreciate very much his

remarks as well as the remarks of my colleagues the member for Langley, the

Minister of State for Infrastructure and all members who spoke to

this.

I’d also like to make special note that I was paying attention and

listening to the spokesperson for the opposition on this, the member for

Abbotsford West. I continue to appreciate his willingness both to engage with

the subject matter of the bill but also to lay out which areas he will be

canvassing in committee stage. Rest assured, it is useful, I’m sure. I will

make certain that staff are aware of his remarks. We’re better prepared and the

debate is better at committee stage for it. So I’m grateful for

that.

I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be

considered at the next…. Oh, pardon me. I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s move

second reading.

With that, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: Now I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 27, Election Amendment Act, 2021, read a second time and referred to

a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: This House is adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

Copyright © 2021 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.