Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, November 9, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 59

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 8 — Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2017

(continued)

L. Throness

Hon. D. Eby

D. Barnett

J. Isaacs

M. Hunt

G. Kyllo

A. Weaver

A. Olsen

M. Bernier

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2017

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act (continued)

J. Tegart

Hon. S. Simpson

M. Stilwell

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

A. Weaver

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act

(continued)

J. Rice

D. Ashton

C. Oakes

Hon. G. Chow

E. Foster

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

(continued)

Hon. S. Robinson

C. Oakes

T. Stone

S. Sullivan

S. Gibson

J. Thornthwaite

M. Stilwell

Estimates: Other appropriations

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2017

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued committee stage of Bill 8. In the little

chamber, Committee A, I call continued debate on the estimates of Municipal

Affairs and Housing.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 8 — LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 8; L. Reid in

the chair.

The committee met at 1:34 p.m.

section 2 (continued) .

On the amendment.

L. Throness: Continuing our discussion about Bill 8, I have presented an

amendment, and I would like now to speak to that amendment, make a few

remarks.

I just want to remind the numerous viewers of the legislative TV

channel and all those avid readers of Hansard that the

government is amending the Lobbyists Registration Act, which it is

calling Bill 8. We have, on this side, proposed an amendment to the

amendments that the government is working on.

I want to explain, first, the government’s amendments. In general,

the government wants to prohibit lobbying of government for two years

for public office holders. The definition of “public office holders” or

“former public office holders” includes former ministers and their staff

and parliamentary secretaries and some senior public servants — wants to

add those to the definition of “public office holder.”

[1:35 p.m.]

We in the opposition would like to broaden that category in order

to add a few more categories of people to be captured under the

definitions of the act. I want to read into the record the text of the

proposed amendment that we have made.

We would amend

section 2 by adding three subsections to that

section — subsections (d), (

e) and (f). And (

d) reads: “any individual

employed or otherwise contracted as a member of an incoming government’s

transition team.” And (

e) reads: “any individual formerly employed in

the Confidence and Supply Agreement Secretariat, or (

f) any former

members of the Legislative Assembly, or any individual formerly employed

in the former member’s office, who may have had access to inside

government information or otherwise been informed of government business

through the Confidence and Supply Agreement Secretariat.”

Then the amendment defines “transition team” as meaning “any

individual identified by the Premier or a member of the Executive

Council as having had the task to support and advise the Premier, a

member of Executive Council, or a person employed in an Executive

Council member’s office during the transition period leading up to and

after the swearing in of the Premier and Executive Council.”

Now I’d like to speak to it. We want the Lobbyists Registration

Act to be more transparent, not less than the government is proposing

now. On that point, we might disagree, unless, of course, the government

or the Green Party decides to agree with us that the law should be

further amended. Of course, we hope that they will do that.

The reason that we’re amending it is to make sure that there’s an

appropriate cooling-off period after a person ceases to be a public

office holder, so that a person who has had a lot of influence on the

government’s side, the government of the day, can’t begin to lobby the

government right away after they leave office, using this special

influence, the insider information and the contacts they have built up

during their time in office.

This law will say that a cabinet minister, for example, who loses

an election or who decides that he or she doesn’t want to be an MLA any

more and resigns, won’t be able to register as a lobbyist right away to

represent companies or groups to the government for a full two years

after the minister leaves office.

There are categories of people who are not captured by the bill

but who are, nonetheless, influential in government. We believe that the

government has purposely left them out in order to protect its own

favourites so that they will have the option of going on immediately

after leaving office to have a lucrative career as a lobbyist. Allow me

to give an example.

The Premier had a transition team who helped him make the

transition from opposition to government this past summer. This is a

perfectly legitimate and normal thing to do in this situation.

Typically, a transition team is made up of, in this case, people deeply

committed to the cause and program of the NDP, people who are well known

in NDP circles, people who are already highly placed in the private or

union or public sector.

Those people are deeply involved with all of the nitty-gritty

mechanics of the transfer of power. They develop contacts with the

Premier’s office and with the Premier himself — some of the most

powerful people in the provincial government. They might help to select,

for instance, the chief of staff and the head of the public service.

They would have input into all sorts of decisions. They would have input

into policy decisions too — what should be the short-term policy

objectives of the new government and what should be done first or not

done first. They would be instrumental and influential in setting up

these kinds of roles.

Cabinet ministers have to be chosen, and a lot of thought has to

go into that. Cabinet ministers are often considered according to gender

and perhaps ethnicity. There needs to be geographic representation, and

then you take into account the backgrounds, personalities, experience

and ability of potential ministers. So cabinet-making is really a

complicated function which requires a lot of thought and discussion and

balancing. In the end, choices of cabinet ministers are made. There may

have been interviews. There may have been discussions with cabinet

ministers or people who know cabinet ministers — people who know them

well.

Cabinet ministers may know or come to know who had influence in

their appointment. The transition team member might even work with a

cabinet minister, once appointed, in order to help to affect more

transitional issues for the government. So a sense of obligation, over

time, can develop, which leads to meetings and, possibly, to special

favours.

That’s why we have the bill before us. It is designed to stop that

kind of thing, but it won’t, in this case, because transition team

members have been left out of the bill. There could be no more of an

insider than a transition team member.

[1:40 p.m.]

Further, the Attorney General described the bill as having broad

similarity with the federal law. He did that in the Times

Colonist on September 23. He wanted to pattern the law after

the Lobbying Act federally. Subsection 2(3) of that act says the

following: “Any person identified by the Prime Minister as having had

the task of providing support and advice to him or her during the

transition period leading up to the swearing in of the Prime Minister

and his or her ministry is subject to this Act….” So the federal law

includes transition team members, and that’s very important.

I would further point out that this law was passed by the former

Conservative government in Ottawa. The Conservatives there in Ottawa are

far more transparent than the NDP here in B.C.

The minister said that he is patterning his law after the federal

one, but he left out his own transition team. I would suggest to you

that this was not an accident. This was a calculated move to protect

members of the NDP transition team. We on this side of the House think

that that’s wrong. We want to right that wrong by amending the bill to

add them.

The next category in our amendment is that of former members of

the Legislative Assembly with access to the confidence and supply

secretariat, as well as former employees of their offices. They should

be properly included under the definition of former public office

holder, given their access to government officials and documents and

consistent biweekly consultation meetings.

As we know, the confidence and supply secretariat is run out of

the Ministry of Finance. Staff are appointed through order-in-council by

cabinet. Per the Minister of Finance, the secretariat is in charge of

facilitating consultations across government in all

ministries.

The executive director of the secretariat, Donna Sanford, reports

to the deputy minister of government communications and public

engagement office, Evan Lloyd, who is a longtime NDP insider. Together

they work in close proximity with the Premier’s staff and, indeed, all

cabinet ministers. There is even a dispute resolution process that they

can manage and that can involve any cabinet minister.

The confidence and supply agreement itself says the following:

“Formal consultation will be managed between the Premier’s office and

the B.C. Green caucus office. Regular meetings will also be established

between the Premier and the B.C. Green Party leader.” You cannot get

higher level or more insider than that.

Recently we received a freedom-of-information request that

described the purpose of the confidence and supply agreement secretariat

in this way: “To manage and coordinate consultation between government

and the B.C. Green Party caucus and to provide secretariat function to

the consultation committee. Areas of key focus for the secretariat

include the broad outline of the government’s legislative agenda,

legislation to be introduced in the House, major policy issues, broad

budget parameters, events and policy changes with provincial or

budgetary implications, and senior order-in-council

appointments.”

All these categories are not low-level stuff. They are

cabinet-level stuff. I sat, myself, on the legislative review committee

of cabinet in the former government, and I had to swear an oath of

secrecy. The confidence and supply secretariat has access to that exact

kind of information as a matter of routine.

Yet neither the leader of the Green Party nor the other members of

his party nor his employees nor the employees of the confidence and

supply secretariat, who manage these meetings and develop all this

insider access and insider information and special connections and

relationships, will be prohibited from lobbying immediately after

leaving employment. We think that this is a danger.

Now, the Green Party considers itself to be an idealistic group.

If it is really as idealistic as it says it is, it, above all members of

this House, should support these amendments to add themselves, as former

public office holders, to the Lobbyists Registration Act. They must

admit that they have access to insider information — at least as much as

a parliamentary secretary would ever have and probably more like a

cabinet minister would enjoy.

I want to quote the minister himself. He said: “This act is aimed

specifically at people who have access to inside government

information.” He said that in the Globe and Mail on October 3,

yet we believe he has aimed poorly. The bill has missed the mark because

it ignores some of the most privileged insiders in the

government.

The targets of this bill, we believe, should not only include

cabinet ministers and their staff, parliamentary secretaries and senior

public servants, it should include the Premier’s transition team

members, members of the Green Party and their staff, and employees of

the confidence and supply secretariat.

I’ll simply close with this idea. The Green Party will also miss

the mark if it does not vote for this amendment. It will show that they

are not really interested in transparency at all. And how do we know

that? Because they have tabled their own amendments to this bill.

Neither the confidence and supply secretariat nor their employees nor

Green members themselves — all of whom are obvious insiders, having

access to information that cabinet ministers and parliamentary

secretaries have — are included in their own amendments. For some

reason, they left themselves out. We think that’s

unfortunate.

I think a few of my colleagues will have their thoughts on the

matter as well. So I will defer to them.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for his intervention and his recommendations

around the bill. I’ve now had a chance to review his proposed amendment,

which was tabled about an hour ago, unfortunately — seeing it for the

first time.

A couple of things stand out to me. I’ve heard a lot of remarkable

things from the members on the other side of this House, including the

member who moved the amendment. The most remarkable so far is the

aspiration towards the level of transparency of the Harper

administration. It’s an aspiration, for sure. I’m just not sure it’s

speaking of missing targets. That is one that is conspicuous.

The member attempts to create the idea that the opposition, when

they were in government, were very much interested in cracking down on

these insiders who had all of this access to government and now they’re

continuing that fight in the opposition trenches. Earlier in debate, the

member asked me if there were any specific cases that I was aware of

that led us to suggest a two-year prohibition on lobbying.

Well, I spent a little bit of time, and I managed to find some

examples for the member. The member may remember a gentleman named

Dimitri Pantazopoulos, who joined former Premier Christy Clark as

principal secretary, April 2011 to February 2012. He was appointed ADM

of intergovernmental relations, February 2012 to August 2012, and then

he worked as the B.C. Liberal Party pollster in the 2013 campaign on

unpaid leave of absence from his government job. Then he established the

lobby group Maple Leaf Strategies in 2013, representing Uber.

The member may remember Mike McDonald, Christy Clark’s chief of

staff in 2011. He managed the B.C. Liberal Party campaign in 2013 and

joined Kirk and Co. in 2013 — a firm that incidentally received a

substantial portion, if not a majority, of its business from the

province.

A gentleman named Gabe Garfinkel joined the Premier’s office as

Christy Clark’s EA in September 2011. He left Christy Clark’s office as

the director of community and stakeholder relations and joined

Fleischman Hilliard as VP in November 2013. And Matt Stickney, who

worked as Minister of Education Peter Fassbender’s chief of staff until

July 2014, joined Fleischman Hilliard as VP and then was contracted

back, actually, from that firm to provide advice to the

minister.

With all due respect to the member’s new-found excitement about

prohibiting people from lobbying, what we’re doing is taking a

significant step forward in terms of regulating activity that went

unregulated for years under the previous administration.

Now, I note with regret that the member decided not to table his

amendment. He decided not to bring it forward until about an hour ago.

Fortunately, we had the lunch break to have a look at it. Otherwise, we

wouldn’t have even had a chance to examine it. When we bring bills

forward, what we do is a first reading. Members have a chance to look at

it. We go through second reading debate. Members have a chance to debate

it. Then we go through committee stage. It’s just difficult to get such

little notice of this. I say that because there are a number of very

conspicuous problems with the proposal the member has put

forward.

For example, the proposal put forward attempts to prohibit

individuals involved with the confidence and supply agreement

secretariat from lobbying. I understand that’s the member’s point. A

simple…. If the name of the organization changed, for example, under the

member’s amendment, it would be completely defeated. It would be

ineffective because he doesn’t target a category of employees. He

targets a specific, named organization.

In addition, it doesn’t follow through to the other section,

section 5, which runs through when the period of the person’s employment

ends, for the purpose of the beginning of the two-year prohibition. So

it doesn’t amend follow-on sections that it should.

In addition,

section (f), for example — I’m just highlighting the

biggest problems with the member’s proposal — includes administrative

staff who are supporting MLAs, but the bill itself that’s in front of

the House doesn’t include admin staff for cabinet ministers. So he’s

created the strange situation where there’s a higher level of

inclusiveness in MLA offices of administrative staff than there is in

cabinet minister offices, which explicitly does not include

administrative staff.

[1:50 p.m.]

In addition, he uses a strange term: “…may have had access to

inside government information or otherwise been informed of the

government business through the Confidence and Supply Agreement

Secretariat.” Well, there’s no definition of “inside government

information.” Arguably, every single person in government, including all

the members on that side, has access to some level of inside government

information. Being informed of government business through the

confidence and supply agreement secretariat, just simply talking to

somebody in the secretariat, would bring a member within this provision.

It’s very hard for people to know whether or not they’re captured by

this section.

I do this not to make any point other than I understand what the

member is trying to do with the amendment. I encourage him to

participate. The amendment may be successful. I imagine we’ll have a

vote on it. I expect to hear from other members. It’s got some serious

drafting problems. I hope it’s not successful on that basis.

If the member wishes to include members of the Third Party or

backbench government MLAs or opposition MLAs or the confidence and

supply agreement group or the transition team — which also,

incidentally, doesn’t follow through to the other

section — some

significant amendments are going to be required to this. As it’s

drafted, it will not be successful at achieving his intent.

I encourage the member, if it’s not successful — I hope it’s not

successful, and I’ll be voting against it — to participate in the review

that we’re going to be doing in 2018 of the act. He could make lots of

arguments about including these various groups for many of the reasons

that he put forward. It would have to happen in a better drafted

way.

Also, I think he should probably explain to the House why he

includes some MLAs and accuses the government of excluding others when

he himself appears to have tried to exclude himself from the provisions

of the act through his own amendment. I just note that as a conspicuous

absence in this amendment in terms of what he’s putting

forward.

I encourage the member to participate in the review. I think he’s

got good arguments to make on different issues. It may well be that we

decide, as a group working together, that MLAs should be included in

this, for example, including opposition MLAs, Third Party MLAs and

government backbench MLAs.

This is a significant step forward from where we were. I

appreciate the member’s submissions. I disagree vehemently with the

suggestion that that side of the House was working on this problem

diligently — that they wanted to include more people but were just

foiled by the government.

We are putting this forward as one step of a significant set of

reforms banning union and corporate donations and limiting lobbying. We

are cleaning house here in a jurisdiction that was listed as the wild

west in the New York Times . We will continue to do that work.

If the member has seen the light, I’m very glad of it. I hope he

participates in round 2 in 2018.

The Chair: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast seeks the floor to

make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

N. Simons: I wanted to take this moment to introduce a class that just arrived in

the chamber. They are from James Bay Community School and are a bunch of

grade 5s — 27 of them, apparently — and three helpers, including teacher

Tricia Hinrichsen. Welcome to the Legislative Assembly. Thanks for being

here. I’m sure the House will all welcome you as well.

Debate Continued

D. Barnett: I am pleased to rise on the amendment to Bill 8, the Lobbyists

Registration Amendment Act.

As I have stated previously, certainly my colleagues and I in the

B.C. Liberal caucus support good governance and proper business

practices for ex-office holders. This amendment would ensure those with

perceived insider access to government, no matter their political

allegiances, would be included under the definition of “former public

office holder.” This will, ultimately, restrict former office holders

from leveraging that access and subsequent influence through lobbying

activities.

To restore public confidence in government, it is important that

transition team members be included in the definition and prohibited

from lobbying for two years. The purpose in making this distinction is a

recognition that they are heavily involved in advising, organizing and

setting up government and selecting executive council members. We

fundamentally believe they should be captured by this

legislation.

[1:55 p.m.]

Furthermore, with respect to the confidence and supply

secretariat, the added subsections will ensure that former Members of

the Legislative Assembly are properly included under the definition of

“former public office holder.” In addition, former employees would be

included because they would have had access to government officials,

documents and consistent, biweekly consultation meetings.

We in the official opposition understand that the stated intent of

this bill is to bring it in line with the federal legislation. This

amendment does so by ensuring the transition team is included within the

definition of “former public office holder.” That is why the spirit of

this amendment follows the intent of this legislation.

The amendment ensures that any staff or elected officials who have

had access to inside government information are unable to utilize that

information for financial gain after leaving politics. This amendment

would ensure that those with inside information or perceived inside

access to government are included within the definition of a “former

public office holder” and prohibited from lobbying for two years. It is

my opinion that this is a reasonable period of time to ensure that one

does not benefit inappropriately from the influence of former

connections. It is worth mentioning, by comparison, that the federal act

is a five-year period, which is an unreasonable length of

time.

It is essential that the public has confidence in their system of

government, and this includes the conduct of former elected officials

and senior office holders. With respect to the lobbying industry, I

would like to once again remind this House that it was a B.C. Liberal

government that enacted the original Lobbyists Registration Act in 2001.

It was further amended in 2010. We are, in fact, the authors of

transparency in the lobbying industry. We want to promote public

transparency and integrity in government. That is why the definition of

“former public office holder” should include senior party executive

members or staff members of the NDP transition team or former NDP

staff.

At the federal level, the Conflict of Interest Act includes the

Prime Minister’s transition team as public office holders. This bill

fails to do so, despite the Attorney General saying that this bill has

broad similarity with the federal act. That’s not good enough. The

definition also excludes confidence and supply secretariat staff or

secretariat committee members outside of cabinet. If it is the

government’s true intention to restore public trust in their government,

why is the NDP and Green Party coalition deliberately excluding their

own people from the process?

There are good reasons why the NDP and the Green Party should be

covered in this legislation. We need not look any further beyond the

confidence and supply agreement signed by the NDP and Green Party. The

government is expected to consult with the B.C. Green Party caucus on

the broad outline of the government’s legislative program, legislation

to be introduced in the House, major party policy issues, broad budget

parameters, events, policy changes with provincial or budgetary

implications.

The agreement further ensures the Green Party will be informed

about the policy agenda of the government and provided with access to

key documents and officials. If the Green Party is more than just an

ordinary opposition party, if they are indeed that close to government,

why would Green Party members and staff not be included?

With respect to the second part of the bill, prohibition, my

colleagues and I in the Liberal Party believe a two-year cooling-off

period is appropriate for people moving from political life to the

private sector.

The Green Party should support these amendments, which would add

them as former public office holders to the Lobbyists Registration Act.

It is because they have access to insider information, at least as much

as a parliamentary secretary would have, and possibly more.

Madame Speaker, I am proud that I come from the wild, wild

west.

[2:00 p.m.]

J. Isaacs: It gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak to the proposed

amendment to

section 2 of Bill 8, the Lobbyists Registration Amendment

Act. As I see it, the amendment serves to strengthen the core of the

intent of what was already been outlined in the bill — that being to

ensure that the public has confidence in the rules that govern those

that try to influence government.

To better understand the intended scope of this legislation, I

suggest we turn to the words of the Attorney General, who I feel has

already rather succinctly described the intention of the bill when he

stated the following to the Globe and Mail on October 3. He

said: “The act is aimed specifically at people who have access to inside

government information.”

It seems pretty straightforward. The act is specifically aimed at

the people who have access to inside government information.

Unfortunately, the bill has missed its target entirely because there are

key groups that have been granted exemptions. There’s no question that

these key groups do have access to inside government information. So I

feel it imperative that we shine a light on this bill’s shortcomings so

as to more comprehensively restrict those with perceived insider access

to government that this bill, to this time, does not

reference.

I think the crux of our objection to this bill comes down to its

definition of “former public office holder.” It’s interesting to note,

however, that in this bill, as it currently stands, the definition of

former public office holder does not include senior party executive

members or staff; members of the NDP transition team; members of the

Legislative Assembly with access to the confidence and supply

secretariat; nor former employees of that office.

How former senior party executive members and staff are not seen

as having access and influence akin to that of former government members

and staff is a mystery to me. Perhaps it is a mere oversight, but I

would suggest that such roles would have insider access to government

regardless of their political allegiance.

I also feel it’s important to see that the transition team members

be included in the definition of former public office holder, as by

practice, their roles are central to advising, organizing and selecting

of executive council members that takes place when a new government is

formed. Federally, members of the Prime Minister’s transition team are

included in the lobbying prohibition outlined in the federal Lobbying

Act, and we see no reason why this should be any different

provincially.

Moreover, I also feel it important to ensure that former Members

of the Legislative Assembly with access to the confidence and supply

secretariat, as well as former employees of that office, be included in

the definition in question. Given their access to government officials,

documentation and biweekly consultation meetings, such roles associated

with the secretariat are by their very nature privy to insider access to

government.

As per the 2017 confidence and supply agreement struck between the

B.C. Green and B.C. NDP caucuses, it states very clearly that the

government has agreed to “provide access to key documents and

officials.” Hence, seeing that it is through the confidence and supply

agreement secretariat that this facilitation of insider access to

government is administered, we see that it is inexcusable that they are

not included in this bill.

It is my hope that these amendments gain the support of the House,

and I hope that the arguments I’ve laid out for their inclusion are

considered by this government and the Green Party caucus members moving

forward.

[2:05 p.m.]

M. Hunt: I rise to speak to the amendment to Bill 8 that is before us. I

want to begin by specifically quoting the minister on the purpose of the

bill, because I think it’s very important that we understand that. He

said: “The act is aimed specifically at people who have access to inside

government information.”

Recognizing when he spoke those words, he was speaking in an

interview with the press, so he didn’t necessarily have his legal mind

on to say it all in legalese so that it could be put there. But at least

that’s what’s attempted in this amendment, to try and take the essence

of what the minister said and work with that.

Now, again, we recognize that the original bill was created in

2001. What’s the significance of 2001? It was the time that we had

transition in government. Sometimes when you have that process of

transition in government, you’ve got a new set of eyes looking at

things. You’ve got a new set of people looking at it, and they come up

with ideas that say: “Hey, what about this, what about that, what about

the other thing.” The bill was amended in 2010 because, again, people

were looking at it and said: “It’s deficient in areas. Let’s correct it.

Let’s build on it.”

What the minister is putting forward here in talking about a

two-year cooling-off period, I think, is appropriate, and especially

after coming out of political life. Because let’s be honest with

ourselves. When we’re in this House, no matter which side of the House

we’re on — whether we’re the front benches or the back benches or the

third row — we all are involved in the government processes. We all have

access to information. We all are a part of, and we know who the people

are. We know who the key players are. We learn to meet them, and we work

at this.

I think it’s very important, as we look at this bill, that we look

and see what’s missing. Again, this is an opportunity for us to look at

the whole lobbyists registry and figure out what we want. The minister

himself, in his talk about this bill earlier today, said it was an

exercise of drawing a line in the sand. Quite frankly, I agree with him.

I think that’s exactly what we see here. A line was drawn in the

sand.

I think, by these amendments, we’re simply challenging that line

and saying: “Hey, we think that line should be in a different place.” I

think that’s what the process is here. I hope, through this exercise,

that we actually end up with a better bill at the end of the day because

we’ve all had the chance and opportunity to look at it.

Unfortunately, I know we get partisan sometimes in the House, and

I’m going to be just as guilty of that as everybody else in the House.

Such is life, okay? But when we look at it, we find some exclusions,

that it only applies to former government officials, not to NDP

officials or — not to exclude the Third Party — the Green Party

officials as well. I wouldn’t want them to feel excluded from

this.

When we look at NDP….

Interjection.

M. Hunt: Well, I’m trying to be. We’re trying to work on a bill to make it

better, okay?

The Chair: Through the Chair.

M. Hunt: Through the Chair, Madame Chair. I apologize for that.

But what about former NDP MLAs? Well, actually, when we look at it

and we look at introductions over the last number of weeks, we have had

a parade of former NDP MLAs. Now, I’m not throwing aspersions on any one

of them. Please don’t construe that to be that, that I’m saying they’re

unlawful or bad lobbyists or whatever. I’m simply saying it’s reality.

That is what happened here. As a result, when you see that happening,

you’ve got to sit there and ask the question. You’ve got to think

through the logical consequences of it.

I can take friends of mine who were former MLAs from the good city

of Surrey. They’ve been here for years. They have been involved in the

processes here. They have had the opportunity to take concerns from

members of their constituency. They’ve gone to different staff. They

know who’s in the ministry. They know these things. I’m sorry. They have

“access to inside government information. “ I just think they do. And I

think it’s a wise thing.

[2:10 p.m.]

By the way, that points the finger at me too. I believe I should

be included in this legislation. I believe that when the day comes that

either my constituents kick me out or I choose not to run again —

because those are, basically, the only two alternatives — that in fact I

don’t think it’s appropriate for me to get a job coming in here

lobbying, even though I am on this side of the House.

So I’m including myself in this. I’m not trying to say: “Well,

let’s cut the line in the sand so that you can miss me and get everybody

else.” I don’t think that’s right. I think the reality is that it should

be including all of us. That’s why I support the amendments that are

here. When we look at it, I think there are three groups that are very

obviously missed in this. One is, as far as I’m concerned, those of us

that have been here in this House.

I notice in the definition that the minister has put forward, he

includes parliamentary secretaries. Now, by the same token, I only have

limited experience in that area. I was only a parliamentary secretary

for one month, okay? I don’t have a lot of experience, so I can’t speak

with great wisdom and experience on this, but in that one month, I can

assure you that I was involved in conversations with the ministerial

staff. Now, sure you can say, “There was a line between this, that and

the other thing,” but I got to know who the people were. I had

conversations with the people.

I think that’s what the public is looking at in this. So I go,

“Hey, if it’s good for the parliamentary secretary, I think it’s good

for every one of us that’s here” — in this legislation. So that’s

retiring caucus members, all the rest of it.

As a matter of fact, when we look at the legislation across this

country, since we’re trying to be like everybody else in what we’re

doing, legislation has either been passed or is up for debate in

Alberta; Saskatchewan; Manitoba; Ontario; Quebec; P.E.I. is currently

going through their readings and process; Newfoundland; Nova Scotia; and

New Brunswick. They all include some form of members of the provincial

assembly in their definition of a public office holder. So why would we

not do it? If all of the other provinces are doing this, why would we

draw this line in the sand that says: “No, no, not me. Not me.” Somehow,

I just don’t find that to be reasonable.

I think — we’ve already heard it said by those who spoke before

me, but I’ll just repeat it for the sake of clarity and those who just

tuned in on the television — members of transition teams…. We have that

in the federal Conflict of Interest Act. That includes the Prime

Minister’s transition team as public office holders. This bill fails to

do that, despite it being…. I’ll make sure I try to get the right words.

This bill has “broad similarity” to the federal act. If we’re going to

be broadly similar, let’s be broadly similar. Let’s throw the transition

team in there too.

Again, if we look at current experience, we know that those who

were in the transition team, here in the province of British Columbia,

were those who have very close connections to those who are, in fact,

ministers today. They had those relationships. They know what’s going

on. I just think that meets that definition, or at least my thought of

“access to inside government information.” I think it

qualifies.

Also, we’ve already heard mention about the confidence and supply

secretariat. I realize the minister got up and spoke a few moments ago

and said that that’s a named group and all this, so that shouldn’t be in

the legislation. Well, at least for the sitting of this parliament, that

is a recognized group. It’s a clearly definable, understandable group of

people. I think that’s what the member was trying to do when the member

from Chilliwack put this in — trying to say that it’s a clearly defined

group.

By the same token, the minister has introduced legislation in this

parliament making amendments. I don’t think we’ve had a miscellaneous

statutes amendment act. We did have a corrections one, where we’re going

and making little corrections that needed to be made. This is an obvious

correction that can be made by future parliaments. But at this point in

time, it’s a very clearly understood group. It’s a very easily

recognized group. It’s a limited group.

[2:15 p.m.]

It also has a function, as has already been said, that is involved

with the consultations between the members of the Green Party caucus and

the government.

Actually, if my memory serves me correctly, I think this is

somehow housed in the Finance Minister’s office — obviously, a senior

member of this government cabinet. It’s talking about the broad outline

of government legislation programs. It’s talking about the legislation

that’s going to be introduced to the House.

Well, that sounds to me like “access to inside government

information.” As a matter of fact, it’s so inside government that we

don’t have access to it. That tells me that that secretariat is even

getting more inside government information than we as members of the

opposition get — maybe more than parliamentary secretaries get — dealing

with major policy issues, dealing with broad budget parameters, and

there’s a whole long list of it. You’ve heard other members speak to

that.

I have real problems and real concerns with what’s before us,

simply because the line in the sand has not, as far as I’m concerned,

been drawn in the correct place. So I support these amendments. I think

that all these three major groups are included in what should be public

office holders. I would suggest that if the minister doesn’t like the

particular wording that’s here, fine. Let him call a recess of this bill

and work on getting the proper legalese for it, and bring it back here

so that we can vote on it on a form that he wants.

To just say, “Well, the wording isn’t good so we’re going vote

against it” — I think that really falls short of the concept of working

together and making this parliament better and making the legislation

better because of the exchanges that we have.

I do recognize that the minister has previously said that he’s

opening up the opportunities for members of the House to bring their

legislation and get it properly vetted and reviewed, and I accept that

as a genuine offer. But I think here is a perfect example of where it

can be done in a very simple, very easy way, to be able to sit there and

say, “Hey, the principles are good. The principles make sense. Let’s

take it off to the” — whatever we call those guys that do all that

stuff. I can’t remember the name now.

Interjection.

M. Hunt: Yeah, yeah. You know, the guys that are the real legalese guys.

They’ve got all these technical terms and that sort of stuff, and it

obviously isn’t me.

Interjection.

M. Hunt: Yeah, obviously. No, absolutely true.

I just think it’s something that…. I think the essence of what is

here needs to be supported. I support the essence of what is here. I

have no problem if someone wants to clean up the language and make it in

the proper legalese for a bill. But I think the intent is good, and I’m

certainly supporting the intent of the amendment that’s before

us.

G. Kyllo: I’m proud to rise today, on behalf of the hard-working people of

Shuswap, to lend my support to the proposed amendment of

section 2 of

Bill 8, the Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, brought forward by my

friend and colleague the member for Chilliwack-Kent.

The government desires to prohibit former public office holders

from lobbying government for a period of two years, including former

ministers and their parliamentary secretaries and staff, as well as

public office holders. Clearly, the intent of Bill 8 is to provide what

one might refer to as a 24-month cooling-off period for those public

office holders that may have had access to confidential government

information and potentially forged influential relationships with senior

staff within government. An example might be a former cabinet minister

who chooses not to seek re-election, who would be prohibited from

registering as a lobbyist and representing industry, trade or social

organizations or companies for a period of two years.

The Attorney General, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey,

described the legislation: “The act is aimed specifically at people who

have access to inside government information.” However, the Attorney

General has, in my opinion, purposely neglected to include others who

have had recent and ongoing access to inside government information —

namely, the Premier’s confidence and supply secretariat and the

Premier’s transition team.

Additionally, the transition team members are conspicuously absent

from this bill. The Premier’s handpicked transition team — comprised of

friends and committed members of the NDP cause, folks holding senior

positions within union organizations — gained access to sensitive and

highly confidential government information.

[2:20 p.m.]

Yet again, the Attorney General has specifically neglected to

capture those individuals under Bill 8. I’ll again quote the Attorney

General: “The act is aimed at people who have access to inside

government information.” Does the Attorney General honestly feel that

those handpicked friends of the NDP, who had fulsome access to

confidential government information, participated in critical policy

discussions and helped to inform the selection of cabinet, somehow

should be exempt from Bill 8? I think not.

Hypocrisy certainly comes to mind. The minister’s stated goal was

to ensure that former public officer holders cannot unfairly use their

inside information and connections to influence government policy, yet

he purposely has chosen to exclude the Premier’s transition team and the

confidence and supply secretariat from Bill 8.

The amendment proposed by my friend and colleague the member for

Chilliwack-Kent clearly intends to rectify the significant oversight of

the Attorney General. I trust that the government, as well as members of

the Green Party, will see their way clear to take a principled stance,

to do the right and just thing and to vote, alongside me and members of

the B.C. Liberal caucus, in support of the amendment of

section 2, Bill

A. Weaver: I have a couple of questions seeking clarification on the

amendment. The first question is very specific to the

amendment.

My first question, and the Chair will see the thread here, is to

the Attorney General with respect to the secretariat. Are the employees

of the secretariat government appointees, or are there civil servants in

the secretariat?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised they’re appointed by OIC, in the same way as

government communications or ministerial staff. So order-in-council

appointments.

A. Weaver: Is it possible all the names that were mentioned earlier are not

civil servants? They have been appointed. Donna Sanford, I understand,

is a civil servant. Is she not a civil servant in the

secretariat?

Hon. D. Eby: They’re appointed by OIC, but they are government staff. If that’s

what the member is asking, yes.

A. Weaver: That’s where I’m going. The question I was going to have is: to

what extent do formal civil servants…? Do they have to abide by any

pre-existing lobbyist registration…? Is there a code of ethics or a code

that civil servants must abide by after their service with the civil

service has actually terminated? Perhaps they have gone into retirement,

or they’ve moved elsewhere.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that members of the public service swear an oath and

that the specific members of the secretariat are at the executive

director level, at the highest. So they aren’t captured by the current

public service agreement obligation around the one-year

prohibition.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the Attorney General.

Also, there was quite a remarkable turn of events that occurred in

this session. That was that the Attorney General allowed members of the

opposition and the third party access to legislative drafters to propose

amendments. My colleague the member for Saanich North and the Islands

will speak to this issue much more substantively and thoroughly

shortly.

My question is relevant and germane to our actual conditions of

discussing and contemplating support for this amendment. My question is

posed directly to the member for Chilliwack-Kent, who did actually bring

this amendment forward. Did he actually have this amendment go through

the legislative drafters that we were granted access to in order to

propose amendments, prior to their submission, that fit the legal

definitions that were required and that were consistent with all other

statutes that exist in British Columbia, or did he so choose not to have

access to those legislative drafters?

[2:25 p.m.]

L. Throness: I did not choose to do that. I was told that I had two routes, and

I chose the route that I chose. Certainly, the drafting language can be

cleaned up after we pass the amendment. We would have that access, as

the member noted, to drafters now or then.

A. Weaver: I will stop there. I will admit that I do have trouble passing an

amendment and turning that into law if that amendment has not gone

through legal counsel to ensure that that amendment would actually meet

the terms required for it to be legally approved in British

Columbia.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to all the members for their remarks.

A. Olsen: I’d like to address the amendment on behalf of myself and my

colleagues. When this bill, Bill 8, was initially introduced, I was

asked in the media about it. I said that it was a good start. It was a

good start to amending the Lobbyists Registration Act that had holes in

it that you could drive a bus through.

Some of the challenges. A lobbyists bill that only requires

someone to note who they intend to lobby is a problem. That’s not

actually being able to keep track of who they’re lobbying and what

they’re lobbying them on or for how long they’re lobbying them. These

are all things that I’ve brought up and suggested we needed to tighten

up on.

In fact, I did take the opportunity to take the other route that

the member for Chilliwack-Kent chose not to. That was to work with

government, to meet with the folks at the lobbyists registry office, to

talk to them about the various things that they’ve recommended in the

past should be done in order to tighten up this legislation that did

have these large gaps. In fact, the lobbyists industry themselves have

requested and have asked for these changes to be made in order that

there’s a level of fairness within the lobbying industry.

We spent quite a bit of time in our office working. I spent time

working with my staff, going back and forth, to draft up amendments that

were then put on the order paper so that the members in the opposition

could see them. We took the time to have them properly drafted so that,

at the time that we were going to be asked to vote on them, they were

complete.

This is the work, the good work, that needs to be done in this

place. I spent time speaking with the Attorney General about whether or

not we were going to be able to bring these forward. Of course, there

are some difficulties with them. We secured an agreement.

I think, in this case, where we’ve got an amendment that’s put in

front of us a couple of hours before…. I seem to remember that this

seems to be a practice. A piece of legislation or amendment gets

dropped, and then when there are significant and substantive reasons why

you wouldn’t support an amendment…. As the Attorney General pointed out,

he had significant issues with the way it’s written. If that’s the way

that the members in the opposition suggest we do business — agree to an

amendment to make a bill and then go back and fix it later — to me, that

is very challenging.

We need to have what we’re voting on in front of us. We need to

have the ability to take a look at it, to be able to digest it and then

to ensure that what we’re voting on is something that is actually going

to be able to withstand the test of time. To the point that the Attorney

General made, the fact of the matter is that if the point was to capture

the members of the confidence and supply secretariat, then perhaps it

would have been better to find a way to capture those people without

using the name of the confidence and supply secretariat. With a very

simple name change of the secretariat — confidence and supply

secretariat 2 — those people then don’t fall into this legislation —

which has to, by the way, withstand the test of time.

[2:30 p.m.]

It’s not just for this minority government that we are creating

Lobbyists Registration Act amendments. It is for every government that

comes after it. It’s for all of that. I think that what’s important here

is that we take advantage of the opportunities that are in front of us.

We have a commitment from the government that they are going to do a

full review. This is a completely supportable suggestion that is being

made by the members across to strengthen this legislation, to add

definition to the legislation, to increase the people who are captured

by this.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Those are good amendments. I suggested that to the member for

Chilliwack-Kent. To do it in an ad hoc way, to drop it on this place and

to suggest that what we should do is adopt a poorly written, “off the

side of the desk” piece, when in fact, there was the legal…. To have

other members suggest: “Oh, it’s just fine. I don’t know that legalese,

so I’m not going to engage in it. It doesn’t matter anyway. It can be

fixed later.” That’s very problematic.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. The member for Saanich North and the Islands has the

floor.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest this is an opportunity. Put this to the review

that’s going to happen. Put this through. Make sure that the people of

the lobbyists registry office have a chance to look at this, have a

chance to ensure that they get it right and to capture everybody that

needs to be captured in it. This is not about not capturing people. The

smirks and the smiles and all that — that’s fine. This is not about the

conspiracy theories that we’ve seen in this. Rather than using this

opportunity as a soapbox, let’s make this lobbyists registry act a great

lobbyists registry act. Let’s put it into the process.

I don’t think that this legislation is done yet. I’ve said that

publicly. So to sit here and listen and hear that there is actually this

thing that…. We’re trying to hide. We’re trying to run. We’re trying to

not get this right. That’s simply not the case. I’ve stood up in front

of the media and publicly said: “This isn’t quite done yet.”

We’ve put forward amendments in a way that I think they should be

put forward. This member put forward amendments in an ad hoc way, with

language that is clearly problematic and that shouldn’t be supported,

and I will not be supporting them.

L. Throness: I would just like to answer a few of the objections that have been

raised. First of all, the minister insinuated that I wanted to exclude

myself in not including MLAs in the amendment. I would remind him….

Perhaps he doesn’t know that I was parliamentary secretary up until a

few months ago. Therefore, I would certainly be captured by the

legislation, and we would be happy to be captured by the

legislation.

The second thing that he said was that the name of the confidence

and cabinet secretariat might change. My Green Party colleague said the

same. Well, what if they changed the name of the parliamentary secretary

as well? That, too, is in the act. What if they change the name of the

executive council to executive committee one day? That might change as

well. We know that the confidence and cabinet secretariat will be in

place for at least four years, so it’s important to capture

that.

The final thing I would say is that…. The Green member said that

they are good amendments, yet he relies on a flaw in process in order to

avoid them. I would just suggest that he might as well call a spade a

spade and say, “I’m just trying to avoid the amendment,” and be clear

with voters.

A. Weaver: I’d like to rise and support my colleague here, who has

articulated that we actually find the contents of this amendment to be

something we could support. However, we cannot support approving

legislation that clearly is not appropriately written and that would not

be consistent with the bill.

The members opposite did not take advantage of the legislative

drafters that we were given access to.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: We used them. It’s remarkable that the Attorney General gave all

members access to legislative drafters. He recognized that this isn’t

done.

[2:35 p.m.]

Rather than actually take advantage of this, we see some really

good ideas put forward by the member for Chilliwack-Kent and written in

a form that we simply cannot support now because it’s not legal. If we

were to pass this…. We would be doing a dereliction of duty in passing

legislation that we know has not gone through the legislative drafters

for this House.

I can’t fathom why the member for Chilliwack-Kent did not (1) come

to us and tell us about this amendment prior to the order papers this

afternoon and (2) use the legislative drafters that we were given access

to. We could have supported this. We could have supported this, and we

look forward to supporting this if they actually follow the process and

bring it forward in the review.

I’m not even sure, with my colleagues…. Some of the amendments put

forward by my colleagues are done legally, but I’m not sure how they

will be ruled, whether they will be ruled in order or not. We’re okay

with that, provided that the government is able to respect the wishes of

the members here, and they’ve said in good faith that they

are.

I realize there’s so much deep, ingrained cynicism in members

opposite — that everything that is being done over here is some kind of

Orwellian conspiracy theory for a quest for power and one-world

governance. I get that. But really, for a second, stand back and think.

What we really want here is good public policy.

We’re willing to work with members opposite. We’re willing to work

with government. My colleague spent hundreds of hours with

staff….

A. Olsen: Well, not hundreds.

A. Weaver: Tens of hours?

A. Olsen: Numbers of hours.

A. Weaver: My colleague didn’t, but the staff certainly spent that time.

There would have been, I would say, hundreds of hours, if you collected,

by our staff, who’ve been going to meetings, who’ve been putting this

forward. I’ve got a lazy colleague here from Saanich North and the

Islands. He probably just looked at the final version and went: “Yeah,

okay.” No, I’m joking. Seriously, there was a lot of effort that went

into this. We don’t know how it’s going to move forward, but we took

advantage of the tools we were given.

I encourage the member for Chilliwack-Kent to not forget this. We

support the intent of this. We support the intent. We agree with you

that we shouldn’t be, if we had access to information, allowed to lobby.

We agree. So bring it forward in the review process.

M. Bernier: I thought maybe the leader of the Green Party grew six inches, and

then I realized he was standing on a soapbox. Hopefully, he realizes the

joking nature of that comment. It wasn’t a personal attack by any

means.

I do want to address something that was brought forward during

this amendment debate. This is the fact that, as the minister and the

members from the Third Party opposition are saying, we have an

opportunity of the legislative drafters. I appreciate that. But he

himself said that sometimes it can take hundreds of hours.

My question to the minister when I’m finished, then, will be: is

government now willing to not bring forward any bills and not vote on

any bills until the official opposition has had a chance to not only

review every single bill but have access to the drafters on every single

bill any time we have an amendment? Nothing will be voted on until all

of those bills are done. I know he might want to go talk to his House

Leader and the rest of government because that’s not always the way

things happen.

There’s an opportunity to bring things to the House, as the member

who brought the amendment forward did. That is something very valuable

within the process that we have here within this Legislature to do. I

appreciate the comments that it might not meet the legal legislative

test.

I know through my time in this Legislature, and I know the

minister and others…. We’ve gone through this exact process many, many

times. There have been times when we’ve actually stood down on a bill so

we can bring an amendment forward. We can make sure that the legal

drafting team, the legislative drafters, can make it better, make it

proper and make sure that it meets the test that the whole House can

support.

When I hear that the members from the Green Party are actually

supporting the intention of the amendment, my question then would be:

would they be willing to also stand up and vote that we don’t vote on

this bill at this time? We actually have an opportunity to change the

intention, and we have a chance on this motion to amend it. I think the

minister himself has even said that…. Some of the intentions he might

like, maybe not, within the amendment, and it might not meet the legal

framework. I accept that.

[2:40 p.m.]

Sometimes when we look at how fast the government might want to

bring a bill forward and how quickly they might want to pass that bill

to meet whatever objectives…. Some of the bills are on a tight timeline,

and they want to do that. We won’t necessarily have the opportunity to

always bring it forward to the legislative drafters if we, at the last

minute, after reviewing it, because of the short timeline, come up with

an amendment.

Again, this amendment is brought forward in good faith. This

amendment is brought forward for good reason, and most people in this

House sound like they’re actually agreeing with the intent. I appreciate

the members from the Green Party and their position that they availed

themselves, sometimes, of something maybe we didn’t in this

circumstance. That doesn’t take away from the intent of the amendment to

try to make the bill better. It actually worries me when I hear that

they maybe appreciate and support the amendment but that they might vote

against it just on principle — that maybe a policy to their liking

wasn’t followed.

With that, I want to just leave it on the amendment and say that I

support the amendment. I support the intent. I support the fact that

we’re trying to work collectively in this House to fix an

issue.

As the member from Surrey had mentioned, the line in the sand

doesn’t have to be there. We can move it. The whole point of this House

is to have debate, to have discussion, to make a bill better.

I know the minister, now, sat on this side of the House and quite

a few times used this exact same argument of why we should be working

together and why we should be making a bill better when an amendment

comes forward. This is his opportunity now, as the minister of the

Crown, to actually take his own advice to work with this House to try to

make a bill better.

A. Olsen: I would like to provide some clarification. In no way was this

debate that we’re having today about Bill 8 held up in any way to draft

this amendment. We worked within the exact amount of time that we had —

the exact same amount of time that the official opposition

had.

There was no…. The meetings that we had with the members of the

staff at the office of the registrar happened on the phone and in

person. They happened in the time. We consulted with them. We asked them

about the amendments that we had. All of these options were available to

the members of the official opposition.

The fact of the matter is that I also needed to be convinced that

there wasn’t anything from the office of the registrar. That work was

done in advance, on ours. I think that there’s a considerable amount of

work that we’ve done, that needed to be done, in order to bring this

forward.

I have said publicly that this isn’t about limiting the number of

people that should fall under this bill. The fact is that this piece of

legislation that we’re amending has needed to be amended and

strengthened for more than a decade. Yes, there’s been some tinkering

around the edges. But for the most part, it’s been left wide

open.

This government…. It was an initiative that came from our

platform. The fact of the matter is that there is going to be a process.

This is a great opportunity to put this to the process — exactly the

same way as the two amendments that I’ve got, which are incredibly

important, which were on the order papers a day in advance for everybody

to see.

It was all there for everyone to see, for everyone to debate. But

through conversation, we got a commitment — the same commitment that

could be given to have this piece pushed to a review, have it

considered, have it a part of the process and brought it in.

To me, I think that there is an important principle here that we

do the good work in advance. So when it is brought forward here…. Sure,

it might be done in good faith. But there’s a lot left to be desired

about the amendment that we’re debating. Still, at this stage, it’s not

supportable.

Hon. D. Eby: A couple of remarks coming out of members’ comments.

One member suggested — I don’t want to misstate what he said —

that across Canada, there were similar provisions that the members were

putting forward. Actually, we’re more exceptional in British Columbia by

taking this step. The legislation that previously existed in B.C. —

hopefully, if this bill passes to replace sections of it — was just to

register. It wasn’t a prohibition. Many provinces in Canada have similar

registration requirements without the prohibition.

[2:45 p.m.]

There are significantly fewer provinces that actually have

prohibitions. I went through them earlier — Quebec, Newfoundland and

Saskatchewan. We would join them with this bill.

I noted that the member was celebrating former MLAs coming through

here. I was glad to see Terry Lake. I saw Barry Penner the other day.

Don McRae, I know, has been reaching out to folks. It is good to see

former MLAs coming back to this place.

It does raise the question that the member does, rightly, about:

should more MLAs be captured, and should members of their staff be

captured by the legislation? I accept that that’s a good question to

ask.

The challenge with the proposed amendment is it’s not clear from

the amendment, subsection (f), whether or not, for example, opposition

MLAs are captured. I might believe that the member for Surrey-Cloverdale

may have had access to inside government information. He might believe

that he didn’t have access, that there wasn’t even a possibility that he

had access to inside government information.

It’s not clear to me from the

section whether it was, in fact, the

member’s intention that opposition MLAs be captured by this amendment.

Similarly, the member says that, well, he would be captured because he

is a former parliamentary secretary. There is a two-year horizon. This

government’s going to be here for four, just over four years, so the

member will be outside of that.

Theoretically, he could go, as an opposition MLA, and lobby once

his term is done here and he is replaced by an NDP MLA. Just pointing it

out. There are serious tracking problems.

The big problem with the suggestion of the members: “Why don’t you

just put it on hold, and we’ll go and do this full process…?” We

introduced the bill October 2. It was there. Everybody had the chance to

bring suggestions forward. The members chose not to do that. That’s

fine. That’s their prerogative and their strategy as opposition. I don’t

say there’s anything wrong with that.

It just makes the suggestion that they bring forward now — that we

put it on pause and take their suggestions and turn it into legislation,

and so on, that will actually work. The big problem is that means the

bill will not pass this session. It’s just the reality.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: I hear the member saying: “You can do it in a day.” I thought the

members had been in government before. It moves a little more slowly

than that, and there are other things that the drafters are working

on.

This is an important first step. In my opening remarks in this

very committee stage, I said to all of the members of this place: “This

is a first step. We are doing a full review in 2018.”

I listed two provisions that we will be bringing in, in the fall

of next year. If the member truly believes that opposition MLAs should

be included in this process, in this prohibition, then let’s have that

conversation. Let’s do that as part of the review.

I say “if the member truly believes” because…. I mean, I heard a

couple of the members suggest that the government — well, frankly

suggest that I — was a hypocrite for bringing this proposal forward. It

would be insulting if it wasn’t amusing, given the rotating door of key

advisers in the Premier’s office going in and out of lobbying firms:

Dimitri Pantazopoulos, Michael McDonald, Gabe Garfinkel, Matt Stickney,

Minister of Education.

Where was the outrage when this was happening? Where was the

prohibition when these folks were in government? There was a registry.

Absolutely, there was a registry. But the registry did not prevent the

kind of activity that raised the concerns of the public.

I support us moving forward with this. I accept the member’s

points that there’s lots more work to be done. I agree with them, which

is exactly why we’re doing the review in 2018.

If this was the last time we were going to look at the lobbyists

bill, maybe we would have that conversation. But in fact, I’m telling

the members we have a full review process that’s going to be happening

and another bill coming in the fall of 2018 where their suggestions can

come forward.

So there’s lots of opportunity for that. With that, I close my

remarks and hope we can vote on this.

M. Bernier: I just want to assure the minister that we appreciate, when this

bill came forward, having this open discussion about not only making

this specific bill better but making the situation of how lobbying works

in the province of British Columbia….

I think he should have heard, which I’m sure he did by the

comments from this side of the House, that we agree with the intent. We

agree with some of the changes. In fact, that’s why we brought forward

the exact things the minister is actually talking about, why the

transition team and others need to be involved and included, why members

of the Green Party or the third opposition and others need to be looked

at.

Now, the minister knows, because we’ve done this in the past, at

any time in this House — and this is to all members — you have the

option to bring forward an amendment on anything, at any time, without

notice.

[2:50 p.m.]

That is the standard of this House. We do have that ability,

because at any time, somebody can have a thought, as they’re sitting

here listening to a bill, as they’re hearing the discussion, that might

tweak an idea. “Hey, I have something that I can do to make this bill

better.”

You don’t have to give notice. Obviously, if you can, that’s

preferred. But that doesn’t have to be the way it takes place. In fact,

that’s not the way this House is set up.

Now, the minister also has the opportunity…. I hope we have

support from the House for this and from the members opposite in the

Third Party, in the Green Party, as well. We actually have done this in

the past when we’ve had a good discussion, when the majority of people

think that it’s right that there’s an opportunity to make the bill

better. I’ve heard the minister and I’ve heard every party and pretty

well every member in this House say: “We can make this bill

better.”

My recommendation to the minister is actually to do what we’ve

done in the past when we’ve heard comments like this — to stand down

this section. We do not have to vote on this section. We can actually

stand down and move on to the next section, No. 3. Stand down on No. 2.

Give the minister time to look at the amendment.

He can actually take this amendment. He can clean it up to his

liking. He can actually have legislative drafters, the legal team,

review it. He can bring the amendment back as his own, as we have done

in the past when we’ve heard an amendment on the floor that didn’t meet

the legal test but the intent was there. The intent was what we all

wanted to accomplish and all want to achieve.

My recommendation, with all due respect to the House and to the

minister, is to stand down on

section 2. Move forward to

section 3, and

give him time to fix this situation.

The Chair: Members, we have a proposed amendment to Bill 8, proposed by

the member for Chilliwack-Kent. It’s in front of the House. We have

to take a vote on it.

Division has been called.

[2:55 p.m.]

Members, this is an amendment proposed by the member for

Chilliwack-Kent on Bill 8,

section 2.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 39

Cadieux

Rustad

Bond

Coleman

Wilkinson

Kyllo

Stone

Bernier

Wat

Johal

Lee

Hunt

Barnett

Tegart

Martin

Throness

Davies

Sullivan

Polak

Morris

Stilwell

Ashton

Oakes

Thomson

Sturdy

Ross

Isaacs

Milobar

Thornthwaite

Yap

Redies

Paton

Gibson

Sultan

Shypitka

Reid

Letnick

Larson

Foster

NAYS — 42

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Krog

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Glumac

[3:00 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Before we vote on

section 2 and pass, to move to

section 3, I just

wanted to remind the minister again, and all members of the House, that

we have the opportunity to stand down on

section 2 since the amendment

did not pass.

Again, the offer still stands to the minister to send that

amendment back to his ministry to the legislative review committee to

change that. He can bring it back as his own. Of course, the will of the

House would hopefully be that since everybody has agreed that this

amendment, actually, in principle, is the right approach to go. We’re

hoping that the minister will do the right thing — stand down

section 2

and move to 3.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

L. Throness: I just have a couple more questions on this section. I would note,

first of all, that this

section gives a period of two years. Just for

interest’s sake, why is it not a period of 24 months, which would be

consistent with the Member’s Conflict of Interest Act?

Hon. D. Eby: Somewhere, there’s a drafter who just sat bolt upright in fear

that there was an inconsistency between two years and 24 months. I think

the member will remember the minor corrections act that we put through

that added a dash to in-patient or removed a dash from

in-patient.

In terms of the functioning of the legislation, there is no

difference between two years and 24 months, as a technical matter for

the member. But I take his point. I haven’t looked myself. It might be

an inconsistency that we’ll be going back and correcting. I would take

it, given our drafters, that this is the current style for time, in that

if there’s a bill to be corrected, it’s probably the older

one.

L. Throness: One final question. I’m wondering how the government chose two

years for the lobbying prohibition when the lobbyists registrar herself

— at the time, Elizabeth Denham — submitted a report in 2013 called

Lobbying in B.C: Recommendations for Changes to the Lobbyists

Registration Act. She recommended a ban of one year.

This is what she said in her report: “In making a recommendation

on this point, I recognize the need to balance the public benefit of

having well-informed policy-makers contribute to the policy process and

the goal of fair access to influence government decision-making for all

citizens.”

We don’t want undue influence, but neither do we want to deprive

good people of a good career while their knowledge is still relevant.

What issue did the minister take with her recommendation? Why did he not

take the advice of the foremost expert in the province on lobbyists

registry?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member will be aware that since that time a number of

significant events have taken place, including the federal prohibition,

which is a five-year prohibition, which we thought went a little bit too

far in terms of British Columbia’s priorities right now.

He will have heard the list of individuals — Mr. Pantazopoulos,

Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Garfinkel and Mr. Stickney — who passed through the

revolving doors of senior government positions into lobbyist firms and

in some cases back again, which raised the concern of the public that

something needed to be done about this and to send a strong

message.

We feel that two years strikes an important balance between

allowing people to engage in this very specific activity, reflecting the

concern of the public around this issue, reflecting the access to

information that people in these positions have and the interests of

lobbying firms in retaining individuals. For these reasons we felt that

two years struck an appropriate balance.

Sections 5 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:06 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[3:10 p.m.]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 8, Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2017, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Eby: I call continued second reading debate, Bill 6, Electoral Reform

Referendum 2018 Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — ELECTORAL REFORM

REFERENDUM

2018 ACT

(continued)

J. Tegart: I appreciate the opportunity to continue my remarks on Bill 6 —

2017: Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act. I’d like to recap my

concerns that I outlined in my remarks last week.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

One, in order for this process to move forward, it must be seen as

impartial, non-political and non-partisan. Two, the process must ensure

regional representation is reflected. Three, the threshold for this

change must reflect the importance of the decision on the electoral

process. Four, the question on the ballot must be straightforward and

easily understood. And five, taking the wisdom from my colleague across

the aisle, will I be able to explain this system to my grandmother in

two minutes or less?

Representation is integral to our democracy, and I believe in that

wholeheartedly. British Columbians deserve strong leadership from

members who knows their respective communities and can advocate for them

on their behalf. I don’t believe the way this bill seeks to institute a

new electoral system is the best way forward for the province that

British Columbians want.

This bill will be the third attempt at a referendum since 2005,

the first two failing to meet both of the two thresholds that ensured

regional and majority support. While I don’t stand against the idea of a

referendum and allowing the exercise of direct democracy in action, the

bill as it stands allows for our democratic system to be changed through

a simple majority of 50 percent plus one.

I have to say I’ve served on a great many boards, a great many

societies, some that had a huge impact on the community and the region

as a whole, and never once have I seen the constitution changed by a

50-percent-plus-one vote. It was always a two-thirds

majority.

This seems a little reckless for such a major change in our

democracy. The threshold to pass this referendum requires less of a

majority than the last two referendums. Additionally, this referendum

doesn’t take into account the regional disparities and interests that

exist. Instead, it allows for the possibility of a large population

area, such as the Metro area, to dictate the future of our electoral

system for the rest of the province.

There is also no minimum voter turnout in this bill. This would

enable a simple majority of a small minority of our population to make

fundamental changes to our voting system. But make no mistake: this has

far-reaching effects on our democracy as a whole.

[3:15 p.m.]

I can tell you that this side of the House does not just say that

from a position of attempting to maintain status quo or the feeling that

we would lose seats. In fact, with our current system, there is a

precedent of a party gaining more of the popular vote and fewer seats in

this Legislature. In 1996, the B.C. Liberals gained 41.82 percent of the

popular vote, while the NDP gained only 39.45 percent. However, the NDP

gained 39 seats, with the B.C. Liberals seating just 33 — a 2 percent

deficit in the popular vote but a six-seat gap in their favour in the

House.

This just shows that we may even gain from having the proposed

reform, so this is not coming from a position of self-interest. It is

coming from a desire to preserve our democracy and maintain a stable and

efficient institution. I am not sure that I can say the same about those

on the other side of the House.

Voters in the province must have confidence and an understanding

of their voting system. So 589 days, 208 days, 314 days, four months.

What do these numbers have in common? They are how long it took multiple

European coalition governments to form after their election dates under

a proportional representation system.

These delays have major implications for people who rely on a

stable government to provide them with vital services. A quick, seamless

transfer of power is crucial to so many residents in our province.

However, in 2010, it took Belgium’s government 589 days, nearly two

years, to form a six-party coalition government that lasted as long as

it took to negotiate it.

Can British Columbians afford two years of delays to arrange a

government that may not last a full term? How many investments in our

province will we lose in the two years of wavering and backroom

negotiations in order to form government? How many public servants will

be lost due to precariousness and constant insecurity?

On top of the delay to form a government, what happens next is

just as bad. Holding people and parties ransom through PR generates the

need for perpetual confidence and supply agreements that, as we have

witnessed, can cause instability. Residents will be in a lose-lose

situation. Representatives that are elected to represent constituents

would instead be subject to coalition demands where no one truly gets

what they voted for, just more gridlock — not to mention more frequent

non-confidence votes and, subsequently, more elections.

The government will claim that this gives more representation to a

broader

section of our province. As I said earlier, I believe in

representation. I would not be an MLA without believing that

representation for my constituents and their interests is integral. It

is my priority. It is the basis of the system of governance. But we need

to debate whether this type of increased representation and boundless

political parties are always an inherently great thing.

[3:20 p.m.]

Across Europe, we’re seeing exponential increases in far-right

extremist parties within states that have proportional representation,

and we are not immune to this wave of extremism. This year alone we have

seen alt-right recruitment posters in Richmond and rallies protesting

Islam and immigrant posters in Vancouver. We can only hope that our

democracy is not so fragile as to regress into the sort of debates that

have started to come out of those parliaments. Personally, I’d rather

not get to that point.

We are also witnessing some very odd concoctions of coalitions

across those countries, where shaky minority governments hold the

balance of power and the lives of citizens are left in limbo and subject

to behind-closed-door political dealings. Evidently, this does happen

under our current system but much less frequently, and much fewer

parties enter the fray to make their unique demands.

We must remember that no other Canadian province has switched to

PR — for a reason. And our federal government declined to bring in a

referendum for this same electoral system because it would lead to what

the Prime Minister called an augmentation of extremist voices that are

not in the best interests of Canada. But the federal government did run

on a platform to bring in a referendum. And they didn’t.

The B.C. NDP also ran on this platform plank. To their credit,

they may be doing so if this bill passes. However, in May of this year,

the Premier did claim that his referendum would be a simple yes-no

question. During the campaign this year, the Premier said explicitly to

reporter Rob Shaw: “You’re going to have 50 percent say yes or no” on

one system to vote on. This bill opens the door for limitless

possibilities on how government can phrase and stack the deck towards

their preferred reform.

Instead of a yes-or-no question on one system of reform that will

be debated exhaustively throughout the lead-up in the media and the

government and opposition, voters may have to look through a catalogue

of electoral reforms of the government’s choosing, of which only one

will be backed with the full support of the government and their

coalition. Then voters will be asked to make a decision.

We know that each of these potential reforms will not get the same

weight as the one favoured by the government. But if this bill passes,

our caucus will be working hard to inform the public of exactly what

they will be voting for, what it means for them and what it means for

our democracy moving forward.

So what happened between May and now? Could it be that another

party has held the Premier captive?

I do know that the electoral reform system that the government

favours would pave the way for parties to continuously break campaign

promises. In fact, it’s inherent in the system. It favours populist

waves that give parties the ability to campaign on whatever they want,

to gain a few seats and to throw the platform out the window in order to

form government. Where is the accountability in this system?

Our government officials are supposed to serve the people of

British Columbia, not the whims of fringe parties and whatever is

politically expedient that day. This May, I was voted in to represent

the people of Fraser-Nicola, to whom I am accountable. My election

campaign was based on the values that myself and my party champion, and

they don’t become obsolete or irrelevant once voted in.

[3:25 p.m.]

Also inherent in this system is the disproportional power that

smaller parties or independents gain by entering into agreements with a

larger party or a broader coalition in desperate need of their

confidence votes. In this sense, this electoral system’s name proves to

be a misnomer that, in fact, gives disproportional representation to

smaller political entities. It gives an advantage to parties with fewer

seats to hold power imbalances and make demands that are not in the best

interest of the entire province.

While I can be persuaded to support a potential referendum, it

would need to contain qualifiers that this bill does not have. Certain

thresholds are needed to give the whole of the province a voice in this

important matter.

As it stands, the Metro area alone can push B.C. beyond the sole

threshold contained in this bill of 50-percent-plus-one majority. It

does not ensure that a certain percentage of the voting-age population

needs to exercise their vote, and it can be manipulated through the

question posed, the type of vote and the full backing of the government

that people turn to for clarity.

For these reasons and the others aforementioned, I cannot support

the bill as it is. Though I do agree with many on the other side, who

have debated that representation is a good thing, none of us would be

here if we didn’t. But I am worried how this reform will alter our

democracy and shift it towards a system that is distorted,

disproportionate and in a constant yet unstable state of disarray. I

worry that this may give undue influence to fringe political groups, and

the party could fall victim to the populist impulses of the

day.

I think that for those of us who are very interested in politics

and who follow politics around the world, our concern about what is

happening to the south of us is very real. I have never seen some of the

actions, never believed I would see some of the actions, that I’ve seen

on the news, be it fake or real — some of the incidents of hatred and

divisiveness. I have a great deal of concern that we not set ourselves

up for anything that cultivates that sort of behaviour.

I worry that the representation that the government strives to

give constituents will be expunged after each election process in order

to camouflage into a minority coalition government.

I would be the first one to tell you that marriage is a wonderful

thing. Partnerships are wonderful things. Compromise is a wonderful

thing. But there is a time when you put your name forward, you stand by

your principles, and you don’t give those up for a compromise that will

not get you where you want to be and where the people who voted for you

want their party to be.

I worry that after the outcome of a heavily favoured PR

referendum, B.C. citizens will be on the hook for future delays in

forming government. We only have to look around the world to see what

that does. It will be unsustainable, condemning residents to wait for

backroom deals to materialize. It puts life on hold for those that need

government to be there, and it hinders the progress and financial

prospects of our province.

[3:30 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

When we talk about representation, and we talk about how to

involve the public more in our political system, I always share a story

with anyone who’s thinking about running for politics. I’ve been in

representation to my community for many, many years. I served 17 years

on school board, and I ran for school board after a very, very emotional

issue happened in our school. Being chairman of the board, you were the

person who wore it. So that day, on election day, you always get

everyone you know to come out. You call neighbours, friends, everyone.

We all know that that’s how you represent.

Well, election day came, and that evening the count happened, and

guess what. It was a tie. It was a tie, and in order to split the tie,

the electoral officer flipped a coin, and we lost the flip. Later on

that evening, I was having an event at my home — supposed to be a

celebratory event; should have been, and still was — when my older

brother knocked on the door. I looked at him, and I said: “Did you vote

today?” He looked at me and said: “What difference does one vote make?”

So I’m telling you: every vote counts.

When we’re talking about representation, and when we hear people

say with that cynical voice, “What difference does a vote make,” I ask

you to share my story. I’m not the only one who has that kind of

story.

We know the importance of making that personal connection with

people. People in my riding know who I am. When I go to the post office,

when I go to an event, when I walk down the street, even though my

riding is very, very large, over the four years of representation,

people know who I am. They feel a connection, and so do I. That

connection is so critically important if we want to engage people in the

political process.

I’m saying to those of you across the aisle: if we are going to do

a referendum on proportional representation, please — please — consider

making it non-political. Consider making it non-partisan. I don’t want

us to put our voters through a process that is so tainted that we can’t

see any credibility in it.

We have asked our citizens twice before about referendum and about

proportional representation. If we are going to go to the citizens for a

third time, I would suggest to you that there are some basic principles

that need to be looked at in order for that to be credible. That is that

it be non-political, that it be non-partisan and that it reflect

regional representation. For that reason, I ask for your support in

thinking of those principles, and I, at this time, cannot support the

bill as written.

Hon. S. Simpson: I’m pleased to get an opportunity to stand and speak to the

Electoral Reform Referendum Act. This is a piece of legislation that I’m

excited about. It’s a piece of legislation that I support and a piece of

legislation that I think will move forward the political and electoral

system in British Columbia.

[3:35 p.m.]

Essentially, what this legislation does is enable and direct the

province to have a provincewide referendum that will be held in the fall

of 2018, where the subject of whether or not to change our voting system

in British Columbia is decided. The question essentially will be to move

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

representation. The act also provides for the referendum to be conducted

by the Chief Electoral Officer through a mail-in ballot. It sets the

threshold for that at 50 percent plus one provincewide in order to be

successful. If a new voting system is approved, the government will be

required to introduce legislation to implement the new system in time

for a general election to happen post July 1, 2021.

Why is this important? We’ve made a commitment…. Well, maybe just

to step back. The previous speaker.... I very much appreciated her

comments, the member for Fraser-Nicola. At one point in her comments,

she spoke about the situation we see south of us, south of the border.

We know there’s a lot of attention paid to the uncertainty we see south

of the border, and there’s a lot of political commentary about the

President of the United States and where he lands.

What we know…. The system, I think, that we see down there and the

concern that’s being raised and the concern that the member for

Fraser-Nicola raised is about how the circumstances in the United States

currently really go back to some of the problems we need to address. The

problem down there is the enormous influence of money. Money dominates

politics in the United States at every level.

The other thing that we know has happened in the United States

is…. Almost without exception, you’ve seen both the Democratic Party and

the Republican Party at different times use legislative tools to

gerrymander boundaries. They do that in the United States, and we have

seen that. That’s been the challenge we’ve seen in the United States,

and those are the challenges that we need to overcome. That’s exactly

what we are doing with legislation here. We have introduced the

legislation that will end big money in politics in British Columbia and

will end the pay to play that the B.C. Liberals engaged in for 16

years.

The other thing that we will see, if we adopt this, is…. I believe

that we will see an end to the situation where you have parties — and

it’s true for both of the parties that have governed in this province —

that have 100 percent of the power with 43 or 44 percent of the vote. We

have seen seven elections in this province, going back to ’91, and only

once did a party get 50 percent of the vote. In every one of those other

elections, until today, this recent election, we’ve had a party — on two

occasions, the NDP, and the other occasions, the B.C. Liberals — who had

100 percent of the control without having a majority of the votes,

without having a majority of support.

Here we have a change where, for the first time — other than the

one 2001 aberration — we have a government supported by a third party

that in fact has a majority, that garnered a majority of the votes and,

I would argue, a much more stable, receptive and responsible government

than we have seen in 16 years, without doubt.

I understand the anxiety of the other side.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Simpson: I understand the anxiety of the other side. We have, in the B.C.

Liberals, a party that, at least for the last, probably, eight years,

has dismissed the issue of good government and policy. It’s been about

hanging on to power. None of that was more true than in their last

term.

I’ll give Ms. Watts, who’s a leadership candidate…. I’ve certainly

heard it from other Liberal leadership candidates, who say the number

one priority…. Is it education? No. Is it health care? No. Is it climate

change? No. Is it poverty? No. Is it the economy? No. The number one

priority is: don’t allow a system where we can’t hang on to power.

That’s all that matters.

[3:40 p.m.]

I suspect, for the Liberal Party, the situation probably is more

desperate than that. We have a situation with the Liberal Party where I

suspect that there are many members on that side who believe…. And it

may be true. I guess time will tell, depending how the referendum goes

and what the people of British Columbia decide, whether that party has

any future under proportional representation or whether, within months

after a successful referendum, we will all of a sudden have a Liberal

Party and a Conservative Party sitting on that side.

I suspect that that’s what we’ll see. That’s the reality. The

opposition to this isn’t about what’s good for British Columbia. It

isn’t about people actually having a legislature that looks like how

they voted. None of that matters….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. S. Simpson: None of that matters to anybody on that side. All that matters is:

“Can we find a way to bamboozle the people of British Columbia and get

power back any way at all?” That’s all that matters. That’s the problem

that the B.C. Liberals have, and it really isn’t about any of this other

highfalutin stuff that we keep hearing about.

The reason I think this this is important…. I’ve been through lots

of first-past-the-posts. I’ve been elected four times on a

first-past-the-post system. I was engaged in politics before that. My

party has been the beneficiary of a system where you get government

without having a majority of the votes, and that’s just the way this

system works.

The more that I learn about politics as we move forward…. We

always hear that we need to do things differently. We hear that people

want to see things done different. We hear that people ask why

politicians act the way that they act in this place, in the House of

Commons. I think it has something to do with people being frustrated

that they, in fact, don’t feel they’re represented.

The member for Fraser-Nicola made a good point when she said that

people are anxious to know that every vote counts. In that case, she was

talking about that rare but not totally uncommon situation where one

vote wins an election and somebody you know forgets to vote. I think she

told the story about a family member. And there was a member here, I

believe — I think it might have been Frank Calder — who lost an election

because he and his wife didn’t get out to vote for him. He lost the

election by a vote. That kind of one or two votes — there’s no doubt

that matters.

What really matters with every vote counting is that people are

skeptical, if not cynical, about a current system where your vote

doesn’t count. Too often it doesn’t count.

In my constituency, where I’m privileged to have a pretty good

majority, I know people who would go out and vote for other parties.

They don’t vote at all because they say: “You’re going to win anyway. So

my vote for the Green Party or the Liberal Party or the Conservative

Party…. I didn’t go out to vote because I knew you were going to win

anyway. I don’t support you, but I support the other man, the other

woman, the other party.”

Well, we put this system in place, and they are encouraged to get

out to vote, because depending on the system that we adopt, at some

point in the counting, that vote is going to be allocated to the party

that they believe best represents their values and their interests. It’s

going to be there, and it’s going to represent the composition of this

Legislature.

The Legislature is going to look like what the people in British

Columbia voted for. It’s going to make up that composition. Will

politics have to change in this House? You bet they will.

I’ve heard all the criticism about the CASA agreement and about

how parties work together here. It’s this remarkable comment by people

in the official opposition — that somehow the ability of two political

parties, who do not always agree here, to work together and find ways to

collaborate in the best interests of British Columbians is somehow a bad

thing, that it’s somehow a weakness. It’s not a bad thing, and it’s not

a weakness.

[3:45 p.m.]

If this referendum passes, if the people of British Columbia

choose to embrace the referendum and we move forward to elect a system,

I suspect that what we will see is many more governments — a majority of

governments where one party with 43 or 44 percent of the vote doesn’t

get to make every decision. That party needs to reach out. It needs to

engage the Legislature. It needs to find common ground. It needs to find

common cause — something that happens very rarely here and, I believe,

probably underlies what lots of people say about the British Columbia

Legislature and about the harsh partisanship of this place. If we can

bring that down a notch or two, it’s probably good for all of

us.

We will not do that with this system that we currently have. The

only reason there’s anything different here is because — and it may have

been by accident; it may have been for any reason whatever — we have a

minority system in this particular Legislature. The good thing about

this minority system right now is that it obliges….

The people of British Columbia are going to have the opportunity

to watch what happens here, to watch the relationship between the NDP

and the Green Party, to determine whether there’s a level of

collaboration there that they think is a positive thing for British

Columbia. They’ll make that judgment, and they’ll make that decision

when they go to vote next fall on this. We’ll see how that

works.

That puts the obligation on us to make the relationship and the

collaborative effort work. That becomes the challenge moving forward.

But I do believe that if we really want to have politics that I think is

increasingly reflecting the views of British Columbians, then we want to

have a political system where we are obliged to come into this place —

whatever party we come from and wherever we’re elected from, whether it

is from a constituency or from a list — and be able to work together in

ways that we have not done very well, certainly for the 12 or 13 years

that I’ve been here.

It has always been an us-and-them. It’s always been a gotcha

moment. That’s what it is. What we need to do, I believe, is make that

change and take that change.

I’m happy to vote for the legislation. I will be happy to vote yes

in the referendum, when I get the opportunity to do that.

If I’ve learned something in 12½ years, it’s that we can do better

in the way that we work together. There are lots of smart people on both

sides of this Legislature. There are lots and lots of people who came to

this place for the right reasons. While we may not agree on the path

that we take to the success that we’re looking for, I believe we are

committed to that success. We may not agree on how to get

there.

I think the failure of this place is that it has institutionalized

a structure that doesn’t encourage or, in some cases, almost allow us to

come together and collaborate in ways that I think are in the best

interests of the people of British Columbia. We need to figure out how

to do that better.

I believe that a proportional system is not only more democratic

in that it reflects the Legislature; it will reflect the vote of the

province. It will reflect what it looks like. If you get 40 percent of

the vote, you’re going to get 40 percent of the seats. There you go.

What it means….

Interjection.

Hon. S. Simpson: The member across the way talked about appointed members. There

are a large number of constituencies in the province where some people

would say, because of the first-past-the-post system, that if you

succeed in getting a Liberal nomination or getting an NDP nomination,

you almost become the appointed member, because you’re going to win the

election.

Interjection.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Simpson: It’s getting a little closer to Langley.

The reality is that people will vote for the party of their

choice. What they get to do is vote for the party of their choice and

know that party, their representation, is going to reflect the people

who voted for them. People get to vote for that party and their

candidates. They’ll see a list, I’m sure.

We’ll get there. It’s going to be a great debate over the coming

months on this. They’re going to have a new leader — it really doesn’t

matter which of the candidates for the Liberal party becomes the new

leader — who will be preoccupied with trying to hang on to the survival

of their party and be out campaigning against this referendum. You will

have people on this side who, I believe, will be saying it’s time for

change. It’s going to be very interesting to see where the people of

British Columbia come down.

We heard the member for Fraser-Nicola, whose comments I enjoyed,

talked about the last two. That was a bit of a saw-off, to tell you the

truth. I mean, the bar that was put there…. What was it? Sixty percent

plus two-thirds of the constituencies, I think, was the bar. It missed

by a couple of percent, but clearly, a majority of people in British

Columbia thought it was a good idea.

The second time it didn’t receive a majority of the vote of

British Columbians. It failed because it didn’t have that

support.

We’ve kind of had that vote go both ways. We’re going to get an

opportunity now to try it one more time, and I think that it’s going to

be great for British Columbia.

If, in fact, the Liberal Party is concerned about that…. I’m sure

that you’re going to have to produce the list. You can say, and we can

say…. I suspect that voters will look at this and say: “Based on our

percentage of the vote, proportionally, here are the people who will be

chosen or be elected.” That’s quite a common occurrence. People can look

at the list and say: “Do all those people come from Vancouver? No.

There’s a Kelowna and a Kamloops and a Prince George and a Quesnel.”

They can say all of that.

I’m excited about this. I think this, like taking big money out,

is a fundamental change that has been too long coming in this province.

I think it’s a change that will up the game of everybody in this House,

that will make us more representative. Its parties will make us more

accountable to the people of British Columbia and will force us to work

with each other to find solutions people want. That’s exciting. That’s

good for British Columbia.

This will pass, and I’m very hopeful the referendum will pass. I

look forward to seeing the Conservative and the Liberal Party sitting in

the opposition benches shortly after that vote.

M. Stilwell: I rise in the House today to speak to Bill 6, the Electoral Reform

Referendum 2018 Act. I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to

provide some perspective and comment on Bill 6. It continues, of course,

to be a great honour for me to represent the people of

Parksville-Qualicum, and I want to ensure that the constituents

understand the implications and the risks that will unfold in this

process.

I’m glad to see that so many of my colleagues on this side of the

House are standing up to speak to this, because this bill carries some

serious changes for the democratic foundations of our province. This

bill has the potential to completely change the social fabric of our

democracy here in British Columbia. Bill 6 is of profound importance, as

it attempts to make wholesale changes to our voting system and the way

that we pick our elected representatives.

What’s concerning is how this bill is being put forward. It

probably won’t come to anyone’s surprise, or to the members opposite,

that I will not be supporting the proposed legislation. You see, one of

my primary concerns is that we end up changing our system based on the

support of a small minority of voters. If we’re going to even consider —

and I say if; this has an option…. Not that I think it needs to be

changed, but if we’re going to consider changing the system, the bar

needs to be set high.

[3:55 p.m.]

At least half of all eligible votes in the province need to

support changing the system, not to mention that it needs to be

supported by all regions lest the rural areas risk having this imposed

upon them, decided by Metro Vancouver voters. This is the core of my

concerns and opposition to this legislation. It is really the

disenfranchisement of rural communities in B.C. — the possibility that

our election process could be fundamentally altered by the voting

populace of Metro Vancouver.

It’s critical that our voting system provides fair, equal,

equitable representation for every region of this vast province. The way

this bill is set up does the exact opposite. The process itself,

conjured up by the NDP and their junior partners, is to support some

kind of arrangement intended to keep their marriage together. You know,

my father has always told me that marriage is about compromise. That’s

the secret to a good marriage. And what is happening here is the

ultimate compromise. The Greens are willing to sacrifice just about

anything to push through PR.

Another problem with this bill is that British Columbians don’t

even know what they’ll be voting for, which, as an MLA, makes my job

very difficult. I can’t even explain it to my constituents, and I like

to think I’m a relatively intelligent person. What I do know from

talking to my constituents is that they don’t want a system where they

have no clue what kind of government they’d be getting, where policy

will be decided in backroom meetings.

Proportional representation systems vary widely. The people of

British Columbia could end up with a system where they’re not voting for

people. They’re not even voting for policies. They’re voting for a party

name. And then it’s up to that party to negotiate policy.

We’re actually already seeing this in action in many ways with the

Green Party, a party that had the support of only 16 percent of the

popular vote in May and is now influencing and dictating policy for

British Columbians.

This is not the first time that we have seen this come across as a

topic while introducing proportional representation in British Columbia.

It’s actually the third time. Only this time, with the passing of this

bill, there is no public, no partisan input on how the referendum

question will be posed, which, of course, naturally raises concerns for

me.

Now, here’s something else that’s concerning as well. Back in May,

the now Premier promised British Columbians that any referendum question

would be a yes-or-no question. When discussing electoral reform with the

Vancouver Sun reporter Rob Shaw, the Premier stated, when

asked by Rob Shaw: “You’re going to have 50 percent say yes or no.” When

Shaw asked, point-blank, “So you’re going to give them one system to

vote on,” the Premier’s response was: “Yeah, exactly.”

Now we see this commitment has been abandoned, just like several

other promises of this formed government. Instead of a simple yes-or-no

ballot for proportional representation, voters will have to choose

between multiple PR options against the current first-past-the-post

system. So we can add that to the growing list of broken promises by

this government.

I guess, like the junior partner from Oak Bay–Gordon Head says,

promises don’t matter. I hope he remembers his own words when his

current relationship goes off the rails and he finds himself wondering

what just happened.

What I was assuming, and I think what many other British

Columbians were assuming, is that an electoral reform ballot would

simply say: “Do you support proportional representation, or do you

support first-past-the-post?” But instead, the question that British

Columbians will see on their mail-in ballot is going to be determined by

the NDP cabinet behind closed doors.

The way I see it, the proportional representation referendum is

the carrot that the NDP held in front of the Green Party in order to get

their cooperation.

[4:00 p.m.]

Until that referendum occurs, it seems the Greens are willing to

make compromises that would have previously been unheard of, to

sacrifice their core principles — all for the sake of preserving their

tenuous political alliance. I think my friend and colleague from

Chilliwack said it well when he said that if the NDP brought forward an

announcement that they were going to log all of Stanley Park, the member

for Oak Bay–Gordon Head would support that right now, at least until the

referendum.

To recap, under our current…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

M. Stilwell: …first-past-the-post system, each voter gets one vote and chooses

one candidate to represent his or her constituency. The candidate who

wins with the most votes is the one who is declared elected. Thus, each

first-past-the-post constituency has one MLA who is personally

accountable to their voters in their respective constituencies. And yes,

everyone’s vote is counted.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that our democratic

institutions should remain static and not to debate the subject. It’s

why the B.C. Liberals have already held two referendums on proportional

representation — once in 2005 and again in 2009.

This referendum will actually be the third referendum on

proportional representation in 13 years. Prior to the 2005 referendum,

the process was handed over to the public with the creation of a

161-member panel on electoral reform. The B.C. citizens’ assembly was

created in an effort to determine what kinds of improvements were needed

and how the referendum question would be posed.

British Columbians from all over the province were consulted. The

process was universally lauded for its independence, its impartiality.

From the extensive consultation, the citizens’ assembly recommended a

referendum on the single transferrable vote model of proportional

representation, and a yes-or-no ballot question was put out to British

Columbians.

After being put to a vote in 2005 and ultimately failing to meet

that threshold requirement, the question was again posed in 2009. The

government was responsible for promoting public awareness and

understanding of the two electoral systems. Accordingly, public funds

were given and provided to both supporters and detractors of each

system. Each group had equal access to $500,000 in public funding for a

public information campaign.

While the referendum was quite close the first time around, the

second time around, STV suffered wholesale defeat. Only 39 percent voted

in favour of the proposed reform.

What we can take away from the past two referendums is that after

lengthy, rigorous and expensive public engagement, where it was

confirmed by British Columbians that they don’t want proportional

representation, what we see now is that the report from the independent

citizens’ assembly is gone. Instead, the Greens and the NDP say that

government will ultimately determine the outcome after they hold

non-binding public consultations on a new system of proportional

representation.

[4:05 p.m.]

Being the sport lover that I am, being the athlete that I am, I’ve

been thinking of ways that I can use sport as a way to demonstrate what

this bill is about. I hope the House will indulge me for a few minutes.

Let’s take the great game of Canadian hockey as an example. Over the

course of time, the game and the way that the game is played have

evolved. It has undergone significant changes. Revolutionary ideas like

helmets, visors and better protective equipment have made the game safer

for players and more entertaining for fans.

Players like Bobby Orr changed the way the game was played. Who

would have thought that a defenceman would lead the league in points or

win a scoring title? Wayne Gretzky changed the way that the game was

played by making the ice behind the net his office and setting scoring

record after scoring record.

More recently other changes to the way the game has been played

have been introduced. The elimination of the two-line pass rule made the

long-used defensive trap approach to the game obsolete. It sped up the

tempo of the game and the pace of the game, making it more interesting

and more entertaining. Regular-season tie games were made a thing of the

past with the four-on-four overtime period, followed by a shootout to

determine a winner. Fans love the excitement of overtime and the penalty

shootout. It has often been called the most exciting play in

hockey.

Now, I am in no way suggesting that what we do here provides the

same kind of entertainment. But on occasion, we’ve been known to have

some healthy banter and throw a few jabs. My point is that through all

of the changes that have been made to the game, the way the players are

chosen has not changed. The way the game, professionally, is played has

remained fairly constant. Players are scouted for years. They’re ranked,

and then they’re drafted every spring. It’s worth noting that the most

enduring changes to the game haven’t come through the way players have

been chosen to play the game but through actual changes to the rules and

the way that the game is played.

The member for Nanaimo said that our current system contributes to

low voter turnout. I argue that it’s not the way we elect our officials

but perhaps other changes that need to be made. So while I would agree

with many British Columbians who are eager to see significant changes

within our political system, I’m convinced that the answer to the desire

to see transformation within this political realm isn’t necessarily

found in electoral reform but perhaps in parliamentary reform, in the

same way that hockey has evolved to become a better game by changing its

rules, rather than the way players are selected.

It seems to me that it makes more sense to seriously consider how

we change our parliamentary processes, rather than giving ourselves to

making wholesale changes to an electoral system that has served our

democracy well for hundreds of years.

What if, instead of changing the way we choose people, we were

brave enough to change the way things happened here? What if we dared to

give private members more autonomy and freedom to speak their minds and

bring their ideas to the broader discussion? What if it was okay to

disagree with the party on an issue and still retain the favour of the

leader and the caucus? Well, that already exists on this side of the

House, but imagine if the NDP embraced this concept. Think of what could

be accomplished.

What if we were able to move….

Interjections.

M. Stilwell: Hey, free votes are over here, not over there.

What if we were able to move away from predictable speeches based

on talking points to actual, intelligent debate, where we exchanged

ideas and perspectives until we actually found a solution that benefits

the majority of British Columbians, rather than just share a particular

ideology?

What if members were able to move to free votes on bills that were

outside of those deemed as confidence motions? What if we were able to

find a way to give ourselves back to representative democracy, where the

bulk of our time was given to broad-based consultation with constituents

instead of a select group of stakeholders, and we were able to vote,

knowing that even though our vote may be contrary to our ideology, we

were in fact representing our people?

[4:10 p.m.]

I believe that these changes could reinvigorate democ