Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, October 25, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 43

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Jeff Stearns

Hon. K. Chen

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Public Safety Statutes Amendment Act, 2017

Hon. M. Farnworth

Bill M204 — University Amendment Act, 2017

A. Weaver

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Burnaby Artisan Farmers Market

A. Kang

Support for patients and facility residents during wildfire

evacuations

M. Morris

Child care services in Burnaby

J. Routledge

Harris family and Access North project

S. Bond

Delta Sports Hall of Fame

R. Kahlon

Food bank gift card program

S. Cadieux

Oral Questions

Review of scientific research by Agriculture Ministry

R. Coleman

Hon. J. Horgan

P. Milobar

M. de Jong

M. Stilwell

I. Paton

T. Redies

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 5 — Constitution Amendment Act (continued)

Hon. D. Eby

J. Rustad

Reporting of Bills

Bill 5 — Constitution Amendment Act, 2017

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Constitution Amendment Act, 2017

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 8 — Judges Compensation Commission report

recommendations

Motion 9 — Judicial Compensation Commission report recommendations

for judicial justices

Motion 10 — Judicial Compensation Commission report recommendations

for judges

Hon. D. Eby

A. Wilkinson

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act (continued)

M. Dean

M. de Jong

J. Brar

A. Olsen

L. Larson

E. Ross

B. D’Eith

J. Yap

A. Weaver

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued)

S. Bond

T. Wat

Hon. C. James

D. Barnett

T. Redies

Estimates: Management of public funds and debt

Estimates: Other appropriations

Estimates: Ministry of Jobs, Trade and Technology

Hon. B. Ralston

G. Kyllo

C. Oakes

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2017

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

J. Thornthwaite: I am very, very pleased to be able to welcome some very, very good

friends of mine, three of which are longtime university friends. They’ve

come to greet us here in the Legislature. I’d like to have the House welcome

Betsy Terpsma, Ken Cado, Doug McMillan, David Walker, Brenda McClellan,

Cindy Swenson and Sue McIndoe. Will the House please make them

welcome.

Hon. J. Horgan: In the interest of brevity of introductions today, I’ve been

conscripted by my colleagues on this side of the House — and I think,

perhaps, some on the other side — to acknowledge and thank our constituency

assistants, who have come from every corner of the province down to Victoria

to work together on finding better ways to serve the people of British

Columbia back home, where all of us are desperate to get to come Thursday

afternoon.

The CAs are so critically important — hon. Speaker, as you know — to

all of us. They are a face in the community when we are here doing the

people’s business. I think I speak on behalf of everyone on this side of the

House and those on that side of the House. Would you please give a very,

very warm welcome to the people who hold us all together: the constituency

assistants of British Columbia. [Applause.]

Mr. Speaker: So well deserved.

A. Wilkinson: The constituency assistants get to witness a rare occasion in which I

find myself in perfect agreement with the Premier.

Of course, he made a fundamental error in not pointing out that not

every MLA can get home on Thursday night because some of us serve the

Interior. Nonetheless, partisanship aside, it’s important to note that the

relevant part of this chamber in our community is the constituency office,

and the face of the constituency office is the constituency assistant staff.

They do a remarkably good job of serving the citizens of British Columbia,

and we all owe them a great debt of thanks.

D. Clovechok: It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to welcome a couple of

great guys from our community and one of the businesses. I want to welcome

Troy Hromadnik, the vice-president of fibre and forestry from Paper

Excellence and the Skookumchuck Mill, and his chief forester, Quinton

Hayward.

I just want to take a moment to recognize the importance of this

business in our community. The company employs 295 people and has a benefit

budget of over $38.4 million per year. People throughout my riding, Columbia

River–Revelstoke, and my colleague’s of Kootenay East depend on this place

for their jobs and taking care of their families. The mill is open 24-7, 365

days a year. They’ve got an amazing cogeneration plant, which is a critical

piece of technology in relationship to their industry. So I would like to

have this House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. M. Mark: It is my pleasure today to welcome members from the Federation of

Post-Secondary Educators of B.C.: Bob Davidson; their president, George

Davidson; Sharon McIvor; Leslie Molnar; Al Morrison; Sean Parkinson; Sheree

Ronaasen; Tim Walters; Teressa Fedorak; and Shirley Ackland.

For 40 years, the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators has

represented over 10,000 faculty and staff who work and teach in colleges,

institutes and universities all across British Columbia. Their delegation

has been here in this House over the past few days, advocating, talking to

myself and other members of these chambers, to continue to strengthen and

improve our institutions for students across B.C. So would the House please

join me in welcoming their delegation.

R. Kahlon: It’s my pleasure to introduce Ding Guo, who is here in the House

today. Ding is a winner of the prestigious Jack Webster Award for best

Chinese reporting. He’s also received the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medal.

He’s in Victoria visiting family and friends. I want to make him welcome,

and I hope that the House will make him welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

J. Martin: Following up from the Minister of Advanced Education, I would like to

note that Sean Parkinson is joining us today. Sean was a longtime colleague

of mine at the University of the Fraser Valley, teaching in the department

of economics. He’s now the president of the faculty and staff association.

I've got to tell you this one story. One time I had to go to the union….

It's only going to take a few minutes here. [Laughter.]

Please make him feel welcome.

Hon. J. Darcy: It’s a great pleasure for me to welcome two very special friends who

are in the gallery today, former colleagues of the Hospital Employees

Union.

Sheila Roswell is a long-time member and activist and provincial

executive member and staff member and a former member of the

Vancouver-Richmond Health Board. Sue Fisher is the former director of

organizing and private sector bargaining for the Hospital Employees Union.

She is known to HEU members far and wide and to many in this province for

leading the efforts to reorganize after 9,000 mainly women workers were laid

off under Bill 29, leading the efforts to reorganize those folks and

negotiate contracts for them so they could slowly start inching back to

making a living wage.

I’d like to ask both sides of the House to join me in welcoming them

here today.

Tributes

JEFF STEARNS

Hon. K. Chen: I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a constituent

from Burnaby-Lougheed, Mr. Jeff Stearns, who has been recognized as one

of the 27 honourees by Canadian Blood Services this year.

A decade ago Mr. Stearns learned about a student of Chinese and

Caucasian descent who had been diagnosed with leukemia and was in need

of a bone marrow transplant. Like many of us, he was unaware of the

challenges that ethnically diverse patients often face in search of a

stem cell donor, that a patient’s chance of survival is linked to their

heritage. To help to educate and inspire more people to become potential

donors, the Canadian filmmaker embarked on a six-year journey of

interviewing patients and medical experts, which resulted in his

award-winning documentary, Mixed Match .

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Jeff

Stearns for his amazing efforts to help to save lives by spreading

important knowledge about stem cell donations.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Sims: It delights me today to welcome to the House — and I hope every member

will join me — five teachers visiting us from Surrey. Cindy Adams is a

counsellor and teacher. June James works with students with special needs,

as does Aileen Lang. Jatinder Bir works with students with special needs as

well. And their second vice-president for the Surrey Teachers Association —

Julia McCrae.

These teachers go into work every single day and do an awesome job of

delivering learning experiences to our students. We thank them.

Hon. G. Heyman: I hope everyone will join me today in welcoming seven employees from

the policy and legislation branch of the environmental assessment office who

are in the gallery.

This team, while unknown to most British Columbians, perform really

important work that protects all of our interests. They are responsible for

the development of legislation, regulations and the policies that support

increased effectiveness, efficiency and transparency. Most recently they’ve

been working hard on designing a path forward on environmental assessment

revitalization in this province. Please help to make welcome to this House

Kate Haines, Brenda Black, Kirsten Pizarro, Mary Rathbone, Josh Thompson,

Sean Broadbent and Carla Kennedy.

S. Furstenau: I’m absolutely delighted to introduce Kayla Brent, who is here today

shadowing me. She’s a grade 12 student from Kelsey High, the school just

down the road from me. She’s an amazing young woman. She’s the founder and

leader of the Me to We group at her school. She’s the deputy prime minister

of the Kelsey student parliament, and she’s the director of the global

issues club. She is a beacon of hope for the kind of youth leadership that

we can see will lead us in this province for many decades to

come.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: We all have volunteers in this place that help us to get here, and one

of mine is up in the gallery today. Heather Compton has been the campaign

manager for my campaign, not just the last election but the election before

that, in 2013. She has volunteered on countless campaigns as well. If it

wasn’t for these amazing volunteers, our democracy just wouldn’t function.

Please, everybody, welcome Heather Compton to the House and give her a very

warm welcome.

Hon. C. Trevena: Following up on that campaign promotion, I just wanted to recognize

that in the gallery today is the best sign guy in the North Island, also

known as the older and better-looking brother of the Premier. Pat Horgan is

in the gallery. He is joining his wife, Shirley Ackland, who I think many

people know both as the mayor of Port McNeill as well as here in the

delegation for the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of B.C.

I have had the privilege of knowing the pair as a couple for many

years now. They always provoke me to do better and remind me of the

importance of my constituency and the importance of the North Island. I hope

the House will make them both very, very welcome.

M. Elmore: I’m very happy to welcome, from Vancouver-Kensington, Coree Tull.

She’s here talking to MLAs. She’s with the Canadian Freshwater Alliance. We

all know how important water is, and we’re seeing the impact of climate

change across B.C. with droughts, fires and floods.

The Canadian Freshwater Alliance has a campaign, Our Water B.C.

They’ll be going right across the province talking to freshwater groups

about engaging British Columbians to talk about the challenges we face with

fresh water and how we achieve healthy fish populations, access to clean

drinking water and ensure that waters are safe for swimming.

If she wasn’t busy enough with that, she and her partner, Kathryn,

have founded Out in Sports. It is a trans-, queer-, gender-positive sports

league in British Columbia with over 1,000 members, either taking

part in

the Double Rainbow Dodgeball League, volleyball, basketball or soccer. They

do that with a brand-new baby, 14 month old, Bowen — a great

addition.

She’s a terrific organizer, and besides doing all that, she also ran a

zone house for me in the last election. I ask you to please make her very

welcome.

Hon. S. Simpson: I’m really pleased to have here in the gallery today seven people from

my ministry who are here to observe question period. I’ve learned over our

first 100 days as a government just how valuable those staff are and what a

critical role they play in my ability to do my job every day. I want to

welcome Maryann Anderson, Carla Wormald, Susanna Kelly, Cathy Dargie, Esme

Mills, Heidi Zilkie and Casey Van Wensem, my administrative assistant.

Again, they do great work. Please make them all welcome.

I have one other introduction. My wife, Cate Jones, is here with the

CA contingent. It’s great to have her here. She doesn’t get to come and

visit very often here. As we all know, spouses play such an important role

in our success here, as members of the Legislature. It’s still going well. I

call her my wife, and she periodically calls me her current boyfriend of 30

years. That seems to work well. Please make my wife welcome.

B. Ma: I just wanted to quickly acknowledge that we are joined today by Mr.

Brent Calvert, president of the Capilano University Faculty

Association.

I also wanted to welcome a wonderful family I met this morning in our

dining room, from Wyoming. Would the House please help me make all of them

feel very welcome.

A. Olsen: In my first introduction, I introduced a group of Stingers that were

here. I’m introducing a group of Scorpions this time, from Gulf Islands

senior secondary, the social studies 10 class of Louise Doucet.

[1:50 p.m.]

I had the opportunity to be grilled for 30 minutes on the big stone

steps in front by some very, very engaged students from my riding. At the

end, I invited them to write to me about their thoughts about question

period and let me know what they think. So I just thought that I’d let all

my colleagues know. We’re about to make them feel welcome, and then I’m

going to get some feedback.

Hon. G. Heyman: My colleague from Vancouver-Kensington has introduced one of a number

of people who are joining us today to meet with MLAs in both the precinct.

Some are in the gallery today. Included among them are representatives of

the Real Estate Foundation of British Columbia, which has been very generous

in funding water conservation projects — whether they’re environmental

groups, institutes attached to universities, a couple of First

Nations.

There are also members of the freshwater initiative, who have met with

a number of us over the past weeks and who are here to talk to us about the

important work we can do to protect watersheds, to encourage community

governance, to engage First Nations in reconciliation and, most importantly,

to protect our precious water in British Columbia. Join me in thanking them

and welcoming them.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — PUBLIC SAFETY STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. M. Farnworth presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Safety Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 12, the Public Safety Statutes

Amendment Act, 2017. The goal of Bill 12 is to assist in the

modernization of the provincial traffic ticketing system and improve

public safety. The proposed amendments to the Offence Act and the Motor

Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2) 2012, support the creation and issuance of

electronic tickets or e-tickets that can be printed roadside by police

officers whilst also improving how ticket information is shared between

and processed by agencies like police courts and ICBC.

Nearly half a million paper violation tickets are currently given

out each year through a system that is almost entirely manual. When a

police officer handwrites a violation ticket at the side of the road,

the ticket information is then entered up to five separate times in

separate systems, and the ticket must be physically transferred between

police agencies, ICBC and the Provincial Court.

Each time ticket information is entered in the system, it presents

an opportunity for errors that may result in that ticket being

cancelled. The proposed amendments will allow for a new e-ticketing

process that is more efficient, reduces cancellations to error, one that

maintains the secure capture and transfer of traffic ticket information

— in other words, moving us into the 21st century.

A further amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act is proposed, the

purpose of which is to clarify authority and support the operation of

the act’s immediate roadside prohibition provisions, which this House

all supported a few years ago.

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

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 12, Public Safety Statutes Amendment Act, 2017, introduced, read

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M204 — UNIVERSITY

AMENDMENT ACT,

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled University Amendment Act,

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled the University Amendment Act, 2017,

of which notice has been given in my name, be introduced and read a

first time now.

I’m pleased to be introducing a bill intituled the University

Amendment Act. Universities in this province of British Columbia serve a

key role in an economy that is increasingly driven by knowledge,

information and ideas. Academic freedom is a fundamental tenet for a

culture of learning to succeed and a key part of academic freedom is

found in the right to participate in the university’s governance. While

the role of a board of governors is essential to a university, the

governance of a university must also be independent.

It is with this in mind that I bring this bill forward today. This

bill amends the University Act to ensure that appointees from the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council cannot unilaterally set the tone and

direction of a university board through having a majority of votes and

that the university boards cannot unilaterally appoint a chancellor for

their university.

[1:55 p.m.]

This act also amends the University Act to change the composition

— not the powers — of the senate for special purpose teaching

universities.

The current composition of the senates of special purpose teaching

universities gives the administration of these universities the majority

vote. This harms the ability of the senate to keep the academic autonomy

of the university at arm’s length from government.

This bill will bring British Columbia into the same university

governance standards employed by much of the rest of Canada.

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

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M204, University Amendment Act, 2017, introduced, read a first

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

next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

BURNABY ARTISAN FARMERS MARKET

A. Kang: Please join me in celebrating another successful season of the

Burnaby Farmers Market. In just three days, the Burnaby Farmers Market,

or the artisan market, will be wrapping up for the year. I encourage

everyone to drop by the farmers market and enjoy the local foods, drink

and artisan shopping this Saturday, October 28.

The market is located at the parking lot of Burnaby city hall.

I’ve been a frequent visitor there for many seasons now. I go to the

farmers market with my family almost every single weekend. There are

family-friendly activities and entertainments. We always have a blast.

Over the summer, we made incredible memories at the farmers market. We

even met the players of the Burnaby Lakers lacrosse team.

The market is truly a place where the community comes together. A

farmers market can be the driver of bridging the urban-rural divide. I

think many of us have forgotten the beauty of growing our own food. The

farmers market reminds us that agriculture isn’t really that far away

from us. I think many of us do grow strawberries and tomatoes at home,

and they’re delicious.

Farmers markets also make us appreciate what’s on our plate. They

also remind us that small, local businesses in Burnaby and in every

other municipality can succeed. It is so important that these local

businesses have such deep roots in our community. We know we can trust

them.

There are so many benefits associated with shopping local, eating

local and supporting local. Not only do we get our food fresh, but we

cut down on the carbon footprint by reducing pollution and emissions

associated with transportation of the food. Farmers markets remind us to

be good stewards of our planet. After all, we only have one.

I have also made many friends in the process. Harry, for example,

is my go-to person every Saturday morning for a cup of good coffee. And

Trisha’s delicious, buttery scones make me forget that I have to watch

my waistline.

I truly cherish all these friendships that I’ve made over the

season and many seasons looking forward. So I encourage everyone to

visit your farmers market before the season is over, and thank you so

much to all the farmers.

SUPPORT FOR

PATIENTS AND FACILITY RESIDENTS

DURING

WILDFIRE EVACUATIONS

M. Morris: Several tributes have been read out in this House describing the

efforts of British Columbians to help one another during the worst

wildfire season this province has ever experienced. Today I want to

highlight the work done by Northern Health. On July 8, patient transfers

from Williams Lake hospital commenced due to imminent evacuations, and

the hospital subsequently closed on July 15.

Patients who could not be released were transferred to the

University Hospital of Northern British Columbia in Prince George. These

included acute care patients and long-term-care residents, assisted

living and home care clients. Gateway Lodge and the University of

Northern British Columbia residences were the main locations for

assisted living and residential care patients, but other facilities

provided beds as well.

The Health Management Service Clinic was also set up at the

College of New Caledonia, the official evacuee centre in Prince George.

Dr. Joliel Steyl, from Williams Lake, came to Prince George and was

instrumental in setting up this clinic. The clinic provided assessment

and stabilization and connected evacuees to other supports and services

needed. A modified clinic was established at the Northern Sport Centre

at UNBC. Between these two clinics, more than a thousand patient visits

were recorded.

[2:00 p.m.]

Prince George physicians also expanded walk-in clinic services to

meet the health needs of evacuees. Front-line staff were deployed to

assist with emergency efforts. Every employee within Northern Health in

Prince George became fully engaged, working long hours every day to

provide medical service to evacuees. Over 100 medical professionals from

Vancouver Island Health, Fraser Health, Interior Health, Vancouver

Coastal Health and Retirement Concepts volunteered to come to Prince

George to assist.

Quality care and the extraordinary effort by everyone involved

provided all patients with the care and attention they needed. And

during this crisis, and on the bright side, 22 beautiful babies were

born in Prince George and Quesnel to evacuees.

CHILD CARE SERVICES IN BURNABY

J. Routledge: I’d like to tell this House about a crisis in my community and

about the social service agencies that are doing their best to keep it

under control. I’m talking about the lack of affordable quality child

care.

Recently I had the privilege of meeting with the Child Care

Resources Group. CCRG is a committee of non-profit child care providers.

It’s composed of such front-line agencies as Burnaby Neighbourhood

House, Burnaby Family Life, Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion,

the Y, and Purpose Society.

It will come as no surprise to hear that quality child care in

Burnaby is out of reach of most families. It can cost as much as $1,400

per month per child. Yes, the most vulnerable families can apply for

subsidies. But as I found out, those subsidies can be

tenuous.

I was shocked to hear that if a parent is off work due to illness

or injury, not only do they lose their subsidy. They lose their child

care space and go to the bottom of the waiting list. The same thing

happens to students when their school is on a break. And that’s just one

example of the many cracks in our child care system.

Who plays a major role in ensuring that families don’t fall

through those cracks? Early childhood educators. They are unsung heroes

in my community. They work long, hard hours with little or no benefits.

Why do they do it? Because they are deeply committed to children.

Because they understand that when children learn fundamental life skills

at an early age, they have a better chance of growing up to be

productive contributors to society.

I’d like to express my gratitude to the child care workers of

Burnaby, who make personal sacrifices every day so that children can

flourish and grow up to create a society that flourishes too.

HARRIS FAMILY AND

ACCESS NORTH

PROJECT

S. Bond: Pat Harris broke his back at a young age and since that time has

wife Nancy is an award-winning advocate and volunteer who has been

recognized for tireless efforts to improve awareness, education and

Play. Pat and Nancy’s son Avril is an able-bodied wheelchair basketball

player who is a three-time participant in the Canada Winter

Games.

The Harris family has a passion to drive change and improve access

in northern B.C., and they have done just that. The latest project they

have taken on is called Access North. Access North was initiated by

Spinal Cord Injury B.C. to assess the extent that outdoor spaces like

provincial, regional and municipal parks are accessible to persons with

disabilities.

This project assessed over 440 front-country parks along driving

routes from 100 Mile House north. The data gathered, including virtual

tours and a video, will be available on Spinal Cord Injury B.C.’s

website.

Initial assessments are encouraging, but there is more to do.

Simple changes like adding accessible washrooms with appropriate

pathways to get to them would open up more rustic outdoor experiences

that rec sites and trails provide. A critical component of improving the

built environment is to consider the use of universal design.

We live in super, natural British Columbia. Giving all British

Columbians, including persons with disabilities, the opportunity to

#explorebc should be a priority for all of us.

[2:05 p.m.]

Thank you to the Harris family and Spinal Cord Injury B.C. for the

vision and hard work involved in the Access North project. I can only

hope that the momentum to create a more accessible British Columbia will

continue and that it will be built on the fantastic work done by the

Harris family and the Access North project.

DELTA SPORTS HALL OF FAME

R. Kahlon: Family, friends and past inductees gathered for the Delta Sports

Hall of Fame dinner last week to celebrate, recognize and honour our

community’s role models. It’s my pleasure to share the inductees with

this House.

Jamie Davidson. Although many have contributed to Tour de Delta’s

ongoing success, Davidson is one of the few credited with the initial

vision, insight and passion to help build this amazing event.

Herb Betts has committed more than 50 years to soccer in Delta. He

helped create Delta’s juvenile soccer club 50 years ago and then later

established North Delta Soccer Club.

Timothy Lorenz’s hockey career took him to Portland Winterhawks,

where he played three years and won a Memorial Cup in 1983. He was

ultimately drafted in the fourth round by the Vancouver

Canucks.

Sandy Beasley played as part of North Delta softball association

for 17 years — an outstanding pitcher — and had an outstanding career at

the NCAA league.

Ron Steel. In 1973, Ron Steel and Art Lowery formed 19 girls into

B.C.’s first girls soccer team.

North Delta Stars softball team came together in 1983. The team

won four provincials, were three-time silver medalists at nationals and

won the western Canadian championships in 1984.

Other athletes and businesses that were recognized: the Run Inn

business in Delta; Tom Bourassa, tennis; Mary Parsons, golf; Grant

McDonald, football; Jayde Robertsen, volleyball; Keeley Ainge, softball;

Scott Stevenson, pickle ball; Jim Matheson, soccer; the Delta bantam

triple-A baseball team; and finally, coach of the year Bob

Houtman.

Congratulations to all the inductees and the amazing board of

directors at the Delta Sports Hall of Fame.

FOOD BANK GIFT CARD PROGRAM

S. Cadieux: An initiative that started as a seasonal gift card program by the

Rotary Club of Semiahmoo, in support of the local food bank five years

ago, has evolved into the food bank being one step closer to having a

year-round sustainable source of funding.

For the first four years, Rotarians sold Safeway gift cards to

family and friends at Christmastime and donated the 8 percent commission

to the food bank. But when John Block joined this particular club, it

was with an eye to expand the initiative in a way to honour his father,

who was a tremendous supporter of the food bank.

As a tribute to his dad, John and his family committed to match

dollar for dollar what was raised through the sale of gift cards. In

John’s eyes, it was simply a matter of getting people to change their

shopping habits from the traditional payment methods to using gift cards

to pay for their groceries — in essence, adding a social element to

everyday grocery shopping.

With the support of local resident and community-minded president

of Save-On-Foods, Darrell Jones, in 2016, they magnified the reach and

started selling the gift cards year-round. In the first year of the

year-round program with Save-On-Foods, $400,000 in grocery cards were

sold, equating to $64,000 in donations to the South Surrey Sources food

bank. Eight percent of the $400,000, or $32,000, from Save-On-Foods was

matched by the Block family.

Going forward, the program now has support of all five rotary

clubs in our South Surrey–White Rock community. So for the next year,

the donation will grow to 17 percent — 8 percent from Save-On-Foods and

9 percent from a group of sponsors who will each contribute 1 percent of

the sales. More matching sponsors, of course, are always

welcome.

It’s a wonderful example of what can be accomplished when the

community comes together. A special thank you to John and Darrell for

your tremendous community efforts.

Oral Questions

REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

BY AGRICULTURE

MINISTRY

R. Coleman: This is what the Minister of Agriculture said yesterday in this

House. “I want to emphasize that it was the Department of Fisheries and

Oceans who called some of our data into question.”

She left a clear impression that it was the DFO who’d lodged an

official complaint. These are serious allegations that call into

question the integrity and reputation of government scientists and

public servants.

[2:10 p.m.]

Shortly thereafter, however, Fisheries and Oceans Canada took the

extraordinary step to say this: “Fisheries and Oceans Canada has not

made any official complaints to the province of British Columbia

regarding the diagnostic work undertaken by the province’s Animal Health

Centre.”

Contrary to the purposeful impression made by the minister,

there’s no official complaint. This is troubling. It should be troubling

in this House. The Agriculture Minister seeks to improperly advance an

agenda by purposely leaving the impression that an official complaint

that does not exist exists and demeaning public servants.

To the Premier: is this what it’s come down to for your

government, for this Premier? A minister is now permitted to leave a

false impression so they can advance their personal agenda?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m thankful for the question from the Leader of the Official

Opposition. I think all of us in this House understand that…. Finfish

aquaculture, salmon farming, in British Columbia has been going on for

over 30 years, and every year of that time it has been controversial

with one corner of the community or another.

The issue at hand today, or this week, has been inflamed by the

official opposition. If they had had an opportunity to view an

investigative report by a national news outlet on the weekend, they

would have heard a Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientist draw

into question the integrity of our systems here in British Columbia and

across the country.

Following that report, a member of the Vancouver Sun

asked the Minister of Agriculture about the allegations made by a

scientist employed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Her

response was: “I’ll get to the bottom of that.” As a result of wanting

to do what a human would do — get to the bottom of allegations about

science in B.C. — the official opposition has blown it up like an atomic

bomb, rather than understand, as they did…

Interjections.

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

Hon. J. Horgan: …two years ago, when they were in power, and they issued a press

release advising all British Columbians that there were concerns about

the science-based implementation of tenures in British

Columbia.

We’re following through on the plan they started. We’re answering

questions when they’re asked of us. When a scientist employed by the

federal government disagrees with the procedures and the individuals

that are hired in British Columbia, that evokes a review. It’s

appropriate. That’s what the people of B.C. would want, and that’s what

we’re doing.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

R. Coleman: I realize that the Premier is also the minister of

defence.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada was compelled to take the

extraordinary step to issue a statement after the Minister of

Agriculture repeatedly told this House on Monday and Tuesday that DFO

was, in fact, the reason for the investigation into B.C.’s Animal Health

Centre and of a respected scientist, Dr. Marty, whose reputation has now

been impugned.

Here are the facts. The minister…

Interjections.

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

R. Coleman: …faced uncomfortable questions about why she was maliciously

investigating a provincial scientist after groups opposed to fish

farming asked for him to be fired. The minister didn’t have a good

response, got skittish and attempted to pin the blame on Fisheries and

Oceans Canada eight different times in two days. She referenced the

federal department for lodging an official complaint, a claim the

Department of Fisheries and Oceans denies. Now it’s come to light she

has based this entire thing on a conversation, not an official complaint

or even a written complaint — merely a conversation she had with

somebody who appeared on a news program.

[2:15 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker, do you have confidence in this minister? Do you have

confidence in the fact that she’s publicly challenging the integrity of

members of the public service and said something was going on that is

not going on and either deliberately or not deliberately misled this

House?

Hon. J. Horgan: Last I checked W5 wasn’t Fox News. I think they can be

counted on to report on events that are happening in

communities.

I understand that the members on that side of the House don’t

understand the coast because they don’t have any representation on the

coast. People in British Columbia are concerned about wild salmon. They

have been concerned about wild salmon for a long, long time. The trends

are alarming. The runs are getting smaller year after year.

The Cohen Commission specifically directed attention towards the

migration routes of salmon going past open-net fish farms. That

government knew about it. This government is going to do something about

it.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second

supplemental.

R. Coleman: We agreed with Cohen and implemented it as well, but that’s not

what the question is about today. The question is this. Somebody has

intentionally or unintentionally misled this House, relative to an

investigation that does not exist. The Premier, in order to cover his

minister, as a minister of defence, has decided to launch an

investigation or a review, using a senior public service, to literally

go after something that hasn’t been complained about by the Department

of Fisheries and Oceans.

I assume, since the decision was probably made after a very

difficult question period yesterday and some unfortunate things that DFO

released yesterday that made the minister uncomfortable, that in the

last 24 hours, you’ve actually written the terms of reference for this

review you’re going to do with Mr. Wright. I guess you can release them

after question period, or maybe he’s still writing them.

There’s no way for this Premier to get out of this charade that’s

going on across the House with regards to the issue. The issue is that

your minister stood in this House and said the Department of Fisheries

and Oceans had complained to the province of British Columbia. She used

that eight times. It proves to be not true.

The fact of the matter is…. Does the Premier honestly endorse this

minister’s behaviour? Will he order her to release any written materials

you might have had that won’t be there from DFO today and that might

show up tomorrow if you bug them enough? And who made the phone call to

DFO last night to convince them to change the story just a little bit to

give your minister coverage?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, the member doesn’t want to read from what DFO said, so I

will read it for him. “The department welcomes this review by the

provincial authorities and will cooperate in any way it can.” You know

why? They understand, and I thought that the opposition would understand

after 16 years in government, that the public wants some confidence in

our institutions.

If we have a federal scientist on national television drawing into

question the work of provincial scientists, it only stands to reason for

reasonable people to say: “Let’s get to the bottom of that.” That’s

exactly what we’re doing.

P. Milobar: Let’s be very clear. This is not about whether we value wild

salmon. We do. This is about the actions of intimidation, by a minister,

to tenure holders and the civil service.

[2:20 p.m.]

Let’s look at the actual timeline of this. The minister met with

the federal Minister of Fisheries on October 11, yet this review was not

discussed when they met face to face in Vancouver. The minister

indicated originally that this was a result of complaints of First

Nations last week, before the W5

article came out. Then the

W5

article came out. And until the DFO acknowledged that

they had not officially asked for a request…. We then heard about the

scientist being on W5 triggering the review.

Within minutes of the statement from the DFO, the minister

demanded some cover. It turns out she actually really is the minister of

intimidation. And the DFO sent a second statement.

Mr. Speaker: Member, if I may ask you to rephrase that. We have no minister….

We will not accept a reference to a minister of intimidation. We have no

such minister. If you could please rephrase that.

The House Leader for the Official Opposition.

M. de Jong: I say this with a measure of reluctance, having canvassed the

authorities and the conventions in this House. There are strict

conventions about parliamentary language, and I recognize that. They

have developed over many, many years, and they are important. It’s

important that we all respect them. But nothing that the hon. member has

just said contravenes any of those rules, and it is fundamentally

improper, in my view, to demand that they be withdrawn.

I will say on behalf of the member…. I will repeat the assertion.

The “minister of intimidation” is entirely parliamentary, and they will

not be withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the point I’m trying make is that temperance and

moderation are important to dialogue. My preference would be that you

not use that language in this House.

P. Milobar: Within minutes of the statement from the DFO, there was a demand

that the DFO send a second statement. First, it was a fish pathologist,

Dr. Marty, who was under investigation, and then it was the entire lab,

whose work was challenged, supposedly, by Fisheries and Oceans

Canada.

Will the minister confirm that within minutes of the statement of

3 p.m., sent by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, she demanded that her

office or the Office of the Premier — or perhaps both — get on the phone

to DFO, demanding they give her some cover?

Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate…. I’ve been in opposition for a time, and I know how

challenging it is to get beyond the headline and actually talk about the

issues that matter to people.

People care about wild salmon in British Columbia. People are

concerned about the declining stocks that come through that member’s

territory on their way to migrate to bring more salmon back to the

people of this great province.

When you have a scientist that’s responsible for the Department of

Fisheries and Oceans’ view on how we’re doing our work saying on

national television that there’s a concern, and follow-up questions from

the local media, I think the appropriate and responsible thing to do in

the interest of the public’s concern…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: …is to get to the bottom of it. That’s why my Deputy Minister, Don

Wright, will be looking at the whole issue and ensuring that the public

interest is protected and ensuring that there are no witch-hunts. Those

people on that side of the House should be ashamed of themselves for

talking about it.

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

supplemental.

P. Milobar: It’s quite shocking to hear the answer back from the Premier, who

seems to not want to recognize the actual timelines and the actual lack

of taking responsibility for their own actions — and that being the

actions of the Minister of Agriculture.

The minister’s intimidation track record does show that there has

been a history in these last few weeks. Do the minister and the Premier

really expect this House to believe that with that track record, there

was not inappropriate pressure from either her office or the Premier’s

office, or both offices, to the DFO after they clarified that they had

not asked for an investigation?

It is time that this minister of the Crown stop casting blame on

others and take responsibility for her own actions and her own words.

British Columbians expect and deserve a much higher standard of conduct

from their ministers of the Crown than they are seeing from this

minister. Does the minister…?

Interjections.

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

P. Milobar: Does the minister think that side conversations and television

show comments are enough of a threshold to trigger intimidating letters

to businesses and intimidating reviews into the reputations of

professional of public servants?

Hon. J. Horgan: I don’t want to be belittling the good people at Hansard

television, but I’ve got a hunch that W5 is viewed by more

people than the question that just came from that minister. And that’s

the concern that the public has. The concern that the public has is

there’s a dispute among scientists…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …about the impact of finfish aquaculture on our wild salmon

stocks. An appropriate response from a government official, a minister

responsible for that lab, is to get to the bottom of it, and that’s what

we’re doing.

M. Stilwell: We know that the minister has said that she was concerned about

“very strong allegations.” She also repeatedly tried to create the

impression that the integrity of the research at the Animal Health

Centre was in question and is no longer trusted by the federal

Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

However, we now know that there have been no official complaints

against the province’s Animal Health Centre. The facts that the minister

tried to create simply don’t exist. Instead, if the minister is supposed

to be believed now, all of this seems to be based on the concerns raised

by a single individual. So can the minister tell us, please: what

exactly are those concerns?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, that single individual is Dr. Miller-Saunders, and she is

the head of the molecular genetics program in the Department of

Fisheries and Oceans’ Pacific Biological Station in Nanaimo. The

statement goes on that she has expressed concerns regarding scientific

testing conducted by the province of B.C.’s Animal Health Centre. “While

DFO has not lodged an official complaint, the B.C. government is being

diligent in following up on the concerns expressed by Dr.

Miller-Saunders. The department welcomes the review.”

[2:30 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.

Interjections.

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

M. Stilwell: The Premier’s refusal to actually allow his minister to answer the

question herself speaks volumes to his confidence in his

minister.

I think it’s important that we examine the facts of the issue,

which, at times, have diverged widely from recent claims from the

minister. The minister has confirmed that she met with First Nations,

and we know that they asked her to fire the provincial scientist. The

First Nations, who are opposed to fish farm operations, told the

journalist that the minister had responded to the request to fire Dr.

Marty by promising to launch an investigation into the provincial

scientist. The spokesman for the fish farm protesters is quoted as

saying: “I’ve spoken with the Agriculture Minister, and I’m very

encouraged by the language she’s using now.”

To the minister: were the First Nations telling the truth, or is

the real basis for her investigation exactly what she told them —

finding a rationale to fire the provincial scientist?

Hon. J. Horgan: I know that….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if you may. Thank you.

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I have to say that the line of questioning from the

opposition strikes me as not focused on protecting wild salmon, not

focused on resolving a 30-year-old issue which they oversaw for half of

that time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: Instead, it’s an opportunity to smash away at a new government

that’s trying to solve the problems inherited from that side of the

House.

I. Paton: First of all, I’d like to say that I and my fellow colleagues on

this side of the House would be so honoured to have a response from the

Minister of Agriculture.

The minister confirmed twice to a journalist last week that, yes,

she was investigating Dr. Marty’s practices. She said: “We are looking

into that currently.” Pressed again for confirmation, she said: “Yes, we

are looking into that for sure.” In the House, she said: “We are looking

into this and taking it seriously.” Again, yesterday, she said: “When

allegations are made, we take them very seriously.”

My question to the Minister of Agriculture: given the minister

confirmed multiple times that some type of investigation was already

underway prior to the announcement today, will she confirm the date the

initial review started? Was it initiated solely based on concerns she

personally heard, or was it recommended to her by her deputy or another

official?

Hon. J. Horgan: Thanks for the question from the new member to the Legislature. He

could not have possibly known about the health firings that were

overseen by those on that side of the House. He could not possibly have

known that it was that side of the House that put….

Interjections.

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

Hon. J. Horgan: He could not possibly have known about the actions of those on

that side of the House that led to the tragic death of one individual

and the besmirching of the reputations of seven other people.

[2:35 p.m.]

The only people that are talking about Dr. Marty are those people.

The only people who don’t want to have integrity in our scientific

processes reinvigorated by working with the federal government are those

people. The public, the people who really care about the issues at play

here, want to know with absolute certainty that their federal government

and their provincial government will work together to protect wild

salmon, and that’s what we’re doing.

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

I. Paton: One thing I do know is that the lab in Abbotsford is something

I’ve dealt with for many years as a dairy farmer. My brother is a

veterinarian. I have the utmost respect for the scientists, the lab

scientists, the technicians that work at that lab in

Abbotsford.

Frankly, this entire matter confirms that the minister is

seriously lacking judgment. It’s hard to believe that she would write an

intimidation letter to a law-abiding company, threatening their tenure.

It is hard to believe that her intimidation investigation of scientists,

whose work is important to the continued operation of that company and

others like it, was simply an innocent review of information. It is hard

to believe, Mr. Speaker…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

I. Paton: …that the minister, with the file now taken away from her by the

Premier’s office, can continue to act with credibility in her

role.

My question to the Minister of Agriculture: will the minister

table the terms of reference for her initial investigation or, indeed,

any documentation related to the nature of the review or decision to

undertake it?

Hon. J. Horgan: I share the member’s support for the scientific community here in

British Columbia, without any doubt. But when that integrity is drawn

into question by a scientist employed by the Department of Fisheries and

Oceans, I believe it’s incumbent upon decision-makers to get to the

bottom of that and restore public confidence, as he and I have, in the

processes in place. That currently doesn’t exist, and we’re going to

resolve that.

T. Redies: All this week the minister kept insisting there was a review of

scientific data taking place, not that one person was under review. She

said: “There is no investigation into any individual, and nobody is

getting fired. What this is about is ensuring integrity of the science

that we’re using.”

But yesterday her staff could only point to a television program.

I must say, after the conversation in the House today, I’m going to be

watching that program much more often, since it does appear to be

driving government policy.

Now, the staff raised an allegation that Dr. Marty was either in a

real or perceived conflict of interest because of this program.

Launching an investigation into one or more provincial scientists for a

conflict-of-interest allegation is a serious matter. So to the

minister….

Interjections.

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

T. Redies: On behalf of the scientists, what assurances…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

T. Redies: What assurances have been given to Dr. Marty and to any of the

other scientists so accused that there will be administrative fairness

in this review?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, this member can be forgiven for not knowing what happened

on this side of the House when they were sitting here denying the rights

of individuals that were besmirched by that government over a botched

investigation.

That’s why we are being open about this. The minister is answering

questions as they come. She’s spent two days answering the questions,

and if the member…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …wants lessons on the importance of watching television, she just

has to ask the member for Richmond-Queensborough, who was desperate for

the types of ratings that W5 is going to get now.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Bill 5, the Constitution Amendment Act, in this chamber. In

Committee A, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of

Finance.

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: I’d like to introduce one very modest athlete, an inductee to the

Delta Sports Hall of Fame. That would be the member from Delta.

[2:45 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — CONSTITUTION

AMENDMENT

ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 5; L. Reid in

the chair.

The committee met at 2:46 p.m.

section 6.

Hon. D. Eby: We are picking up on committee stage on Bill 5, which is the

Constitution Amendment Act. With me are Nancy Carter, executive

director, and Renee Mulligan, legal counsel, of the civil policy and

legislation office, Ministry of the Attorney General.

The

section that we’re talking about involves

section 6 of the

bill, and members opposite are going to be asking me questions as the

minister responsible for the bill. This particular

section proposes to

move British Columbia’s fixed election date to the fall. It deals with

when advance polling opportunities are for people to vote. With the

fixed date that’s proposed, the advance voting might fall on

Thanksgiving. The member opposite raised concerns about that.

What I’m going to do now is move the amendment to

section 6. I

wonder if I should pause so that members who don’t have copies and might

need copies can get copies of the amendment.

The Chair: Thank you. Please proceed.

Hon. D. Eby: I’ve listened to members’ concerns about advance voting falling on

Thanksgiving in some calendar years. After consulting with Elections

B.C., I’m proposing the following amendment to

section 6 of the

bill.

To clarify, this is an amendment to

section 6 of Bill 5, not an

amendment to

section 76 of the Election Act. The amendment is as

follows.

SECTION 6, by deleting the text shown as struck out and

adding the underlined text as shown:

Section 76 (1) is repealed and the following substituted:

(1) Advance voting opportunities must be held during a

period that consists of 6 consecutive days and

commences

(

a) during a period that consists of 6 consecutive days and

commences 8 days before general voting day for an

election, or

(

b) if general voting day for an election falls on a Monday,

during a period that consists of 6 consecutive days and

commences 9 days before general voting day for the election ,

(

c) if one or more of the dates for an advance voting

opportunity to be held under paragraph (

a) or (

b) falls on a holiday

other than a Sunday, on 6 days during a period established by the

chief electoral officer that

(

i) commences 12 days before general voting day for the election,

and

(ii) ends at least 2 days before general voting day for the

election .]

There’s a

section of text deleted from the provision as drafted in

the bill. Sections (

a) and (

b) are consistent with the meaning — are

intended to be consistent — with what was put forward in the bill, and

have been redrafted just to be consistent with the new section, which is

section (c).

The amended section, which is

section (c), will give the Chief

Electoral Officer the discretion to establish the six voting days before

general voting day in years when advance voting falls on Thanksgiving

Monday or another statutory holiday. For fixed-date elections, this will

occur for elections with a fixed fall election date on October 16, 2021,

and October 18, 2025.

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: What the intention of the amendment is, is to give the Chief

Electoral Officer discretion to establish the six advance voting days in

the event that the advance voting day falls on a holiday.

The advance voting days have to be set within a period commencing

12 days before the general election and conclude at least two days

before general voting day. We talked about that a little bit yesterday.

They need at least two days between advance voting and general voting

day to prepare for general voting day, because it’s a lot of the same

staff who are involved in general voting day.

The reason 12 days before general voting day was chosen was to

allow flexibility for advance voting. The member raised a number of

concerns about people taking vacations over Thanksgiving, for example.

It applies for both an on-demand election or a by-election where there

is advance voting.

The concern was: well, maybe there’ll be a by-election or some

kind of election that doesn’t relate to Thanksgiving, but maybe it comes

just before Christmas and Boxing Day or the Easter statutory holidays.

So you might actually have two statutory holidays in the advance voting

period. This

section contemplates that as well. It gives the Chief

Electoral Officer the flexibility to establish advance voting days that

don’t fall on those holiday dates.

I’ll provide you with an example of how advance voting will work

in 2021, because the general voting day is October 16 and Monday,

October 11 is Thanksgiving, which is within that advance voting

period.

[2:50 p.m.]

Because an advance voting day falls on a holiday, the amendment

would create the authority within the Chief Electoral Officer to have

the discretion to establish the six advance voting days at the Chief

Electoral Officer’s discretion.

The advance voting days must start at least 12 days before general

voting day and end at least two days before general voting day. The

Chief Electoral Officer, who has the responsibility, shall inform the

electorate about advance voting and general voting days and will choose

the days at the time the writs are issued. The Chief Electoral Officer

tells us that a news release would be issued setting out the advance

voting days, in addition to other methods of informing the electorate of

advance voting. That’s newspaper ads in every community in B.C., on each

voter’s voting card, on the Elections B.C. website and through social

media.

These changes will ensure that voters who are travelling over

holidays, such as Thanksgiving weekend, have greater flexibility with

voting opportunities in years where advance voting coincides with the

holiday, which was the concern raised by the member.

When we looked at the advance voting dates set out and the

election day, we consulted with Elections B.C. to ensure that the days

chosen allowed for operational concerns to be taken into account and to

ensure that the momentum of advance voting leading into general voting

would not be lost between the last day of advance voting and the general

voting day. We looked at the history of advance voting in B.C. elections

and compared voter turnout at advance voting over the last several B.C.

elections.

We also looked at different voting opportunities currently

available. In addition to the six days of advance voting and general

voting day, a voter can ask for a vote by mail package and vote by mail

or vote at any district electoral office at any time up until four hours

before the close of general voting.

We considered the experience of four days of advance polling in

federal elections, under the Canada Elections Act, in particular the

2015 federal election, where advance voting occurred on the Friday,

Saturday, Sunday and Monday over the Thanksgiving long weekend.

According to Elections Canada, despite the fact that advance voting

occurred over a holiday weekend, the voter turnout was at its highest in

20 years.

While we’ve kept this in mind, on balance, we are changing the

advance voting days to ensure that voters who travel over holidays, such

as the Thanksgiving long weekend, will have even more options and

flexibility to vote on advance voting days before and after their

holiday.

I’d like to thank the member for his suggestions in this respect.

The reason why we looked at this amendment was the questions raised by

the member. I think it’s a good example of how we can work together to

make better legislation in British Columbia.

J. Rustad: I’m pleased to see him taking that into consideration. Thank you.

I think it is a good example of how you can work through committee stage

on bills and sometimes come to agreement that there may be some changes

needed.

Interjections.

J. Rustad: Other changes. I guess I must have failed in terms of that

irrefutable logic, as my colleague has suggested.

However, I do want to ask just a couple of quick questions with

regards to this. I’m not sure if the independent member from the Green

Party wanted to ask questions as well. In particular, what I’m wondering

about…. We went 12 days before the voting day. Why 12 instead of 14? The

reason why I’m asking that is because to add 14 would add in the

previous weekend to give the opportunity for a Saturday vote, as opposed

to having all those days fall on weekdays or the long

weekend.

Hon. D. Eby: There are two values that we’re trying to balance here. One is the

idea that you’re building momentum towards a general voting day, with

increased media attention on the fact that people are advance voting and

that the general voting day is coming up, and the idea of flexibility

for the Chief Electoral Officer in setting the advance voting

days.

We looked at it. We wanted to give maximum flexibility while

trying to preserve some of that momentum that the voting day is coming

and that the advance voting is connected to and part of the larger

process related to general voting day. So we settled on a 12-day window

for the six advance voting days.

In the bill as presented, we had the six days as one block of six

days of advance voting, with the idea that we would be condensing that

and that would build momentum towards general voting day and help drive

voter turnout on general voting day. We are sacrificing that momentum to

spread that out over not six days but over 12 days.

It’s a significant increase in flexibility. I heard the member’s

concerns about it and attempted to balance those concerns with the goal

of the bill, which was to preserve that momentum that’s important in

informing the electorate about the election that’s happening.

J. Rustad: I just want to be clear. I think the original bill talked about

eight days prior to the election. This is now going to 12 days, so it’s

not quite as said.

[2:55 p.m.]

The minister is nodding. Just to make that point. I’m still

concerned, as people are away and like to take holidays over the course

of that weekend, that there would be a Saturday available. Previous

elections held, I think, in 2017 and 2013 — I’m not sure about previous

years — had two weekends as advance polling dates. I wonder if the

minister can confirm that.

Hon. D. Eby: In the 2013 election, there were only four advance voting days, so

there was only one Saturday. The May 2017 election was the first time

that there were six advance voting days, to recognize the increased

preference among the electorate to have increased opportunities to vote.

During that, there were two Saturdays.

It’s important to note that this amendment doesn’t prevent there

from being two Saturdays. The Chief Electoral Officer, I imagine, in

consultation with the parties that sit on that committee that informs

Elections B.C. decisions around these kinds of issues, could well set

two Saturdays for voting days. Certainly, there will be at least one,

because general voting day is on the 16th. In the example of the 2021

election, the other Saturday could be October 9, which is not a holiday,

which is on the weekend before. It would be at the discretion, in this

situation, if the amendment carries, of the Chief Electoral

Officer.

J. Rustad: Okay. I’m just wondering, technically, with regards to voting,

where is the…? As MLAs or candidates come forward and register, what’s

the cutoff for registry to be on the ballot? I’m just wondering, in

terms of…. Like I say, if you were to push it a little bit earlier,

whether or not there is any kind of challenge around that. I think they

have a number of weeks — one or two weeks or something like that — once

the writ is dropped to actually file their papers to be considered a

candidate during the election. I’m just wondering what that time frame

is.

Hon. D. Eby: It’ll just take us a second to look that up. This amendment and

this bill do not directly affect that, so we just need to look it up for

the member.

The Chair: Saanich North and the Islands seeks leave to make an

introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Olsen: I’d just like to take a few minutes to introduce the second group of

Gulf Islands Secondary students to this House.

Welcome to the Scorpions. We had your first group in here for question

period. You’re seeing a more tame and constructive part of the day that we

have here, where we’re working through Bill 5, which is the Constitution

Amendment Act. It’s making a couple of changes to the bill, and as you see

here, the member for Nechako Lakes is questioning the minister, the Attorney

General, on certain aspects of the bill. I hope you’re enjoying your time.

Welcome to the Legislature.

Could my colleagues here make these folks feel welcome.

[3:00 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Hon. D. Eby: The relevant

section is

section 56 of the Election Act. In order

for someone to be nominated, “…the nomination documents…must be received

by the district electoral officer, (

a) in the case of a general

election…between the time the election is called on 1 p.m. on the 7th

day after the election is called, or (

b) in the case of a by-election,

or a general election that is not conducted in accordance with

section

23 (2) of the Constitution Act, between 9 a.m. on the 3rd day after the

election is called and 1 p.m. on the 7th day after the election is

called.”

There are exceptions in relation to holidays and these kinds of

things, but that’s the general rule. You have seven days after the

election is called for general elections.

I note that the advance voting under the amendment would be

starting no earlier than the 16th day after the election is called, and

so that gives nine days for advance ballots to be printed in order to

prepare for that.

J. Rustad: Thanks for that answer, and thanks to your staff for the work on

that. I just wanted to make sure there weren’t any potential challenges

that were created through that. I didn’t have the opportunity in advance

to look at that time frame to make sure that there wasn’t a challenge

created by that.

My preference would be to be able to allow for that second weekend

in terms of advanced polling. However, noting that that doesn’t seem to

be an option here, I want to thank the minister for the consideration of

the debate that we had here, associated with the committee stage on this

bill. It was a good debate.

Unfortunately, some of the amendments didn’t have an opportunity

to pass, although I can say that this amendment will be supported. Thank

you for bringing it forward.

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:03 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[3:05 p.m.]

Reporting of Bills

BILL 5 — CONSTITUTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 5, Constitution Amendment Act, 2017, reported complete with

amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. D. Eby: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — CONSTITUTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 5, Constitution Amendment Act, 2017, read a third time and

passed on division.

Hon. D. Eby: I call Motion 8, government reconsidered response to 2013 Judges

Compensation Commission.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 8 — JUDGES COMPENSATION

COMMISSION REPORT

RECOMMENDATIONS

Hon. D. Eby: I move Motion 8 standing in my name on the orders of the

day:

[Be it resolved that pursuant to

section 6 (2) of the Judicial

Compensation Act , the Legislative Assembly:

a. reject the following recommendations of the Report of

the 2013 Judges Compensation Commission as laid before this

Assembly on September 18, 2017 as unfair and/or unreasonable for the

reasons outlined in Government’s Proposed Reconsidered Response to

the Report of the 2013 Judges Compensation Commission filed in

this House; and

b. set the remuneration, allowances or benefits that are to

be substituted for the rejected recommendations;

as follows:

1. The recommended salary for puisne judges for April 1, 2014 to

March 31, 2015 of $241,500 is rejected. The salary for April 1, 2014 to

March 31, 2015 is set at $244,889.

2. The recommended salary for puisne judges for April 1, 2015 to

March 31, 2016 of $245,122, an increase of 1.5%, is rejected. The salary

for April 1, 2015 to March 31, 2016 is set at $248,562, which is a 1.5%

increase on the substituted salary for fiscal year 2014/15.

3. The recommended salary for puisne judges for April 1, 2016 to

March 31, 2017 of $250,024, an increase of 2.0%, is rejected. The salary

for April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017 is set at $252,290, which is a 1.5%

increase on the substituted salary for fiscal year 2015/16.

4. The recommended increase in the pension accrual rate for judges

from 3% to 3.25% effective April 1, 2014 is rejected. The pension

accrual rate is set at 3%.

5. Recommendation 5 that, effective April 1, 2014, government take

steps to continue judges as active members in the Public Service Pension

Plan to age 75 is accepted in part. Recommendation 5(d), to the extent

that it applies to any retroactive measures, including return of pension

payments, making back-contributions, or making interest payments, is

rejected.

That the Legislative Assembly accept the remaining recommendations

contained in the report.]

I would like to take a few moments to speak to this motion

respecting the compensation that is paid to the province’s Provincial

Court judges. As members may know, the process that is followed to

determine judges’ compensation is necessarily different from collective

bargaining. The reason for this is the need to ensure that judges are

and are seen to be independent of government.

Judicial independence is a cornerstone of our justice system. It

is a cornerstone of our democracy and the rule of law: namely, that

anyone who is accused of a crime or challenges government before the

courts can be sure that their case will be decided by an impartial

judge. So government and the judiciary do not negotiate over judges’

compensation.

[3:10 p.m.]

Instead, there is a process governed by the Judicial Compensation

Act under which government and representatives of the judiciary make

submissions to independent commissions every three years. These

commissions, in turn, make recommendations to government setting out

what the commissions believe would be the appropriate salaries and

benefits for judges.

The government and this assembly are not bound to accept the

commission’s recommendations, but if we wish to depart from them, we

must give reasons that satisfy a constitutional test that has been

developed in case law over the years. Rejection of the commission

recommendation must be based upon a rational reason that rests upon a

factual foundation. Overall, the response must respect the commission

process and ensure that the process has been effective.

In British Columbia, there was additional language in the Judicial

Compensation Act that the Legislative Assembly must find a

recommendation to be unfair or unreasonable before it can be rejected.

Well, that language was removed from the act by amendments made in 2015,

and nonetheless, applies to this particular reconsideration since we are

required to revisit the 2013 commission’s report through the lens of the

time period in which the commission functioned and the Legislature first

considered the commission’s report. I will have more to say about that

in a moment.

Before I address the reconsidered response government is

proposing, let me say a few words about the judges of the Provincial

Court. Although I have been Attorney General for only a short time, I

can certainly say I’m impressed with the expertise and the commitment

that our Provincial Court judges devote to their work and to the British

Columbians who appear before them. The Provincial Court hears most of

the criminal cases in this province, as well as a majority of family law

matters. The court also adjudicates small claims matters. Although some

of that work will now be expected to be handled by the civil resolution

tribunal.

In all, some 120,000 cases proceed through Provincial Court each

year and are adjudicated by approximately 140 judges. Aside from hearing

the matters that come before them, the judiciary is an active

participant in justice reform efforts. Major strides have been and

continue to be made in addressing some of the difficult challenges faced

by the justice system. Government is doing its part to meet those

challenges and so is the judiciary.

Turning now to government’s proposed reconsideration of the 2013

Judges Compensation Commission, let me first express my thanks for the

commission members whose task was not an easy one and who undertook

their responsibilities faithfully — Simon Margolis, Queen’s Counsel,

who’s the chair; Robin McFee, Queen’s Counsel; Randy Kaardal, Queen’s

Counsel; Kirsten Tisdale; and Roy Stuart.

Responding to reports of this kind often involves making difficult

decisions. The circumstances of this reconsideration are quite unique. I

ask members to bear with me as I summarize the events that have led us

to this point.

The Legislature first dealt with the commission’s report in March

2014. In that response, the Legislature unanimously adopted government’s

proposed response which rejected the commission’s salary and pension

accrual rate recommendations. That response was litigated by the

Provincial Court Judges Association, and the matter was heard first in

B.C.’s Supreme Court, then in the B.C. Court of Appeal.

The decision the Court of Appeal handed down this past February

requires us to reconsider the commission’s report in accordance with the

court’s reasons. The primary concern of the court was that litigation

respecting the previous 2010 commission process, which did not conclude

until after the 2013 commission process, resulted in retroactive salary

and pension accrual rate increases for Provincial Court judges for the

fiscal year 2013-14.

This sequence of events meant that the 2013 commission was unaware

of that salary level when it undertook its work. The commission’s

recommendations followed by the Legislature’s response then resulted in

an actual reduction of salary for the first two years of the

commission’s mandate — an outcome that was not intended.

Specifically, the litigation over the 2010 commission resulted in

an increase in judges’ salaries for 2013-14 from $236,504 to $242,464.

As this change was made retroactively, the 2013 commission and the

Legislature had no knowledge of it and could not take it into account.

Similarly, the pension accrual rate in effect at the time of the 2013

commission was 3 percent, not the 3½ percent that resulted from the

litigation of the Legislature’s response to the 2010 commission’s

recommendations.

As the Court of Appeal said in its most recent decision, the

retroactive effective litigation “so altered the legal foundation for

the Legislative Assembly’s resolution that, without fault to the parties

or the Legislative Assembly, the resolution is fatally flawed as being

based on an incorrect legal premise of the salaries and benefits

applicable at the time the resolution was passed. In that circumstance

and the Legislative Assembly never having had the opportunity to

consider the issue of Provincial Court judges emoluments in the context

of that court-ordered framework…. The situation calls for an order

remitting the matter to the Legislative Assembly for fresh

consideration.”

We have, therefore, reconsidered the commission’s report and

recommendations with the Court of Appeals decisions in mind. As the

Court of Appeal also clarified in its earlier decision respecting the

2010 commission process, on a reconsideration such as this, we are

required to approach the commission’s report and recommendations in

light of the facts and circumstances known to the commission and the

Legislature at the time the commission process and the Legislature’s

initial consideration occurred.

[3:15 p.m.]

In this case, it means the facts and circumstances, as they were

in 2013 and 2014, altered only by the changed legal landscape of the

court’s decisions.

As I said, we are guided by the need to respect the commission

process in order to ensure that judicial independence is preserved. We

must also recognize that it is government’s task to analyze the cost of

the commission’s recommendations and responsibly balance the competing

interests and demands on public resources. We are the ones who are

accountable for the expenditure of public funds.

The commission’s report makes eight recommendations respecting

judges’ remuneration, benefits and allowances. As set out in the motion,

we propose that the commission’s salary recommendations be rejected,

that one pension recommendation be rejected and that one pension

recommendation be accepted in part.

In making this proposal, I can assure all members of the House

that we have again looked carefully at what the commission recommended.

Detailed reasons are contained in the government’s response document,

which I tabled in the House a few days ago. I’d like to highlight some

general principles that underlie those reasons.

First, members will note that the salaries we are proposing are

actually higher than those recommended by the commission. This is

necessary to address the overriding concern of the Court of Appeal that

the result of the commission process, following the prior litigation

over the 2010 process, was an unintended reduction in judges’

salaries.

I emphasize, as the Court of Appeal did, that this state of

affairs occurred through no fault of the 2013 commission. We do not know

what the commission might have recommended if the prior litigation had

concluded before the commission undertook its work, but as it stands,

simply adopting the commission’s salary recommendations would not

properly address the issue identified by the court. Instead, we are

proposing salaries that would result in modest increases above the

higher 2013-14 salary that resulted from the prior

litigation.

In doing so, government agrees with the 2013 commission when it

found that a modest increase in the salary of judges for the period

covered by the commission’s report is justified. At the time of the 2013

commission process and the Legislature’s first response to its report,

significant fiscal restraint measures were in place across government,

including limits on compensation increases paid by public

funds.

For example, all managerial salaries in government were frozen and

public service hiring was severely restricted to meet government’s

fiscal targets. In addition, various spending controls had been

implemented on travel, administration and other discretionary spending

such as grants. These expenditure management initiatives were necessary

in order to meet spending projections over the fiscal planned period by

the then government.

The proposed salaries, in our view, appropriately reflect the

recommendations of the commission, the reasons of the Court of Appeal

and the government’s program of restraint as it stood at the

time.

In regard to the pension accrual rate, we depart from the

commission’s recommendation that it should be set at 3.25 percent.

Instead, government proposes it be set at 3 percent. At the time the

2013 commission made its recommendations, it believed that the 3.25

percent accrual rate represented an increase. That is because the rate

was then at 3 percent and was only retroactively changed to 3½ percent

following the Court of Appeal’s 2015 decision.

The 2013 commission, nevertheless, considered and rejected the

idea of a 3.5 percent accrual rate. The government agrees with the

commission that 3½ percent is not an appropriate rate, but disagrees

that 3¼ percent is the rate that should be implemented.

The government has analyzed the cost of a 3¼ percent accrual rate

as compared to the government’s recommended rate of 3 percent. Adopting

a 3 percent accrual rate results in savings to government of

approximately $2 million over the three years covered by the report,

which the government views as an important amount in view of the program

of restraint as it stood at the time.

Government does not agree with the commission that a 3¼ percent

accrual rate is necessary to maintain a strong court, and notes that 3

percent is the rate used in a number of other provinces. In government’s

view, the accrual rate of 3 percent sufficiently takes into account the

fact that most judges are appointed relatively late in their working

lives. Additional reasoning for the government’s proposal is found in

the accompanying detailed reasons.

Government also recommends that the assembly accept the

commission’s recommendation to make other adjustments to judges’

pensions. Those adjustments include taking steps to seek an exemption

from the federal Minister of National Revenue so that judges who

continue to sit full-time to age 75 would continue to remain members of

the pension plan.

We do not believe, however, that retroactive steps should be taken

in respect to a small number of judges over age 71 who have already

begun receiving their pensions. It would require changes to pension

legislation specifically for the affected judges, and it would also

officially change the individual incomes of those judges for past

taxation years, which we understand is not permitted under the federal

Income Tax Act.

That concludes my remarks on the motion. I recommend the proposed

response to the House, and I look forward to hearing from other

members.

A. Wilkinson: This is a fairly regular occurrence in this House — that the

Attorney General is called upon to sort out the compensation of

Provincial Court judges and judicial justices.

[3:20 p.m.]

It’s an awkward topic because, as the Attorney General has noted,

the compensation of these individuals, who are responsible for our

judicial system….

[Interruption.]

A. Wilkinson: Well, now that we’re back on track here.

There’s bound to be a level of public scrutiny of this, and of

course, there’s the intrinsic conflict of interest that is involved with

judicial figures who may be involved in adjudicating the role of

government and the actions of government. So as the Attorney General has

pointed out, this has been, in recent years, referred out to an outside

body that provides recommendations. Then, of course, it comes back to

this body, the Legislature, to make the final decision on the process

going forward in terms of compensation for judges and judicial

justices.

These individuals are public servants, and they, of course,

deserve the usual treatment for members of the public service in terms

of an orderly resolution of their compensation. In the role of judges,

they may receive compensation that seems to be fairly substantial, from

the eyes of the members of the general public and even, for that matter,

the eyes of other members of the public service. The concern, of course,

is that there is competition for individuals of this calibre, in that

they can earn substantially more in some law firms in this province,

although that’s not uniformly the case.

Nonetheless, the positions that are available for Provincial Court

judges and judicial justices normally receive an excess of applications

over available positions. It is a desirable position at a certain stage

in life for lawyers, and so the positions are generally filled without

too much difficulty, which is, of course, a downward market pressure on

compensation. This results in the bind that the Legislature finds itself

in, in determining the compensation of these individuals in a

semi-market scenario.

What we have heard from the Attorney General is a compromise

position, as has been the case in the past, and the opposition is

prepared to accept the recommendations made by the Attorney General on

this issue.

The Provincial Court, of course, is where the hard-nosed part of

the judicial system meets the public expectations. It is a very real and

very tangible kind of judicial system involving, usually, middle to

minor criminal offences, where there is what one can call the necessity

for reasonably fast justice, but it also has to be justice. So this is

not an easy task for Provincial Court judges.

They deal with a large volume of case law and claims and

prosecutions. They, of course, service not only the criminal justice

function but also the family court and small claims divisions — although

we’re seeing the transition from small claims into the civil resolution

tribunal, which is going slowly and, one would hope,

successfully.

Nonetheless, being a Provincial Court judge is not a small task.

It requires suitable compensation. They expect to be paid for what they

do. And as I said, it’s a position of high esteem in our society and

needs to stay that way and be compensated accordingly.

Of course, part of their compensation is a fairly substantial

pension plan, which is attractive to many lawyers at a certain stage in

life, as they look forward to a predictable future in terms of income

and pension income, and also in terms of their role in society and

seeking to be in perhaps a more esteemed role than they have been in the

past — given that lawyers, politicians and a few other callings in life

tend to be at the bottom of a pile,

whereas being a judge or a

pharmacist is generally at the top of the pile, along with Clerk of the

Legislature.

These judges perform this very valuable function all over the

province of British Columbia. Unlike the superior courts, the Supreme

Court and the Court of Appeal, they’re in every community of significant

size so that justice can be delivered on a local basis. And of course,

there’s a substantial amount of homework in what they do. The sitting

hours of a judge do not comprise their entire workload in that they have

to do a great deal of reading and review of materials outside of their

sitting hours so that they can stay on top of the law and maintain their

credibility when they’re in the courtroom.

I think it’s fair for us to proceed and for me to conclude by

saying that we thank the Provincial Court bench and the judicial

justices for the work that they do. We acknowledge their service to the

province of British Columbia and the people of British Columbia and

their important role in the overall judicial system.

With all of these factors taken into account, the opposition is

prepared to support the position taken by the Attorney General on

compensation of these two categories.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member opposite for sharing the views of the

opposition with us and for the support for this motion.

With that, I move Motion 8.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I call Motion 9, government response to 2016 Judicial Compensation

Commission in respect of Provincial Court judicial justices.

MOTION 9 — JUDICIAL COMPENSATION

COMMISSION REPORT

RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR JUDICIAL JUSTICES

Hon. D. Eby: I move Motion 9 standing in my name on the orders of the

day.

[Be it resolved that pursuant to

section 6 (2) of the Judicial

Compensation Act , the Legislative Assembly:

a. reject the following recommendations of the Report of

the 2016 Judicial Compensation Commission as laid before this

Assembly on September 18, 2017 for the reasons outlined in

Government’s Proposed Response to the Report of the 2016

Judicial Compensation Commission in Respect of Provincial Court

Judicial Justices filed in this House; and

b. set the remuneration, allowances or benefits that are to

be substituted for the rejected recommendations;

as follows:

1. The recommended salary for April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018 of

$125,000 is rejected. The salary for April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018 is

set at $118,000.

2. The recommended salary for April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019 of

$126,875 is rejected. The salary for April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019 is

set at $120,000,

3. The recommended salary for April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020 of

$128,778 is rejected. The salary for April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020 is

set at $122,000.

4. The recommended reimbursement of 100% of participation costs

incurred by the Judicial Justices Association of British Columbia is

rejected. The Association will be reimbursed according to the formula

established in the Judicial Compensation Act , which is 100% of

costs up to $30,000 and two-thirds of costs between $30,000 and

$150,000.

That the Legislative Assembly accept the remaining recommendations

contained in the report.]

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this motion, let me state that the

process for setting compensation for judicial justices is the same as

for Provincial Court judges. Judicial justices attract similar

considerations of judicial independence due to the jurisdiction they

hold. They hear provincial offence matters, local government bylaw

matters, and conduct small claims payment hearings. They also conduct

bail hearing applications and issue search warrants 24 hours a day,

seven days a week, from the justice centre.

While judicial justices’ jurisdiction is more limited than that of

Provincial Court judges, they are important components of the operation

of the justice system in British Columbia. They are required to dispense

with the matters before them quickly, often with unrepresented

litigants, while ensuring that their decisions are fair and

just.

When addressing the 2016 commission’s recommendations concerning

Provincial Court judges, I noted that the 2016 commission process is the

first to occur following amendments to the Judicial Compensation Act in

2015, which included updating the factors that the compensation

commission must consider, as well as merging the two separate

commissions for judges and judicial justices into a single

commission.

While we now have a single commission issuing a single report,

there are now separate recommendations respecting each group of judicial

officers, and they should be considered independently. That is why

government is bringing forward different motions for judges and for

judicial justices.

The 2016 commission’s report makes seven recommendations

respecting judicial justices remuneration, benefits and allowances. As

set out in the motion, we propose that the commission’s salary

recommendations be rejected, along with the commission’s recommendation

respecting participation costs for the Judicial Justices

Association.

Government has carefully reviewed the commission’s report,

including the analysis and findings that underlie its recommendations.

Detailed reasons are contained in the response document appended to the

notice accompanying this motion.

In regard to salaries, the commission’s recommendation is to adopt

the proposals made by the Judicial Justices Association and would

represent an increase of approximately 16.8 percent over three years.

The estimated fiscal impact of the commission’s salary recommendations

is approximately $1.5 million over the three years addressed by the

commission’s report.

[3:30 p.m.]

We propose rejecting the commission’s salary recommendations for

the following reasons:

(1) The commission did not properly consider subsection 5(5)(

d) of

the act respecting “(

d) changes in the compensation of others paid by

provincial public funds in British Columbia.”

(2) The commission did not properly consider subsection 5(5)(

f) of

the act respecting the current and expected financial position of the

government.

(3) The commission did not properly consider

section 5(5)(

c) of

the act respecting compensation provided to similar judicial positions

in Canada, having regard to the differences between those jurisdictions

and British Columbia.

In recommending judicial justices’ salaries, the commission

applied the same reasoning respecting compensation paid to others from

public funds and respecting the financial position of the government as

it did for its recommendations respecting Provincial Court judges.

Government’s reasons for rejecting them are therefore the same as those

I described in the previous motion respecting government’s response to

the recommendations respecting judges.

In short, the commission did not engage in a meaningful

consideration of changes in compensation to others paid by provincial

public funds, and it asserted that to do so would unduly politicize the

setting of judicial compensation. The government disagrees with the

commission on this issue.

In regard to the current and expected financial position of the

government, the commission wrongly focused on government’s “capacity to

pay” rather than addressing the question of whether and to what extent

salary increases should be moderated by the current and expected state

of government’s financial position.

Finally, in considering compensation paid to similar judicial

positions in other provinces, the commission did not properly take into

account differences in jurisdiction between those positions. In a number

of provinces and territories, judicial justices or their equivalents

have broader jurisdiction than do judicial justices in British Columbia.

To give one example, in Yukon, judicial justices may impose custodial

sentences of up to 90 days. This aspect of the issue apparently was not

considered by the commission.

Judicial justices’ salaries currently are $110,249. Government’s

proposed salaries would represent a three-year increase of 10.6 percent

as opposed to the 16.8 percent increase recommended by the commission.

Government’s proposed salaries would have an estimated fiscal impact of

approximately $920,000. The proposed salaries take into account the

considerations I have noted respecting changes in compensation to those

paid from provincial public funds, government’s current and expected

fiscal position and interprovincial comparisons with other judicial

justices.

The proposed salaries also take into account other aspects of the

commission’s findings, including the need to attract and retain

qualified judicial justices. The commission noted that at the time it

was in operation, there was only one approved candidate eligible to be

appointed as a judicial justice. It also noted, however, that the Chief

Judge of the Provincial Court had not undertaken any active recruitment

of judicial justices because there appeared to be a sufficient

complement. Absent recruitment efforts, it cannot be assumed that

compensation levels are the cause of the low number of identified

eligible candidates.

In addition, at the request of the chief judge, government is

taking steps, through legislation currently before this House, to extend

the appointment terms of current judicial justices from ten years to 12

years, which will assist in retaining qualified and experienced judicial

justices on the bench.

Turning now to non-salary matters, government proposes accepting

all of the benefits recommendations of the commission, which essentially

leave those benefits unchanged except for an increase in the

professional development allowance for judicial justices.

In regard to the participation costs of the Judicial Justices

Association, government proposes rejecting the commission’s

recommendation that government pay 100 percent of those costs. Instead,

as with a similar recommendation in respect to the judges association,

we propose that the formula for payment of such costs contained in the

Provincial Court Act be applied: namely, the government pay 100 percent

of the costs up to $30,000 and two-thirds of the costs between $30,000

and $150,000.

Again, one of the main purposes of putting a cost formula into

statute was to create certainty around the costs payable by government

to the association in view of the fact that government is not in a

position to control the expenditure. I should note that the

association’s costs for the 2016 commission process amounted to some

$37,000, and government’s reimbursement under the formula would amount

to approximately $35,000.

That concludes my remarks on this motion. I recommend the proposed

response to the House, and I look forward to hearing from other

members.

A. Wilkinson: My remarks from the prior motion are in large part applicable to

this motion.

[3:35 p.m.]

It’s a slightly different category, in that Provincial Court

judges obviously adjudicate and come to conclusions on convictions and

sentencing,

whereas judicial justices are more in the procedural mode in

the offence categories and perform the functions that are required on

shorter notice, such as bail hearings and dealing with traffic

matters.

But many of the same principles apply. Given the pool of

applicants, the compensation scheme as a whole, the need for third-party

recommendation and the pressures on government, generally, it’s

understood that the result will often not be what the recommendation is

that comes from the independent panel.

Nonetheless, the opposition finds itself in agreement with the

recommendations from the Attorney General, and we’re prepared to proceed

on that basis.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member opposite for sharing the position of the

opposition and for the support on the motion.

Motion approved.

MOTION 10 — JUDICIAL COMPENSATION

COMMISSION REPORT

RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR JUDGES

Hon. D. Eby: I move Motion 10 standing in my name on the orders of the

day:

[Be it resolved that pursuant to

section 6 (2) of the Judicial

Compensation Act , the Legislative Assembly:

a. reject the following recommendations of the Report of

the 2016 Judicial Compensation Commission as laid before this

Assembly on September 18, 2017 for the reasons outlined in

Government’s Proposed Response to the Report of the 2016

Judicial Compensation Commission in Respect of Provincial Court

Judges filed in this House; and

b. set the remuneration, allowances or benefits that are to

be substituted for the rejected recommendations;

as follows:

1. The recommended salary for puisne judges for April 1, 2017 to

March 31, 2018 of $273,000 is rejected. The salary for April 1, 2017 to

March 31, 2018 is set at $262,000.

2. The recommended salary for puisne judges for April 1, 2018 to

March 31, 2019 of $277,095 is rejected. The salary for April 1, 2018 to

March 31, 2019 is set at $266,000.

3. The recommended salary for puisne judges for April 1, 2019 to

March 31, 2020 of $281,251 is rejected. The salary for April 1, 2019 to

March 31, 2020 is set at $270,000.

4. The recommended reimbursement of 100% of participation costs

incurred by the Provincial Court Judges Association of British Columbia

is rejected. The Association will be reimbursed according to the formula

established in the Judicial Compensation Act , which is 100% of

costs up to $30,000 and two-thirds of costs between $30,000 and

$150,000.

That the Legislative Assembly accept the remaining recommendations

contained in the report.]

In speaking to this motion, let me first express my thanks to the

members of the 2016 Judicial Compensation Commission for their

dedication and hard work. They were the Hon. Frank Iacobucci, who is the

chair; Robin McFee, QC; Randy Kaardal, QC; Brenda Eaton; and Peter

Lloyd.

I should also say that the comments I made on the previous motion

respecting the work of the Provincial Court judges applies equally, of

course, to our consideration of the recommendations of the 2016

Compensation Commission, as does the description of the unique process

that is required for the setting of judicial compensation.

I would also note that the 2016 commission process is the first to

occur following amendments to the Judicial Compensation Act in 2015.

Those amendments merge the two existing compensation commissions for

judges and judicial justices into a single commission and updated the

factors that a commission must consider in formulating its

recommendations.

[3:40 p.m.]

Those factors are: the need to maintain a strong court by

attracting highly qualified applicants; changes, if any, to the

jurisdiction of judges or judicial justices; compensation provided in

respect of similar judicial positions in Canada, having regard to the

differences between those jurisdictions and British Columbia; changes in

the compensation of others paid by provincial public funds in British

Columbia; the generally accepted current and expected economic

conditions in British Columbia; and the current and expected financial

position of the government over the three fiscal years that are the

subject of the report. The commission may also consider other factors

not included in that list. If so, it must explain the relevance of those

factors.

The 2016 commission’s report makes nine recommendations respecting

judges’ remuneration, benefits and allowances. As set out in the motion,

government proposes that the commission’s salary recommendations be

rejected along with the recommendation respecting participation costs

for the Provincial Court Judges Association. The commission made seven

recommendations respecting the benefits of Provincial Court judges, and

government proposes that all those recommendations be

accepted.

Government has carefully reviewed the commission’s report,

including the analysis and findings that underlie its recommendations.

Detailed reasons for the government’s proposed response are contained in

the response document I tabled in the House a few days ago.

In regard to salaries, the commission’s recommendations would

represent an increase of approximately 15.2 percent, over three years,

above the salaries in place at the time the commission was in operation

and approximately 11.5 percent over the higher salaries the House has

approved as a result of the motion respecting the 2013 compensation

commission.

It is the responsibility of government to determine the cost of

the commission’s recommendations. I can advise the House that the

estimated fiscal impact of the commission’s salary recommendations, over

the three years addressed by the commission, is approximately $12.9

million.

We propose rejecting the commission’s salary recommendations. In

government’s view, the commission did not properly consider

section

5(5)(

d) of the act, respecting changes in the compensation of others

paid by provincial public funds in British Columbia, and the commission

did not properly consider

section 5(5)(

f) of the act, respecting the

current and expected financial position of the government.

In recommending these salaries, the commission did not engage in a

meaningful consideration of changes in compensation to others paid by

provincial public funds. The commission asserted that to do so would

unduly politicize the setting of judicial compensation. Government

disagrees with this. In fact, the precedents established by the Supreme

Court of Canada do not define politicization in this manner.

It is through an independent compensation commission that the risk

of undue politicization of judicial salaries is minimized. Further,

apart from saying that too much emphasis should not be placed on

compensation changes to public sector employees, the commission did not

set out how it has, in fact, taken into account those changes. The

commission made general references to salary ranges, rather than focus

on rates of change in public sector compensation, as the act

requires.

The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that the allocation of

public funds by the Legislature is inherently political. At the same

time, we recognize that judges are not civil servants. The judiciary is

a separate branch of the state and must be independent of government.

But in enacting the recent amendments to the Judicial Compensation Act,

this Legislature recognized that when making recommendations concerning

judicial remuneration, the commission should consider the degree to

which remuneration paid to others from public funds is

changing.

This is a matter which this House may also consider and which we

address in the proposed response document appended to the motion. It is

government’s view that a consideration of changes to the remuneration of

others paid from provincial public funds militates in favour of lower

salaries than were recommended by the commission.

In regard to the current and expected financial position of the

government, the commission erred by focusing on government’s “capacity

to pay” rather than on the question of whether and to what extent salary

increases should be moderated by the current state of government’s

financial position, including its program of expenditure management.

Theoretically, government always has a capacity to pay because they can

incur debt or raise taxes. This is not the issue. The issue for the

commission to consider is how the current and expected financial

position of the government might impact the size of salary

increases.

On that front, the commission did not explain how the evidence of

government’s fiscal situation was taken into account in determining the

size of the salary increases it recommended. Government’s fiscal

situation has generally improved from previous years, but forecasts in

surpluses are small, and managing expenditures among many competing

program needs remains a challenge.

Government’s proposed salaries for judges would represent a

three-year increase of 10.6 percent above the salaries in place at the

time of the commission’s work and an increase of slightly more than 7

percent above the salaries the House approved in a previous motion a few

moments ago. The estimated fiscal impact of government’s proposed

increases is approximately $7.2 million, which is nearly $6 million less

than the fiscal impact of the commission’s recommended salaries. This is

a difference which government views as significant.

[3:45 p.m.]

Government’s proposed response takes into account the extent to

which salary increases should be moderated by the current and expected

state of government’s financial position and changes to compensation of

others paid by provincial public funds. The proposed salaries also take

into account other aspects of the commission’s findings, including the

salaries of British Columbia’s Provincial Court judges compared to other

judges in Canada.

The proposed salaries are expected to place British Columbia’s

judges fourth in Canada amongst other Provincial Court judges, which is

the same rank as that anticipated by the commission’s recommended

salaries. Government’s proposed salaries, likewise, would reduce the

salary gap between Provincial and Supreme Court judges, although not as

much as the salaries recommended by the commission.

Turning now to the recommendations concerning judges’ pensions, we

propose accepting the commission’s recommendation that the pension

accrual rate be set at 3 percent. The commission noted that its mandate

is to consider total compensation and not to overemphasize individual

aspects of compensation in isolation. It further noted that aside from

accrual rate increases, higher salaries themselves result in more

valuable pensions.

Government’s proposed salaries, while lower than those recommended

by the commission, nonetheless represent increases that will serve to

enhance the value of judges’ pensions. The commission further observed

that the 3 percent accrual rate is similar to the accrual rates for

pensions of Provincial Court judges in most other provinces and that

judges’ pensions currently are generous in comparison to what is

otherwise available in the public or private sectors.

Government also proposes accepting several pension recommendations

that were jointly proposed by government and the judges association. The

effect of these recommendations would be to bring judges’ pensions into

line with recent changes to the Pension Benefits Standards Act that

applied to others in the public service respecting the vesting period,

the calculation of the early retirement factor and the provision of a

lump sum commuted value versus a deferred pension if retirement occurs

prior to age 55.

In regard to the costs incurred by the Provincial Court Judges

Association for participating in the commission process, government

proposes rejecting the commission’s recommendation that government pay

100 percent of those costs. Instead, we propose that the formula for the

payment of such costs contained in the Provincial Court be applied —

namely, that government pay 100 percent of the costs up to $30,000 and

two-thirds of the costs between $30,000 and $150,000.

Indeed, the central objective of putting a cost formula into

statute was to create certainty around the costs payable to the

association having regard to the fact that government is not in a

position to control those costs as they are incurred. Further reasoning

for the government’s position is set out in our response document. I

should note that the association’s costs for the 2016 commission process

amounted to some $93,000, and government’s reimbursement under the

formula would amount to approximately $66,000.

That concludes my remarks on the motion. I recommend the proposed

response to the House and look forward to hearing from other

members.

A. Wilkinson: These motions seem somewhat repetitive, but nonetheless, they are

essential steps in clarification of the compensation of both Provincial

Court judges and judicial justices. My remarks from the earlier two

motions are applicable here, and I will not belabour the point by

repeating them. These are important positions in our society, as a part

of our most arm’s-length civil service, so their compensation is an

important thing for consideration in this House.

I’m pleased to say that the opposition is prepared to accept and

agree with the submissions made by the Attorney General as part of these

motions.

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member opposite for the views of the opposition and

for their support on this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 10.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I call second reading of Bill 6, Electoral Reform Referendum 2018

Act.

[3:50 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — ELECTORAL REFORM

REFERENDUM

2018 ACT

(continued)

M. Dean: Our government believes that it’s time for all British Columbians

to have a say in the fundamental question of how we elect our MLAs. We

are introducing the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act to allow a

referendum on proportional representation, or PR, no later than November

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

This bill is about giving British Columbians more say over how

their representatives are elected. The first-past-the-post system is

most widely used in Canada and means that a voter indicates on a ballot

the candidate of their choice, and the candidate who receives the most

votes in an electoral district wins. This can result in 100 percent of

power in the hands of representatives who receive less than 50 percent

of the vote, let alone of all eligible voters. Yet PR is the most widely

used system in the world. In fact, over 80 countries have some kind of

PR, and there’s a whole wide range of models.

It refers to any method of voting that produces a result in which

a political party’s share of the seats in the Legislature represents its

share of the popular vote. PR is also the system that consistently

results in higher rates of participation, a higher percentage of

eligible voters exercising their right to vote. In a PR system, every

vote counts, and people feel that their votes count, creating this

motivation and engagement. Then, ultimately, the elected parliament

better reflects the voting population.

Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, how long this debate has been going

on for? This isn’t a new issue. “In an equal democracy, the majority of

the people, through their representatives, will outvote and prevail over

the minority and their representatives. But does it follow that the

minority should have no representatives at all…? Is it necessary that

the minority should not even be heard…? In a really equal democracy,

every or any

section would be represented, not disproportionately but

proportionately.”

So wrote J.S. Mill in 1861. So it’s not a new issue. However,

democratic systems continue to evolve, and they should always be

developing and modernizing. How we develop these should be done through

consultation with citizens and their informed engagement. I am committed

to a healthy and progressive democratic process here in British Columbia

and in Canada.

Our democratic process is living and needs to be always evolving

in order to improve. Everyone will recall the pioneering work of the

Famous Five that resulted in the historic decision to include women in

the legal definition of persons that was handed down by Canada’s highest

Court of Appeal, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of Great

Britain on October 18, 1929.

This gave women the right to be appointed to the Senate of Canada

and paved the way for women’s increased participation in public and

political life. From my own heritage — now I’m returning back in time —

the story of the suffragettes was another example of activist actions

democratic process. However, of course, as you may well be aware, that

actually entailed women chaining themselves to railings, going on hunger

strikes in jail and, of course, the fatal action of a woman throwing

herself under a racing horse.

Instead of that, how about a modern process, a referendum to hear

from people? That is what this act offers. This act will encourage the

engagement of all citizens in active consideration of our democratic

system, rather than in dangerous activism to get things changed, and

have their voices heard and their views represented.

What the Electoral Reform Referendum Act will do is enable a

provincewide referendum to be held on the subject of whether to change

B.C.’s voting system. This will give the opportunity to British

Columbians to have a say on what this looks like.

I support this bill, ultimately, because it offers choice to

British Columbians. It will be in the fall of 2018 that the referendum

will be rolled out, asking the question of whether to change from this

first-past-the-post system to a form of proportional representation.

British Columbians will be offered information and the opportunity to

ask questions and to debate the merits of changing the

system.

This is about basic fairness and democratic principles. It’s about

modernizing our democracy and giving people the power to

decide.

[3:55 p.m.]

Now, many people living in the communities in my constituency are

really engaged in this debate. Through the election campaign and ever

since, they’ve approached me and followed up with me with questions and

also provided me with information. For example, they’ve given me

briefings on the benefits of engagement through all aspects of this

process. Their informed position is that active engagement and robust

consultation with British Columbians will be the most effective way of

ensuring participation in the overall process and the whole debate. So

I’m very pleased to highlight that public engagement will begin this

fall on which voting system or systems should be on the

ballot.

We will promote active, healthy debate and discussion and provide

information on our current voting system and systems of proportional

representation to make sure that British Columbians are able to make an

informed decision. This is the evolution of democracy in process —

another example of the historical pathway of democracy.

We encourage all British Columbians to participate in this

engagement period by sending submissions to the Attorney General — all

British Columbians, whether they’re engaged in the political process,

whether they’re engaged in political parties or not, whether they’re

representatives at any level of government, whether they’re

organizations, political scientists, activists, everyday British

Columbians.

We will engage with First Nations leaders and communities to

ensure their voice, their experience, their perspective and their ideas

are all heard and contribute to the process and to the next

steps.

line, and there will be a dedicated website so British Columbians can

really join in the discussion and provide all of their feedback and

opinions. This act provides for the referendum also to be conducted by a

mail-in ballot to the Chief Electoral Officer.

All of this feedback through the engagement process will be

summarized, and advice will be provided to the Attorney General in a

formal report. Now, this report will include a recommendation of

questions to be included on the 2018 referendum ballot and will also

help in the creation of regulations. The ballot construction will be

determined following this engagement period.

All of this process will allow for there to be extensive

engagement with British Columbians, and this engagement will provide

input to the selection of the question or questions about proportional

representation that will be on the ballot. Again, I think of really

well-briefed people who live in my communities across my constituency,

who have also highlighted that there could well be benefits to a

two-question referendum model. This could build consensus, and it could

avoid the issue of creating unne