Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, October 23, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 40

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Stuttering awareness

A. Kang

Vancouver International Airport

T. Wat

North Shore Multicultural Society

B. Ma

Rainbow crosswalks and inclusive communities

J. Sturdy

Lester B. Pearson College

M. Dean

Richmond Hospital Foundation fundraising gala

J. Yap

Oral Questions

Review of scientific research by Agriculture Ministry

P. Milobar

Hon. L. Popham

J. Martin

MLA communications with Agricultural Land Commission

I. Paton

Hon. L. Popham

D. Clovechok

M. Stilwell

M. de Jong

Fish farm tenures and UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous

peoples

E. Ross

Hon. L. Popham

Hon. J. Horgan

Harvesting of timber in areas impacted by wildfires

D. Barnett

Hon. D. Donaldson

Tabling Documents

Judges Compensation Commission, government’s proposed reconsidered response

to the 2013 report, October 23, 2017

Judicial Compensation Commission in respect of Provincial Court judges,

government’s proposed reconsidered response to the 2016 report,

October 23, 2017

Judicial Compensation Commission in respect of Provincial Court judicial

justices, government’s proposed reconsidered response to the 2016

report, October 23, 2017

Reports from Committees

Selection Committee, October 23, 2017

Hon. M. Farnworth

Motions Without Notice

Powers and role of Children and Youth Committee

Powers and role of Public Accounts Committee

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Tabling Documents

Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for B.C., Investigation Report

17-07 , Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of

B.C., designated filer: Chris Gardner, September 13, 2017

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2017

(continued)

A. Weaver

S. Gibson

S. Furstenau

D. Routley

Hon. D. Eby

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 9 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Eby

A. Weaver

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act,

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 5 — Constitution Amendment Act, 2017

Hon. D. Eby

J. Rustad

N. Letnick

A. Weaver

R. Sultan

M. Morris

A. Olsen

P. Milobar

C. Oakes

L. Throness

D. Barnett

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued)

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. R. Fleming

M. Polak

D. Davies

MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2017

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Darcy: I can’t tell you how excited I am to introduce two very special guests

who are here in the Legislature today. They are visiting all the way from

Moncton, New Brunswick. One is my niece Kathy Prowse, who is an air traffic

controller, and her partner, Al Trahan, who is retired RCMP, now working in

the housing and construction industry.

[1:35 p.m.]

I still remember the day, gathered in Kathy’s living room, when she

was contemplating her future. She said: “I think I’m going to be an air

traffic controller.” Everybody looked at her. Sure enough, she is now an air

traffic controller and has been, I think, for about 15 years. We’re very,

very proud of her. It’s been great getting to know Al in the last number of

years. I would ask every member of this House to join me in giving a very,

very warm welcome to Kathy and to Al.

Hon. R. Fleming: It’s my pleasure to introduce and welcome two members of an education

delegation from the Netherlands to the House today. I had the pleasure of

meeting with this delegation earlier this morning in the spirit of sharing

and learning from each other, as both B.C. and the Netherlands share ideas

and practices on reforming education in our respective

jurisdictions.

This will be the third visit to B.C. by the delegation from the

Netherlands. They continue to look at our province’s expertise in

educational delivery as they move through their own transformation towards

personalized learning. Hosting international delegations interested in

B.C.’s education, particularly the transformation efforts underway, is a

testament to the expertise and dedication of B.C.’s teachers, support staff

and school administrators.

I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming two members from

the Netherlands delegation. We have Mr. Theo Douma, who is chairman of

curriculum.nu. Mr. Douma is responsible for 34 schools and 17,000 students

in primary, secondary and special education. He’s also held roles with the

Ministry of Education, Culture and Science in the Netherlands. With him is

Ms. Ingrid Brummelman, who is the director of curriculum.nu. Ms. Brummelman

heads a team of curriculum experts in primary and secondary education as

well as communications. She’s held roles in the Ministry of Education,

Culture and Science in the Netherlands.

Again, please join me in welcoming Mr. Douma and Ms. Brummelman to the

House this afternoon.

Hon. H. Bains: It is my pleasure to introduce some constituents here visiting us in

this House from Surrey-Newton. The Giomvo Disambo family from Surrey-Newton

are visiting us today. The members are Marufu, Idad, Moheez, Mistoura and

Munarit Disambo. Please help me give them a warm welcome to this

House.

M. Dean: I am very proud today to welcome some students and the vice-president,

advancement and external relations, from Pearson College, which is in

Metchosin, B.C. Welcome to Dan Hurley, who’s the vice-president, and also to

these students: Tomma Bambara from Burkina Faso; Bryan Nakambonde from

Namibia; Guglielmo De Rigo from Italy; Lara Best Dankley from Australia;

Cindy Gao from China; Anna Beebe from Canada, from Ontario; and Tess Casher,

also from Canada, from the Yukon. Please make them all very

welcome.

Hon. G. Chow: Today, October 23, is my 41st wedding anniversary, and I wish to

express my love and gratitude to my wife, Pat, who has supported me greatly

in my political endeavours over these years. Now, she’s not here today

because she’s on house duty. She’s looking after our granddaughter at my

daughter’s house.

Forty years is a long time, but so is 16 years. It’s a real privilege

for me to say happy anniversary to my wife of 41 years, in the 41st

parliament of British Columbia, in which 41 New Democrats, including myself,

were elected.

[1:40 p.m.]

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a young gentleman, Ned Taylor,

from my riding here today. Some of you may know Ned Taylor as a recent

graduate from Reynolds High School — not in the riding but the former high

school of the Premier of this of province. He also ran for Saanich council.

He gives me great inspiration, as a young member, showing that he can stand

up for what he believes in, and he did so very well in the last by-election

in Saanich. Would the House please make him feel very welcome.

D. Routley: It gives me great pleasure, and it’s an honour, to introduce my friend

Rick Doman. In the Cowichan Valley, the name is one of history and lore.

Rick’s father started a company with one truck, salvaging lumber from the

woods. He built that into a billion-dollar empire with pulp mills, sawmills

and logging and trucking operations.

They had their trucking facility near my home as a child. I would walk

down by the railroad tracks with my dad to go fishing in the Cowichan River,

and passing that, he never got tired — believe me, he never got tired — of

telling me that that represented the very best of Canada, that someone could

come to Canada and build a dream the way that Rick’s father, Herb, did here

in the province — one of the real characters and founders of the forest

industry in the province.

Rick is joining us from Alberta, where he lives now, still involved in

the forest industry, travelling the globe procuring and selling forest

assets. He’s a great inspiration to me, and I would like the House to help

me make him very welcome.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Joining us in the gallery today is a good friend of mine who also

happens to be the mayor of Smithers, Taylor Bachrach. He’s down because he

has become a new member of the Climate Solutions and Clean Growth Advisory

Council, under my colleague here. I just would like the assembled MLAs and

ministers to welcome my friend Taylor Bachrach to the assembly.

A. Olsen: It’s my honour to introduce Montana Cardiff-Cooper and his mother,

Laurie Cardiff. Where I come from, you meet new relatives every day. I have

a huge number of cousins, and I’m really honoured to be able to add Montana

to that. We made the family connection today, so it’s great to connect with

Montana.

Montana is a grade 7 student at North Saanich Middle School. He came

to my office today to advocate on his behalf. Montana wanted to let me know

that in school district 63, they are challenged with education assistants,

and he’s not getting the kind of help that he needs. He came to me to let me

know that today. He also wanted to let this House know that he supports good

governance — specifically, reliability, honesty, fairness and being

helpful.

Let’s make Montana and Laurie feel welcome today in the

House.

Hon. J. Horgan: I have three introductions today.

Firstly, I want to welcome 30 grade 11 social studies students from

Belmont Secondary School in my constituency. They’re here to take a look at

the proceedings in this place. They’re joined by their teachers, Kathy Davis

and Nathan Lauder.

I also want to take the opportunity to introduce a citizen from the

member for Peace River North’s constituency. Earl Brown is down from Fort

Nelson to see his daughter Alicia. Not only that, Earl has — I guess this

would have to be some sort of a record — a $1 bill that’s been signed, after

today, by 12 Premiers, from W.A.C. Bennett to the present time.

What Earl pointed out to me.... As I was signing the $1 bill to become

the 12th Premier to do so, he said it was odd that all of the NDP Premiers

seemed to sign it on the left side of the bill and all of the other Premiers

signed it on the right side of the bill. But Earl is here. He’s got a

treasure trove of mementos and keepsakes from Premiers gone and still

present.

My last comment would be to our friends from the Netherlands today, on

behalf of my spouse. Lekker slapen. Welterusten. Eet smakelijk.

Thank you very much.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I’d like to join my colleague in welcoming Mayor Bachrach, who is in

the precinct today to join other members of the Climate Solutions and Clean

Growth Advisory Council in today’s announcement. Thirteen of them were in

the precinct today, along with the co-chairs, Merran Smith of Clean Energy

Canada and Marcia Smith, senior vice-president of Teck Resources.

I would like to thank them all for volunteering their services to help

assure British Columbians that we can meet our carbon pollution reduction

targets, while seizing new economic opportunities and protecting our

resource economy and jobs. Would the House please thank them and make them

welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

STUTTERING AWARENESS

A. Kang: Yesterday, October 22, was International Stuttering Awareness Day.

Some consider stuttering as a disability, while others consider it as

part of one’s identity. Regardless, many of us have seen people joke

about stuttering or have seen people made fun of because they were

stuttering. That is just cruel, hurtful and very offensive. We must

speak up against unacceptable comments and behaviours to people who

stutter.

International Stuttering Awareness Day is a day that helps us

understand the difficulties that people who stutter may face every day.

Stuttering can pose real problems in both the personal and professional

lives of those suffering from it. It can also take years to get the

stuttering under control. I understand how embarrassing and frustrating

it feels. That’s because I personally struggled with

stuttering.

We all deal with stuttering differently. Some of us choose to

overcome it, while some of us choose to embrace it as part of our

identity. The reason why I’m sharing this information with everyone

today is because I want to begin a dialogue and destigmatize stuttering.

People are often so focused on one particular issue or person that they

forget how unique each and every one of us is, and they often overlook

the person’s wonderful qualities and amazing accomplishments.

Famous stutterers include the ancient Greek statesman Demosthenes,

who overcame stuttering and became a renowned orator. Other stutterers

include British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and James Earl Jones,

the voice behind Darth Vader. Stuttering has not prevented these people

from leaving their mark in history.

By celebrating International Stuttering Awareness Day, we are

celebrating the diversity of our province by standing here today. I am

making a statement that a stutterer can be the voice of the

people.

To all of the people out there living with stuttering, don’t let

it define you and don’t let it limit you.

VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

T. Wat: We all know Vancouver International Airport has earned a stellar

reputation as one of the best airports in the world. In fact, it has

been named best airport in North America for eight consecutive years at

the Skytrax World Airport Awards.

Now the airport has received another significant accolade on the

world stage. It recently became the winner, for the first time, in the

20 million to 50 million passengers category and the overall winner at

the 2017 World Routes Marketing Awards. This is one of the most

prestigious events in the aviation industry, recognizing airports that

demonstrate exceptional air service development.

Vancouver International Airport stood out among its peers thanks

to its strong focus on building meaningful relationships with airlines

and local communities through strategic partnerships. Receiving this

award demonstrates the strength of the airport’s vision, leadership and

growth strategy.

YVR is North America’s fastest-growing international airport,

increasing at nearly twice the average rate. In 2016, the airport

welcomed a record 22.3 million passengers, a growth of 9.7 percent. This

growth has created jobs and stimulated business activities across the

country, making YVR a key driver in the local and national

economy.

The airport is a great local employer and a gateway to the world.

I’m so proud to have it located in my riding of Richmond North Centre.

Congratulations to Vancouver Airport Authority president and CEO Craig

Richmond, the rest of the board of directors, the executive team and all

of the staff and volunteers who have contributed so much to YVR’s

excellent international reputation.

[1:50 p.m.]

NORTH SHORE MULTICULTURAL SOCIETY

B. Ma: Hello. Salam. Kamusta. Dzień dobry. Nǐ

hǎo. Ha7lh skwáyel . There are countless

ways to express hello on the North Shore. As of this Wednesday, the

North Shore Multicultural Society will have been expressing it in all of

these ways and more for 25 years.

Perhaps the most important way that the North Shore Multicultural

Society expresses hello, however, is in the work that they do to welcome

newcomers to this great province. Many of us in these chambers today

were privileged enough to be born in Canada. We grew up speaking the

language. We’re socialized to the local customs. We may have had each of

our various personal challenges, but entering a new country to start a

new life was not one of them.

There are also those of us who know exactly what starting a new

life in a new country is like. The vast majority of people in Canada —

save, of course, for those members of Indigenous heritage — have come

from families that immigrated to this continent at some point in our

countries will particularly face challenging circumstances when it comes

to starting a new life here in Canada.

Well, for 25 years, the North Shore Multicultural Society has been

around to help. Working to build a harmonious and inclusive North Shore

community that assists immigrants and refugees to integrate successfully

into life in Canada, the North Shore Multicultural Society is there for

newcomers, offering friendship and community and helping them navigate

the systems of support available to them and their families.

To the North Shore Multicultural Society, congratulations on your

25th anniversary, and thank you so much for keeping our beautiful

Canadian mosaic so bright.

RAINBOW CROSSWALKS

AND INCLUSIVE

COMMUNITIES

J. Sturdy: It is my privilege to rise today to acknowledge the work being

done to promote inclusiveness and diversity throughout many B.C.

communities and the locations where these important values are literally

being painted right on the street. Across British Columbia, from Kelowna

to Victoria, bold rainbow stripes are appearing on roadway crosswalks.

Inclusiveness and diversity are hallmarks of our society. These rainbow

crosswalks symbolize these values and demonstrate that people,

irrespective of their sexual orientation and gender identity, are to be

treated with respect and equality.

I was honoured to attend the unveiling of the province’s newest

rainbow crosswalks in Whistler, where not one but two colourful

crosswalks now adorn Main Street. These additions are the first-ever

rainbow crosswalk installations in a resort community. The Whistler

rainbow crosswalks were achieved through the work of a committed group

of people that include the organizers of the Whistler Pride and Ski

Festival, an event that this year celebrated its 25th year at the

resort.

I’d also like to acknowledge the district of Squamish, which was

the first community in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky to debut a rainbow

crosswalk on Cleveland Avenue.

Considerable work has been done at the provincial level to foster

supportive, connected and inclusive communities. A foundation of our

society, one that Canada is known around the world for, is that people

feel safe and respected. Locally in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky,

organizations like Safe ’n Sound Squamish, West Vancouver Youth Services

and Family Services of the North Shore support youth and adults in

transition. Their Proud 2 Be conference, which took place last week, is

an example of the work being done throughout the community.

Organizations like these and many others across the province are working

to educate, inform and advocate for inclusion.

Rainbow crosswalks are so much more than colourful additions to a

streetscape. They are a visible commitment to diversity and

inclusiveness.

LESTER B. PEARSON COLLEGE

M. Dean: “How can there be peace without people understanding each other;

and how can this be if they don’t know each other?” asked Lester B.

Pearson in his Nobel peace lecture on the 11th of December in 1957. This

former Canadian Prime Minister well understood that we are stronger when

we stand together and strive to foster peace for everyone on a global

basis.

Central to that idea of international peace is education, and this

is embodied in the Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific and United

World Colleges. Established in 1974, the college is based on a beautiful

forested campus that hugs Pedder Bay on the traditional territory of the

Scia’new First Nation in Metchosin, the constituency I represent. The

college is the steward of the Race Rocks Ecological Reserve and can

offer overnight team-building trips on the lighthouse out at

sea.

[1:55 p.m.]

Up to 200 students at any time, aged 16 to 19, live and learn

together on the campus. The students come from British Columbia and

across Canada, as well as countries across the globe, including students

who are refugees or are displaced due to conflict, poverty or other

causes.

The extra-curricular program includes education in reconciliation,

respect for the environment, volunteering, community work and conflict

resolution. Attending the college prepares the students for enlightened

leadership in a global context.

Their alumni include human rights advocators, politicians, public

servants, business leaders, writers, physicians, etc. — all making a

peaceful and sustainable difference in the world. And 2017 is the 60th

anniversary year of the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Lester B.

Pearson. I ask you all to congratulate the college, all of its staff and

its students.

RICHMOND HOSPITAL FOUNDATION

FUNDRAISING

GALA

J. Yap: Most of us would agree that a community’s greatest asset is its

people, and nowhere was that more evident recently than at the Richmond

Hospital Foundation’s Starlight Gala, which I had the pleasure of

attending with my colleagues from Richmond. This signature black tie

gala is the most prestigious fundraiser in the city of Richmond. It’s

just one of the foundation’s many fundraising initiatives. The Richmond

community generously came out in full force to support the worthy cause

of local health care. A part of the fundraising for the evening, the

leadership challenge, will help enable the purchase of a new nuclear

medical scanner for the hospital.

What’s more, this year’s 2017 Leadership Award recognized lifelong

friends Diane Dupuis and Anna Nyarady for their tenacious efforts to

transform health care in the city of Richmond for more than 25

years.

Meanwhile, board chair Kyle Shury inspired us all with the vision

for a new acute care tower at the hospital and what’s required to help

achieve this. Of the $27 million that’s been pledged towards the new

tower, half of that is contingent on the commitment of funding by the

province and a 2020 construction start date. Shury told the crowd it is

Richmond’s turn to get a new hospital tower, saying: “The community is

united. This is our time. Please do your part.”

So a big thank-you to the Richmond Hospital Foundation for

organizing yet another stellar event and to our generous community for

going above and beyond to support high-quality local health

care.

Oral Questions

REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

BY AGRICULTURE

MINISTRY

P. Milobar: Last week we heard about the Minister of Agriculture writing an

intimidating letter to a law-abiding business in British Columbia. Now

we learn that the public servants are her next target.

Dr. Gary Marty is the provincial fish pathologist for the Animal

Health Centre in the Ministry of Agriculture. This is an accomplished

public servant with a doctorate in veterinary medicine. But there is a

problem. Those opposed to fish farms don’t like the research Dr. Marty

has done and, as a result, want him fired. Incredibly, the minister’s

response has been to launch an investigation of Dr. Marty.

Will the minister table the terms of reference for her

intimidation investigation of this respected public servant?

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question. I’m happy to address this. Our

government is committed to evidence-based decision-making, and we’re

working hard to restore the public’s faith in our science.

[2:00 p.m.]

In April, a survey of 403 government scientists of B.C. found that

71 percent said that B.C. Liberal cuts to science negatively affected

their ability to do their jobs. The information we provide to the DFO

fish health audit program needs to be based on science. When DFO raises

concerns, we take them seriously. We are verifying research produced by

our Animal Health Centre to ensure that we’re making decisions based on

science.

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

supplemental.

P. Milobar: Let’s be clear. Dr. Marty is being attacked for scientific

research done for the people of British Columbia. This is an individual

who has completed research at UC Davis and is on the faculty list for

the American College of Veterinary Pathologists. And now, not only is

his job being threatened as a result, but the minister this scientist

reports to has confirmed to the media that she has launched an

investigation — not an investigation into the threats, not an

investigation into those trying to silence Dr. Marty but into Dr. Marty

and his research.

Can the minister tell the thousands of public servants in British

Columbia that work in the public interest if they, too, will be

investigated if the government doesn’t like what they have to

say?

Hon. L. Popham: Let’s be clear about what happened over the last 16 years. I think

it’s very important to understand the situation we’re in. The B.C.

Liberals reduced the number of government scientists by 25 percent and

cut the resources….

Interjections.

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

you.

Hon. L. Popham: This former government reduced the resources available to the

scientists that remained. After 16 years, public trust in government

research was at an all-time low because of the B.C. Liberals.

When DFO raises concerns about our research, we take it very

seriously. We’re making sure that we are making decisions based on

science, so we are looking into this and taking it seriously.

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

supplemental.

P. Milobar: It’s unfortunate the minister is trying to deflect away that the

questions are really around her own actions and the actions that she is

undertaking as a minister. The minister can try to deny the facts, but

clearly, she doesn’t like Dr. Marty’s research and is shopping around

for another opinion.

Last week the minister confirmed to Randy Shore of the

Vancouver Sun that she had launched an intimidation

investigation. She told the reporter that Dr. Marty’s research was being

investigated at the request of groups opposed to what his research had

shown. This government doesn’t like the independent advice given by Dr.

Marty because it doesn’t fit their narrative. The minister doesn’t like

the expert advice from independent public servants, so she is trying to

silence them.

To the minister. Dr. Marty is a respected public servant whose

work is done on behalf of British Columbians. Will she stand up and

defend him and his findings on fish farming instead of trying to

intimidate those she disagrees with?

Hon. L. Popham: Let me be clear to the member opposite. Not one individual is

under investigation.

[2:05 p.m.]

J. Martin: We should be clear here. It is the Minister of Agriculture who is

stoking fear among ranchers, guide-outfitters, fish farm operators and

anyone else who relies on the certainty of tenures, leases and the use

of Crown lands. It is she who is writing eviction notices. It’s not her

deputy. It’s not her ADM. It’s not a statutory decision–maker. It is

her.

She sent a letter threatening a law-abiding company, threatening

them that their tenures will be cancelled, simply because she doesn’t

like their business. And now we hear from the minister that she doesn’t

like the independent advice given to her by a respected public

servant.

Can the minister tell the House what other independent scientists

in her ministry will be under review because she doesn’t like their

research?

Hon. L. Popham: I’d like to reiterate there is no individual in the lab at the

Ministry of Agriculture that is under investigation. But when DFO raises

concerns about our research, we take it seriously, as any lab who

believes in integrity would.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack on a supplemental.

J. Martin: Perhaps back during the writ period, instead of “A better B.C.,” a

more apt slogan for the NDP might have been: “The bullying starts

here.”

Some individuals opposed to fish farming want a government

scientist fired for doing his job — a respected public servant, well

respected in the field. The minister, instead of defending the scientist

paid to provide her with unbiased research, confirmed to a reporter this

past weekend that she launched an intimidation investigation into his

research.

Why is she launching intimidations into independent advice given

to her by expert scientists? Is it because she has made up her mind on

the issue and only wants evidence that will fit that

narrative?

Hon. L. Popham: I’ll repeat to the member that nobody is being fired. Our lab is

very interested in integrity. I am proud of our lab, and the lab is

working with DFO to make sure that our results have integrity. That’s

what’s based on science.

Let me remind the member that back in 2015, the former government

put tenure process up for review.

MLA COMMUNICATIONS WITH

AGRICULTURAL LAND

COMMISSION

I. Paton: The letter the Minister of Agriculture penned to a law-abiding

company was inappropriate, not the least for confusing her elected role

with that of the statutory decision-maker. This is not the first time

the minister has written an inappropriate letter. There’s a pattern

here.

I have here correspondence from the then Agriculture critic to the

chair of the Agricultural Land Commission. In this letter, the minister,

again going beyond her role, attempts to influence the timing of an ALC

decision. The commission is a quasi-judicial body with a strict policy

against this type of correspondence.

To the minister, will she acknowledge that the commission policy

is clear? An MLA should not write to influence the timing of this

quasi-judicial body. Will she admit she violated this policy?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, order please.

Hon. L. Popham: I believe in the integrity of the Agricultural Land Commission.

But I do believe that MLAs have the opportunity to write letters and

communicate with the Agricultural Land Commission, not in a way that

influences them but in a way of gathering information.

Interjections.

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

[2:10 p.m.]

I. Paton: The facts, unfortunately, in this case are straightforward. On May

22, 2015, the then Agriculture critic and now minister wrote an email.

It was addressed to the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission. In

the email, the minister states that she is writing to inform the chair

of what she called “a concerning delay in an ALC decision.” She

identifies an application before the commission and says that the matter

is urgent, and the timing is of great importance. The minister ends her

email to the chair of this quasi-judicial body by saying that she trusts

he will ensure the matter is appropriately and promptly

addressed.

Oh my. Is this a lack of…?

Interjections.

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

I. Paton: Could this be a lack of judgment? Could this be a bit more

intimidation?

To the minister, if in fact she believes her actions were

appropriate, will she confirm she is in the process of changing policy

to allow elected officials to intervene on commission

decisions?

Hon. L. Popham: Well, I stand behind the letter I wrote as MLA, but I’d like to

add that the experts in political interference with the Agricultural

Land Commission are sitting right across the chamber from us.

D. Clovechok: I just want to take a minute to remind the Minister of Agriculture

that the Agricultural Land Commission has a clear policy on MLA

communications. Their decisions must in fact and in appearance be fair,

impartial and independent. The policy states that MLAs must not

communicate in any way that could be perceived as an attempt to

influence the timing of a decision.

The minister was asked directly several weeks ago in estimates if

she understood this policy when she was a critic and now the minister.

She said: “I must have been aware. It’s how I always assumed it would

work.”

My question…. The record of this minister so far is to break rules

she was aware of, threaten a private company, intimidate scientists and

who knows what else. On the basis of that, can the minister tell British

Columbians how or why they can have any confidence in her oversight of

the Agricultural Land Commission?

Hon. L. Popham: Well, the line of questioning is quite shocking, actually. If

anything, I’ve been known as somebody who is an advocate for the

integrity of the Agricultural Land Commission, and I don’t think that’s

in doubt anywhere in the province.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke on a

supplemental.

D. Clovechok: Well, it is about integrity. The Agricultural Land Commission has

been clear on the rationale for the policy that the minister has broken.

The rules apply to any interaction and communication from elected

officials. It’s inappropriate for an elected official, even with the

most honourable of intentions, to attempt to do what this minister

did.

I have three applications in front of me from my riding. Would it

be acceptable for me to call Frank Leonard and say: “Frank, let’s get

this done right away”? I withdraw that question because I know that the

commission itself cited: “Even a telephone call to judge asking when a

decision would be released has resulted in a ministerial resignation.”

You can’t do it.

My question. As each day goes by, this minister seems to prove why

she shouldn’t be in cabinet. She’s not capable of making sound

decisions. Can the minister explain to British Columbians why they

should have any confidence in this minister, given her incredibly poor

judgment around the ALC?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I am really excited to be the Minister of Agriculture. One of the

things that I’m tasked with is to revitalize the Agricultural Land

Commission, and a lot of that, the reason why it needs to be

revitalized, is because of the erosion that happened after 16 years on

every level from that side of the chamber.

M. Stilwell: We’ve heard that on more than one occasion, in correspondence to

the land commission and in her letter to Marine Harvest, the minister

has had trouble understanding what constitutes appropriate behaviour for

an MLA and a minister of the Crown. According to the commission, actions

such as those of the minister create ethical difficulties for the

elected person and risk tainting the fairness and impartiality of the

commission’s decision-making process. Truly, it’s hard to believe that

the minister can continue to act with any sense of credibility in her

role in executive council, given her serious lack of

judgment.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Stilwell: To the Minister of Agriculture: how can British Columbians trust

her to oversee the Agricultural Land Commission, given her history and

disregard of its independence?

Hon. L. Popham: Well, the line of questioning continues to be quite shocking. I

can say that all of the work that I did as critic and as MLA was around

the integrity and the strength of the agricultural land reserve and

commission. As the minister, I will be working as hard as I can to make

sure that there will never be an instance where political interference

happens like it did under that government.

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

M. Stilwell: The lack of answers from this minister is what’s

shocking.

Interjections.

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

M. Stilwell: The minister’s words just don’t match up with her actions. She

claims to respect the independence of the commission, but she violated

the policy intended to protect the commission from political

interference. This minister likes to write letters. She wrote to the

chair of the commission about a specific application, complaining of

what she saw as a delay, and she asked for prompt action. She asked for

it, clearly violating the written policy that prohibits attempts to

influence the timing of a decision.

The minister clearly broke the rules and interfered with the

application that was before the commission. Will she apologize to

British Columbians?

Hon. L. Popham: I will never apologize for working on behalf of my constituents as

an MLA for Saanich South. As an MLA, I violated nothing, and as

minister, I will make sure the integrity of the Agricultural Land

Commission is stronger than it has ever been.

And I can tell you something else. The only thing that’s lacking

credibility in this chamber is the official opposition.

[2:20 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Again to the Agriculture Minister. We did learn something earlier

today in her answer. Confronted by policy G-02, which stipulates the

severe limitations that exist on all members of this chamber in respect

of communicating with the ALC, the minister said, in defence of her own

conduct, that there are all kinds of circumstances where she thinks it’s

appropriate for an MLA to contact the commission with respect to a

specific application.

I’m all ears. What are those circumstances?

Hon. L. Popham: As an MLA, I worked hard to represent my constituents. If they had

questions that they wanted me to forward from my constituency office, I

was very happy to do so.

There was nothing intimidating about that letter. There was

nothing in violation, and I was proud to help my constituents

along.

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

supplemental.

M. de Jong: I recall commentary — significantly different commentary — from

this now minister when she was not the Minister of Agriculture. She has,

in complete contravention of the policies that presently exist, said she

sees all kinds of circumstances when members of the House and,

presumably, herself, as minister, would deem it appropriate to contact

the ALC.

That flies in the face of everything that members of this chamber

have been told represents proper conduct. It’s a shocking statement from

someone who is now a minister of the Crown responsible for the

ALC.

The minister hasn’t answered the question. Tell me, tell the

House, the circumstances in which she, as minister, believes it’s

appropriate for her or members of this chamber to contact the ALC with

respect to a specific application.

Hon. L. Popham: As I said, any correspondence I would have had with the

Agricultural Land Commission would have been on behalf of my

constituents.

None of it contravened what the member is talking…. None of

it.

FISH FARM TENURES AND UN DECLARATION

ON THE RIGHTS OF

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

E. Ross: British Columbia depends on resource development that comes from

rural and coastal communities.

In her letter to Marine Harvest, the minister claims that

companies are beholden to First Nations due to UNDRIP. Threatening the

certainty of tenures is a real threat to natural resource industries on

the water and on the land across this province and to the First Nations

and non-First Nations who have a lease to use the land and have jobs

because of it.

My question is to the minister. Does the minister stand by her

description of UNDRIP and using UNDRIP to threaten a company that is

following the law?

Hon. L. Popham: Our government is focused on a new relationship with First Nations

and all Indigenous people, and this is going to be built on partnerships

and respect.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Skeena on a supplemental.

E. Ross: Over ten years have been spent and millions of dollars have been

spent to achieve exactly what they’re talking about. In fact, the

millions of dollars have been spent on efforts to transfer case law into

a workable model for the benefit of all British Columbians.

Now the Minister of Agriculture seeks to impose new rules on

industry that aren’t understood, enforceable or even under the authority

of B.C. UNDRIP is under the jurisdiction of Ottawa, but even the federal

Justice Minister said that adopting UNDRIP is unworkable.

I and over 60,000 leaseholders want to know. When they make a

tenure application and have abided by the laws of the province…. My

question: is the minister saying that in the absence of UNDRIP’s free,

prior and informed consent and requirement, the province will not issue

a lease or a renewal?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: The member wasn’t a member of this House when the former

government started a review of aquaculture tenures in British Columbia.

I’ll advise him to talk to one of the many leadership candidates.

Perhaps they’ve got a file on the press releases that they sent not to

one company but to the entire province about reviewing those very

tenures.

Then I would add that the member knows full well, as a former

leader in his community, that case law has taken us a considerable

distance in the past number of years. It’s incumbent upon a new

government, working cooperatively with the federal government and all of

those people who use the land in British Columbia, to create opportunity

for all British Columbians — that we ensure that we’re doing it in

concert with those new laws, the new case law, and also with UNDRIP as a

foundation. That’s my commitment, that’s our commitment, and it should

be your commitment, too.

HARVESTING OF TIMBER IN

AREAS IMPACTED BY

WILDFIRES

D. Barnett: The people of the Cariboo experienced a truly horrific event this

summer. It is estimated over 45 million cubic metres of timber on one

million hectares of land have been impacted by fire in the Cariboo

alone. This has had terrible consequences for forest workers in the

Interior. Licensees have come into all our offices telling us about

severe fibre shortages. At the rate we’re going, some mills won’t remain

open, and we won’t have many jobs left.

Nothing has been done to address the situation. There is no extra

staff, no extra resources, and we’re getting awfully used to hearing

from the government and the minister that they’re on it. Well, the facts

say otherwise.

When will the minister get on with it and get flowing fibre,

damaged fibre, to licensees so that there is certainty for workers and

their families in the Cariboo? Time is of the essence.

Hon. D. Donaldson: The member is right in one aspect of her question. The 2017

wildfire season was unprecedented. There were 65,000 people displaced at

one point. What she is not correct on is her assertion that nothing has

been done and that extra staff have not been put on this

file.

There have been extra staff put on this file. There are recovery

managers in every major centre in the Interior now on the job. There are

economic development officers assigned to each of those communities. We

have a cabinet task force working on the wildfire situation. I have an

assistant deputy minister on the economic and the rural side of the

recovery. I have an assistant deputy minister working on the environment

and land side.

We have had meetings with Williams Lake, a community she knows

well, who said: “We’ll have an answer for you in six weeks about what is

needed for recovery.” We’re talking to First Nations.

What we do on this side is listen to communities first and build

from the bottom up, not from the top down, like this government has done

in the past.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Eby: I rise to table three documents respecting judicial compensation in

British Columbia. They are government’s proposed reconsidered response to

the report of the 2013 Judges Compensation Commission, government’s proposed

response to the report of the 2016 Judicial Compensation Commission in

respect of Provincial Court judges and government’s proposed response to the

report of the 2016 Judicial Compensation Commission in respect of Provincial

Court judicial justices.

[2:30 p.m.]

Reports from Committees

SELECTION COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have the honour to present the first report of the Special

Committee of Selection for the second session of the 41st

parliament.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

Motions Without Notice

POWERS AND ROLE OF

CHILDREN AND YOUTH

COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: In addition, I shall be seeking leave to move a series of motions

activating two select standing committees. The full text of these

motions has been provided to the Opposition House Leader and the three

independent members.

By leave, I move:

[That the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth be

appointed to foster greater awareness and understanding among

legislators and the public of the BC child welfare system, including the

specific needs of indigenous children, youth, families and communities,

and in particular to:

1. Receive and review the annual service plan from the

Representative for Children and Youth (the “Representative”) that

includes a statement of goals and identifies specific objectives and

performance measures that will be required to exercise the powers and

perform the functions and duties of the Representative during the fiscal

year;

2. Be the committee to which the Representative reports, at least

annually;

3. Refer to the Representative for investigation the critical injury

or death of a child;

4. Receive and consider all reports and plans transmitted by the

Representative to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British

Columbia; and,

5. Pursuant to

section 30 (1) of the Representative for Children

and Youth Act , S.B.C. 2006, c. 29, complete the comprehensive

review of the Act or portions of the Act by February 28, 2018 to

determine whether the functions of the representative described in

section 6 are still required to ensure that the needs of children and

young adults as defined in that

section are met.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon Select Standing

Committees of the House, the Select Standing Committee on Children and

Youth be empowered:

a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and

to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the

committee and to delegate to the subcommittee all or any of its powers

except the power to report directly to the House;

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned,

during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and

during any sitting of the House;

c) to conduct consultations by any means the committee

considers appropriate;

d) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

and

e) to retain personnel as required to assist the

committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any

adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to

deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative

Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the

sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the

Legislative Assembly.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

POWERS AND ROLE OF

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move:

[1. That all reports of the Auditor General of British Columbia

transmitted to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly be deemed

referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, with the

exception of the report referred to in

section 22 of the Auditor

General Act , S.B.C. 2003, c. 2, which is referred to the Select

Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services; and,

2. That the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts be the

committee referred to in sections 6, 7, 10, 13 and 14 of the Auditor

General Act , S.B.C. 2003, c. 2.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select

Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the committee be

empowered:

a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and

to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the

committee and to delegate to the subcommittee all or any of its powers

except the power to report directly to the House;

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned,

during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and

during any sitting of the House;

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

and

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the

committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any

adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to

deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative

Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the

sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the

Legislative Assembly.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 8. In

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

Education.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to present the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists’

Investigation Report 17-07 , Independent Contractors and

Businesses Association, designated filer: Chris Gardner.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

(continued)

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place and continue with debate on Bill 8,

Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2017.

Last Thursday, as I was noting the hour, I was coming near to an

end of the issues I wish to raise in this bill, but please let me just

expand a little bit more upon something that I think is very important

that government has announced that it will do.

One of the key aspects of this bill is not so much what’s in the

bill — it’s a very good first step — but also that the government has

committed to undertaking a review of lobbying in general. While it’s not

in the legislation, this is being put forward by government as a means

of us moving forward to account for some of the areas that have not been

covered here. We’ll come to one in a second.

I would like to note that the B.C. Green caucus will be

delighted…. Well, we’ll soon be called the B.C. Green caucus, I hope, if

the Constitution Amendment Act changes. We’ll be participating in this

review, as we have some ideas that we’d like to explore in further

discussions.

One of these priorities for further changes that we’d like to

explore is dealing with actual versus expected lobbying. As it stands

now, the bill doesn’t really address the transparency issue. The bill

articulates….

[2:35 p.m.]

It still remains that you’re supposed to register who you’re going

to lobby. As we know, various lobbyists will sign up to lobby all 87 —

or 86; I forgot one member’s seat is open. They will sign up to lobby

all 86 members here. The public really wants to know who is being

lobbied by who, not whether somebody is lobbying anybody. Transparency

isn’t met in this registry system because of the fact that we don’t

actually know who is lobbied.

I recognize that the bill before us is called the Lobbyists

Registration Amendment Act, and the whole framework of the bill is such

that it’s designed as a registry, as opposed to a list of who you’ve

lobbied. It would require substantive changes throughout the entire act,

were we to start to note who was actually lobbied, rather than

registering as a lobbyist per se.

Elizabeth Denham’s 2013 report had some words attributed to a

media spokesperson. I won’t mention his name. It said the following:

“The current system creates a smokescreen about who is really being

lobbied. We should be able to search the registry and find out who was

actually lobbied, when and where.”

We support that. I support that. My colleagues have spoken about

this. I’m sure my friend from Cowichan Valley, who will speak shortly,

will reaffirm that we support this recommendation, as articulated in the

quote that I just did — again, expecting to lobby, as opposed to who you

actually lobbied. We’d like to see who you actually lobbied be reported

within ten days. It’s something we hope that, as we move forward in this

discussion process, we’ll be able to have input on.

There is no code of conduct, in the actual legislation, for

lobbyists. Again, this is something that we will be looking to push.

That is, actually, the development of a code of conduct. Now, we

recognize that a bill is probably not the right place to embed an entire

code of conduct. We’re looking to see if we can enable the registrar to

come up with a code of conduct that will be made available to lobbyists,

and they would be expected to follow that code of conduct in their

lobbying efforts.

Finally, we want to look a little bit at government accountability

and what role ministers play in confirming lobbying that actually may

have taken place. We think there can be some further measures taken

there to expand upon transparency.

Obviously, I will be standing and voting in support of this bill.

It takes important first steps towards the reform of our lobbying in

British Columbia. I look forward to further discussions of this at

committee stage. I particularly look forward to the discussions that

will ensue as we develop this comprehensive review of lobbying

registration in British Columbia in the months ahead.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Abbotsford-Mission. [Applause.]

S. Gibson: I appreciate the warm welcome from both sides of the House. I was

encouraged by the congenial atmosphere I find here — quite often,

frankly.

On behalf of my constituents of the Abbotsford-Mission

constituency, it’s a pleasure for me to speak here in this place

regarding Bill 8. I just want to acknowledge colleagues from Columbia

River–Revelstoke and Delta South, here with me, and others as well,

today.

I want to begin my remarks with a bit of background on how we got

to this point. I’m very proud to say that it was our B.C. Liberal

government, in 2001, who introduced the first-ever lobbyists registry. I

think we know, on both sides of this House, that lobbying is a good

thing. It’s not a negative thing, but it needs to be carried out with

transparency.

We need to have opportunities for officials in public sector

societies and others to have their chance to engage with elected

officials and share their views in order that those officials may make

decisions that are in the best interests of the entire province. The

goal then was to ensure transparency by allowing British Columbians to

see what was being done by lobbying, what the issues were and who was

doing it.

[2:40 p.m.]

In 2010, the Lobbyists Registration Act was updated to create one

of the strongest regimes for lobbying registration in our country. Those

updates significantly increased the lobbyists registrar’s powers and

duties, giving powers on three levels: conduct those through

investigations; compel testimony — an important one; and, also, compel

documents to be received.

No doubt, lobbying fairness is something we care about deeply on

both sides of this House. One of the proposals this bill puts forward is

redundant, really, due to the legislation we already have in place.

Section 2 of this bill applies to former cabinet ministers and

parliamentary secretaries. But these individuals who held the roles are

already prohibited from lobbying for two years under the Members’

Conflict of Interest Act.

When we look at this bill before us, certainly there are some

elements that we acknowledge are reasonable. We believe, for example, a

two-year cooling-off period is appropriate for people moving from

political life to the private sector. While the lobbyist registrar

recommended only a one-year ban on lobbying in her 2013 independent

report, a two-year ban does seem reasonable. But there are some

significant problems with this bill that we have some concerns about,

and I’ll note those now.

One of the biggest concerns is the two-year prohibition on

lobbying that will be applied retroactively. This would be really

unfair, especially to approximately 120 former political staffers who

just lost their jobs after the recent election. Many of them have

already found new jobs in the lobbying and government relations sector

since that election, so this would deal another blow to them.

It also applies to public office holders. Make that former public

office holders — including cabinet ministers, parliamentary secretaries,

political staff, deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers and

positions of equivalent rank — and the two most senior positions of

political entities such as universities, school boards, hospitals, Crown

corporations and others.

Now, I’m not sure if there are other jurisdictions in Canada where

lobbying prohibitions have been applied retroactively. If government

does have a precedent for this kind of move, I’d welcome them sharing

it. Not only is the possibility of this retroactive element opening up

government to a court challenge, but it possibly could result in some

legal bills and the prospect of the law being overturned.

The bill does allow the registrar of lobbyists to grant exemptions

to the two-year prohibition, given exemptions are deemed to be in the

public interest. However, given the sweeping intention to this bill and

its retroactive application, I’d be surprised if exemptions would be

common.

This bill is one-sided. It applies only to former government

officials, which means that former NDP officials are exempt. Therefore,

this bill would clearly have the most immediate and direct impact on

former B.C. Liberal government staff. As former B.C. Liberal political

staff, these individuals have no ties to the current NDP government,

meaning there is no reason to be concerned about undue influence. So

while there’s no cause for concern about conflict from this angle, the

legislation was nevertheless designed with specific interests in mind.

NDP adherents — like former MLAs, former senior staff, former party

executive members or even the Premier’s transition team members — are

not included in the two-year lobbying prohibition.

Unlike former government staffers, who are the subject of this

bill, these NDP officials have free rein, meaning they’re able to use

their connections to lobby their friends in government without

restriction. This comes after NDP supporters already received $300,000

from taxpayers in direct award contracts, meaning there was no

competitive bidding process for just a few weeks worth of work as part

of the NDP transition team. It’s a clear exercise in the kind of

patronage that government claimed to be so strongly opposed to while in

opposition.

[2:45 p.m.]

Nationally, while members of the Prime Minister’s transition team

are defined as public office holders under the federal Conflict of

Interest Act, individuals that receive these positions provincially are

conveniently excluded, despite the Attorney General saying that this

bill was largely similar to the federal act.

What’s more, confidence and supply secretariat staff, which we’ve

discussed here at some length, staff who are currently being paid by the

public to manage the political relationship between the NDP and the

Greens — between those two — are also excluded from the former public

office holder definition. That’s interesting. While there are other

aspects of this bill that are problematic, there are more that we can

talk about.

The Attorney General has promised comprehensive lobbying reform

here in B.C., and the government has promised an extensive review of

lobbying over the next year. But while the government seems eager to

initiate reviews and consultations before taking action on other issues,

we see quite the opposite here — a government that has promised to

review an issue but has already introduced legislation. This effectively

reverses the expected order. This falls short of the kind of

comprehensive lobbying effort the Attorney General promised would happen

in British Columbia.

Instead, what this bill puts forward is a biased and incomplete

amendment that puts former government staffers at a disadvantage and

heavily favours NDP adherents. Disappointingly, this bill represents

another broken promise by the government.

While I largely support the content of this bill and applaud that

accordingly, including the two-year cooling-off period for those

transitioning from the political to the private sector, I have serious

reservations about certain aspects, particularly the fact that the NDP

adherents are effectively exempted from this bill, while former

government staffers are clearly targeted, and the concern that the

retroactive clause it contains potentially opens government to potential

legal challenges, which many believe is a definite

responsibility.

I nevertheless think the underlying premise is sound. I certainly

hope we can work together towards a solution that is practical and fair

for both sides of this House.

S. Furstenau: I’m pleased today to speak to Bill 8, the Lobbyists Registration

Amendment Act.

By now, many know my personal story of how I came to be here. I

was inspired to run for office after watching the previous government

fail the people of Shawnigan. That government permitted the dumping of

massive amounts of contaminated soil into an active quarry located in

the heart of our drinking watershed. What followed was a multi-year

struggle to assert our community’s right to safe drinking

water.

We came together to stand up for ourselves, since our government

was not willing to take the necessary actions. Throughout this struggle,

the fundamental trust between us as citizens and our government was

sadly eroded. I ran, in part, to try to fix that. I’m a firm believer

that one of the most important things this minority government can do is

re-earn the trust of British Columbians and restore their faith in

government. That trust is what underpins our democracy and what gives us

the legitimacy to do what we do in this chamber.

Sadly, I have heard countless similar stories from across the

province of governments of all stripes putting special interests ahead

of the interests of British Columbians and eroding that trust in

government. These stories arose in spades under the old campaign finance

regulations that saw corporations and unions funnel millions of dollars

into our political system. Examples of cash-for-access events and donors

benefiting from government decisions raised serious questions about the

influence of special interests in B.C. politics and undermined public

trust in government.

[2:50 p.m.]

These stories also exist in relation to lobbying. Too often,

British Columbians are left to wonder who is lobbying whom, on what

issues, for what end and on whose behalf because of the limitations of

our current lobbying regime. As it stands, one cannot know, based on the

lobbying register, who a lobbyist has actually lobbied or who they

simply intend to lobby. The very fact that we lack sufficient

transparency around lobbying in B.C. only serves to further undermine

public trust in government.

As trust diminishes and cynicism grows, we enter into a vicious

cycle. Voter turnout decreases. People are less willing to stand for

office. As elected officials, the trust between us and citizens needs to

be paramount. Without it, we lose the foundation for strong

democracy.

When citizens question decisions made by government based on the

assumptions that public officials are acting in the interest of a select

few or influenced by large sums of money into our political parties, it

strikes a blow to democracy.

With that in mind, we as B.C. Greens ran on a suite of commitments

to rebuild trust in government, and this formed one of the central

pillars of our platform. We were the only party to run on a clear

commitment to lobbying reform, and this bill is the first step in

achieving that reform. Our caucus has three core policy outcomes for the

reforms we want to see.

One, increased transparency of lobbying and the accountability of

lobbyists. Two, reduce undue influence of special interests on

government decisions. And three, bring B.C. standards in line with other

jurisdictions.

This bill obviously does not fully address all of these outcomes.

Even with this bill, our standards will remain far behind those of other

jurisdictions. There are many reforms that the former registrar of

lobbyists outlined in her report Lobbying in British Columbia: The

Way Forward that are not included. For instance, the bill does

not establish a code of conduct, nor does it incorporate the elements of

a code of conduct into the Lobbyists Registration Act that would

strengthen transparency, support ethical standards for public office

holders and enhance the public decision-making process.

We recognize that the government may need more time to consult

more widely on these comprehensive reforms, yet the act does take one

very important step forward that our caucus agrees is an important

change. It introduces a two-year prohibition on lobbying for former

public office holders after the date they cease employment. The need for

a prohibition comes from a recognition that former public office holders

can have information or relationships from their previous employment

that could offer them outsized influence in their lobbying. Prohibitions

such as these are common in other jurisdictions. Federally, there has

been a five-year prohibition since 2008.

Sadly, there are many examples in B.C. of the revolving door

between government and the lobbying sector that has helped undermine

this essential trust in government. I’m glad this change is going

forward. Of course, there is still much to be done to increase

transparency and bring B.C.’s lobbying regime in line with other

jurisdictions.

We need to remove the requirement to register who a lobbyist

intends to lobby, and shift towards real-time disclosure of lobbying

that has actually occurred, as recommended by the former registrar of

lobbyists. This change includes a shift to disclosing individual

meetings that occur, not just the intent to lobby in general.

We also need greater transparency around whose interests lobbyists

are representing and to ensure that either a code of conduct for

lobbyists is established or that the essential elements of a code of

conduct are incorporated into the Lobbyists Registration Act.

These are but a couple of examples of changes that could make a

significant difference for improving lobbying practices in B.C. I trust

they will be considered in the more comprehensive review that is

forthcoming and in the resulting legislation.

With that in mind, I will be voting in favour of this bill as a

much-needed first step.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan. [Applause.]

D. Routley: This is amazing. I’ll just stand and wait for more.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill. I definitely

have an interest in the act, the Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act,

[2:55 p.m.]

I served in opposition as critic for freedom-of-information and

privacy protection, which also, at least at that time, included the

registrar of lobbyists. So I did have a lot of experience with that

world, a world that people aren’t generally very knowledgable about but

are quite aware of, from some quite negative perspectives or

view.

The word “lobby” and the word “lobbyist” both are tainted by

people’s perception that this is just a form of influence peddling. I

would agree that if we weren’t to take the steps that we are now, it

does very much appear that influence is being offered for sale by former

politicians and their senior staff when there are no controls over the

length of time before which they can become lobbyists.

This bill, with the two-year ban, puts all lobbyists essentially

on an equal footing. They cannot benefit from their previous employment

as a minister or a deputy minister or senior staff or an elected person

at any provincial level. This is going to increase transparency and

increase confidence.

The fact is that lobbyists are essential to our process. We need

to hear as much information from as many perspectives as possible.

Lobbyists generally are able to bring information from their clients and

place it in a context that is meaningful for public policy

decision-makers.

Often a group, an agency, a company will want to communicate with

government but don’t have either the skill or insight to be able to

present their case in a meaningful and persuasive way. This is an

essential part of the role of a lobbyist, that they take the

circumstances of their client and attempt to show the government how

their client’s need can match the need or the purpose of government.

This is an important role.

In the United States, I attended some parliamentary conferences in

the past as an MLA. At one, I learned that, unfortunately, in the state

houses, representative houses, the congresspeople in those states

generally are paid very, very little money to sit in those houses of

representation. They rely solely upon lobbyists to provide them all the

information they receive in order to make decisions. This seems

absolutely ludicrous to me.

I felt very fortunate that we are coming from a jurisdiction

where, for one thing, politicians are paid in a way that will allow them

to leave their private life and engage in public service and then return

without great harm; but also that we provide enough research staff that

we do not depend exclusively upon information from lobbyists. This is an

important distinction as well.

The changes that were made several years ago to the Lobbyists

Registration Act were changes that had been demanded for over a decade,

or a decade and a half, in fact. Once they were made, it was pretty much

like closing the barn door once the horses had fled. But in any case,

many changes that should have been made weren’t made. There will, I’m

sure, be changes in the future that will improve the act as

well.

The focus of our government, in this case, is to ensure that

public office holders do not leave office with an advantage over others

Their senior staff are similarly restricted for two years, but this

two-year ban does provide for exemptions.

Of course, there are currently lobbyists who are engaged, who,

under this legislation, would have to withdraw from lobbying for a

certain length of time in order to qualify on that two-year period. They

may very well have to do that, but they can at least apply for an

exemption that would be adjudicated by the registrar of

lobbyists.

The decision then, once made, if an exemption is granted, would be

made public, so more transparency. The reasons and the names of the

people who would be exempted must be made public, and I think that’s a

very important aspect of this as well.

[3:00 p.m.]

It does accommodate for circumstances where, perhaps, a person in

the public interest should be allowed an exemption. I think that’s

foresight, and I’m proud of our government’s bill in that

regard.

One of the things that I found troubling about the previous

circumstance was in a personal way. Representing the Cowichan Valley, I

succeeded former MLA Graham Bruce, who was the B.C. Liberal Minister of

Labour and the Deputy Premier at the time. He was caught up in the

Lobbyists Registration Act for not properly registering because of some

of the exemptions under the act. For instance, if a person is an

employee of a First Nation, they are exempt from the ban. This was the

claim that that person made at the time.

If there is a two-year ban, so much of the difficulty in

determining whether a person is acting with integrity as a lobbyist,

acting in the public interest, would be removed. That’s our goal here.

Our goal here is to ensure that the public policy decisions made by this

chamber are informed from as many sources as possible and made with

independence and balance, without undue influence from people with

inside knowledge. This is a very important aspect of the bill. This is

the bill, and I hope that members opposite will find their way to

support this.

I do remember that I believe the B.C. NDP opposition at the time

of the last amendment act did support the amendment of the Lobbyists

Registration Act. Even though we saw shortcomings in that bill, we saw

that it was an improvement to ensure greater registration and adherence

to the rules.

Currently the fact is that somebody can leave office and negotiate

a contract to represent a company — say, for example, an energy company

when a decision is about to be made on a pipeline or permission to

explore for resources in sensitive areas. A person leaving government

who was in cabinet or was a senior official from those offices would

have a very great head start in being able to secure that kind of work

and influence government decisions.

We’ve seen enough of that. People in this province are tired of

feeling as though government isn’t in fact working for them. They feel

that, in fact, their government has been captured by special interests,

that their government’s decisions are captive to those interests and

that the interests of them, their families and their communities are

secondary to the interests of the people influencing

government.

Of course, one of the tools or mechanisms of influencing the

democratic process is lobbying. By virtue of people in the province

having seen the Wild West of political financing finally be brought

under control…. What they’re used to seeing is people paying exorbitant

sums of money in order to have their views on the table of

decision-makers in a way that is probably inappropriate in the minds of

most British Columbians.

I have yet to meet a single person who has criticized the fact

that this government banned union and corporate donations and limited

personal donations. I feel that I will not be successful in finding a

person who would criticize this bill.

People do have a suspicion and a discomfort with the words “lobby”

and “lobbyists.” That’s unfortunate. As I said earlier, people in the

province have a skepticism — in fact, a cynicism — that is well earned

through a series and a pattern of misbehaviour, a pattern of government

being influenced by its wealthiest donors.

[3:05 p.m.]

People, naturally, suspect every mechanism of delivering influence

to government — rightly so. That is unfortunate for all those diligent

lobbyists who act with the greatest integrity, who have standards and

maintain those, who operate honestly. That is by far the vast majority

of lobbyists, and they, unfortunately, are smeared by this sense and

this cynicism around influence of government.

In fact, what we are doing is helping the lobby industry achieve a

greater status of trust with British Columbians. Everything we do to

make lobbying more transparent and more easily accessible to people

makes their industry better, makes us better in this House, because the

information we’re receiving, we can be confident, isn’t tainted by some

sort of undue influence. I think that’s a landscape change for British

Columbian politics.

I think that this bill in combination with the elections financing

legislation that has been introduced to this House and debated are the

two most important things our new government has done so far. It’s the

foundation of everything else that follows. You must have integrity in

government, and you must have the trust of the people. This House

operates on the notion, the concept, the principle of

confidence.

Every government that sits in this House must win confidence votes

and pass budgets in order to have legitimacy, like this government. But

the unfortunate part of all of this is that that trust…. In order for

our work here to be meaningful in the lives of British Columbians, there

must be a degree of trust. All legislation asks citizens to subject

themselves to rules that we collectively make on their behalf. People do

not respect a process that they feel is tainted or in some way polluted

by something like the toxic effects of big money in politics in British

Columbia. We’re changing that, and I’m proud of that.

I’m proud to stand as a member of the House…. That cynicism that

people have developed over the years has been, as I said, well earned

through the patterns of behaviour of the various governments that have

sat in this House in the last 16 years. But you know, I….

Interjection.

D. Routley: Pardon me?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

D. Routley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky criticizes a letter that

was written by a member of the House to ask the status of the timing of

a decision. And since the members are, in the minds of all British

Columbians, the masters of the type of influence peddling, the type of

public policy for sale, it’s only appropriate that I should be hearing

criticism from them. We’ve heard nothing but hypocrisy from the official

opposition, who, only in July, supported all of the pieces of the B.C.

NDP platform and plan for governance in their clone speech, and all

supported that.

Now that they’re sitting in opposition, they can reverse their

coat, wear a different colour and expect that people will be convinced

by that, fooled by that. I wish I could say that it isn’t so, but

unfortunately, that’s the world that we live in. We live in a British

Columbia where people’s confidence in the public process has been

impaired, has been damaged, has been rended by the behaviour of a

government, that side of the House, that sat in government for 16 years

and allowed this terrible circumstance to develop.

These issues of improper influence of government don’t arise by

themselves. It’s not as though we in opposition somehow made up a story

that the B.C. Liberals were being influenced by big money and thereby

undermining people’s confidence in the very upstanding profession of

lobbying. So the effect of the behaviour of the previous government, and

the effect of so many examples of influence….

[3:10 p.m.]

I’ll give you just one. A Burke Mountain property valued in

appraisal at $5.6 million was sold to a B.C. Liberal insider who had

donated almost $100,000 — sold for $150,000.

Now, when people look at that, what conclusion, Mr. Speaker, do

you think they draw? I think they rightly draw the conclusion that there

has been influence exercised in a way that doesn’t benefit them. That’s

their property that was sold. That’s their property that was given away

by the government.

I’m quite sure that every British Columbian will be happy to see

that not only are we banning union and corporate donations, limiting

personal donations, but we’re also taking the step to ensure that the

lobbyists in this province operate in a way that they can hold their

heads high. They can operate in a way that they can be proud to say:

“I’m a lobbyist in British Columbia. That means I communicate with

government on behalf of people who need to have their issues understood

by government.” That’s a very lofty thing.

Unfortunately, that important work — the reputations, the

impression of the entire industry — has been polluted by the same kind

of toxin that has polluted this public process here, and that’s the

influx of big money.

What is the phrase that people…? Even if people don’t understand

the issue right before them…. Often you’ll talk to people about a public

policy issue, and they’re not necessarily very well informed. But they

will always say this: “Follow the money.” They’ll always say: “Follow

the money, and that will lead us to the truth.”

In B.C., when you follow the money, it leads you to a truth. It

leads you to a conclusion. It leads you to the conclusion that what this

House represents — the uplifting of the public interest, the expression

of the views of British Columbians to their government, the

participation of British Columbians in decision-making in their own

province, the faith of British Columbians in that decision-making, their

willingness to subject themselves to regulation and law made in this

House, all of that — has been impacted by this former government that

has allowed this situation to generate to a point where it’s so out of

control that people have absolutely just given up.

Then we’re all smeared by that same brush. We’re all tainted by

that same stain. I think it’s, absolutely, not just unfortunate but

tragic. This House, as I said, stands on a principle of confidence.

Governments stand on a principle of confidence. Law is enforced, but it

is confidence in the law that persuades people to observe it.

When the B.C. Liberals, over these many years, have so desperately

undermined people’s confidence in that principle, then they might be

forgiven — and I certainly forgive them — for adopting a very cynical

attitude. Cynicism itself is the next strongest toxin to politics in

this province — money and cynicism. Money has distorted politics, and

cynicism has distorted people’s ability to participate and engage in

their province.

We aim to change that. Our government is going to change that. We

are changing it. We’ve changed that Wild West landscape of political

donations out of control. That’s changed. We’re changing the Lobbyists

Registration Act to ensure that people feel that decisions made in this

House are not unduly influenced.

These are very optimistic changes for British Columbians. These

are the kinds of changes that give us all confidence. It’s a funny word,

that, isn’t it — “confidence”? It’s a notion. Describe it. It’s

difficult to describe, but everybody knows it. Everybody knows what it

means. It’s also something, like trust, that is difficult to build, that

has to be built on consistency, and that is so terrifyingly easy to

evaporate or lose. Once lost, it is that much more difficult to bring

back.

[3:15 p.m.]

Okay. I’ve had my say on this bill. I hope that the House will

support it. I think that it contributes greatly to transparency and

integrity in the public process in British Columbia. Having said that, I

will end my remarks.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney General to conclude the

debate.

Hon. D. Eby: I just wanted to say that I appreciate very much all of the

perspectives that I’ve heard in the Legislature, and I move second

reading of Bill 8.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to

be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 8, Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2017, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Eby: In this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill 9.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 9 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(MINOR CORRECTIONS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 9; R. Chouhan

in the chair.

The committee met at 3:18 p.m.

section 1.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m joined here by Sherie Verhulst. She’s legislative counsel with

the legal services branch.

On Bill 9, the Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections)

Amendment Act, Committee of the Whole.

I welcome questions from members.

A. Weaver: I got confused. I looked at a couple of these. My second reading

speech was a little tongue in cheek. I do recognize the importance of

these changes, but in

section 1, when I tried to follow it through, it

looked like, ultimately….

When I followed through to the Farm Practices Protection (Right to

Farm) Act, this ended up, in the end, referring to a

section that was

repealed. I was confused as to…. I may be wrong, but we’re changing

“purposes” to “purpose,” and then we follow through with references to

sections. In the end, we refer to a

section that was repealed. Was I

incorrect in that regard? Could some clarification be given?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: This is one of these moments when you’re very glad that you have

staff. This is a complicated one. I’ll run through it slowly and,

hopefully, not misspeak.

The Farm Practices (Right to Farm) Act included regulatory

authority under

section 10(3) which gave the authority for the board to

engage or to retain specialists and consultants in accordance with

regulations made under

section 12(2)(d).

Section 12(2)(

d) referred to

the fact that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can make regulations

“for the purpose” of

section 10(3), not the purposes, of

section 10(3).

There was an attempt, in December of 2015, to amend this.

The member is right.

Section 10 was repealed, and there was an

attempt to repeal

section 12(2)(d), but the attempt to repeal it failed

because it said it struck out “for the purposes of

section 10 (3)…”, but

the actual

section reads “for the purpose of

section 10 (3)….” So the

attempted amendment is inoperative. It can’t strike out the text, as it

tried to do, because it referred to the plural when, in fact, it should

have referred to the singular.

This correction today will actually make the 2015 amendment

effective. By making it singular, then the attempted amendment becomes

operative, and the whole

section is struck — and the member will be able

to sleep at night.

A. Weaver: I do thank the minister for that, because I will now sleep well at

night. I would like to say that this is why we have such exceptional

legislative drafters here in the province of British Columbia. You need

to have multiple degrees in something to be able to have found that

track. I do thank the member for the clarification. I look forward to a

good night’s sleep tonight.

Sections 1 through 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

A. Weaver: This is one of these ones…. I mean, I don’t want to belabour this.

But when I looked up in the dictionary, “inpatient” and “in-patient,” I

find the same definition. So I’m wondering why we’re changing

“inpatient” to “in-patient” — other than the potential stress that is

caused by the fact that this is in the Forensic Psychiatry

Act.

I couldn’t resist that, sorry.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that legislative counsel and legislative drafters in

British Columbia use the Canadian Oxford Dictionary as the

standard for legislative drafting. I’m referring to the paperback

version. It looks like the 2004 reissue. In that, at page 510,

“inpatient” is indeed “in-patient.” So to comply with the standard

that’s used by the drafters of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary ,

“inpatient” — one word — has been proposed to be changed to

“in-patient.”

A. Weaver: I do appreciate that. I use the Merriam-Webster

Dictionary , and I admit that in the Merriam-Webster

Dictionary , it doesn’t have the dash. But I defer to the wisdom

Dictionary , as is appropriate here in British

Columbia.

With that, I thank the minister. I have no further questions, on

any of these sections, to the end of the bill.

Sections 15 through 64 inclusive approved.

Schedules 1 through 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:25 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Hon. D. Eby: In this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill 5, the

Constitution Amendment Act, 2017.

Pardon me, Mr. Speaker. I've jumped the gun. I’ll take my seat

until you give me the high sign.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 9 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(MINOR CORRECTIONS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Bill 9, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act,

2017, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. D. Eby: In this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill 5, the

Constitution Amendment Act, 2017.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — CONSTITUTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 5; R. Chouhan

in the chair.

The committee met at 3:29 p.m.

section 1.

Hon. D. Eby: I would like to begin by introducing Nancy Carter, the executive

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

legislation office, Ministry of Attorney General.

J. Rustad: In lieu of my colleague, who is absent from the chamber, I’ll be

walking through a number of questions around this today. A number of

other colleagues of mine will take the opportunity to enter into the

debate and discussion. I’m not sure if the Green member has some

questions as well, but we’ll work that out so we can make sure we can

fit things in accordingly.

[3:30 p.m.]

As we walk through this…. I mean, it’s pretty straightforward in

terms of the Constitution Amendment Act, in terms of the intent of what

is being done in the act.

I might start with a question on

section 1. Are there any other

jurisdictions in Canada with a definition of two members to be a

political party?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’ve got some great trivia for the member. It’s very interesting

Canadiana.

Two or more members. I can advise that Saskatchewan has two or

more members as a requirement for party status. Nova Scotia also has two

or more members, but you also have to, as a political party, have had

candidates running for three-quarters of the seats in the House or more,

and the party must receive at least 10 percent of the popular

vote.

One or more. The Yukon, one or more members. P.E.I., one or more

members and at least ten candidates nominated or at least 0.35 percent

of the popular vote. There are jurisdictions that require four or more

members — Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and, certainly, the federal

parliament. Notably, Quebec is 12 or more members in order to obtain

party status, or the party received at least 20 percent of the popular

vote.

J. Rustad: In doing this, with the requirements that have been mentioned in

other jurisdictions, did you take any of those thoughts into

consideration when you picked the number of two members in forming an

official party?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that one of the animating principles

behind this was, in fact, British Columbia’s history. There was a period

in time when British Columbia had just two members of the New Democratic

Party in the House, and the party did not receive official party status.

That was certainly recognized by many people at the time to be an issue

within our system that needed to be addressed.

I can see, by the fact that there are other jurisdictions that

have pursued not just two or more members but actually one or more

members in smaller provinces, this is something that…. It’s certainly

not a direction that we’re looking to go — to one — but two makes sense

for British Columbia.

J. Rustad: I do recall that time. Although I wasn’t elected at that

particular time when that happened, in 2001 to 2005, I do certainly

recall that time.

There were other circumstances, of course, in the large portion of

the popular vote that came in as part of that. It was the circumstances

of the day, when the government was elected out of office for various

reasons. But that isn’t necessarily the reason that we’re here to talk

about, so I won’t go into details with regards to that.

I am curious, though, in terms of that, because in a situation

where you might have two independents elected — may not be affiliated at

all, may have 1 percent or less of the vote — that could end up being

considered a party. I’m just wondering whether those circumstances,

those types of things, were considered when the minister put together

this particular

section of the bill.

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that we certainly did turn our minds to

the possibility that two members may come together and form a party in

the Legislature in order to better express their views, and we welcomed

that kind of cooperation.

J. Rustad: I want to come back to that question a little bit, but some other

things are on my mind, in particular with regards to this

section.

What exactly are the privileges that are available to an official

party that aren’t available to private members?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: One of the things this does is guarantee representation for the

party on what we call LAMC, which is the Legislative Assembly Management

Committee. This is the committee that manages the business of the

Legislature. It’s an important committee that we feel all parties should

be able to participate in. It provides additional speaking time in the

Legislative Assembly. There is also entitlement to increased

remuneration for certain positions, such as the leader of the party, as

provided in the Members Remunerations and Pensions Act.

J. Rustad: I thank the minister for the answer. My understanding of LAMC is

that its current composition, I believe, is two members from the

government, two members of the official opposition and the Speaker. I

believe that makes the composition. In a scenario like we would have now

with a third party in this Legislature, how would that change that

composition of LAMC?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that I’m looking at the Legislative

Assembly Management Committee Act. In it,

section 2 sets out the

composition of LAMC. I’ll just use that as shorthand. It includes the

Speaker, the minister, the Government House Leader, the chair of the

government caucus, the Opposition House Leader, the chair of the

official opposition caucus and then, to the member’s question, one

member appointed from each additional party by the members of that

party.

He has hit on a point that we are going to come to later in the

bill, it is my hope, which is that there is a consequential amendment to

this act — the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act — to amend

“additional party” to mean “a political party with two or more members

in the Legislative Assembly.” Currently it’s defined as “four or more

members in the Legislative Assembly.” We’ll be coming to that later on.

But just in practice, that means one member from each additional party

that would qualify under the amendment.

J. Rustad: Sorry. Just to make sure I’ve heard that right, it would have the

Government House Leader and…. Sorry, I can’t remember the composition.

But the two from the official opposition and any other party, whether

it’s part of government or opposition in any sort of agreements, then

would have one representative and not the other. Is that

correct?

Hon. D. Eby: The composition under the LAMC Act right now is the Speaker, the

minister responsible — I take it it’s the minister responsible — the

Government House Leader and the chair of government caucus. Those are

the two the member was talking about. The Opposition House Leader and

the chair of the official opposition caucus are the two opposition

members the member was referring to, and then one member appointed from

each additional party. So if, let’s say, there was a Green Party caucus,

a Conservative Party caucus and a Libertarian Party caucus, that could

be as many as three additional members on the committee joining, if they

had two MLAs each elected, under the amendments as proposed.

J. Rustad: We’ll get to

section 7, so I apologize for mixing these two

components together. What other…? Sorry, the minister would like

to….

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for giving me a second, because I did miss a

really key provision, which is letter (h), after (g). For each

additional member that you add from an additional party, there is one

additional government member from the government caucus appointed by the

Government House Leader.

It’s not impossible to imagine that you would have a sufficient

number of additional parties in the Legislature that they would form a

majority on the committee. This provision is intended to ensure that the

governing party has a majority on the committee. That’s under the LAMC

Act. That’s not an amendment. That’s just as the act stands right

now.

[3:40 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for that. It poses some additional

questions that will come up under

section 7, but thank you.

So what other benefits? We talked about opportunities to speak in

the Legislature. Exactly, how would that work? What’s affected by

official party status, in terms of that? So if we had one additional

party, or perhaps three additional parties, in this Legislature, how

does that change things in terms of the standard orders of the

day?

Hon. D. Eby: Members of recognized political parties are allotted more time

under the standing orders to speak, which, of course, can be amended by

the members of this place. But the current standing orders are to

address in reply and amendments, leaders of recognized parties are given

two hours to speak. Other members are only given 30 minutes to

speak.

For budget debate and amendments, leaders of recognized parties

are given two hours. Other members are only given 30 minutes.

Public bills in the hands of private members. These are private

members’ bills. Leaders of recognized parties are given two hours to

speak to this. Other members, 30 minutes.

And then all other proceedings in the House not otherwise

specifically provided for. Leaders of recognized parties are given two

hours, and any other members are given 30 minutes.

With respect to the Committee of Supply, leaders of recognized

parties are given one opening statement up to 30 minutes, and

thereafter, 15 minutes.

Whereas other members are only given 15

minutes.

So each additional party will have one member who is appointed the

leader, who will have this additional period of time to

speak.

J. Rustad: Thank you for that. I believe that those rules will be in place.

Can there be a designated speaker, rather than the leader, which is

often used on bills, I believe? Just curious as to whether or not that

applies.

Hon. D. Eby: This bill that is put forward makes no amendments to the standing

orders, so any rules around designated speakers would continue to apply

as they do today.

J. Rustad: For those watching at home, we often use acronyms here. LAMC is

the Legislative Assembly Management Committee, which manages the

structure of how everything goes within the Legislature. Just to make

sure, in case everyone is wondering “what’s LAMC?” Some members may not

even know the answer to that — some of our new members.

Moving on in terms of that. Other than the additional speaking

roles, how do the additional parties change what happens in question

period? I understand that’s not directly as part of this bill, but by

changing this, obviously, it will change how that action happens within

this Legislature.

Hon. D. Eby: Currently, question period is arranged within and among the

non-governing parties, so they allocate time among themselves. To the

best of our knowledge, there is no standing order in relation to

question period.

J. Rustad: Maybe I can ask somebody else — one of your staff — about that,

because my understanding…. What I’ve been told or what I’ve heard, which

is what I’m trying to confirm, is that official parties are given a

question each question period as opposed to what’s currently happening

right now, which is, I think, there’s one a week or something like that,

in terms of the questions as a percentage of the number of people

associated with question period.

Given that there are typically six or seven people that have an

opportunity to get up in question period, if there were to be four or

five different opposition parties…. Obviously, one party may have

three-quarters of the seats in opposition, yet the time wouldn’t

necessarily be divided equally. Is that something that the minister has

turned his mind to, in terms of the potential designation of official

party status?

Hon. D. Eby: Question period time is, as I understand it, allocated by the

standing orders. How the opposition parties or the other parties use

that time has, to the best of our understanding, been negotiated among

those parties on whatever basis that they see fit.

[3:45 p.m.]

We will have a look at that. If the information that comes back

contradicts that or there is some other formal rule that applies to

question period, certainly, we’ll advise the member. But as we

understand it, this is something that the Opposition House Leader

negotiates with the leaders of the other parties who are not in

government to determine how to allocate question period time.

J. Rustad: Regarding other potential changes that may come by achieving

official party status, it’s my understanding that each member, as an

independent, receives a certain amount of resources for the management

of their duties as an officially elected member within this

Legislature.

When you become part of a party, those resources change. Could

you, perhaps, clarify what the level of resources are for individual

members versus the level of resources available to members as part of a

collective, as part of a party?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question. I’m reading from the

Legislative Assembly of B.C. Policy Manual . This is policy

7520, Caucus Funding. It’s a Legislative Assembly Management Committee,

LAMC policy, that was approved December 1, 2016. I’m happy to track down

a copy for the member.

It’s technical in its wording about how it allocates the funding

the member is talking about, which is the funding for staff and capital

expenses for a party, a group that is recognized as a political party in

the Legislature. The key provision is 1.03, and there’s a calculation

that says: “Caucus operating budgets are calculated as shown below.

Where specific LAMC decisions have been documented….” I’ll skip over

that.

“The caucus receives funding equal to the salary and benefits of a

research officer N21, step 5, for each non-executive member of the

caucus; plus, the caucus receives funding equal to 50 percent of the

salary and benefits of a research officer N21, step 5, for each

executive member of the caucus; plus, the caucus receives funding of

$4,000 for each non-executive member of the caucus and $2,000 for each

executive member; plus, the caucus receives additional funding of $5,000

for each member of the caucus. The Speaker is not part of the caucus and

does not participate in the…funding formula.”

“Independent members,” by contrast, “receive double the operating

budget allocated to a caucus non-executive member.”

It’s all a lot of technical talk, but the bottom line, in terms of

the financial impact for a three-member caucus, as the Green caucus is,

is actually that their operating budget and capital budget will be

reduced by approximately $25,000, under these calculations, by becoming

an official party. Financially, from an operational and capital budget

perspective, they’re doing better off as three independents as opposed

to a political party.

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for his answer.

[3:50 p.m.]

It is very technical. It’s one of those things that, for me, I

just wanted some clarity and also to have on the record what those

differences are. There is a change, obviously, in terms of potential

resources and resources that we all use as private members, as members

of this Legislature, to be able to carry on with the business of the

people and represent, obviously, our ridings and our parties.

To that end, the reduction that the minister has mentioned that

will come…. Has the minister, through his relationship with the Green

Party members — or the independent Green Party members, as they are

currently called — discussed this particular issue and those reductions

of services?

Hon. D. Eby: I have not had any discussions with the Greens about this. Any

discussion likely would take place in the LAMC committee in terms of the

allocation, if there was concern about that. That’s where that

discussion would be taking place.

J. Rustad: Thank you for that, and you’re right.

I actually apologize. I shouldn’t have asked the minister directly

whether he would have had those discussions. But I guess the question is

more: has the secretariat had these discussions between the two

organizations with regards to the change of political party

status?

Hon. D. Eby: I can’t tell the member. I don’t know — I’m not a member of the

secretariat in terms of sitting in these meetings — what has been

discussed. But I can certainly advise the member that the Green Party

was aware that we brought forward a bill that would impact their party.

They, I am sure, understand that if they wish to address this issue of

the fact that they’re losing $25,000 in operating funding, the proper

place to bring that concern is to LAMC, if they want to have that

addressed.

There has been considerable discussion of this in the media. The

fact that this bill proposes changes that will, in effect, if the three

members wish so, they could be recognized as a political

party….

To anticipate one of the member’s questions, there is a change, as

well, for the compensation for members of a political party versus

independent members that are sitting as a group of three members, for

example, or group of two members. If you come together as a political

party, it creates the possibility of creating positions that receive

additional compensation in the form of salary.

Those specific positions are Leader of the Third Party or

additional party, which is 25 percent salary increase; Third Party House

Leader, which is 10 percent salary increase, Third Party Whip…. Of

course, the Green Party would have no such office. Third Party Whip, if

they did, would be a 10 percent increase. And Third Party caucus chair

would be a 10 percent increase.

J. Rustad: I just need some clarity around what you said, associated with the

three-member party. I believe it was the caucus Whip position that they

wouldn’t have. I’m just curious as to why that position wouldn’t

necessarily exist in the Green Party structure.

Hon. D. Eby: This will teach me to make jokes. The Green Party has often

reminded the NDP that they do not whip members in terms of caucus votes.

It’s an ongoing discussion, a policy difference between the parties —

and certainly, between them and the B.C. Liberal Party as well. So I

take the member’s lesson for making jokes.

J. Rustad: I’m aware of the situation. I just I couldn’t resist asking the

question, and I apologize to the House for taking some time to discuss

the nuances of the political differences between various

parties.

[3:55 p.m.]

I guess the other question…. In recognizing that there are four

positions that are paid positions that have salary remuneration

increases associated with a four-member party, which is what the

legislation was originally set up to do in the recognition of those four

positions…. I believe that was one of the rationales as to why four

members was the threshold for creating a political party.

I guess the question is: if a party decided — a three-member party

or, in this particular case with this legislation, a two-member party —

that a member should hold more than one of those executive positions,

what would the impact be on their remuneration associated with

that?

Hon. D. Eby: Any MLAs that hold more than one position under the LAMC rules get

the compensation for the best-paid position that they hold. If you’re a

committee Chair, for example, as well as a caucus Whip, or if you’re

leader of a party as well as having some other position, you only get

the compensation that is the highest level of the two or more positions

that you may hold. You don’t get to stack them up together in additional

salary.

J. Rustad: Thanks for that explanation. It’s curious, though, in terms of the

rules, I suppose. You know, this Legislature has obviously operated for

a very long period of time now and is based on the Westminster

parliamentary system which has operated for some 400 years, plus or

minus, which has all these rules and components in place. When our

Legislature was set up, it anticipated these types of things. As the

member has said, it’s different in other jurisdictions. Other

jurisdictions have taken things differently.

I am curious, given that there is a three-member caucus of the

Green Party, why there would be the move to two members. I recognize the

issue in 2001 and the circumstances associated with that, but I am

curious as to why that threshold was set up in the current situation

that we have within the Legislature.

Hon. D. Eby: To the member, I can advise that it’s the position of this

government that parliament works best when parties are able to work

together and participate in the legislative process, whether it’s LAMC

or the debates or other processes. The system that was set up is one

that favours recognized parties, so we set the threshold at two,

recognizing that there is a history in this place of having two members

in a group that — it’s this government’s position — should have been

recognized as a party.

Obviously, other provinces have found themselves in similar

situations, because they have similar policies in place. One of the

interesting things about the parliamentary systems in the Commonwealth

is some of the really remarkable differences between different

jurisdictions that have evolved because of situations that each

parliament has faced.

I’m sure Madame Chair, as a Speaker that has participated in many

Commonwealth discussions about differences between jurisdictions, would

be a great witness on the distinctions and the differences and the

evolutions between different parliaments. And the Mother Parliament, for

lack of a better word, in the U.K. looks very different in some

situations than our own parliament, although obviously we come from that

tradition.

This is another example. We’ve got a proposal here in front of the

House for two or more members, out of a recognition of both the history

in this parliament and also the belief of this government that this

place will work better if more parties are recognized that wish to be

and that they shouldn’t be eliminated by the fact that they haven’t

elected four members.

J. Rustad: So outside of the direct operations, I guess, that we’ve talked

about…. We touched on, you know, the speaking times within the

Legislature. We touched on question period and the various components

associated with that, LAMC — sorry for using the acronyms — as well as,

of course, the positions and remuneration that would be created through

this, the changes in the budget for them.

When it comes to parliamentary committees of various kinds, does a

recognized party receive any additional benefits in terms of membership

or, say, how parliamentary committees are structured and the operations

of those committees?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: We’re not aware of any such additional changes that would result

from recognition of party status.

J. Rustad: The current situation, the current composition, of Committee A

consists of an even number of government and opposition members — I

believe it does — in addition to one of the independent Green members,

as well as the Chair. Because that is what has been decided here, will

that become the official practice of operations of Committee A, which is

the committee that, obviously, handles estimates and other things that

are referred to it?

Hon. D. Eby: The member has asked a good question. We’re not aware of any

standing orders that will be affected by this change in relation to

committees or committee makeup. I think he raises a point that if this

is an informal practice…. In parliamentary systems, informal practices

rapidly become parliamentary conventions and then sort of accumulate

additional force in that regard. That is the only way that we’re aware

of in which this change could potentially impact committee makeup — that

maybe there was some sort of tradition established. We will have a look

with respect to standing orders, and if we find anything different,

we’ll advise the member.

J. Rustad: It’s funny when you think about the traditions we have in the

Legislature. We introduced a new tradition with the speaking stick being

added into it, which is one of those rare changes to the traditions that

are here. I often chuckle when I have tourists come in to talk. People

say: “Why does government sit on this side and opposition on that side?

Why is it not different?” In different legislatures, it is different

because of parliamentary practices that have built over time.

I always have to chuckle a little bit because it goes back to a

time before there was central heating, and government would take the

side with the heat source — I can’t quite understand why — leaving the

opposition, of course, out on the other side. Hence, the saying that the

opposition is out in the cold, while the heat is on the government.

These kinds of traditions, of course, are all a bit of fun.

In seriousness, changing the composition and the rules will

potentially change how this Legislature operates, which is why I ask

these questions in terms of: what are the intended consequences? What

are the unintended consequences that we may want to recognize as part of

changing the structure of political parties?

I may have a few more questions that may come from that, but at

this time, I want to cede the floor to my colleague from Kelowna–Lake

Country.

N. Letnick: I would like to ask the minister a few questions, if I may.

Actually, the member for Nechako Lakes has asked excellent questions,

but I’d like to drill down a little bit more, if I can. Then, clearly,

on the orders of the day, there are two amendments that I’m proposing.

The minister probably is aware of that. I will make the motion on the

first one after I get through asking a few questions, if I

may.

As the member for Nechako Lakes canvassed, official party status

triggers certain well-defined entitlements, some of which I believe the

minister has articulated. In particular, entitlements that an official

opposition party would get that independents would not. One is having a

leader. Another one is having a Whip, potentially a Deputy Whip, a House

Leader and a caucus chair.

[4:05 p.m.]

Could the minister please comment as to why he believes or why the

government believes that for a caucus of potentially two people, all

these positions should be available?

Hon. D. Eby: The four positions, I think, contemplate a significantly larger

caucus. It is up to whichever political party that receives party status

which of these positions they wish to bestow on each other. But it’s

important to recognize, from the public perspective, that you could have

a two-member caucus and everybody has got two titles each, but the

salary is capped. You can’t go beyond the salary of the best-compensated

position.

The idea of these positions is that in a caucus, there are

additional responsibilities, obviously, for different members of caucus,

and it’s an attempt on the part of the Legislative Assembly Management

Committee to recognize those different responsibilities. If, in light of

the amendments in this bill, the committee decides to revisit how it

does these kinds of positions, they’re certainly entitled to do those

kinds of things. But I think, as the member rightly notes, there are

potential additional consequences that flow on these positions — are

recognized in different places in our legislative rules.

The idea here was simply to right what the government believed was

a wrong, which is that a two-member caucus would not be recognized as a

political party.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for the answer. Let’s drill deeper into

this one, then. If we assume we’re dealing with a caucus of two Members

of the Legislative Assembly, I would imagine one would be the leader. It

would be not inconceivable to assume that one of them would be the

leader. Since whipping two people probably would be not necessary, then

I would assume that the other person would either be the House Leader or

the caucus chair. Now, given that the leader is probably going to take

the role of chair, caucus chair of two people, that really leaves that

party of two to be a leader and the House Leader.

But then you get into the problem where: why would you have

someone else be the House Leader negotiating what goes on in this place

other than the leader? So it gets very contrived.

My question to the minister. I know he said that he’s trying to

address a problem that was apparent back in 2001. Why not wait until we

have a caucus of two in this place, to actually deal with the particular

situation, and not limit it to a caucus of three?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for his question. The reason not to wait for a

caucus of two is that that actually happened, and the caucus of two was

not recognized as a political party. It’s something that should have

happened, and it didn’t happen — in the opinion of the

government.

I take the member’s point that the LAMC rules and the LAMC

policies — these are Legislative Assembly Management Committee policies

— were written for what will, hopefully, soon be the old Constitution

Act, in terms of the number of people in a political party, which was

four. Hopefully, in the new act, when we’re done this business of this

bill, it will be two members.

If the Legislative Assembly Management Committee sees fit, they

may wish to address exactly the issue the member is talking about. That

is not something that’s in the bill in front of us here today. This is

an issue for LAMC to address: “Well, it doesn’t make sense to have a

two-member caucus with a Whip and whatever.” All the more power to LAMC

to consider these kinds of policy changes that flow from this bill. But

not a good reason, with respect, hon. Chair, to not do this change and

not make this change.

N. Letnick: Again, thank you to the minister for the answer. I would also

propose that the situation back in the early 2000s was completely

different than the situation today, where you had two basic parties, one

with all but two seats. And whether or not I would agree with what

happened in that instance…. I wasn’t there, so I’m not going to make any

comment on it.

[4:10 p.m.]

However, the situation today is completely different, where not

only do we have, potentially, three parties — and I hope very soon to

have a third party and a third-party leader in this House — but

potentially, throughout this province, many other opportunities for

slicing and dicing that the government of the day is proposing to

promote. Then you’ll have three or four or five different parties of two

in this Legislature, which is a completely different situation than 70 —

whatever the number was — and two.

Given that the minister has identified that not all contingencies

have been accounted for in the proposed legislation, and then part of

this happens at LAMC — which is not part of the proposed amendments, the

consequential amendments in this bill, because the bill has no control

over LAMC, apparently — could the minister identify if the government

has any intention, after the passage of this bill, to propose changes,

either in the legislation or at LAMC, that would provide increased

funding in any way or