Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, May 28, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 143

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

Message of appreciation

D. Davies

Introductions by Members

Statements

Message of appreciation

Hon. L. Beare

Introductions by Members

Tributes

June Clark

J. Rustad

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M218 — Building (New Housing Access) Amendment Act, 2018

S. Cadieux

L. Reid

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Citizen of the Year Award recipients in Maple Ridge

B. D’Eith

Kelly Mann

M. Stilwell

Alex Sangha

R. Singh

Response to landslide by Seymour Salmonid Society

J. Thornthwaite

N. Simons

Performing Arts B.C. Festival

D. Ashton

Oral Questions

Impact of employer health tax on businesses

A. Wilkinson

Hon. C. James

S. Bond

Malahat highway and alternative transportation on south Vancouver Island

S. Furstenau

Hon. C. Trevena

Impact of employer health tax on businesses

J. Isaacs

Hon. C. James

Impact of employer health tax on non-profit agencies and SUCH sector

T. Redies

Hon. C. James

Impact of tax changes on B.C. Wildlife Park

T. Stone

Hon. C. James

Impact of employer health tax on school districts

D. Davies

Hon. R. Fleming

Reports from Committees

Chief Electoral Officer Appointment Committee, May

J. Brar

D. Clovechok

A. Olsen

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Chief Electoral Officer

J. Brar

Orders of the Day

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, Promoting Healthy Eating and Physical Activity

in K-12: An Independent Audit , May 2018

Office of the Merit Commissioner, annual report, 2017-18

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General

M. Lee

Hon. D. Eby

J. Martin

S. Sullivan

M. Morris

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued)

A. Weaver

Hon. C. James

J. Isaacs

S. Bond

T. Redies

Estimates: Management of public funds and debt

Estimates: Other appropriations

MONDAY, MAY 28, 2018

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Darcy: It gives me great pleasure to welcome some folks who are here today —

I’m not sure exactly where they’re sitting in the gallery — from the John

Volken Academy in Surrey. The John Volken Academy is a long-term addiction

recovery program, based on a therapeutic recovery model. It involves group

and peer counselling, life skills, continuing education, work training, and

so on, with professional guidance. I’m going to have the opportunity to

catch up with them after question period.

I’d like to ask everyone in the House to make the folks from John

Volken Academy very welcome here today.

S. Cadieux: I have a number of guests joining me, in the gallery today, for the

introduction of a bill in a few minutes.

Mark Perry is the vice-president and co-founder of Canadian Retirement

Developments. Gord Porter is the executive president of SAFERhome society.

Brad McCannell is the vice-president of access and inclusion for the Rick

Hansen Foundation. Owen Barclay is president of Accessable Home and Property

Services Ltd. in South Surrey. Muneesh Sharma is the director of government

affairs and communications for the Building Owners and Managers Association

of British Columbia. And Bert Abbott is a longtime friend, former colleague

and the current peer program manager for Spinal Cord Injury B.C.

I would ask that the House make them all welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I, too, would like to welcome the folks from the John Volken Academy,

a long-term therapeutic residential community delivering addiction recovery

and life skills training right here in Surrey, British Columbia. They’ve

expanded since 2008 and now offer 60 new beds for young men and women aged

19 to 32 across the country.

I’d like to welcome their CEO, Steve Whiteside, and the organizer,

Shalina Kajani. I’d like to recognize Chawna Volken, Chris Urry, Samantha

Brown, Russell Sloot, Cody Buffington, Andy Deleo and Chris Szulc. Thank you

very much for coming and joining us here in the Legislature. We all look

forward to meeting you later.

Hon. B. Ralston: Just recently British Columbia won the bid in the Canada digital

supercluster competition. The supercluster holds great potential for solving

the problems of the world, creating economic development and good jobs here

and enhancing the lives of everyone in the province.

Dean Prelazzi is here, representing the supercluster, for a series of

meetings. He’s up in the gallery. Will the House make him

welcome.

T. Redies: I have two guests here today. Without them, literally, I would not be

in the House — my mom and dad, Pam and Leslie Price. Also, visiting from

England, my favourite aunt, Ida Wragg, is all the way from Cornwall,

England. Would you please make them welcome.

R. Kahlon: I have two sets of introductions to make. Firstly, we have the Allied

Golf Association that was here today. We have Trevor Smith, who’s the

president of the Allied Golf Association; Trisha Larsen, who’s the marketing

director; Mike Whalen, who’s a director; Keith Lyall, who’s a director and

the golf course superintendent of Sun Peaks; and Jerry Rousseau, who’s a

director and executive director of the Western Canada Turfgrass

Association.

They hosted all the members of this House for a lunch today. We talked

about the economic activity associated with golf. We talked about the 36,000

charity events that happen at golf courses around the province.

I really want to thank them, welcome them to the House today and also

wish them, I guess a day early, National Golf Day celebrations. On behalf of

the House, please make them welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

I. Paton: I’d like to introduce a constituent today, a very well-known gentleman

in my riding of Delta South — he lives in Tsawwassen — by the name of Dale

Saip. I believe Dale is here today on business for future World Junior

Hockey that’s going to take place down the road in Vancouver and

Victoria.

Dale has eight terms as a Delta school trustee. He’s on the board and

chair for the Vancouver Food Bank. He’s a director of the Delta Police

Foundation. He’s co-chair of the B.C. Sports Hall of Fame. He’s a director

of the Gitxsan Development Corp. He’s a board member for KidSport Delta and

for the Delta Prayer Breakfast. He’s also the vice-president of the

Vancouver Giants — a very busy gentleman.

Please welcome Dale Saip to the House.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peace River North, and a big welcome back.

[Applause.]

Statements

MESSAGE OF APPRECIATION

D. Davies: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do have an introduction to do, but I

also want to take this opportunity to thank everybody in this House for

all the well wishes that I received from everybody, and a number of

people from around the province as well, as I recovered from my

accident. So a big heartfelt thanks to all of you.

Introductions by Members

D. Davies: Also, as an introduction, I’d like to introduce a friend of mine that

I met a number of years ago, Nathan Bauder. Actually, I think he might be

one of the only law firms that is in Fort Nelson. Would the House make

Nathan Bauder feel welcome.

Hon. J. Sims: I would like to introduce today Capt. Michael Marek and the 2290 B.C.

Regiment DCO Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps, visiting from my community of

Surrey-Panorama.

As many of you know, the aims of the Canadian cadet movement are to

develop in youth the attributes of good citizenship and good leadership,

promote physical fitness and stimulate an interest in the sea, land and air

activities of the Canadian Armed Forces. They have a rich history in 2290,

and they hope to improve the lives of all their youth by giving them a sense

of belonging and family, challenging them to reach their limits and teaching

them to remember our history and boldly embrace the future. At 2290 Cadets,

it’s all about fun, challenge and friends.

May I ask the House to welcome them to the precinct.

R. Kahlon: In the House today is Kelly Mann, president and CEO of the B.C. Games

Society. Throughout this province, young people aspire one day to go to the

World Cup or to compete in the Olympics, and there are people, like Kelly,

who make those dreams reality.

Kelly led the B.C. Games Society for 26 years. He was directly

involved at 85 provincial games all across this province. Kelly has

announced that he will be retiring. Many members of this House have met

Kelly over the years and know the good work he does throughout this

province. He will be greatly missed. But I suspect he’ll have more time to

volunteer on games across the province.

I hope this House can join me and join all of us in thanking him for

his service and also in welcoming him back in this House.

J. Brar: I have two sets of introductions. I would like to welcome a good

friend of mine from Surrey, Kultarjit Thiara. He’s a very well-known member

of the local community. Many people in this House know, probably, that he

owns Vantaj. He also has been a good person to give back to the community.

He’s a member and former president of the Newton Rotary Club. With him is

his beautiful wife, Sardip Thiara.

There are three people who are visiting from almost the other side of

the globe. Visiting from India are Injit Singh Johal, Injit Quad Johal and

Gorpeet Singh Johal. They’re all here. I would ask the House to please give

them a warm British Columbia welcome.

M. Hunt: I just want to join with my friend from Surrey-Fleetwood in welcoming

Kultar and his wife here. He has served for many years on the Agricultural

Advisory Committee in Surrey and has just done a great job in serving the

city of Surrey.

[1:45 p.m.]

Also, we’ve had both the minister and the critic introduce the Volken

Academy. I just want to introduce one particular member of that. That, of

course, is Chawna — Volken, by the way. She is the mother to every one of

those young men and women who are there fighting with the demons in their

life and winning and conquering over them. She’s the mother to them all, and

I want to introduce her as the mother of all.

To Chawna Volken.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce James Marshall, former B.C.

Green candidate in Vancouver–West End, who is here visiting the gallery.

He’s writing a book. He’s an animator and artist. He’s been working for 11

years as a technical artist, as well, in Vancouver’s vibrant game and film

industry. Would the House please make him feel very welcome.

Hon. K. Conroy: I have a couple of introductions I’d like to make today. The first one

is…. We all have those people in our offices that keep us organized. I

wouldn’t know what I’d do without my administrative coordinator, Emily

White, who’s here today in the gallery with her good friend Alex

Dauncey-Elwood. Would you please join me in making them welcome.

I also have someone from my constituency, which doesn’t happen very

often. Here in the gallery today is Gordie DeRosa. He’s a former councillor

from the city of Trail, a longtime Trail resident, activist and all kinds of

different things. He’s here today with his daughter Renée and his

granddaughter Neveah.

Neveah is just the most amazing young singer. She belts out the tunes

like I’ve never heard anybody do before. You will see her name. Remember her

name — Neveah — because you will hear this young woman sing somewhere in the

future, somewhere out there. She has just got the most amazing voice. You

can go on line and look up the Columbia River and see the song she and her

grandpa wrote and sang for the Columbia River.

Please join me in making them welcome to Victoria.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture, and a big welcome back to

you as well. [Applause.]

Statements

MESSAGE OF APPRECIATION

Hon. L. Beare: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker.

I have an introduction to make, but I’d first like to start by

thanking all the members of the House, yourself included, for all your

warm wishes over the past six weeks. It was very touching.

I’d like to thank the Minister of Agriculture, who stepped in very

ably and did two estimates and filled my shoes so well. Thank you so

much.

To the member for Maple Ridge–Mission for filling in, in my

community and for attending all the school performances and elementary

school presentations that I couldn’t do. Thank you.

A big thank-you, especially, to the staff at the ministry and my

staff in my office for taking care of everything while I was

gone.

To St. Paul’s Hospital, Dr. Bashir and all the team there, for

taking good care of me over the past six weeks.

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Beare: I would like to recognize some special guests joining us today for

question period. In the House today, we have Tracy Eyssens, Mary Gerges and

George Taylor from Indigenous Tourism B.C. Tracy is the CEO, Mary is a

senior adviser, and George represents Vancouver Island with ITBC.

The latest statistics from Indigenous Tourism B.C. indicate 401

Indigenous tourism businesses, with 7,400 full-time employed jobs,

contributing $705 million, provincial, to our economy in 2016-2017. They are

a great organization. Would the House please join me in congratulating them

on the work that they do in supporting this important sector.

J. Brar: Last but not least, I would like to welcome a friend of mine from

Surrey-Fleetwood, Justin Schmid. Justin is a constituent of Surrey-Fleetwood

and also a good friend. He’s a super supporter of mine. He represents CUPE

as kind of a legislative representative. He does a great job to represent

the workers in British Columbia, so I would like to ask the House to please

make him feel welcome.

Tributes

JUNE CLARK

J. Rustad: On a sad note, I’d like to mention that June Clark, who was known

to many in Vanderhoof, the north and throughout the province, tragically

left this earth on May 18 due to a motor vehicle accident. She will be

deeply missed by many. She was a strong person of faith, which was

evident in everything that she did. Whether it was her church, advanced

education, health, community, politics or so much more, she always found

time to lend a hand.

June’s kind and generous heart touched many lives, and her legacy

of love and goodness will continue to echo through generations to

come.

[1:50 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

L. Reid: I’d like to recognize Vince Miele today. He’s a gentleman who relies

on a wheelchair for mobility, and he’s particularly interested in seeing all

new construction be barrier-free, particularly restaurants.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’d ask the members in the chamber today to help me welcome the

executive of the North Central Local Government Association who are visiting

the Legislature today, meeting with members of cabinet and members of the

official opposition. Gord Klassen is the new president of that organization.

They do great work in the northern 70 percent of the province, which their

area covers.

Would the members please wish them well and help me welcome

them.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M218 — BUILDING

(NEW HOUSING ACCESS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

S. Cadieux presented a bill intituled Building (New Housing Access)

Amendment Act, 2018.

S. Cadieux: I move that the bill intituled Building (New Housing Access)

Amendment Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order

paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

In 2012, almost 14 percent of the Canadian population aged 15

years or older, or 3.8 million individuals, reported having a disability

that limited their daily activities. In B.C., the percentage is slightly

higher at 14.8 percent of our population. In the population over age 65,

the incidence rate climbs to 33 percent. Over 40 percent have severe

disabilities, and 7 percent have disabilities requiring assistive

devices.

If we were to use a study from the U.S., about one-third of

housing is potentially modifiable for a person with a mobility

disability. Less than 5 percent is accessible to individuals with

moderate mobility difficulties, and less than 1 percent of housing is

accessible for wheelchair users. Obviously, this poses a challenge for

people who find themselves living with a disability. It’s also a huge

challenge for aging in place.

As responsible legislators, we have an obligation to step in when

the market has not or cannot meet a societal need. We have had

accessible standards for public spaces for decades, noting as a society

that inclusion and access are fundamental rights and a value to which we

are all committed. Arguably, we’ve done quite well. Inclusion and access

are values we promote and accept. However, we’ve missed a fundamental

need, housing.

While standards are readily available, we have made the use of

those standards and building to them optional. We must commit with

fortitude to delivering inclusive homes that meet a wide range of needs

for those inclusive communities that we regularly champion. Whether for

families with young children, someone returning home after a hospital

stay, a young person with a disability looking to move for employment or

an older person with increasing mobility challenges, providing

tests against which we measure our success.

This legislation would require that all new multi-unit housing

would be required to meet the criteria of adaptable or be SAFER Home

certified or visitable.

May 27 to June 2 is national AccessAbility Week. No better time to

discuss how accessible housing is an important building block for

inclusion and that we need to do it right from the start, not as an

afterthought.

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

Motion approved.

S. Cadieux: I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M218, Building (New Housing Access) Amendment Act, 2018,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M219 — BRITISH COLUMBIA

Act, 2018.

of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be

introduced and now read a first time.

Mr. Speaker, it’s our collective responsibility to ensure that

each British Columbian has an equal opportunity to enjoy a full and

productive life. Persons with disabilities in our province continue to

face a variety of barriers in our built environment that can prevent

them from achieving full and equal participation.

People with physical disabilities make up a large and growing

consumer group, representing 14.8 percent of consumer spending, or $164

billion. By 2013, real spending by this group was anticipated to grow at

three times the pace of the overall population, representing 20 percent

of the total consumer market, or $316 billion annually.

[1:55 p.m.]

Improvements to workplace access would allow Canadians with

disabilities to work more hours, thus increasing our GDP. Almost half of

Canadians with physical disabilities who are currently working believe

they would be able to work more hours if their workplaces were made more

accessible.

well-being of persons with disabilities, who add tremendous value and

make many positive contributions to our communities, workplaces and

economy. This act will put us on a path to an accessible British

Columbia by 2024 by ensuring that all new commercial construction is

accessible.

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

Motion approved.

L. Reid: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CITIZEN OF THE YEAR AWARD

RECIPIENTS IN MAPLE

RIDGE

B. D’Eith: When Ryder Moore was six years old, his mother and…. They were

driving down the Vancouver Eastside, and he saw a man with bare feet. He

told his mother that he wanted to give the man his boots. His mom said

he couldn’t, but he had other ideas. Now he is eight years old, and

Ryder has raised over $10,000 to provide boots for the homeless. Kits

provided by Ryder’s Rainboots include rain boots, socks, gloves, a

poncho and a handwritten letter by Ryder. Every time he gives it out, he

writes his own letter.

The Maple Ridge Community Foundation now awards Citizen of the

Year Awards in three categories: youth under 18, people under 40 and the

Lifetime Achievement Award. Ryder was the first recipient of the

under-18 award and was acknowledged at the May 12, 2018, awards

gala.

The first recipient of the under-40 award went to Teesha Sharma,

in our community, for her volunteer outreach. Teesha has a wealth of

life experience. She commits herself to local homeless youth by

preparing daily meals, administering first aid and providing personal

support. She is on the board of the Golden Ears Transition Initiative

and is a founding member of the Youth Wellness Centre. Teesha also works

with the CEED Centre in Maple Ridge.

Dr. Biju Matthew, a psychiatrist at Ridge Meadows Hospital, was

awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award for his volunteer work at the

Ridge Meadows South Asian Cultural Society, the Ridge Meadows Hospital

Foundation, the Youth Wellness Centre, the nurse practitioner program

and the MRCF 25-40 Campaign. He’s also the author of the best-selling

book Super 30: Changing the World 30 Students at a Time , which

is being made into a feature film.

It’s amazing to be part of a community that produces such

impactful people in a multitude of generations. Ryder Moore, Teesha

Sharma and Dr. Biju Matthew are examples to all of us of the power of

volunteerism and the difference that one person can make in the

world.

KELLY MANN

M. Stilwell: Today it’s my privilege to recognize a friend who has contributed

so much to sport in British Columbia, more than anyone I can think of. I

can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that as an athlete, sometimes you become so

tunnel-focused on your discipline that you forget to thank the people

who make it all possible for you to even have that chance to compete:

the volunteers, the officials, the sport administrators, those who make

it possible.

Having influenced sport policy for decades, provided leadership

and athlete and sport development and helped foster community

investments in sport, Kelly Mann leaves behind a tremendous legacy.

Kelly was the president and CEO of the B.C. Games Society for 19 years,

retiring this summer. I am inspired by all that he has

accomplished.

On top of the B.C. Games, he co-founded KidSport Greater Victoria,

which has provided grants to financially disadvantaged children on south

Vancouver Island to help cover registration costs for sport leagues and

programs, giving kids that chance to be healthy, active and even to

follow their dreams. He has received the Rick Hansen Difference-Maker

Award, the Community Sport Hero Award, the Queen’s diamond jubilee award

and the B.C. Community Achievement Award. Certainly an impressive

resumé.

Part of his lasting legacy, however, will be those he has helped

to inspire and reach greatness. The B.C. Games has served as an

opportunity for countless athletes to hone their skills. For many, the

B.C. Games have been the stepping stone for sport excellence. Longer

than Kelly’s list of awards and accolades is the catalogue of B.C. Games

alumni who went on to become Olympians and Paralympians.

[2:00 p.m.]

This July the Cowichan Valley will host the 2018 B.C. Summer

Games. Over 3,500 athletes, coaches and officials will be there, as will

Kelly Mann, overseeing his final games before hitting the golf greens in

his retirement.

Today he joins us here in the gallery. On behalf of the chamber,

thanks for everything you’ve done, Kelly.

ALEX SANGHA

R. Singh: The Governor General of Canada’s Meritorious Service Medal is

given as recognition to an individual for exceptional deeds that bring

honour to our country and to highlight remarkable achievements that are

accomplished over a limited period of time. Since its inception in 1991,

only 289 civilians have been granted such a distinction.

One of this year’s winners of the Governor General’s medal grew up

near my constituency in Surrey. Alex Sangha, founder of Sher Vancouver,

has recently been announced as a 2018 recipient of the Meritorious

Service Medal for his incredible advocacy group with the South Asian

LGBTQ community.

Alex founded Sher Vancouver to fill the desperate need for

advocacy, education and peer support in the underserviced LGBTQ South

Asian community. He has worked tirelessly for many years building Sher

Vancouver into the multifaceted organization you see today and has

helped so many of our community members find their voice and get the

support they deserve. His contributions to our society are

immeasurable.

I’ll leave you with a quote from Alex on why he does the important

work that he does. “Someone once said a society is judged by how it

treats its most marginalized members. Many of us are different and

unique in some way. We all need to stick together and support each other

and defend ourselves from the forces of ignorance, fear and hatred. Let

us all celebrate the diversity and differences that make up our

communities and country.”

RESPONSE TO LANDSLIDE BY

SEYMOUR SALMONID

SOCIETY

J. Thornthwaite: On December 7, 2014, nature struck North Vancouver, and 80,000

cubic metres of debris slid into the Seymour River, raising water

upstream by ten metres and blocking fish migration. Enter the Seymour

Salmonid Society, led by president Shaun Hollingsworth, who stepped up

to the plate, taking up an insurmountable task.

The first challenge: with the stream blocked, how will salmon make

it upstream to spawn? Well, with the help of 3,000 volunteer hours in

2015, they began a trap-and-truck program to get the salmon upstream,

physically carrying the salmon around the slide. Collectively, over

three years, they’ve taken over 2,500 fish upstream. They’ve also been

monitoring and researching the behaviour and health of the fish over the

years.

Then Shaun came to me and began to assemble a wide range of

stakeholders, including the Squamish Nation, the district of North

Vancouver, Metro Vancouver, DFO and the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation.

While they built a fish fence to help with the trap-and-truck program,

they knew this was unsustainable. They had to clear the slide. That’s

when the plan to break the rocks at the toe of the slide was hatched,

starting in the summer of 2016.

Using both pile drivers and some low-level explosives,

considerable progress has been made over two summers, with more work

commencing this year. Some of the rocks were the size of an average

house. The idea was to break these large rocks into small rocks so that

the salmon could squeeze through them.

Mr. Speaker, the Seymour Salmonid Society has done a tremendous

job. Their work to ensure that salmon make it upstream while at the same

time hatching a plan to make the slide passable is remarkable. It’s our

hope that in a year’s time, we’ll be celebrating the first group of

salmon to make it up on their own. For that, they have the society to

thank.

FOR PERSONS WITH

DISABILITIES

N. Simons: I’m pleased to speak in the House today in celebration of our

province’s first AccessAbility Week. This week has been proclaimed with

workplaces and celebrating the contributions of persons with diverse

abilities across British Columbia.

This week is a time to recognize the efforts of individuals and

organizations that are actively removing barriers to give everyone a

better chance to participate and succeed in their workplaces, their

schools and their communities.

[2:05 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker, 14.8 percent of the people in British Columbia — I

just learned that this afternoon — self-identify as having a disability,

and these numbers will continue to grow as our population ages.

Sometimes inclusion is an afterthought. Whether it’s physical barriers

that limit or prevent access to buildings or shared spaces, like parks

and recreation facilities, or social barriers that prevent full

community participation or access to employment opportunities, we can

and must do better in how we create a more equitable and accessible

province.

Diversity is British Columbia’s strength. By supporting all people

in breaking down barriers for persons living with disabilities, we all

benefit. Our province is committed to building a better British Columbia

for people with disabilities and to upholding and safeguarding the

principles outlined in the United Nations convention on the rights of

persons with disabilities, including equality of opportunity and full

and effective participation and inclusion in society.

As we turn to our constituencies for the summer, I’ll encourage

all members in this House to think about how we can be advocates for

inclusion and access in our communities. We have a responsibility to

ensure that everyone, regardless of ability, has the equal opportunity

to participate in and enjoy everything our beautiful province has to

offer.

PERFORMING ARTS B.C. FESTIVAL

D. Ashton: It’s with great pride today that I rise to tell you about the

Performing Arts B.C. Festival, which will be held on the 29th of this

month until the second of June. It will be its 54th year running, and

I’m excited to say that it is growing every year. Currently there are

approximately 32,000 young musicians, dancers and dramatic artists who

compete and participate annually. The provincials are hosted by a

different regional festival every year and are well anticipated and very

well attended.

Performing Arts B.C. is actually a parent organization of over 33

regional performing arts festivals across the province. In a way, this

creates an arts season in British Columbia, a period of time in which

artists from our province can all come together as a community. Awards

are given across individual festivals for individual groups or group

performances, but the festival also recognizes outstanding contributions

to the event itself. Adjudications are interspersed with classes,

workshops and coaching, which round out the entire week.

The festival is a lot more than just competition. It’s about art

itself and the community. I know that some sitting in this chamber are

artists and have benefited immensely from supportive communities when

they just started to learn, so I’m happy to rise today and announce that

the provincials this year will be hosted right here in beautiful

Victoria. I hope each and every one of us has an opportunity to

attend.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

BUSINESSES

A. Wilkinson: We’ve heard at great length from the Finance Minister about how

only 15 percent of businesses in British Columbia will be affected by

the new government employer health tax, which is nothing more than a

payroll tax. Now the truth is coming out from industry, where the

Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, the Independent Contractors and

Businesses Association, the B.C. Tourism Industry Association, the B.C.

Restaurant and Food Association have come out and said that, in fact, 61

percent of small businesses will be paying this tax.

Now that the picture’s becoming clearer, will the Finance Minister

admit that small businesses are going to be the ones most directly hit

by this tax and that it’ll have a detrimental effect on our

economy?

Hon. C. James: We certainly appreciate the feedback that we received, but I think

it’s important to note that it is 249 businesses who self-selected to

take

part in this survey, so we will continue to use the Ministry of

Finance’s data. That data shows, once again, that 85 percent of small

businesses in British Columbia will not be paying the employers health

tax.

I think it’s also important to note that other provinces that have

moved on a payroll tax…. British Columbia will have the lowest payroll

tax rate across this country when it comes to our payroll

tax.

I think the real question that is in this House is: what would the

member’s choice be? I’m presuming their choice would be to not eliminate

MSP premiums, to keep a regressive tax and to make life more difficult

for British Columbians.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, the Minister of Finance has asserted once again that she’d

rather just stay out of touch with the business community. Now she’s

ignoring a survey from four major organizations in the

province.

[2:10 p.m.]

She’s launched a direct attack on small business with the payroll

tax. Sixty-one percent of the reporting businesses say they’ll have to

pay it, and of those, those with less than 50 employees will pay an

average of $40,000 and will feel obliged to lay off staff. This is what

the Finance Minister has accomplished while she’s busy counting inactive

holding companies, shelf companies — all these things with no employees

— and saying, “Don’t worry; they won’t pay any,” because they don’t have

any employees.

Will the Finance Minister finally admit that her payroll tax is

detrimental to small business?

Hon. C. James: Once again, I think the member is showing that he is not

interested in supporting British Columbians with affordability, because

getting rid of MSP premiums will save $900 for individuals and $1,800

for families. I’m very proud of the balanced approach we’ve

taken.

Half a billion dollars in support for businesses since our

September budget update. We’re eliminating MSP. We’re eliminating PST on

electricity, which supports businesses. We lowered the small business

tax rate, which supports businesses. We are investing in the two areas

that, in fact, the Vancouver Board of Trade, which put the survey

together, said were two of their top priorities: child care and housing.

Historic investments to support people.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: We only have to actually go and visit small businesses, which the

Finance Minister should give a try at. Organizations like Sonic

Enclosures in the Tilbury Industrial Park, in Delta. Organizations like

Evergreen Herbs in Surrey…

Interjections.

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

A. Wilkinson: …run by Ron Brar.

These are businesses that say the tax is hitting them right where

they live. They’re going to have to reduce staff. They’re shrinking

their companies because of the payroll tax — period.

When is the Finance Minister going to finally accept that she’s

actually doubling up the taxes next year and that it’s going to be

detrimental to small business? When will she figure this out?

Hon. C. James: Only the other side would say that half a billion dollars in

support for businesses isn’t supporting businesses. That’s

extraordinary.

The member talks about employment. We have the lowest unemployment

rate in the country — 5 percent in April here in British Columbia.

Employment in April rose by 2,900 jobs — in April alone — showing an

increase in employment. We are seeing wages increase. We see retail

sales up. We continue to see our economy booming. We’ve had rating

agencies confirm that. We have a great, growing economy in British

Columbia, including strong businesses, including strong communities, and

our balanced approach is going to continue.

S. Bond: Perhaps the Finance Minister would like to recall her comments

when she tabled the budget — so very complimentary of the financial

circumstances she inherited in British Columbia, thanks to the hard work

of people on this side of the House.

The Finance Minister can stand in this House every day and

continue to repeat….

Interjections.

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

S. Bond: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Finance Minister continues to stand in this House and repeat

her claims about MSP, but she’s becoming part of a very small group of

people who believe that. Let’s be clear. The MSP premiums are being

replaced by the surprise employer health tax.

For more than three months, this Finance Minister has deflected

and dismissed the concerns of businesses in British Columbia. They’ve

all been saying the same thing. The surprise NDP employers health tax

will impact their livelihoods, and it will lead to job

losses.

We now have a report that provides some numbers. Twenty-eight

percent of member businesses expect to reduce employee benefits, and 30

percent of small business members expect to lay off staff. The report

lays out the facts for the minister. It’s clear the new NDP tax will

hurt small businesses in B.C.

Will the minister finally listen and rethink her tax?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I’d like to remind the member that we ran on a very clear platform

in the last election. The election was brought forward, and we ran on a

very clear platform of affordability for families.

We are eliminating MSP premiums, and we are going to ensure

support for quality health care that everyone relies on, including

businesses in British Columbia, by ensuring, through the lowest payroll

tax across this country, that we bring in resources for health care.

That’s critical.

I would remind the member again. We do appreciate the feedback.

But let’s remember. It’s 249 businesses, self-selected, that provided

the feedback. We’re going to continue to work with the Ministry of

Finance data, and we’re going to continue to provide a balanced

approach, where we support families with affordability and encourage

businesses through half a billion dollars in investment.

Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, perhaps I should remind the Finance Minister that the

platform that they ran on…. In fact, the comments that the Premier made

said: “No new taxes.” In fact, that’s what their platform said. And the

employer health tax — nowhere to be found, a complete surprise and shock

to British Columbia’s businesses.

The CFIB has reported that 60,000 businesses in British Columbia,

mostly small businesses, will pay the tax. This tax, despite the

minister’s protestations, is a direct attack on small businesses. They

make up over half the jobs in our province and more than a third of our

GDP, the highest rates in the country.

Here’s the message from small businesses. The minister says she

wants to listen. Here’s what they’re saying. “Job creators are reeling.

The B.C. NDP must rethink this tax.”

This minister admits she didn’t do any financial modelling before

introducing this half-baked tax. Now that the homework has been done for

her, will she rethink the tax?

Hon. C. James: We have committed to the people of British Columbia to eliminate

MSP premiums, and we will be doing just that in 2020.

We have committed to ensuring a competitive business climate. We

have lowered the small business tax rate in British Columbia to support

businesses. We are eliminating PST on electricity to support small

businesses and large businesses and industry across our

province.

Most importantly, the two top issues for the Vancouver Board of

Trade and for businesses across British Columbia — housing and child

care…. We are making historic investments to support that crisis in our

province.

MALAHAT HIGHWAY AND

ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION ON

SOUTH VANCOUVER ISLAND

S. Furstenau: In 2007, Stantec produced a report that identified a number of

potential solutions to address the challenges presented by the Malahat.

At the time, the Minister of Transportation declared: “Overall, the

Malahat is performing well and can handle current capacity.” The

government of the time chose to invest in safety upgrades to the

highway.

Since then, over $65 million has been spent on these upgrades.

However, none of these safety upgrades can address the fundamental issue

that on southern Vancouver Island, a region with a population

approaching half a million people, there is a windy stretch of

single-lane highway in which an accident can essentially sever access

between the capital regional district and the rest of Vancouver

Island.

There is no single magic bullet that will solve the problem that

is the Malahat. But there has been one factor that’s been missing for

far too long: the political will to truly tackle this issue.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Does this

government have the political will to think beyond safety upgrades and

move forward with solutions to southern Vancouver Island’s greatest

transportation challenge?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d like to thank the member for the question. I understand that

she, like tens of thousands of other people, were caught in the traffic

there. But first of all, I would like to wish those drivers who were

injured in the accident a speedy recovery. We know that safety is the

number one issue for any of our highways. So when people are injured, we

obviously want to make sure that we are dealing with that.

[2:20 p.m.]

The member is quite right; there is no single magic bullet. I have

asked my staff to look again at the 2007 report on the bridge as a

potential. But bearing in mind that that is 11 years ago and there have

been changes in not just the engineering and technology that’s involved

but looking at it through an environmental lens, through First Nations

consultations, a First Nations lens, there is no single issue, no single

way that we’ll be able to deal with the problems.

This side of the House, this government, is committed to dealing

with the traffic on the south Island — in fact, dealing with the Island

as a whole. It was ignored for many, many years, as we all know. Our

government is committed to making sure that it’s more than just safety

measures but that we are looking at how we can move people around the

south Island and through the Island as safely as possible.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: I appreciate the minister referring to the people that were

injured in the crash. I also think about them, and I hope for the very

best outcome in that.

A significant threat to good decision-making is when governments

focus on the conditions of today rather than create the solutions for

the future. Currently a car is essentially necessary for movement

between Cowichan, the CRD and Saanich, yet we have an unused rail line,

potential for increasing ferry capacity and the very limited commuter

buses that could use an increase to frequency as well as flexibility in

direction.

We do need to think about an alternate route for cars, but we also

need to invest in alternatives to cars.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, proceed.

S. Furstenau: Thank you. I think, for the half a million people living on

southern Vancouver Island, this is an important question.

My question is again to the Minister of Transportation. Can she

commit to producing a timeline for the implementation of alternative

transportation solutions for southern Vancouver Island?

Hon. C. Trevena: Once again, I thank the member for her question. She’s right.

These are very important issues for the many people who live and work in

the southern part of Vancouver Island, as well as those travelling to

the southern part of Vancouver Island and the many tourists we get who

are using our highways. People want to make sure they can travel safely

and efficiently.

We’re investing a record amount in B.C. Transit to look at how we

can build up B.C. Transit. We are looking at the E&N, as the member

well knows. We’re looking at how we can ensure that people can travel

safely and quickly from the Western Communities, which are some of

Canada’s fastest-growing communities, using the E&N corridor and

working with the Island Corridor Foundation about the rest of the rail

line. So we are looking at many different ways of dealing with traffic

congestion and the realities of today, looking to the future.

I agree completely with the member that we can’t just be building

our way out of today’s problems. We’ve got to be looking to the future.

That’s part of our job as legislators. We’ve got to be thinking of the

next generation. I hope that our transportation vision will actually

create a legacy for that next generation.

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

BUSINESSES

J. Isaacs: Peregrine is a homegrown B.C. manufacturing company in Burnaby,

struggling with how to pay a new $80,000 annual tax bill that they will

be hit with as a result of the new employers health tax. Tim Bell writes

that he and his partners in the company have “invested our life savings

and sweat equity to grow the company from eight employees to 75

employees. Every dollar we have earned has been reinvested back into our

business.”

We now know that 30 percent of small businesses surveyed expect to

have to reduce staff because of the minister’s new tax. Is this the

option the minister thinks businesses should pursue? Does Peregrine have

to lay off employees?

Hon. C. James: Well, it is not surprising to me that the old government would say

that it was better to keep the MSP, to keep a regressive tax and to make

life difficult for British Columbians. It is no surprise when you take a

look at the record on the other side and see the doubling of MSP

premiums under that side.

[2:25 p.m.]

We are eliminating MSP premiums. We are putting money in the

pockets of individuals and businesses. We have invested in business,

half a billion dollars. We are investing in health care. Maybe I can, on

behalf of the Minister of Health, just give a couple of examples of

where those resources are going.

We just launched our primary care strategy, to ensure that people

have faster and better access to health care. That’s going to include

ten urgent primary care centres, offering weekend and after-hours care,

and 15 primary care networks in Burnaby, in Comox, in Prince George, in

Richmond and in South Okanagan–Similkameen. That will help businesses,

families and communities grow and be healthy in British

Columbia.

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

supplemental.

J. Isaacs: Well, actually, it was this government that was eliminating the

MSP, and it’s that government that is replacing it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

J. Isaacs: According to the Canadian Federation….

Interjections.

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

J. Isaacs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business,

60,000 businesses in British Columbia, mostly small businesses, will pay

the tax, and 30 percent of small businesses surveyed expect to cut staff

to pay the minister’s new tax.

Tim, from Peregrine, writes that he has very few options to pay

this significant new tax. “The bottom line is that this tax will have an

immediate impact on our employees and our growth plans.”

Will the minister do the right thing and ensure that Tim doesn’t

have to lay off any employees?

Hon. C. James: I understand the member is new, but perhaps she’d like to take a

look at the number of times that MSP was increased by the members on the

other side. Or perhaps she would like to review whether it was the first

throne speech or the second throne speech or the clone speech where the

government all of a sudden decided that maybe they should look at MSP

premiums.

We are keeping our commitments. We are getting rid of MSP

premiums. We are saving families $1,800, or $900 for individuals. We are

investing in health care and investing in maintaining a competitive

business environment through eliminating PST on electricity, through

lowering small business tax rates and investing in child care and

housing, which are critical to businesses in British

Columbia.

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX ON

NON-PROFIT AGENCIES

AND SUCH SECTOR

T. Redies: The Minister of Finance has said that her budget documents

“provide all the information that taxpayers and citizens in British

Columbia need to know,” but it’s painfully obvious, all spring, that

this is just not true. More than three months after the budget was

introduced, societies, non-profits, hospitals, universities and schools

still do not have the information they need to set their own

budgets.

When will the minister clarify if these groups will be reimbursed

for the millions of dollars in additional costs caused by the MSP

replacement tax?

Hon. C. James: As I’ve said to the member, as I’ve said to this House many times

and as I’ll say again, we have continued the usual implementation

process, which is making sure that all the information is gathered.

We’re talking to school boards, talking to charities and not-for-profits

and examining which have paid the MSP and are actually saving 50 percent

this year because we’ve reduced MSP by 50 percent. They’re saving MSP by

50 percent next year, because there’s a reduction in MSP. We will be

taking a look at that, and before the summer, we will make sure that

that information is out.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.

T. Redies: The Finance Minister is preparing a first-quarter update and knows

full well what the cost of the new NDP half-baked tax will

be.

Either this Premier and Finance Minister are so incompetent that

they’ve yet to decide what, if anything, they intend to do about it, or

they are waiting for a more politically convenient time to explain how

they intend to try and fix this tax blunder.

To the minister, which is it?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: We are addressing affordability for families by eliminating

medical service premiums. That is a savings of 50 percent for this year.

We are implementing the employer health tax in January next year so that

we have the year for implementation. We are listening to those

individuals at school boards and universities, charities and

not-for-profits. We are working through the implementation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. James: Now, I understand that the other side wouldn’t have any concept of

listening to British Columbians. I understand that. It’s not something

familiar to the other side. We believe in listening to British

Columbians. We are going to make sure that this works. We’re working

through the implementation. It’ll be out before the summer.

IMPACT OF TAX CHANGES ON

B.C. WILDLIFE

PARK

T. Stone: For 53 years, the B.C. Wildlife Park up in Kamloops has focused on

encouraging respect for B.C.’s wildlife and preserving biodiversity

through education, research and, importantly, rehabilitation services.

The B.C. Wildlife Park is also a major tourism draw, attracting over

100,000 visitors each year and making a huge economic impact in Kamloops

and the surrounding area.

Yet all of this is in jeopardy due to the new NDP imposed costs,

including the employer health tax. The B.C. Wildlife Park has actually

written twice to request a meeting with the Minister of Finance, but no

response in 12 weeks.

This is what General Manager Glenn Grant says: “I know that there

have been news reports that they’re in consultations with

not-for-profits, so it’s disappointing that we’ve requested a few times

to have a face-to-face meeting anywhere in the province.” But they’ve

had no reply at all.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Glenn deserves to

hear from this minister. Will she fully offset the taxes and the other

costs that she and the NDP have imposed on the B.C. Wildlife

Park?

Hon. C. James: Again, I’ve already spoken to the issue of working with charities

and not-for-profits. I have received the Wildlife Park’s information.

I’ve certainly reviewed it. My staff have actually been talking to them

about whether there’s an opportunity for a meeting coming up.

We will continue to work through the implementation, as I said,

listening to British Columbians. It’ll be out before the

summer.

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

supplemental.

T. Stone: The B.C. Wildlife Park actually faces additional costs, in the

range of $200,000, in new taxes and other costs that are being imposed

by the Minister of Finance and the NDP on their operation. Frankly, they

deserve answers. But they’ve received nothing — not even the courtesy of

a response from the Minister of Finance — in over 12 weeks. This is

creating all kinds of stress and uncertainty that’s not

necessary.

General Manager Glenn Grant says: “We can raise our admission

rates, but this will likely reduce our attendance. Another option is to

reduce some of the programs and the services that we provide. None of

these options will be sufficient to keep the B.C. Wildlife Park

financially viable over the coming few years and will only delay the

inevitable, which is closing the park and putting our employees out of

work and displacing the wildlife that is in our care.”

Non-profits, small businesses, school boards, universities and

municipalities are all in chaos right now because of this minister’s

half-baked taxes. When will this minister fix this tax blunder and the

fear that it has caused?

Hon. C. James: Well, I’m sorry, but all British Columbians are paying the price

for that member and that side’s mess at ICBC that left a $1.3 billion

loss, which means every individual in British Columbia is going to be

paying because of the mess that was left.

We have had discussions. My staff have talked to the Wildlife Park

and had a conversation to look at booking a meeting. We’re going to make

sure that we’re working through these issues.

[2:35 p.m.]

IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

ON SCHOOL

DISTRICTS

D. Davies: On February 27, I had an opportunity to ask the Minister of

Education if there was money in the budget to cover the shortfall that

all school districts across this province, or most, are experiencing as

a result of the new NDP employer health tax.

Now, a lot has happened over the last three months, but

incredibly, here we are, and school districts still do not have the

answer. So I ask the Minister of Education again: is there money in the

budget for school districts, to fully offset the cost of this NDP tax

grab?

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Education.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and most importantly, thank you to the

member for the question. It’s great to see him back in the House, and I

really do appreciate him being here and being able to ask that — and

that he has recovered from his accident.

We have discussed this quite extensively. School districts have

been meeting with the Minister of Finance. School districts have been

passing balanced budgets with record surpluses in the last few

weeks.

School districts are enjoying an additional $550 million in

operating funds this year over the last complete year that that

government was in power. There are over 3,500 new teachers in the school

system this year. Six hundred additional educational assistants are

helping our kids with their learning needs this year. Our government has

passed on savings in the tens of millions of dollars. We’ve cut $10

million off broadband Internet service. We’ve returned all of that money

to school districts.

So I say to the member…. While the Minister of Finance is

continuing to hear the perspectives of school districts, I’m happy to

say that right now there are record investments in our kids and in our

school system. That’s a bet on the future prosperity of this province

that our government is proud of.

Mr. Speaker: Peace River North on a supplemental.

D. Davies: The soapbox and the ramblings again, to skirt around answering a

very simple question. The minister for three months has refused to

clarify if school districts will be kept whole from the extra costs of

this new NDP employer health tax. School districts deserve answers, not

rhetoric and ramblings.

Again to the minister, a very simple question: is there new money

in the budget for school boards to cover this new tax — yes or

no?

Hon. R. Fleming: Well, I thought that I made it clear to the member that there are

hundreds of millions of new dollars in the education system, and that’s

just in ten short months. That’s a result of the people of British

Columbia voting last year for education in B.C. We’ve returned tens of

millions of dollars in returned savings to school districts. We gave

them one instruction: spend it on kids.

We’ve got school districts in the budgeting process right now, and

most districts are reporting the shortest period of budget-making in

their histories. Many of them are reporting healthy surpluses. They’re

reporting additional investments that they’re making into district

education programs. There was a tweet just the other night from

Nanaimo-Ladysmith school district, from superintendent Blain: “We have

room in the SD 68 budget to add $3 million worth of new initiatives next

year.”

He ends it #greatnews, and I couldn’t agree more.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER

APPOINTMENT

COMMITTEE

J. Brar: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee

to Appoint a Chief Electoral Officer.

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

Motion approved.

J. Brar: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

[2:40 p.m.]

J. Brar: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I would like

to make some brief comments.

This report constitutes the committee’s unanimous recommendation

to appoint Anton Boegman as B.C.’s fourth independent Chief Electoral

Officer. The committee undertook a comprehensive process and worked

diligently to reach its unanimous decision of a very capable and

experienced individual for this very important position.

Mr. Boegman has served as British Columbia’s Deputy Chief

Electoral Officer for the past seven years. In addition to his extensive

experience in electoral administration, the committee was impressed by

his distinguished service and his commitment to Elections B.C. The

committee is confident he will provide strong leadership as B.C.’s next

Chief Electoral Officer.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to express my

appreciation to Dr. Keith Archer for his dedicated service to this

province as Chief Electoral Officer and for the professionalism and

commitment he brought to the role over the past seven years.

I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to the Deputy

Chair, the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, and all members of the

committee for the exceptional work for this selection

process.

D. Clovechok: As the Deputy Chair, I’d like to make a couple of comments on the

appointment of Mr. Anton Boegman. On behalf of my colleague from

Fraser-Nicola, who also was a committee member, and on behalf of all of

our caucus here today, I want to congratulate Mr. Boegman on this

appointment.

It was a tough choice for us. Nineteen people applied for this

particular position from across Canada. We were able to shortlist that

down to three. It was a very difficult decision, and it took a long time

to make that decision. Again, I think B.C. is in really, really good

hands.

I also want to thank the committee itself. It was professional.

I’ve had, throughout many of my careers, an opportunity to sit on many

like committees. This, in all sincerity, was one of the best ones I’ve

had. It was cooperative. It was collaborative. It was efficient. It was

incredibly professional. I really appreciated the opportunity to be on

that.

I also want to thank Kate Ryan-Lloyd for her leadership. She’s

just absolutely outstanding, and I think this House needs to give her a

big round of applause. [Applause.]

On behalf of our side and, of course, the committee, I also want

to thank Dr. Archer for all of his work. He’s not here today, but he’s

done an outstanding job for the province of British Columbia. I think

this House needs to recognize that, as well, with a big round of

applause too. [Applause.]

A. Olsen: I’ll keep it extremely brief. I want to just echo the comments

from the Chair and the vice-Chair in this process. As the member

representing the B.C. Green caucus on this committee, it was actually a

very rewarding experience to sit with colleagues from all parts of this

House to select a Chief Electoral Officer.

I also would like to thank Dr. Archer for the work that he has

done and, as well, welcome Mr. Boegman. I am certain that he’ll do a

fine job at his post.

Thank you for this opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: The question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

J. Brar: Before I move the motion, I would like to inform the House that

Dr. Archer was actually not able to come today because of his

prescheduled engagement.

I would like to inform the House, also, and welcome Anton Boegman

and his wife, Susan Boegman. They are here today, up in the gallery

somewhere, and I would ask the House to please make them feel

welcome.

With that, I ask leave of the House to move a motion requesting

the Lieutenant-Governor to appoint Anton Boegman as the Chief Electoral

Officer for the province of British Columbia.

Leave granted.

[2:45 p.m.]

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF

CHIEF ELECTORAL

OFFICER

J. Brar: I move:

[That the Legislative Assembly recommend to Her Honour the

Lieutenant Governor the appointment of Anton Boegman as an Officer of

the Legislature, to exercise the powers and duties assigned to the Chief

Electoral Officer, pursuant to the Election Act (R.S.B.C. 1996,

c. 106), commencing on June 1, 2018.]

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call the estimates debate for the Ministry of Attorney

General, and in

Section A, I call the continued estimates of the Ministry of

Finance.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Members, before we go, I have two reports to be tabled today. I have

the honour to present a report intituled Promoting Healthy Eating and

Physical Activity in K-12: An Independent Audit , from the Office of

the Auditor General of B.C. Secondly, I have the honour to present a report

intituled 2017-2018 Annual Report from the Office of the Merit

Commissioner.

[2:50 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY

GENERAL

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the

chair.

The committee met at 2:51 p.m.

On Vote 14: ministry operations, $470,469,000.

M. Lee: I’d just like to start off our session by asking questions

relating to electoral reform. As is set out in the mandate letter for

the Attorney General from the Premier, could I ask the Attorney General

just to confirm what his mandate is in respect of that

referendum?

Hon. D. Eby: From the mandate letter dated July 18, 2017: “Introduce

legislation to hold a provincewide referendum on proportional

representation in the fall of 2018.”

M. Lee: Would it be fair to say, then, to the Attorney General, that his

mandate has been substantially complete in respect of this

task?

Hon. D. Eby: There are two components to the legislation. One is the

legislation itself, which creates, among other things, regulation-making

power. The second piece is the regulations. The legislation is passed,

so the regulation-making powers exist. The regulations themselves do not

yet exist.

We’ve engaged in a consultation engagement process with British

Columbians. I look forward to announcing on Wednesday the results of

that engagement, a record-setting engagement in our province, which will

include my recommendations on these regulations and which will be

publicly released and then passed over to cabinet for their

deliberations.

M. Lee: As the Attorney General just confirmed, then, what is set out in

the electoral reform act, in

section 12, is the set of regulation-making

powers that cabinet will have. As the Attorney General just confirmed,

what will be addressed in his report that he releases on Wednesday will

be all of the components that are referred to in that

section

[2:55 p.m.]

If I could ask the Attorney General to confirm that those items in

respect of voting in a referendum — the counting, the advertising, the

availability of the information, all of the other rules relating to

financing as well…. All of those subsections are dealt with in

section

12. Are those items going to be dealt with in his report to cabinet on

Wednesday?

Hon. D. Eby: My report, which will be released to the public along with all of

the raw data of the engagement with British Columbians, will include my

recommendations, publicly released and passed to cabinet for their

deliberations. The substance of those recommendations is the rules

around how the referendum will be held, as well as the question or

questions for the ballot — things like expenditure limits, what donation

rules will apply, these sorts of things. So the member is correct; it is

to inform cabinet’s deliberations on those regulations.

M. Lee: I’m curious to ask, just in terms of the arrangement between the

NDP and the Green caucus…. In respect of the CASA agreement, there is,

of course, reference to agreement between the NDP and the Green caucus

on the form of proportional representation that will be proposed in the

referendum. Could I ask the Attorney General how that will come about in

accordance with the time frame that he just laid out?

Hon. D. Eby: The NDP and the Green Party provided a submission. It was one of

more than 30 submissions from organizations across the province related

to the referendum process. It was one of the submissions that was

considered by my office in preparing this report that will be released

on Wednesday. In addition, more than 88,000 British Columbians

participated in an on-line survey and questionnaire to assist us in

ensuring that, whatever the referendum question or questions, whatever

the rules, it reflected the values of British Columbians and the

concerns of British Columbians.

As I understand it, the NDP and the Green Party came together to

provide that submission together. I recused myself from any caucus or

cabinet meetings relating to this. Their submission was one of the many

that we received on this, and it was considered in that

context.

M. Lee: Thank you for that response. I just wanted to go to that

agreement, the agreement between the NDP and the Green Party. Subsection

1(b)(ii) says: “The parties agree that they will work together in good

faith to consult British Columbians….” That’s one component. The second

component is: “…to determine the form of proportional representation

that will be put to a referendum.”

I appreciate that the Attorney General made reference to the joint

submission by the NDP and Green parties. Could the Attorney General

confirm whether, in that joint submission, there is actually a form of

PR that is agreed upon between the NDP and the Green Party?

Hon. D. Eby: The NDP-Green submission is publicly available on the Ministry of

Attorney General website, along with the submissions of more than 30

organizations and eminent individuals. In addition, we received feedback

from more than 88,000 British Columbians.

If the member is asking me if whatever I’m putting forward on

Wednesday is a replication of that submission, it is not. What I’m

putting forward on Wednesday is not a replication of any submission that

I received. It is a product of all of the submissions that my office

received in the largest engagement of British Columbians in the

province’s history.

M. Lee: If I’m hearing this correctly, it sounds like there isn’t an

agreement between the Green Party and the NDP in respect to the form of

PR that’s being proposed in this referendum. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: As I read the

section the member is quoting, it’s that the NDP and

the Greens agreed to consult British Columbians in good faith. That was,

at least, what I understood my instructions were from the Premier — to

recuse myself from cabinet and caucus discussions related to this; to go

out in good faith to British Columbians and ask their opinions; to ask

the eminent individuals and organizations, including the members of the

opposition, to provide submissions about how they thought the referendum

should run; and to provide recommendations in good faith to cabinet,

based on that public engagement.

[3:00 p.m.]

I believe that the member will be able to judge for himself

whether I’ve achieved that mandate on Wednesday. I hope he does agree. I

certainly am confident in the recommendations that I’m putting

forward.

M. Lee: Let me, I think for the time being, just park that line of inquiry

and go on to ask the Attorney General…. In terms of the actual process

under which the Attorney General embarked upon consulting with British

Columbians, can I ask what the thinking was around or the rationale

behind the timing of the public survey process and the engagement

itself? Namely, that process was launched on November 23, the deadline

for the survey was the end of February, and the analysis that has taken

place has been over the last three months.

I appreciate that in the view of the government, there has been a

high level of participation by British Columbians, but the analysis

seems to have taken three months. So can I ask the Attorney General what

the thought process is to utilize the ten months that the government has

had to get to this point in time?

Hon. D. Eby: There were more than 90,000 questionnaires completed in multiple

languages. People provided feedback as part of those questionnaires in

text fields, comments to us. There were more than 30 organizations that

provided written submissions.

The issue is a serious one, so we ensured that this engagement

process informed the recommendations that are going forward to cabinet.

The member will be able to judge for himself whether 90 days was enough

time to review that.

It was both a product of the remarkable success of the engagement,

the largest in B.C.’s history, and the depth of interest of British

Columbians providing very detailed and thoughtful submissions to us. I’m

very grateful for them doing that. It is also informed by the fact that

there will be a referendum by November 30. So we are on a timeline for

that, absolutely.

I think that in having the success of the largest engagement in

the province’s history, taking the necessary time to review those

submissions that we received and being able to have an achievable

timeline around the referendum, by the end of November, we’ve done very

well. But the member can judge for himself when the results are released

on Wednesday — and all British Columbians, as well, because it will be

released publicly.

M. Lee: Can I, then, ask the Attorney General how much money was budgeted

for his ministry’s activities relating to electoral reform?

Hon. D. Eby: Based on past referenda conducted by mail-in ballot, the total

estimated cost of the referendum is around $9 million to $10 million. It

is a much less expensive method than holding a stand-alone in-person

vote, and it also has good voter participation, based on previous

results. We had looked at doing it in concert with the municipal

election but found that in terms of costs and voter participation, a

mail-in ballot was superior on both measures.

On the cost of the engagement that I’ve been talking about,

there’s funding of $900,000 in terms of the public engagement in order

for me to be able to have the ministry prepare a report on the

referendum rules and ballot questions and recommendations.

[3:05 p.m.]

There is $1 million that’s budgeted for an information office to

provide neutral information to voters during the referendum campaign.

The referendum information office funding is for three full-time

employees and public information activities, including developing a

household mailer, website information and a toll-free call

centre.

M. Lee: If I could just ask the Attorney General…. I didn’t quite hear.

How much was the budget for the actual survey itself?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s $900,000, which includes the report.

M. Lee: In terms of the actual survey itself, if I could ask the Attorney

General to outline the purpose of the survey in terms of the public

engagement aspect of this referendum process. Were there other

opportunities or alternatives that were considered by his ministry in

terms of how to engage with the public in respect to this referendum,

whether it’s cost-effective or otherwise?

Hon. D. Eby: There were a number of processes used. That budget number includes

a mailer. Two million people, approximately, received a household mailer

informing them about their ability to participate. They were able to

participate through public libraries in our communities.

In addition to the on-line process, they could mail in their

submissions to us. There was an Indigenous engagement that took place

through a contractor to hear their views and opinions as well. There was

also a panel of 1,100 British Columbians that was a demographically

balanced panel to ensure that we were hearing from groups that might not

be participating on line.

As I said, the on-line process was very successful. In fact, I

believe it was the mailer that drove a great deal of the traffic to the

site — a shocking 180,000 site visits, with over 90,000 questionnaires

completed and, ultimately, submissions from 30 organizations. And I

didn’t mention to the member that there were actually over 200 written

submissions from individuals as well.

M. Lee: In terms of the actual timing of the survey and the public

education campaign, back to the question about the approach that’s being

utilized here, was there consideration that there should be more of a

public education campaign before the survey was actually circulated and

asked to be filled out by British Columbians?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario. I’m not sure what the

member would suggest that we educate people about. The point of the

survey, questionnaire, engagement process, the Indigenous engagement

process and the demographically balanced panel was to ask British

Columbians what their values were, what they wanted to see in terms of

rules around the referendum process, what they wanted to see in terms of

the question or questions and what they wanted to see in systems that

might be part of the discussion.

I think that that process was a very important one, and to go in

advance and tell people what they should be telling us is putting the

cart a little bit ahead of the horse. But certainly, we did have to

educate people that the consultation process was going on. That’s why we

sent out two million mailers to doorsteps across British Columbia to let

them know that this was happening.

M. Lee: I think, in terms of the detailed questions around the actual

survey itself, we’ll get into that in a moment. But just to talk about

the circulation of it…. Sometimes we see with on-line surveys that they

can be co-opted or taken over by certain special interest groups. For

example, we understand that Fair Vote Canada sent out what they call a

survey guide to give guidance to how individuals might consider filling

out the survey. Is the Attorney General aware of this specific example,

which could be seen as an attempt to circumvent the survey from its

intended purpose?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: We were very alive to concerns about not just one organization

taking over the questionnaire process but also the risk of bots or other

kinds of on-line activities automatically filling out questionnaires —

these kinds of things. So we had a number of safeguards in

place.

First of all, we used industry standards in terms of balancing the

need to accept multiple entries from locations like libraries but also

preventing multiple responses from campaigns attempting to influence the

results. There were technical processes that were used to identify

multiple submissions from the same place and the same individual,

monitoring for repetitive or malicious behaviour on line. The member

will understand, I hope, the need to prevent disclosure of the specific

ways in which that’s achieved.

Also, the concern was: “Okay, well, we’re going to do this on-line

process, but just to be sure, let’s make sure that we have a panel of

….” It might only be a certain group of people who go on line — maybe a

younger demographic or a more affluent demographic. So through Ipsos

Public Affairs, we administered the questionnaire to a demographically

balanced group of 11,000 British Columbians as a check against any

possibly skewed results from the website responses.

The details, including any differences between the balanced panel

and the on-line panel, are canvassed in the report that we’ll be

releasing on Wednesday. In addition, for underrepresented groups

particularly, and specifically Indigenous people, First Nations people

here in British Columbia, we hired a contractor to go out and solicit

those views and opinions as well, directly.

M. Lee: Just to flag this for the Attorney General if they haven’t already

looked at this. Fair Vote, specifically, as we understand it, asked its

supporters to skew the results for the following questions in the

survey: questions 5, 7(c), 8, 9, 18(b), 18(c), 19, 20, 21 and 24, which,

as they termed it, were regarded as key questions to shaping the

referendum to their specific point of view.

To the Attorney General, will he consider or reconsider the

validity of the responses to these questions?

Hon. D. Eby: I’ve explained to the member the multiple safeguards that were in

place. The member can judge for himself on Wednesday how successful we

were.

The Chair: No more questions?

M. Lee: I think we’ll be at this for a little time.

The Chair: Okay, carry on.

M. Lee: When the Attorney General says that we’ll be able to judge for

ourselves, presumably that’s going to mean, in the nature of this

report, a breakout per question, in trying to identify patterns. But

presumably, the ministry has already identified if there’s any skewing

of the results that would suggest that there is a pattern of voting

behaviour that would suggest that the validity of the responses to that

particular question would not be fair or appropriate. Is that

correct?

Hon. D. Eby: There will be a number of pieces of information released on

Wednesday that will assist the member. One is the raw data, which I know

some members opposite are interested in reviewing. That will be released

on Wednesday.

In addition, on Wednesday, the results of the questionnaire from

the on-line survey process as well as the results of the questionnaire

from the demographically balanced panel of British Columbians, 1,100

British Columbians…. The 1,100 British Columbians were not selected from

the members particularly interested in Fair Voting B.C. They weren’t

selected from the Fair Voting B.C. group; they were selected from Ipsos

Public Affairs group of people who participate in these kinds of

things.

The member can check the gap between, for example, the

demographically balanced group results with the on-line survey results.

The member should also know that the public service was monitoring to

prevent multiple responses from campaigns attempting to influence the

results in one direction or another.

M. Lee: I’d just like to ask why it has taken this long, three months

since the end-of-February deadline, to analyze the results.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: We took 90 days to not just analyze the results but also prepare a

report and recommendations that required consultation with, among

others, Elections B.C. We didn’t want to recommend any regulations that

were incompatible with Elections B.C.’s view of how things could

possibly roll out.

I think you could make a case that we’ve done pretty well here,

and I would make that case. For the member, it’s too long. I accept that

critique. In any event, the report will be released on

Wednesday.

M. Lee: The Attorney General has talked about the participation rate by

British Columbians. Can I ask him to outline, in terms of the regions of

British Columbia, where the participation was very low and areas where

it may have been very high?

Hon. D. Eby: Some communities were underrepresented in terms of their

population and where people were providing submissions from. Greater

Vancouver was underrepresented. Squamish-Lillooet and Similkameen were

underrepresented in proportion to their populations. Others, such as

Kootenay-Boundary, Sunshine Coast, Mount Waddington and the capital

region were more heavily represented in the on-line survey.

Now, keep in mind that we did do the demographically balanced

panel through Ipsos Public Affairs as well. The regional breakdown of

responses was Lower Mainland–southwest, 46 percent; Vancouver Island and

the coast, 27 percent; Thompson-Okanagan, 11 percent; Kootenay, 5.62

percent; Nechako, 1 percent; northeast, 1 percent; north coast, 0.26

percent; Cariboo, 3.27 percent; and unidentified, 4.77

percent.

In terms of rural regions, there was certainly concern raised, and

we were careful to monitor to ensure that rural regions were

participating. We ran ad campaigns, dropped mailers on doors. We saw

participation levels in the north largely in proportion to their

populations. For example, the community of Fraser–Fort George represents

1.9 percent of the province and was 1.8 percent of the questionnaire

responses.

Certainly, the participation and the voices of Indigenous people

in this process were a priority for government. That’s why we hired an

Indigenous liaison to assist with outreach to First Nations and to

ensure we heard their preferences and opinions about this important

matter, and input from those First Nations will be part of my report

released on Wednesday.

M. Lee: Going through that breakdown, it sounds like, of course, a

comparison between the level of response for a particular region versus

the percentage of voters in that particular region. In matching those

two considerations together, was there any rebalancing, in terms of the

results of the survey, to ensure that there was an equal voice, so to

speak, across the province, based on the population base of a particular

region or riding in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Eby: Certainly, the member can be assured — based on the feedback,

including second reading debate on the referendum bill — that Ministry

of Attorney General staff were very alive to the possibility of a

difference in opinion between rural and urban areas, and to ensure that

rural voices were heard appropriately in the report.

The member will have full access to all the raw data. So he will

be able to compare the responses of rural communities with urban

communities to see whether or not we succeeded in our goal of ensuring

that all British Columbians have their voices heard, not just in the

report but in the recommendations going forward to cabinet.

M. Lee: Initially, we understood that when the survey was first put out

there in the province, the response rate was quite low. As we got closer

into the month of November, the response rates elevated. It sounds like

the government put out, as we talked about, the mailer. But there was

digital advertising as well, which increased participation rates. Can

the Attorney General confirm that that was the case and where those

particular advertising campaigns were targeted?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, there was digital advertising as well as the household

mailer. I will get the information for the member about whether there

were any sort of demographic search terms or targeting or anything like

that in terms of how that advertising was distributed. Certainly, it was

all within British Columbia. I’ll find out if there’s any additional

information that I can get the member on that. I don’t know the answer

to that question.

M. Lee: As we said from the outset, in terms of the way this was

structured with the Electoral Reform Referendum Act, there were certain

critical questions and thresholds already determined before the survey

was launched through public engagement. To the Attorney General, can I

ask whether he received any advice and input as to excluding these

particular fundamental elements from the consultation

process?

Hon. D. Eby: No, I don’t believe I received any. I might not be fully

understanding the member’s question, though.

M. Lee: As we looked at the structure of this, the two parties entered

into the CASA agreement. They formed government. They agreed that they

would agree on a proposed form of proportional representation to be put

by a referendum by the end of November 2018. From that point onwards,

the government designed a process.

I’m asking: what advice was given to the Attorney General to come

forward with a new act that settled the fundamental points, including

voting thresholds, for this referendum before going out to British

Columbians and consulting with them about this referendum? What level of

public engagement was the government thinking they were doing, when they

had already settled it in the act?

Hon. D. Eby: The engagement that I was tasked with was to go out to British

Columbians and to solicit their feedback about how the referendum should

run, what the rules should be, what the question or questions should be.

We’ve done the best that I believe we can, and the member will be able

to judge the report on Wednesday. Not only will he be able to judge the

report on its face, on the summaries and the recommendations. Also, he

will have access to the raw data of the engagement process.

Members of the public were invited to write in. They could write

whatever they wanted to us. There were feedback forms in the on-line

process. Also, you could just send in a written submission. All of those

pieces of feedback were received — well, I hope that they were all

received; I believe they were all received — by government. They were

certainly considered, and there was remarkable participation.

The member was here during the debate around the referendum bill.

There was a lively and spirited debate about it, and it passed this

minority parliament with a majority vote.

M. Lee: I think we’ll have some further discussion about that in a moment,

but just let me continue on with the survey. As we understand it, there

were four academic advisers brought on to work on the survey. Can I ask:

what was the purpose to hire them? What role did they play in respect to

the survey?

Hon. D. Eby: You know what? I brought the wrong staff here. I really did. We’ve

got people here who are experts in the money that we’re spending on the

court system, on the Ministry of Attorney General and our budgets for

the year.

In terms of the referendum bill that was debated in this House and

went forward…. The engagement report, which is released Wednesday, will

answer, I think, a lot of the member’s questions. It just feels like ill

timing, but it is the member’s time.

We retained experts to inform the engagement process, to assist us

in developing questions that would inform us about British Columbians’

values in terms of how we should be running this referendum process.

We’re very grateful for their participation and the feedback that they

provided to us.

M. Lee: Let me just say, to clarify, that last week my office did

communicate to the Attorney General’s office the sequence of topics that

we would be discussing in estimates today and tomorrow. Just to say it,

to hear it directly, our intention was to cover proportional

representation this afternoon. Tomorrow morning, following question

period, there would be discussion around gaming-related items. The

member for Richmond-Steveston will be joining me at that point for that

discussion.

[3:25 p.m.]

Following that, we intend to go through what is the member for

Richmond-Steveston’s responsibility as the critic as well — ICBC-related

items — following lunch. Then we will be getting into liquor and other

general Attorney General–related matters. That is the sequence of

discussion that my office had communicated to the ministry. Hopefully,

that was clear.

Let me just say, though, of course, that — with the opportunity

that is provided in this House, with the timing of the Attorney

General’s intended announcement on Wednesday being one day before the

House rises — this is what may be one of our last opportunities to have

this discussion, to ensure that what is a fundamental change,

potentially, to our voting system is something that this side of the

House can get a better understanding of.

In terms of this number of items that were being reviewed,

including the public survey, upon which the government is resting a lot

of weight and reliance, that’s the reason why we’re going through more

questions. So I appreciate the Attorney General’s patience with

that.

If I can go back to our line of questioning here, I’d like to now

ask how these four academic advisers were selected.

Hon. D. Eby: They were identified by the public service.

M. Lee: In terms of the identification by the public service, to the

knowledge of the Attorney General, was he aware of how the selection

process worked in terms of ensuring balance of perspectives?

Hon. D. Eby: I understood these individuals to be experts on deliberative

engagement processes.

M. Lee: In terms of these individuals, how many hours did they work, and

how were they compensated?

Hon. D. Eby: I believe they all worked for free, but I’ll confirm

that.

M. Lee: What was their scope of work? Are they on any current

retainer?

Hon. D. Eby: There’s no retainer. The individuals donated their time to assist

us in this engagement process.

M. Lee: Do they have a further role in respect of this electoral reform

process?

Hon. D. Eby: No, they don’t.

M. Lee: I understand that in respect of the instructions they were

provided, they were instructed to abstain from public comment or

academic research related to the B.C. government survey methodology,

survey results or consultation process. To the Attorney General: why was

that instruction provided to these four individuals?

Hon. D. Eby: The questionnaire itself, the design of the questionnaire. The

ultimate decision, when the experts had conflicting opinions about what

we should be doing, was mine. In fact, the member’s description is not

quite right. We asked simply that they not publicly comment on the

advice that they gave but that they could feel free to weigh in on the

areas of their expertise. Certainly, if they have any research that they

wish to do, they may do so.

[3:30 p.m.]

Yeah, they can certainly comment on the referendum process, and

they’re welcome to do so.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

M. Lee: I would just like to invite the member for Chilliwack now to

continue with this line of questioning regarding the survey.

J. Martin: One thing that just popped up in our question period a little

while ago…. One of the issues that was raised was a survey sent out to

businesses regarding the new tax. The Finance Minister was immediately

dismissive of the survey because it was self-selected. Does the Attorney

General agree that the electoral reform survey should similarly be

dismissed because it was a self-selection?

Hon. D. Eby: The referendum survey was matched against a panel of 1,100

randomly selected British Columbians put together by Ipsos Public

Affairs. If the member has concerns about people who participated in the

survey maybe being self-selecting for some reason, he will be able to

compare the on-line survey results with the demographically balanced

panel that Ipsos put together — through the report and through the raw

data that will be available.

J. Martin: Sticking with the general theme around the survey, one of the

academic advisers claimed his role was only to provide “feedback on the

survey you’ve constructed.” Is this an accurate

summary of their role in

the process?

Hon. D. Eby: I understand these individuals, who were identified and who came

forward and volunteered their time, to be experts in deliberative

democratic processes. That’s what we engaged them for — to assist us in

engaging with British Columbians on this important issue.

J. Martin: It does appear that the minister’s office held the final pen in

accepting and rejecting feedback from these selected academics. Can the

Attorney tell us: on what basis his staff were advised to reject

academic advice?

Hon. D. Eby: An obvious example would be where there was conflicting advice

that we received. I was certainly heavily reliant on the public service

to assist in preparing the questionnaire, but ultimately, accountability

for the questions and the design of the questionnaire is with

me.

I am happy with the questionnaire, and I am proud of the report

that I’ll be releasing on Wednesday. The member can be the judge of that

when it’s released.

J. Martin: For clarity, we have here a survey that was certainly drafted by

the academics. Or is that the case? Did the minister’s office have final

say over the editing and the final copy?

Hon. D. Eby: Just a point of clarification. I may have lost the member’s thread

there for a sec. The experts provided comment on drafts of the

questionnaire. The role was to give advice on it, not to be the authors.

The first draft was prepared by the public service. The final draft was

approved by me, and I have political accountability for that

draft.

J. Martin: An email from the director of strategic initiatives suggests that

the academics were chosen for their preferences for different systems.

The media were quite pointed in remarking that the balance was 3 to 1 in

favour of PR. Can the Attorney tell us: were the academics fully

informed of any political nature of this exercise?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m not sure. I’m trying to identify the individual that the

member is describing there.

[3:35 p.m.]

Certainly, we were trying to ensure that any expressed preference

of any of the experts related to a particular voting system would not

unduly colour the feedback that they put forward. But the reason the

experts were engaged was to assist us in the deliberative process around

getting feedback from British Columbians about the referendum process as

a whole.

J. Martin: Has the Attorney General or anyone on his staff received any

further communications from the academics expressing some frustration or

concern over the controversy that has surrounded the survey — or any

further follow-up communications at all that would be worth

noting?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m not aware of any additional communications. We were just

trying to confirm that with staff. But as I confirmed to the member’s

colleague, the pro bono retainer that these experts were on is over

now.

J. Martin: An email sent by the director of strategic initiatives on November

3 states: “At present, we are scrambling to complete the basic web

content, have it reviewed by external experts, then refined.” Can the

Attorney General confirm that the survey was a rush job composed in

under a month?

Hon. D. Eby: Well, the member should be consulting with his colleague, who just

critiqued the process for taking too long. It sounds like we struck the

right balance in terms of the diverse perspectives of the

opposition.

J. Martin: Despite the length of time it’s going to take us to get to

Wednesday and know what we’re facing on the actual ballot, it appears

that there was a rather short actual work period from the announcement

of the survey — about delays. The extra time provided…. Academics only

had two short periods of several days to review the survey, and the bulk

of that extension seems to be spent on ministerial revisions.

Can the Attorney confirm that this survey was, in fact, pushed

through by political staff and not by the academics

themselves?

Hon. D. Eby: If the member has a critique of the survey, it sits with me. I’m a

politician, so in that sense, political responsibility is absolutely

here.

I’m very grateful for the work of these people who volunteered to

provide their services to ensure that our engagement with British

Columbians was as effective as it could be. And it was effective — more

than 90,000 British Columbians filling out surveys, more than 30

organizations and more than 200 individuals providing written

submissions to us, the biggest engagement in British Columbia’s history.

I think those results speak for themselves.

In any event, the member will have full opportunity to review not

just my report on this and my recommendations but also the raw data of

the demographically balanced panel of 1,100 British Columbians, the

on-line survey as well as the First Nations engagement

process.

J. Martin: An email from one of the academics says that “this can’t be

rushed.” The minister’s director of strategic initiatives responded that

staff “have been given fairly tight timelines.” So who makes the

decision to override these concerns from the academics about the survey

being rushed through?

Hon. D. Eby: Again, the member’s colleague just told me it’s taking too

long.

We’re engaging in a good-faith exercise with British Columbians to

determine their feelings about how the referendum should be held.

Multiple organizations are participating in this process, providing

detailed, written submissions to us — all of which is fully transparent,

all the raw data that the member and his colleagues have asked for,

released on Wednesday along with the report. I encourage the member to

give it a read.

[3:40 p.m.]

M. Lee: Just as a follow-up, then. Can I ask: how long did it take to

construct the survey?

Hon. D. Eby: Work began on the website in October, and it was live by the 21st

of November, when the engagement rolled out. Unfortunately, we don’t

have very specific dates about exactly when the work began, but it was

at least a month.

M. Lee: I think the questioning that my colleague the member for

Chilliwack is laying out here suggests that it was a 30-day period, more

or less, for the construction of the survey, this fundamental piece, the

foundation for which the government is resting its public engagement

exercise for the purpose of this referendum. And it’s taken three

months, of course, to analyze what that is. So my earlier comment about

delay has been that it’s taken ten months to get us to this

point.

In terms of the survey itself, I think it’s a fair comment that

the member for Chilliwack is making, that it is rushed. Even internally,

the comments that we are seeing from one of these academic advisers

would suggest that when you do something of this nature, you can’t rush

it. That’s the point that I believe is being made here.

Hon. D. Eby: Well, there’s what the email said, and it’s what the member, I

guess, wishes it said. It said: “This can’t be rushed.” It was the one

line from an email read out by the member. I take it that he read it

accurately, and the member who just asked the question has now said that

that means that this person was providing feedback that the process was

rushed and inappropriate. That was not my understanding of the feedback

that we received.

In any event, the participation involved the biggest consultation

in B.C.’s history, in multiple languages — targeted and focused First

Nations consultation, a demographically balanced panel of 1,100 people.

The member says the on-line survey is the foundation. It is one

piece.

There are more than 30 organizational submissions, more than 200

written submissions by British Columbians that were not based at all on

the survey. All the organizational written submissions are published on

line, and to the extent that the survey results are available, all the

raw data will be available to the members on Wednesday, as well as the

Ministry of Attorney General

summary of that data and my recommendations

to cabinet, which will be publicly released first.

J. Martin: Just to clarify, academics were only given from 5:45 p.m. on

Wednesday the 15th to Friday noon that same week to give feedback on the

second copy of the survey. Isn’t this pushing us where there may be some

compromising the integrity of the survey with such a tight timeline for

the second version?

Hon. D. Eby: The member certainly is correct that that was the second time that

these individuals had seen the survey. For those British Columbians who

participated in the on-line survey, it took them an average of, it looks

like, about 16 minutes to complete the questionnaire. So on the second

round of edits and suggestions from these experts who were volunteering

with us, I accept the member’s timelines, and I’m very grateful for the

assistance of these individuals in donating their time to assist us in

this process.

[3:45 p.m.]

J. Martin: The Attorney General’s ministerial assistant highlighted the

following comment from one of the academics regarding the funding of

proponent and opponent groups: “If this is all that the government

understands by public engagement, then they will simply be setting fire

to the whole process.”

This is pretty powerful and alarming language, and the ministerial

assistant said that no changes to the survey were needed. Does the

minister’s tight timeline cause staff to ignore serious concerns about

the survey, raised by the very people that were brought on board to

construct that survey?

Hon. D. Eby: The survey was not the referendum process. It was an informative

exercise to help us to design the referendum process itself. The member

will see on Wednesday the referendum process, and he will be able to

judge it for himself.

J. Martin: We have another email showing the Premier’s office coordinating

with the BCGEU’s PR campaign team and attempting to set up a meeting

with the minister. Even though this meeting was appropriately declined,

if the Premier’s office is coordinating with the pro-PR coalition, is it

not possible that information could have been shared by political

staff?

Hon. D. Eby: I have no knowledge of that taking place.

J. Martin: “No knowledge,” I heard. Correct?

Hon. D. Eby: I have no knowledge of that taking place. That’s purely

speculative on the part of the member. Any notes that the meeting was

turned down…. I don’t even recall what he’s talking about. But in any

event…. I have no idea what he’s talking about, and I don’t believe it

happened.

J. Martin: Many of the questions in the survey have a “prefer not to answer”

option. But question 3, “Which, if any, of the following have been

barriers that have kept you from voting?” does not have that option.

Instead, individuals are forced to choose options which may not be

applicable to them whatsoever. Can the Attorney explain the reason for

excluding “prefer not to answer” specifically from this

question?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s difficult to know which question the member is referring to,

because on the one he refers to that I understand is “barriers to voting

in provincial elections,” there was a “not applicable/prefer not to

answer” option for people.

J. Martin: Question 16 asks individuals to choose between MLAs “who do what

their party promised” and MLAs “who do what their constituents want.”

One could argue that MLAs are more than capable of doing both.

Suggesting otherwise is highly offensive to members who work very hard

for their constituents.

This appears to be another example of a skewed question. One

answer is an example of the current electoral system. The other is an

example of the government’s preference for a new electoral system. Can

the minister explain and please tell the House why this type of question

was allowed into the questionnaire? Why is a choice being forced to be

made in this area?

Hon. D. Eby: Different PR systems…. Some are more party-focused, and some are

more MLA-focused. So if you are a person who values the idea that a

political party has more influence, then you might choose one PR system

or you might prefer that that type of PR system be put forward for

consideration. If you are a person who believes more that MLAs should be

more independent of party influence, then you might choose another PR

system.

That question assists the ministry in knowing, in terms of a

question or questions that might be put forward in the referendum

process, where British Columbians’ values are in terms of what they

would like to see in a proportional representation system.

J. Martin: In British Columbia, we have at the moment 27 registered political

parties. Theoretically, each and every one of these could show up on a

PR-styled ballot. So I’m wondering why the approved sample ballots for

list PR and MMP fail to reflect the total number of political parties in

B.C. and foreshadow just how unwieldly and complicated life could become

in the election booth.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Different electoral systems on the proportional representation

side have different ballots and different ways for voters to express

preference. The survey was an attempt to gauge British Columbians’

values in terms of how the referendum process should go forward and what

question or questions should be put to them.

I think the fundamental disconnect here is that this is not the

referendum. The referendum process will be a vote by British Columbians.

The rules and the ballot question or questions — my recommendations,

anyway, about that — will be based on this engagement that will be

released on Wednesday. The sample ballots that the member is talking

about were used as a way to gauge British Columbians’ values in terms of

assisting us and ensuring that the referendum process itself reflected

British Columbians’ values.

Just as a purely logistical matter in terms of the 27 parties,

many of those parties won’t run a single candidate anywhere. I take the

member’s point as a sort of campaign point that he would raise against

PR and in favour of the first-past-the-post system, one assumes,

although there is nothing to stop 27 parties from showing up on a

first-past-the-post ballot either.

In any event, this survey process is not the referendum. There are

arguments in favour of and against a number of proportional

representation systems, and British Columbians’ values in terms of what

they would like to see were a key part of the consideration in the

design of the survey and why we did it.

J. Martin: Has the ministry taken the time to examine the actual impact on

ballot length and ballot complexity — what this might mean for costs of

management at Elections B.C. with the process?

Hon. D. Eby: An interesting discussion with the staff here.

The major cost of elections, as I understand them, are the people

running the polls, the staff required to do that. It would be,

certainly, difficult to know — in terms, maybe, of a lengthier ballot

increasing printing costs. But it’s difficult for me to know

specifically what the member is referring to in terms of increased

costs.

In terms of the referendum process itself, the member, on

Wednesday, will have the question or questions. He’ll have my

recommendations around rules based on the engagement with British

Columbians, based on the submissions from all these organizations, the

First Nations engagement, the balanced panel of British

Columbians.

[3:55 p.m.]

He’ll be able to use that information — and, ultimately, the

regulations that are promulgated by cabinet — to advocate in whichever

direction he chooses for whichever system he chooses. That may include

raising issues of cost. It may include raising issues of ballot

complexity and arguments for or against proportional representation or

first-past-the-post systems. It sounds like it will be a lively campaign

on all sides of the issue. The member will surely be raising issues like

that on whichever side he ultimately chooses.

J. Martin: Has the Attorney given consideration to the potential for a

significant heightening of spoiled ballots on election day if we were

indeed to move to a lengthier, more complex, convoluted

ballot?

Hon. D. Eby: The member can raise any number of issues in his campaigning on

the side that he chooses in relation to election ballots or system

complexity, the risk of spoiled ballots, costs — you name it. That is

not the role that I’ve been given. The role that I’ve been given by the

Premier is to engage with British Columbians and to provide

recommendations to cabinet on the rules around the referendum process.

Then the campaign will be officially underway in terms of people

campaigning either for our current first-past-the-post system or for a

proportional representation system.

J. Martin: We’re going to know a lot more about this on Wednesday. I

anxiously look forward to that moment of opportunity. We’ll have some

clarity on the ballot question or questions.

What about rewriting the electoral boundaries? Unless the ballot

question was simply, “Do you want to move to a ranked ballot?” in the

way most political parties run their leadership campaigns, there would

be some significant revisiting of the electoral boundaries. I think

people, before they cast a vote, would probably like to know what’s

going to happen to their boundary and whether they’re going to be shrunk

or cast in with a much larger geographic entity.

I would like to get some clarity from the Attorney on how

specifically and how soon we’ll know what the proposed riding boundary

changes would be.

Hon. D. Eby: All my recommendations to cabinet around the referendum process

will be released on Wednesday.

J. Martin: Can the Attorney tell us what rules, stipulations and guidelines

may come into effect with proportional representation candidate

lists?

Hon. D. Eby: All my recommendations around regulations related to the

referendum will be released on Wednesday, based on this engagement with

British Columbians — the on-line survey; the direct engagement with

First Nations communities; the balanced demographic panel of British

Columbians, the 1,100 people that Ipsos Public Affairs put together; the

written submissions by more than 30 organizations and by more than 200

individuals. It will be released on Wednesday.

J. Martin: How much detail are parties going to have with advance notice of

the timeline for the terms and the specifics of the referendum? I’m

concerned about this. If there’s any compromising of the process, what

measures are going to be taken in place to protect the integrity of the

procedure?

Hon. D. Eby: I don’t fully understand the member’s question.

J. Martin: There’s significant potential for compromise in this particular

process. One is that we’re doing it by a mail-in ballot, for starters.

Anyone that lives in an apartment or a condominium complex can come down

in the morning and see that blue bin just stuffed with every type of

letter and advertising and form mail. Very likely, a referendum ballot

on proportional representation would, in many cases, be quickly visiting

that blue bin.

[4:00 p.m.]

They’re there for the taking. People can collect those. What are

we going to learn about fraud prevention and protecting the integrity of

the process on Wednesday?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for clarifying the question. Elections

B.C. has a number of measures that they use to ensure the security of

the mail-in ballot process. British Columbia has used that process

successfully on several plebiscites now.

J. Martin: Not too long ago in this House, we raised the issue of an email

sent by the B.C. NDP party executive containing a call to action on the

PR referendums to the rank and file. One could fairly read into this

that the NDP party executive may have advance notice of its details,

engaging in a call to action.

What steps can the minister take to assure this House of the

integrity of the referendum process and to ensure that one side doesn’t

have a leg up on the other?

Hon. D. Eby: I remember the member asking me about this in question period. I

reminded the member then, and I’ll remind him again now that actually,

as far as I can tell, the source for that was my answer to the member in

question period when I assured him that I would have my report and

recommendations to him before barbecue season, and as quickly as

possible. I remember that exchange because I remember the member’s

reputation for barbecue skills.

To my knowledge, there has been absolutely no disclosure. We’ve

taken significant steps to prevent disclosure of the contents of the

report that’ll be released publicly on Wednesday — to any party. The

member has the same level of information, to my knowledge, as any member

in this place.

J. Martin: Thank you. Those are all the questions on the survey that I have

at this point. I know some of my colleagues would like to explore some

other areas. I thank the Attorney, and I wish him all the luck being as

calm, cool, collected at his town hall as he’s been here for the last

little while.

M. Lee: Well, I think the member for Chilliwack had a fine day yesterday

That’s great, that we’re all recognizing the excellence and the skills

that we all have here.

Let me just come back to the public engagement process, if I may.

The Attorney General was referencing the consultation process with the

panel. If I could ask the Attorney General to outline in more detail

what that panel looked like and whether that is the same term as what….

We’ve also understood that there was some sort of citizen engagement

team as well.

Hon. D. Eby: The teams the member was talking about are another name for the

on-line staff at GCPE who put together the technical pieces of the coded

— or whatever the correct term is for publishing — on-line survey so

that it worked. They’re the on-line computer folks.

[4:05 p.m.]

Then the Ipsos Public Affairs panel was a group of 1,100 British

Columbians demographically balanced to assist us in doing a couple of

things. One was in ensuring that we weren’t capturing a group that’s

participating on line disproportionately. For example, perhaps younger

people or more affluent people are more likely to be participating on

line. The second piece was to ensure that if the on-line system were

somehow compromised, we would have a way to check it against a

demographically balanced group of people to make sure that we were

seeing fairly consistent results.

The member, on Wednesday, will see information published in the

report that compares this demographically balanced panel with the

on-line survey results, and then we’ll be able to identify any issues.

He raised questions about this particular proportional representation

group advocating for certain answers on certain questions, which, it was

his concern, may have skewed some portion of the survey.

He’ll be able to compare those questions with the demographically

balanced panel that was put together for us by this third party, Ipsos

Public Affairs, to ensure that the responses — and our understanding of

the results we got from British Columbians about what their values are —

in designing this referendum process are as valid as

possible.

M. Lee: Can I ask the Attorney General how that Ipsos panel was selected

or compiled?

Hon. D. Eby: Ipsos Public Affairs — this is what they do. They assemble

demographically representative panels. The goal of this, and the service

that this company provides, is providing to companies, or governments in

our case, or others, the ability to go to a panel of a certain group —

in our case, British Columbians, demographically balanced, balanced

geographically — to provide feedback.

What happened was that the questionnaire went to this group that

was assembled by Ipsos to be representative in this way. So the member

will be able to use that as a point of comparison.

M. Lee: As I understand it, there will be a full report included in the

material that will be released to public in respect of that panel. Is

that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: Not only is that correct, but the raw data will be released as

well — for the member.

M. Lee: I just wanted to go to something that the Attorney General

mentioned earlier, in terms of the stakeholder submissions available on

the ministry website. By my quick count, it looks like there are 44

organizations on that website, including the BCGEU; the B.C. NDP; the

Broadbent Institute; Citizens Vote Empowerment; CUPE; Dogwood; Elizabeth

May, MP; Dennis Pilon, York University; Fair Vote, about six or seven

different Fair Vote entities. You get the point that they seem to be

pro-PR.

Is that the case? When you look at the list, would the Attorney

General agree that the list of 44 organizations can be viewed — I

haven’t done the analysis — for the most part, to be pro–proportional

representation. Is that correct?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Yeah, I was certainly disappointed that the B.C. Liberal caucus

did not provide a submission, but we did use second reading debate

speeches in consideration in the report, as I committed to the members

that I would do.

The member is correct. There were a lot of groups that have an

interest in proportional representation, which is perhaps not

surprising, given that that is the topic of the referendum. I note,

also, that there was the No B.C. Proportional Representation Society.

I’m not sure, actually, what the Fraser Institute’s leanings are

specifically with respect to pro-first-past-the-post or pro-PR — but in

any event, more conservative think tanks like the Fraser Institute

participating as well.

We also, as I’ve outlined a couple times now, ensured that we had

a group of 1,100 British Columbians that were not self-selecting that

were part of this panel to check results against. I agree with the

member that it would’ve been nice to have some more submissions from

people in favour of maintaining the current first-past-the-post system.

But I do know that the representative panel ensured a check for us, and

the member as well, in terms of the values of British

Columbians.

M. Lee: Can I please ask: when did the panel work? When was it in the

field surveying other British Columbians?

Hon. D. Eby: I understand it was done in January.

M. Lee: Was the plan, in terms of public engagement…? When was it decided

to do that panel?

Hon. D. Eby: The decision was made right away, at the beginning of the planning

process, to ensure that we had a representative submission from British

Columbia in terms of our workaround, making recommendations in the

design of the referendum process.

M. Lee: I appreciate that the report is coming out on Wednesday, but just

for the purpose of this discussion, was it effective in terms of the

input it provided to the ministry to balance off the survey results

versus