Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 27

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Horace Excell

L. Reid

South Vancouver Neighbourhood House

M. Elmore

Junior Achievement B.C.

J. Yap

Kidney disease awareness

R. Singh

White Rock All-Stars Little League champions

T. Redies

Serauxmen Service Club

L. Krog

Oral Questions

Government housing initiatives and budget provisions

R. Coleman

Hon. S. Robinson

Rebate for residential tenants

S. Sullivan

Hon. S. Robinson

Regulation of real estate industry

A. Weaver

Hon. S. Robinson

Government housing policy

J. Johal

Hon. S. Robinson

Federal tax changes and small business

C. Oakes

Hon. C. James

Trans-Canada Highway safety upgrade projects

J. Martin

Hon. C. Trevena

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Election Amendment Act, 2017

(continued)

D. Davies

B. Ma

A. Olsen

R. Glumac

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General

(continued)

M. Morris

Hon. M. Farnworth

C. Oakes

D. Barnett

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2017

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Trevena: Earlier this morning the government caucus was hosted to a very

informative breakfast by the port of Vancouver. Today in the gallery we have

the CEO of the port of Vancouver, Robin Silvester, and Terry Lalari, the

government communications director for the port, here to watch the goings-on

of question period.

I hope the House will make them welcome, recognizing the importance of

the port to the province of B.C. and the importance of question period to

democracy in our province.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Today I have the pleasure of introducing somebody in the gallery from

the north, from the constituency I represent, Stikine. It’s the mayor of

Telkwa, Darcy Repen. He’s a fierce, strong and engaged advocate not only for

his community but for rural communities across the province that are

experiencing similar issues to Telkwa. So I would just ask the chamber to

make him welcome today.

S. Furstenau: It’s my great pleasure to acknowledge the presence of the Brentwood

College grade 11 politics and government class here today with their teacher

Mark Wismer. I just met them in the rotunda. They will be coming in for

question period and then meeting us for questions afterwards. So let’s show

them governance at its best.

D. Routley: I’ll be introducing a few people, and then other members will

introduce others from this group. The group is the Serauxmen, a service

group from Nanaimo that started in 1967 with a car wash. They shortened

their name from service auxiliary men to Serauxmen.

They’ve done great service to the community for many, many years — in

fact, five decades now. They host beer and burgers and a number of other

fundraising efforts. I’d like to introduce Robert Collins, the current

president; Chris Briggs; Lee Odgers; and Dave Seymour.

L. Krog: I, too, am delighted, as one of the three MLAs representing Nanaimo,

to stand and recognize amongst the Serauxmen here today Norm Hayward; Mike

Carson; Tony Mengual and his wife, Joanne; and Rob Fraser. Would the House

please make them welcome.

M. Stilwell: In addition to the introductions we’ve heard from the members from

Nanaimo, I, too, have the honour to welcome the Serauxmen Service Club

members here today. It was actually several years ago, when I first moved to

Nanaimo, where I did one of my first speaking engagements for the Serauxmen

club to help them to raise money in our community.

It’s amazing that over their years, they’ve raised over $2 million for

our communities, and it has stayed right there for the people to benefit in

our communities.

It brings me a great honour to introduce Bart Briggs; Terry Norman and

his wife, Diane; and, of course, the first president from 50 years ago, Bob

Plecas. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

HORACE EXCELL

L. Reid: I rise today to pay tribute to Horace Excell. On the sixth day of

February, 1921, he came onto this planet and passed away on September

18, 2017. Born in Maidstone, Kent, England, Horace was the son of Ethel

Harriet and John Excell. He had two brothers and three sisters, survived

by Dorothy Margaret Pye, who lives in Romford, Essex, England. He

proudly and bravely served in the British Royal Navy from 1939 to

Always independent and ambitious, Horace immigrated to Canada in

1960 and came to Vancouver. A real sports fan, he supported local

cricket, tennis and soccer; cheered on the Whitecaps, the B.C. Lions,

the Canucks, the Blue Jays and Arsenal.

[10:10 a.m.]

Living in Richmond in the ’90s, he supported lacrosse, soccer and

hockey while being adored by players and parents alike. He always worked

hard and retired at 65 as custodian of Richmond’s Woodward Elementary

School, where he and I worked together with Don Taylor, who was the best

when it came to looking out for Horace over his entire time with us.

When eye issues ended his car travels, he impressed all with his ability

to briskly walk and bus to keep his scheduled activities at the Richmond

Centre mall, to the Golden Coin and home to Golden Mews.

Horace was one of a kind, a special fellow who lived fully for 96

years.

SOUTH VANCOUVER

NEIGHBOURHOOD

HOUSE

M. Elmore: The South Vancouver Neighbourhood House has been at its present

location in Vancouver-Kensington since 1977. They’re a member of the

Association of Neighbourhood Houses of B.C., which goes back to 1894. I

know there are a number of members here who have neighbourhood houses in

communities right across the province and know the terrific work that

they do to build and strengthen our communities.

The South Vancouver Neighbourhood House is an exceptional

organization. They’ve got three new exciting initiatives underway this

year. They are undertaking a domestic violence training program to train

facilitators for men’s groups. They are also going to be expanding to

administer the new Marpole House that’s coming in 2019. As well, they’ve

got the new South Hill Neighbourhood Centre just down the street from my

community office, which operates a preschool that is very well

prescribed. And they’ve got plans to establish an early-years table for

South Vancouver, which would bring great benefit to our

community.

They face challenges. They are seeing funding cuts from the

federal government to settlement programs. They’re concerned about

these. But in the face of that, they’re led by a very capable and

dedicated staff.

I’d like to welcome the relatively new executive director, Zahra

Esmail. As well, they have a new director of community programs, Mimi

Rennie, and a great team of dedicated staff. I have to also mention

their community board, which is really the anchor of the organization

and the lifeblood.

We’ve got the indomitable Lorna Gibbs, who’s the chair; vice-chair

Aaron Sihota; Liza Bautista, secretary; Anjani Singh, the treasurer; as

well as many members of the board, including my friend Christopher

Chung, who is also the president of the Victoria Drive Business

Improvement Association; and just a real great assortment of

community-minded folks who really take their time and make great efforts

to support all the great programs and activities at the South Vancouver

Neighbourhood House.

JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT B.C.

J. Yap: Whenever I rise in this House, I enjoy reminding all members of

the importance of keeping our fiscal house in order. Some members

require more reminding than others. But I digress.

To do so takes hard work, discipline and a strong foundation in

financial literacy. Luckily, that type of learning can happen at any

age, and one fantastic organization, Junior Achievement of British

Columbia, aims to provide that knowledge to young people before they

enter the workforce.

JABC programs teach youth how to make informed, educated and

knowledgable financial decisions, start companies, develop career plans

and express their innovative spirit. These programs are delivered free

of charge by volunteers from their local business community, who bring

their real-life experiences into the classroom.

I’m pleased to note that in 2016-17, JABC delivered a

record-breaking 1,400-plus programs within school districts in B.C.,

including 50 in the Richmond school district. They have expanded their

reach to serve more than 40,000 young people across our province and

have increased their engagement with Aboriginal youth in particular.

They work to give young people the confidence and knowledge they need to

define personal success, prepare for the working world and pursue their

dreams.

I’d like to congratulate Junior Achievement British Columbia on

achieving these valuable outcomes for students in my riding of

Richmond-Steveston and beyond. JABC is truly helping to develop the

leaders of tomorrow in our communities.

[10:15 a.m.]

KIDNEY DISEASE AWARENESS

R. Singh: Last Sunday I attended the annual Kidney Walk held in my

constituency to support all those families and individuals who are

desperately awaiting a kidney transplant, an operation that could

finally give them a normal life.

One in ten British Columbians suffer from kidney disease. With the

added stress of dialysis and daily medications, the quality of life of

those waiting for a transplant goes significantly down. There are almost

600 people currently on the organ transplant list, with 80 percent of

those waiting for a kidney.

Since its beginning at Trout Lake in 2008, the Kidney Foundation

of B.C.’s charity walk has raised $1.4 million, with the help of over

12,000 walkers at events all across the province. They also want to

increase organ donor registrations by 50 percent in five

years.

Kidney disease is known as the silent killer and has no cure. Only

through raising awareness and increasing the donor list can we do our

part for the thousands in our province fighting such a deadly

disease.

WHITE ROCK ALL-STARS

LITTLE LEAGUE

CHAMPIONS

T. Redies: I’m honoured to stand in this House to draw attention to an

outstanding display of athletic achievement from my constituency in

Surrey–White Rock. I’d like to congratulate the White Rock Little League

baseball team — who, with great athletic ability, an abundance of

hometown support and just a little bit of luck, won the honour to

represent Canada and compete in South Williamsport, Pennsylvania, at the

Little League World Series this summer.

This team of outstanding 12- and 13-year-olds from White Rock and

South Surrey was put together in mid-June. They were on the road for

nearly three months, in a season that took them across Canada — first,

to Victoria, B.C., for the provincial championship, and from there

directly to Medicine Hat, Alberta, for the Canadian championships, where

they dominated the tournament, scoring 114 runs to their opponents’ 24,

and then earned the right to represent Canada on the world

stage.

Undefeated throughout their Canadian season, they went on to win

against Europe-Africa and Latin America at the World Series before

falling to Japan. The boys ended the year with a 10-2 record, the

deepest run by a Canadian team in almost two decades.

I’d like to congratulate coaches Ryan Hefflick, Keith Fluet,

Emmanuel Factor and team members Ben Chowen, Kyle Chyzowski, Reid

Hefflick, Chase Marshall, Robert Orr, Lachlan Scardina, Ty Fluet, Matteo

Manzi, Reece Ulsselman, Nathaniel Factor — it’s a big team — Grayson

Frers, Daniel Orfaly and Sheldyn Scott for their outstanding sports

achievement. They’ve certainly made our community very proud.

SERAUXMEN SERVICE CLUB

L. Krog: Fifty years ago, 1967, the centennial year, a group of young

fellows gathered at the Tally Ho Hotel in Nanaimo. Beer is 20 cents a

glass. They talk about service clubs. They’re all getting pressured to

join Kiwanis or Gyro or the Jaycees or the Rotary clubs, and they say:

“Why don’t we just start our own service club? We want to get together

to have fun socially, but we want to raise money for charity.” They

called themselves the Serauxmen. Now, they never sought recognition,

they never sought glory in the public place, but they started their

first fundraiser small, with a car wash that raised $147.

The members over the years have included small business operators,

employees, entrepreneurs, union members, First Nations, millworkers,

realtors and investment advisers. I think you get the picture: they

welcomed everyone. They raised money through derbies, through bingos,

through dances, through golf tournaments.

As the member pointed out earlier, in 50 years this little club

has raised over $2 million for charities in Nanaimo and done countless

thousands of hours of community work for various charities. Their

biggest achievement, the one everyone in Nanaimo recognizes, is the

Serauxmen Stadium. It was opened on July 1, 1976, by — wait for it, hon.

Speaker — no less a personage than Mickey Mantle. It is still the finest

stadium for baseball in British Columbia, next only to Nat Bailey in

Vancouver.

These boys, like the city of Nanaimo itself, have always punched

way above their weight. On behalf of Nanaimo’s three MLAs and all the

good people of British Columbia who have benefited from the work of the

Serauxmen, we just want to say a big thank-you. We are proud of you. We

recognize your contribution and your hard work today. May there be many

more years of fun, many more years of success and many more years of

service.

[10:20 a.m.]

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT HOUSING INITIATIVES

AND BUDGET

PROVISIONS

R. Coleman: In the election platform last year, the NDP committed to build

114,000 units of housing over ten years. This is about 11,400 units a

year. I’ll come back to that in a minute. The recent announcement made

by the minister, however, talks about 1,700 units which are already in

process and 2,000 modular units over two years.

The challenge is this. She has also said that in the first six

months, or early 2018, there will be 1,000 units deployed. That means

you need sites, you need locations, you need servicing, and you need

them built. My questions to the minister are varied.

First of all, I’d like to know if the tender has gone out, how

many have been received and where this product is going across the

province.

In addition to that, there are two budgets for this. There are 600

units in Vancouver. If you take the numbers out of the minister’s

announcement, they are coming in at $110,000 a unit. The remaining 1,400

units are coming in at a cost of $160,000 a unit. So which factory is

getting the big bonus of $50,000 more per unit versus the ones that are

going in, in Vancouver?

My question to the minister is: in early 2018, how many will you

actually deploy? If you do the 1,000, tell me where in the budget for

B.C. Housing are the operating costs. It cannot be found, and it’s going

to cost them a fortune to operate the units.

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s my pleasure to rise and speak to the House and to British

Columbians about housing affordability. We know that under the previous

government, housing affordability was out of control. The previous

minister suggested to people that they just needed to stop whining, and

the previous Premier said: “Why don’t you just move to Fort St.

John?”

We’re really committed to making sure that housing affordability,

which is the number one issue facing British Columbians, is addressed.

I’m very, very proud to stand here before the House to comment on the

ways in which we’ve already taken steps.

We know that homelessness only increased under the previous

government. I got into politics because of the homelessness issue in my

community. The very first time I got up before a council, the very first

time I took a political stand, was to speak out about the homelessness

issue in my community.

I’m very proud of the fact that our government, in very short

order, committed to 2,000 units of modular housing. It’s going to make a

difference to those people who are homeless. It’s going to make a

difference to the people of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, if I may ask you to direct your

question through the Chair.

R. Coleman: I did, Mr. Speaker. They were applauding at the time. You didn’t

hear me, Mr. Speaker. That’s all.

In addition to this, the minister now can’t tell me where the

units will go. The operating costs are $170 million, because they have

24-hour wraparound costs in their budget for the 2,000 units, which is

about $22,500 per individual unit for their services. The operating

costs in addition to that will be financing and rents and costs like

that.

Now, last spring the Premier was dazzling British Columbians with

grandiose promises of 114,000 units of housing over the next ten years —

11,400 units a year. Two thousand modular doesn’t come very close to

11,400 units per year.

The budget itself from the NDP is hopelessly short here. If you

look at B.C. Housing’s operating costs, they’re going down, not being

funded to be able to actually operate any new housing at all. We’re

already short on that promise. To stay on track, the government would

need to complete 41,900 units over the next three years at a cost of

$10.5 billion, capital and borrowing. Operating costs would be in excess

of hundreds of millions of dollars.

I just want to know where the money is. I’d like to know where the

minister is getting the money. It’s not in your budget, and it’s not in

the outgoing budget for the next four years.

[10:25 a.m.]

How are you going to build 11,500 units? Where are you going to

build them? Where are you going to put them? In addition to that, you

need about $351 million a year in operating costs. You have no money.

You’re going to build 114,000 units, over $28 billion in

costs….

Mr. Speaker: Member, the question, please.

R. Coleman: Where’s the money?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, it is very interesting that the week after the UBCM, I’m

invited to get on my feet and talk about housing, because what I heard

at the UBCM was that they are looking for a partner in the provincial

government — something that was missing for local

governments.

They have opportunities. They have ideas. They have innovative

ideas and different ways of bringing their portion to the table so that

we can actually get on with the business of building housing for British

Columbians.

The other thing that I’m really proud to say is that the meetings

I’ve been having with the private sector, with First Nations, with the

federal government — there are opportunities before us to deliver on

114,000 units. We’ve started, we’ve got more to do, and I’m really

excited to get to work.

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

supplemental.

R. Coleman: Well, I think this is the actual fact: the NDP made a promise that

they cannot keep. Not unusual, given the number they haven’t kept

already.

But 11,400 units of housing — knowing the market, knowing what it

costs and the time it takes to just own one piece of property for social

housing somewhere in this province, what local government has to go

through — was an unrealistic promise. They won’t admit that, but they

should, because sooner or later, somebody is going to start to

count.

Now, the average cost of these units is going to be around

$250,000. That is $28.5 billion. That’s not my numbers, by the way. It’s

from the left-leaning Canadian Centre of Policy Alternatives’ numbers. I

know their price is wrong. It’s going to be higher.

The reality is you need $28.5 billion plus, on the debt of this

province over the next ten years, to build 114,000 units. Then you will

need $3 billion to $4 billion in additional operating costs. So where is

the money coming from?

You’re running yourself into an operation debt. You’re going to

increase the debt-to-equity. The problem is this: you don’t have a plan.

You can’t even tell me where you’re going to put the first 1,000 modular

units.

Hon. S. Robinson: It is a great pleasure to continue to stand up on my feet and talk

about what partnership means, because clearly the folks on the other

side have no idea what that looks like.

Just to answer…

Interjections.

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

Hon. S. Robinson: …the specific question, 600 units are going to be going to

Vancouver. Vancouver city council has identified a number of places

where they can do that in their community. That’s been identified.

Smithers has come forward. Surrey’s come forward. Maple Ridge can’t wait

to get started. Victoria is really excited about the

opportunity.

Local governments are excited about the opportunity. They’re

prepared to partner with a government that is respectful and prepared to

work with them.

REBATE FOR RESIDENTIAL TENANTS

S. Sullivan: I am a renter, and many of my fellow British Columbians who are

renters were very intrigued to hear about the NDP campaign platform

promise of a $400-a-year rebate cheque. Now, I’ve looked through the

books, and I cannot find that rebate cheque anywhere. What the renters

appear to be getting is a bill for the $250,000 for a secretariat that’s

supposed to sort this stuff out.

The minister says the promise will be kept. The member for Oak

Bay–Gordon Head says it ain’t gonna happen. Can the minister please tell

us: will she keep her promise, or will the renters of this province and

the voters be disappointed once again?

[10:30 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The renters of British Columbia, I think, are very excited about

our promise to increase funding for the residential tenancy branch

because that’s going to make life better for renters. The previous

government actually reduced funding for this….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, if I may ask you to sit for a moment.

Members, it’s bad enough that you’re interrupting when somebody is

responding, but it’s even worse when you do it before they begin their

response.

Minister, please proceed.

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have committed to increase funding for the residential tenancy

branch. It’s an important piece that addresses fairness and equity,

making sure that good landlords and good renters are protected while we

address the landlords that are making very poor choices and renters that

are very difficult.

We have increased $7 million over a number of years to make sure

that we can have a compliance unit so that people are following the

rules. Also, there’s been a significant backlog, a significant wait-list

that just stewed under the previous government. We felt it was important

that renters’ needs were met, so we have increased funding.

I’m very proud of those initial steps we’ve taken to make life

better for renters in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–False Creek on a supplemental.

S. Sullivan: The leader of the Green Party has said the renter rebate is dead.

He’s actually said the NDP promises are irrelevant. So the renters are

paying $250,000 so these people can sort out their differences. I

believe the renters need to know from the minister: will she keep her

promise, or will she have to raise taxes and go into deficit to do,

though?

Hon. S. Robinson: We are committed to making sure that we have a comprehensive

housing strategy that addresses the needs of all people living in

British Columbia, whether you’re a homeowner, a renter or need

supportive housing. I also want to point out that when it comes to

making sure that we have a comprehensive housing strategy, I expect the

member opposite to support it. I think it’s really important that we

have unanimity in this House and make sure that housing affordability is

addressed properly.

The previous government just pretended it was not a problem. They

just said: “Why do people on the Lower Mainland have to keep whining?”

Our government is putting together a plan that will make life better for

British Columbians.

REGULATION OF REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY

A. Weaver: It seems fitting that I rise and ask a question after

this.

Last week at the UBCM, the Premier took a page out of the B.C.

Liberals’ failed strategy to deal with Metro Vancouver’s housing crisis.

“We need more supply,” he proclaimed to the delegates. Once more our

government has missed the glaring problems on the demand side. Where is

their promised speculation tax? Where are the so many other steps that

they said they would do and that they would take during the election

campaign? And why, after I raised it here in the Legislature almost four

years ago, has this government not yet closed a loophole that

incentivizes speculation, discourages transparency and encourages

property tax avoidance?

My question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is

this: why haven’t you already closed the bare trust loophole — a

loophole so big you could drive a bus through it — and ensured that the

property tax is applied on the transfer of beneficial ownership and not

just the transfer of title?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member down the way for the

question.

It’s really important that when we take a look at the housing

crisis — a crisis that rose under the previous government, a government

that did nothing, that just pretended like it was not an

issue….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Robinson: Let’s be really clear. They were saying: “If you don’t like it,

move to Fort St. John.” People have been really struggling.

Interjections.

[10:35 a.m.]

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

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s really important that….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Robinson: I’ve nothing against Fort St. John, but I don’t like the

government telling me where to live.

It’s really important that when we talk about putting together a

comprehensive, affordable strategy, a comprehensive housing strategy

that addresses all of the pieces — the supply side and the demand side —

we take a look at all those levers and all the tools at our disposal,

and we make sure that they work together. That’s what comprehensive

means, and we need to take our time to get it right.

It’s really important. This is too important to really mess up, so

we need to make sure that we’ve got it right. I’m really excited that it

is coming in short order.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: Please let me remind you that when the Attorney General was in

opposition, he was a very fierce critic of the B.C. Liberal housing

policy or lack of a policy on affordability. Indeed, a year ago he told

the readers of Reddit: “We need to eliminate what’s called the bare

trust loophole in the property transfer tax where these properties can

transfer without property transfer tax paid. It’s costing us literally

hundreds of millions that could be used for affordable housing

initiatives.”

It’s a straightforward fix. All we have to do is what Ontario has

already done years ago. We don’t need to rediscover the wheel, and there

is no excuse for a delay.

My question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is

this: what’s the holdup? You’ve had many years in opposition identifying

problems, and you’ve had many years to identify solutions. The Attorney

General has identified those solutions and said he would do it. It’s a

quick fix. Why haven’t you done it?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m grateful that, with the help of the member down the way, we’ll

have 4½ years to get this work done. I look forward to that

work.

After ten weeks here in government, we have acted on our promise

to increase funding for the residential tenancy branch. We are preparing

to close unfair loopholes that allow landlords to bypass rent controls,

something that the previous minister said was rather complicated, which

we learned was actually not that complicated. We’ve announced the

creation of 2,000 units of modular housing with wraparound services. We

also announced 1,700 units of affordable housing throughout the

province.

That’s in ten weeks. Just think about what we are going to get

done in 4½ years.

GOVERNMENT HOUSING POLICY

J. Johal: It’s been a rough couple of months for the new government.

Recently the Premier broke his promise on campaign financing, and the

list goes on and on. Naturally, we come to their empty promises on

housing.

If members would indulge me, I would like to put two quotes on the

record. Quote No. 1: “We want to make sure if you own your own home,

government wasn’t going to take some initiative so dramatic and harmful

it meant you lost the equity in your home you built.” Quote No. 2:

“Housing is a critical component of many people’s equity and their

retirement prospects, and we want to make sure we don’t adversely affect

the marketplace.”

I wonder if the Minister of Housing can tell us who said that and

if she agrees with the sentiments expressed in those quotes.

Hon. S. Robinson: It sounds like we’re playing Jeopardy or something. I

didn’t sign up to play games in this House. If the member has a

question, I’m prepared to answer it.

[10:40 a.m.]

J. Johal: Well, clearly, the minister can’t, so I’ll help her out. The

quotes are from the former Premier and the current Premier, after his

conversion on the road….

Interjections.

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

J. Johal: The quote, No. 1, came from the former Premier. The second quote

came from the current Premier, after his conversion on the road to

Government House.

The NDP promised 114,000 new rental, social, co-op housing units.

They promised $10-a-day care. They promised a rentals rebate. They

promised not to hustle taxpayers’ money for political parties, and now

the government has seen the light on home equity.

It’s clear to me that this government never intended to keep its

commitment to voters. This bunch says one thing and does

another.

So my question is to the minister. She announced 3,700 units.

Where in her ministry’s budget is funding for the additional 111,000

units?

Hon. S. Robinson: I really….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, proceed.

Hon. S. Robinson: I really appreciate the opportunity to say once again in this

House about the value of partnerships.

Our commitment is to work with the co-op sector, the non-profit

sector, to work with the private sector — which, I have to say, is very

excited about the change in government, because they’re very excited

about the opportunities to help us work together — with local

governments, with First Nations, with the federal government, to deliver

on our commitments. And that’s exactly what we’re doing.

FEDERAL TAX CHANGES

AND SMALL

BUSINESS

C. Oakes: Small businesses across this country and here in British Columbia

have expressed alarm about the proposed federal tax changes and the

effects it will have on middle-class small business owners.

Today in Ottawa, the Premier chose not to stand up for British

Columbians, saying this came out of the blue — a disappointing defence

of job creators here in British Columbia. To be clear, this has not been

out of the blue. In fact, the consultation period ended just

yesterday.

I would ask the minister of small business, but since this

government doesn’t have a minister of small business…. To the minister

of job loss: can he table the letter or submission from his government

to the federal government about the impact these tax changes will have

on middle-class small business owners?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for raising the issue.

Certainly, all of us have heard the concerns of small businesses.

As the member knows, this is a matter of federal jurisdiction. Perhaps

she and her colleagues would also like to talk to their federal

colleagues and express the views of small businesses — that small

businesses would like a longer consultation process, would like more

information on the federal tax.

In the meantime, we will continue to do our good work to support

small businesses, including lowering the small business corporate tax

rate in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo North on a supplemental.

C. Oakes: I will take it, from the Minister of Finance, that the government

has not put forward a submission or a letter in to the federal

government.

You know, this government is already making it difficult enough

for small businesses. They’re raising taxes, reducing business

competitiveness, all the while opposing job generators like Site C and

the George Massey replacement project, just to name a few — projects

that, I would remind members on both sides of this House, are important

in every part of this province.

British Columbians need somebody in their corner now. Will the

minister write to Ottawa and make it clear these proposed changes will

have a devastating impact?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I can tell the member across that small businesses have expressed

that they are thrilled to have someone standing up for them once again

in British Columbia.

Because, Member, whether it is….

Interjections.

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

response.

Hon. C. James: Whether it is our investments in education to ensure a

well-trained workforce, whether it’s our investment in housing to ensure

that employees have housing, whether it’s our investment in dropping the

corporate tax rate for small businesses or the PST on electricity, we

are standing up for small businesses, and we will continue to do that,

Member.

TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

SAFETY UPGRADE

PROJECTS

J. Martin: Yesterday in this House, the Transportation Minister was asked a

pretty straightforward question about critical transportation

investments. Communities want to know why pre-loading has not begun on

schedule for the Shuswap to Salmon Arm west project. Commuters want to

know why the budget commitment to widening Highway 1 in the Fraser

Valley was removed. All we got from the minister was some rhetoric and

some smug dismissiveness.

So either the minister doesn’t know her file very well, or she

doesn’t seem to care about these issues. Let’s make this very

straightforward. Will the minister right here, right now, who has had a

day to consult with her staff and think this through, give us in this

House the time and the date of completion for widening Highway 1 to

264th — here and now, no rhetoric?

Hon. C. Trevena: This government is continuing with the previous government’s

project of widening Highway 1 from 202nd to 216th Street. That is

continuing.

The last government, when it was in power, made an announcement

about widening beyond that. Without any money from anywhere, it stood

there and said: “We are going to do this.”

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

Hon. C. Trevena: Mr. Speaker, I’ll wait for them to finish.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Trevena: We are looking at serious capital infrastructure projects along

Highway 1. We’re doing it in a measured way, but we have said that we’re

going to accelerate the four-laning and look at the other ones in

context.

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

J. Martin: I’d like to thank the minister for, well, whatever the heck that

was she just talked about.

Perhaps the minister is under the impression…. She has obviously….

She’s on the front bench. She has insider information. Maybe she knows

that another six months of an NDP government and there won’t be any

congestion on the morning commute because no one will be commuting to

work anyway. It’s really going to be a moot question.

Let’s be clear. The track record of this minister, this

government, when they were in opposition, has been to say no to

transportation — no to the Port Mann Bridge, no to the Coquihalla

Highway, no to the Sea and Sky, no to the Alex Fraser Bridge, no to

Highway 17.

I do apologize. I used to have that list memorized, committed to

memory, but it just keeps growing and growing and growing, and I’m

losing the ability to be able to rattle them off the whole

way.

So what was the first decision of this new minister? Well, it was

to cancel the George Massey Tunnel replacement project. I’ve got to say,

member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, your profile is stunning

there.

Mr. Speaker: Member, your question please.

J. Martin: Commuters have a right to know an answer to….

Interjections.

J. Martin: Did I just get heckled by Ma Barker over there?

[10:50 a.m.]

Commuters have a right to know if previous transportation projects

will still be built according to the announced timelines of the previous

government.

To the minister, one more time: yes or no, Madam Minister? Have

you delayed the implementation of any transportation projects that were

in the ten-year plan under the previous B.C. government, which got

things done?

Hon. C. Trevena: We are committed to building infrastructure across this province

to make sure that people can travel easily and safely across this

province, make sure that people can get to work, and make sure that we

have safe infrastructure right across this province.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think members of the chamber will be relieved to know that in Committee

A of Committee of Supply, it will be the estimates of the Ministry of Public

Safety and Solicitor General, and in this chamber, second reading debate on Bill

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — ELECTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

D. Davies: I rise today, representing my riding of Peace River North, to

speak to Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act, 2017. I’m not necessarily

here to debate getting corporate and union money out of politics, as we

hear over and over again from the other side — you know, getting big

money out of politics. We agree to this, and we’ve also stated that we

agree to many parts of this bill.

I am, however, here to debate the fact that this government wants

to, without option, put the hard-earned money of the citizens of British

Columbia into politics, and I think that is the biggest issue that we

have with this bill.

I also wanted to apologize to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head,

who is not here right now — hearing a recurring theme from us, repeated

responses. My response to that is that it is important, not necessarily

for everybody in this House but for British Columbians to continue to

hear how their hard-earned money is being devised into a horrible plan

that is going to be supporting political parties.

[10:55 a.m.]

It’s also, maybe, for some people that may have been nodding off

in the House so that they can hear this theme again throughout this

discussion.

As I travel around to people in my riding of Peace River North or

one that got people in my riding talking. In fact, I would have to say

that on a recent Facebook post that I did, it has probably received the

most comments of any of my posts that I’ve done, maybe ever. I would

love to read some of the posts — I printed off well over 100 of them —

but the language is far too colourful, I think, to be repeating in this

honourable place.

Just to give a bit of a theme around what some of the people are

saying, I will read a couple of the comments that have been put forward.

“I give money to the party I support.” I think that’s one of the themes

whether it be Twitter or Facebook, but also in the coffee shops around

my communities. People are talking about: “I want to donate to, I want

to contribute to, a party that I support, a party that aligns with my

own principles.”

Another comment: “I didn’t vote for that.” “This is going too

far.” “So my tax dollars are going to go to parties that I would never

support — in fact, parties that I outright oppose.” These are just some

of the comments that people are writing to me. “This is a great way for

parties with low or no support to still seem viable.” “I’m not happy

about this.” “This is a complete joke.” The list goes on and on. Again,

I would encourage anybody…. If they want to look at this, I would

certainly share this out of this place.

I believe that these comments represent what a majority of British

Columbians feel about this proposed bill in its present form. I will

say, though, there were two or three comments out of these 100-plus

comments that were somewhat favourable to it. We put them into a

percentage — about 2 percent. That may represent, probably, what British

Columbians are feeling about this bill.

Don’t get me wrong. As I’ve already mentioned, like many residents

of British Columbia, we do support the intent of this bill: putting in a

limit, banning corporate and union donations and generally reforming

campaign finances. I don’t think that we can argue that. However, we

have long stated our opposition to public dollars subsidizing political

parties.

In January, just this past January, we had raised concerns that a

taxpayer subsidy was, in fact, one of the NDP plans. The now Premier,

who was then Leader of the Opposition, leader of the NDP, called it

alternate facts, a distortion, accused of us lying. Well, here we are

today talking about that very said piece. I will come back to this

little piece of hypocrisy a little bit later on in my

comments.

The Premier was very clear, multiple times, that he would not

provide tax dollars to political parties. Again, this seems to be

another theme that we’re hearing — a broken promise, not following

through on something that was stated. Also, possibly, just to satisfy —

I’m going to mix this up — the junior partner party. Just to mix it up

from the usual comments. I don’t know if that helps a bit or

not.

Interjection.

D. Davies: There we go.

This is going to be the tune of $800,000 and a direct subsidy to

the Green Party in this first year alone. Not bad. Not a bad little

taxpayer gift.

[11:00 a.m.]

Now we see the truth as to why they refused to read our proposed

legislation that was introduced in this place in June. I really think

that there probably was a plan in place. The intent was there to siphon

taxpayer moneys from the taxpayer into parties.

Interjection.

D. Davies: No, I don’t think I’m making it up.

The NDP received record-breaking donations. We’ve seen this. This

They’ve been receiving record-breaking donations from — wait for it;

there we go — the United Steelworkers, more than $1.3 million over the

last couple of years. So it is clear to me that they cannot function

without these massive union funds. They are, instead, going to take the

money from the taxpayer to continue operating.

The NDP have called this allowance a transitional, or temporary,

measure. But they have a plan, I believe, to make this permanent. It

will be permanent unless it’s very specifically stopped by the

government in 2022 — five years from now. It’s obvious that there is a

hope, or a desire, I think, that British Columbians will forget by then,

and then this subsidy will become part of routine. Meanwhile, the

reimbursement of election expenses to the tune of as much as $11 million

is already proposed to be permanently in place.

It has been said repeatedly that we will defeat sections of this

bill that include the taxpayer subsidies. We’ve been talking about that

over these past few days. We will attempt to amend this portion of the

bill. We certainly encourage and invite all members of this place to

encourage the Premier to keep his promise.

A couple of highlights — or lowlights; I guess it’s a matter of

opinion — of this bill that I would like to raise, not necessarily to

everybody in this House, but to British Columbians. Bill 3 amends the

Election Act to allow for annual allowances to political parties. The

per-vote subsidy is as follows.

In 2018, it’s $2.50 a vote received per party, $2.25 in 2019, $2 a

vote in 2020, $1.75 in 2021 and $1.75 for every vote received in 2022.

This per-vote subsidy, which worries me, does not have an explicit

expiry date for it. It applies to political parties whose candidates

receive 2 percent of the total number of valid votes cast in our

electoral districts or 5 percent of the total valid votes cast in

electoral districts in which the political party has endorsed

candidates.

As a result of this subsidy, the payout to the major political

parties — the NDP, the B.C. Liberals and the Greens — would amount to

roughly $16 million over the next four years. That’s excluding the 2022

subsidy. So to the B.C. Liberals, $6.77 million; to the NDP, $6.75

million; to the Greens, $2.8 million. These moneys can be used for many

better things that we talk about in this place often, not supporting

political parties.

[11:05 a.m.]

Now, don’t get me wrong. I enjoy having all of us in here, in this

place. It makes it lively. It makes it enjoyable, a mix of B.C.

Liberals, NDP, our Green friends. But this might come as a bit of a

surprise. I did not contribute to the B.C. NDP. Nor did I support or

contribute to the Green Party, my Green Party friends.

This may seem shocking. This government should not be making me

contribute to these parties that personally don’t align with me. That is

the problem that I have, and I believe that is the problem that most

British Columbians have, with certainly this

section of Bill 3. Smaller

political parties and independent candidates are effectively excluded

from receiving this subsidy.

Bill 3 also provides a mechanism in which political party

allowances could become permanent — scary and not right. Under the

proposed

section 215.03, a special committee of MLAs is to conduct a

review of whether the allowance should be paid after 2022 and, if so,

for how much and how many years. The committee is to report within six

months of being appointed on the results of the review.

Bill 3 also proposes to reimburse political parties for up to 50

percent of election expenses for 2021 — not right. If calculated on the

2017 election results, this would account for $11 million to the B.C.

Liberals, the NDP and the Green Party. It’s 11 million today

dollars.

Finally, as I alluded to at the start, I’ll talk about broken

promises, hypocrisy, leading up to this bill. Just in case people in

this House or around British Columbia have missed it, I’d like to quote

the now Premier on CHNL on January 24 of this year: “There is no

proposal in our legislation for public financing of elections. There is

a proposal to have a group of prominent people, through Elections B.C.,

look at what the rest of the world is doing.”

Maybe this was a mistake or a slip-up. But just three days later,

on January 27, on CKNW: “We propose that Elections B.C. look across the

country and around the world at the best way to make sure that only

individuals are paying for our political process.” No mention of making

every taxpayer in British Columbia pay but directly saying

individuals.

Then again, February 9. Okay, so we’re obviously now…. This is a

promise. This is a desire to make sure that the citizens of British

Columbia are not going to be paying for political parties. He says on

CFAX on February 9: “At no time have I said that I prefer to make public

dollars responsible for political parties — at no time.” Again: “The

Premier” — then Christy Clark — “is just making stuff up. I believe we

need to get big money out of politics.”

Again, we’re not debating that piece. What we’re debating is

putting taxpayers’ money — the hard-working people of this great

province, their hard-earned money — into political parties. It’s

absolutely wrong, absolutely a hypocritical statement to be making

multiple times in public to British Columbians.

It reminds me of a story by Jaydip Kansara. When you sincerely

promise and swear and believe in something — you live by it, you say it,

you practise it — your credibility goes out the window when you do the

opposite. Again, this is the piece I think that we most…. Well, this is,

really, the piece that we’re arguing. Time after time again, it was

stated that taxpayers’ money would not go into paying political parties,

yet we see the difference.

[11:10 a.m.]

The little story — and I’ll read it — I think paints a nice little

picture, and it’s a break from hearing just me talk. So we’re all going

to get a nice little story. In a small town in America, a person decided

to open up a bar business, which was right opposite to a church. The

church and its congregation started a campaign to block this bar from

opening up. They got petitions going. They prayed fervently — they

prayed daily — to make sure this bar would not open. But work

progressed.

However, when it was almost complete and was about to open a few

days later, a strong lightning burst struck this bar, and it was burnt

to the ground. The church folk were rather smug in their outlook after

that, till the bar owner sued the church authorities for $2 million on

the grounds that the church, through its congregation and prayers, was

ultimately responsible for the demise of the bar shop, through either

direct or indirect actions and means.

Well, in its reply to the court, the church vehemently denied all

responsibility or any connection that their prayers had anything to do

with the shop’s demise. In support of their claim, they referred to the

Benson study at Harvard that intercessory prayer had no impact. The case

made its way into court. The judge looked over the paperwork at the

hearing. The judge commented: “I don’t know how I’m going to decide this

case. But it appears from the paperwork that we have a bar owner who

believes in the power of prayer, and an entire church and congregation

that does not.”

As we live up to things that we say, as we believe in things that

we say, and we want to practise truth, it is saddening that our Premier,

throughout the campaign and leading up to just when this bill was

tabled, said that there would be no taxpayer subsidy. But we’re debating

this today, in this place, that there is indeed now going to be, forced

upon every single taxpayer in British Columbia, a taxpayer subsidy.

They’re going to have to pay political parties whether they support them

or not. Whether they support them or not, they will be paying

it.

That is not right. I could go on about hypocrisy, but I won’t. I

really do believe that British Columbians get the picture. We’ve been

I’m sure we’ve all been hearing it in coffee shops in our communities.

People are upset in this province that a direct, indisputable tax

subsidy will pay for political parties in British Columbia.

On behalf of my constituents and many British Columbians, as well

as my own principles, I cannot and will not be supporting this bill in

its present form.

B. Ma: I’d like to begin my remarks by reading a press release issued by

a very popular U.S. senator in 2015. It was Sen. Bernie Sanders. It

reads, in part:

“Decrying the influence of big money in American politics, U.S. Sen.

Bernie Sanders on Sunday said he will introduce legislation to provide

public funding of elections. ‘We’re going to introduce legislation which

will allow people to run for office without having to beg money from the

wealthy and the powerful,’ Sanders said. He called the current campaign

finance system a ‘sad state of affairs.’ Public funding, he added, would

level the political playing field and make elections more competitive.

It also would let candidates spend more time meeting voters and

discussing issues and less time raising campaign funds. ‘That’s called

democracy, and I am going to do everything I can to bring that about,’

Sanders said.

[11:15 a.m.]

“Public funding of campaigns would counteract the disastrous Supreme

Court ruling in a case known as Citizens United . That 2010 case

and others which followed in its wake have gutted decades-old limits on

campaign funding and paved the way for millionaires and billionaires to

spend unlimited sums to influence election outcomes. ‘We must overturn

that decision before it’s too late,’ Sanders told the crowd here. ‘We

are increasingly living in an oligarchy where big money is buying

politicians.’

“He cited former President Jimmy Carter’s concerns about how the

Citizens United ruling resulted in ‘unlimited political

bribery.’

“The senator compared politicians to NASCAR drivers with their

sponsors’ logos emblazoned on their uniforms. He imagined a politician

with a sign saying, ‘I am sponsored by the Koch brothers’ or ‘I am

sponsored by big oil.’ ‘It’s a really sad state of affairs,’ said

Sanders.”

Of course, Senator Sanders was speaking about big money down in

the States, but I do believe there are quite a few parallels

here.

This week the new government tabled what will be a historic bill

for the future of B.C. by putting an end to what was called the Wild

West of Canadian political financing once and for all. The importance of

this bill cannot be understated, but one element of this complex and

thorough legislation has been dominating the conversation — the

transitional per-vote allowance and partial expense reimbursements. I

think that it is extremely unfortunate that that part of the bill is

being used to overshadow how incredibly democratic the entire proposal

actually is, and that includes the transitional per-vote

allowance.

Douglas Todd, in his column on September 23 — I believe it was in

the Vancouver Sun — said: “Most democracies consider it fair,

if not essential, to fight potential corruption by having the public

bear some of the cost of political campaigns. Otherwise, back room

oligarchs — the companies, unions and individuals with deep pockets to

fund political parties — can and do infiltrate the legislative process

to shift it to their own ends.”

As most of you likely already know, at this current moment in

time, there are no limits on union, corporate or even foreign donations.

That means, hypothetically, it would be legal, as an example, for a

corporation with absolutely no ties to or interest in the welfare of

B.C.’s public to donate enough money for a political party to win an

election or more. Such influence can significantly distort how public

policy is developed and, with that, public spending.

It is an incredibly serious issue that has grave consequences on

democracy as well as our tax dollars. B.C. has an annual operating

budget of approximately $50 billion a year, and there are billions more

to be spent on capital projects. One must wonder how millions of dollars

of donations from developers of oil and gas companies, or oil and gas

companies, might influence how governments spend those dollars or the

decisions that they make and what those decisions are worth.

The new system bans corporate, union and out-of-province

donations, while restricting donation limits for individuals within the

province to a total of $1,200 per year to any given party and their

candidates. It also includes many other measures to close loopholes and

really tighten up the system. These include public reporting on the

types of fundraisers that cabinet ministers and parliamentary

secretaries are attending.

Once this legislation is passed, it will make B.C. one of the

strictest electoral financing jurisdictions in Canada. We will have the

second-lowest donation limit in the entire country, and it will take $65

million out of the election cycle.

[11:20 a.m.]

This piece of legislation is very thorough. Many details were

fleshed out in the process of developing it in order to ensure loopholes

are closed and to encourage buy in from other parties so that this

legislation to ban corporate and union donations can finally pass, after

so many attempts by the B.C. NDP in 16 years as opposition when the

bills were continuously stopped by the previous government.

Under this proposed legislation, there are two forms of public

financial involvement. The first is a temporary transitional allowance,

with a proposed ending in 2022. The amounts are as follows: in 2018,

$2.50 for every vote a party will receive. In 2019, a party will receive

$2.25 for every vote they have received. In 2020, that amount goes down

to $2 per vote. In 2021, it goes down to $1.75. In 2022, it’s another

$1.75. In 2023, that per-vote transitional allowance goes to

nothing.

The member for Peace River South had mentioned that a person’s

per-vote allowance was going to parties that they did not support. I

believe that the member should perhaps review the legislation again,

because it is very clear that the per-vote allowance is only granted to

a party that receives that number of votes.

With a temporary transitional allowance and a personal donation

limit of $1,200 per party and its candidates, this new legislation will

make B.C. the province with the lowest personal contribution limits

without a permanent public subsidy model. Quebec does have a

contribution limit of $100, which is lower, but they also provide a

party allowance to every party based on the total number of all eligible

voters in the province, as opposed to a party’s real vote share. The

majority of other provinces also include some kind of public funding

model in their electoral financing.

The second form of public financial involvement in this

legislation is the election expense reimbursement, which I believe will

encourage new parties to join the fold by helping smaller, less

established parties gain a foothold. Because of our hopes for

proportional representation in future elections, I am optimistic that

many new parties will be able to join the race and that this will have a

democratizing effect on this province.

These new parties would not benefit from the temporary per-vote

allowance, thus the after-election reimbursements. The reimbursements

would only be allowed on certain expenses that were actually paid for,

and the parties and candidates must receive at least 10 percent of the

vote to qualify.

Let me be absolutely clear, however. Even more important and more

critical than talking about the cost of these allowances and

reimbursements is talking about the cost of staying with the current

system, where public money is already used to subsidize the political

agendas of the very wealthy.

The cost of a distortive legislative and public spending agenda

are enormous, both in real dollars and in real lives. There are many

stories written by investigative journalists that suggest political

donations may have resulted in favouritism in regards to billions of

dollars of public spending. These are dollars that could have been

helping us end poverty, support our seniors, keep housing affordable and

more.

The fact of the matter is that taxpayers already pay for election

spending, partly through the millions of dollars that go to pay for tax

credits and deductions, but most of all through the loss of control over

the legislative priorities of the people that they elect. There are so

many examples to ponder.

[11:25 a.m.]

Did the previous B.C. Liberal government gut the province’s

climate action plan because of $3.6 million in donations the party

received from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers? Did the

previous government’s hands-off approach to the housing market have

anything to do with the millions that they received from developers and

contractors year after year? Did the grizzly bear trophy hunt go on for

so long under the previous government because of the donations the B.C.

Liberal party received from American grizzly bear hunters? Did tax

breaks consistently go to benefit the richest people in our province

because those are the individuals who can donate the most to the B.C.

Liberals?

We may never know if big money influenced those decisions. The

fact that we even have to ask these questions is, in itself, absolutely

unconscionable for modern-day democracy.

As someone who did not originally come from politics prior to

entering this year’s election, I cannot express to you how relieved I am

that this change is being made so that my community might be confident

that they will be able to have their needs considered as voters before a

donor’s personal profits. I am so relieved that our democracy might soon

be able to work for the many and not the few at the top.

This is an incredibly historic move for B.C., and it comes after

16 years of a government that did everything in their power to keep

B.C.’s democracy in the Dark Ages. For those reasons and for more

reasons like that, I will be supporting this bill.

A. Olsen: I’m very proud to rise and take my place in this debate on one of

the most overdue pieces of legislation that has ever been tabled in this

House.

Over the past year, I have been speaking with British Columbians

about this issue. Last week marked the one-year anniversary of the B.C.

Greens unilaterally deciding to stop accepting corporate and union

donations. We argued that leaders need to talk less and show people

through their actions what they stand for. A year later, with a minority

government, we’re finally seeing our government show that same

leadership by taking action to completely reform our campaign finance

laws.

As in the campaign, it’s critical to understand what’s truly at

the core of this issue: trust. For 16 years, there has been a growing

pessimism about those interests our government represented. This

pessimism grew with every fundraising event, where corporations or

unions or wealthy individuals would pay thousands if not tens of

thousands for the appearance of special access to

decision-makers.

It grew with every decision that was made that seemed to be

counter to the interests of British Columbians, but a company who also

happened to be a donor would benefit. It grew as every jurisdiction in

Canada facing similar pessimism, facing similar challenges from their

constituents about who they were actually serving, took action — every

jurisdiction except for British Columbia.

Does this mean every decision that was being made had a price tag

attached to it? Certainly not. But that nagging question, backed up by

an unlimited flow of money from private interests, cast a shade over

critical decisions, cast doubt and cynicism over the most important

provincial debates.

Frankly, I do not understand how any government would allow the

trust of the people it governs to be eroded in this way. In the 21st

century, with the changes to our economy and our society, there is

nothing that is more important than ensuring that we have the trust of

British Columbians.

Earning the trust of British Columbians is going to require us to

trust them, and we demonstrate that through our actions. For months,

indeed years, an overwhelming number of British Columbians wanted this

House to limit the influence of special interests through money. The

previous government ignored British Columbians. Even in the face of

criticism from around the world, the previous government put their head

down and stubbornly pushed ahead. Those actions, that stubbornness,

eroded the trust of British Columbians, and we must rebuild

it.

[11:30 a.m.]

We have huge mountains to climb in front of us — automation, the

changing nature of work, climate change, demographic changes. Any one of

these issues will necessitate a government capable of moving decisively

to take on new challenges and to create new opportunities. But to

attempt to do so in the shadow of a public that doesn’t trust the

government? This is something all of us in this House must

confront.

Government must be agile. Allowing special interests to use their

money and their influence to protect the status quo limits the

flexibility and the agility of that government, which the government

needs to develop forward-looking public policy to benefit all British

Columbians. Protecting the way it was ignores the way it is and blinds

to us the possibility of the way it could be.

The reforms contained in this bill are of the single most

important reforms that we can do in this regard. There is no question

that money influences decisions and that this bill ends some of the most

egregious practices that were permitting the undue access of the wrong

kind of money.

That said, I need to be true to my journey to this House. Four

years ago, I considered standing as an independent candidate. Since that

time, I’ve made a choice that the B.C. Greens best represent my values

and the future I want for this province; however, others might make a

different decision.

I believe this House needs to be accessible to all British

Columbians, and currently, it is not. I had many discussions with former

independent members from Cariboo South and Delta South, and the

obstacles facing independent candidates are great, discouraging all but

the most ambitious. I pause here to mention this, because campaign and

candidate financing is one area that needs to be more welcoming to

future independents. But it is only one of many aspects to truly make

this House more accessible to partisan and non-partisan candidates —

future members alike.

When we approached this legislation, we had five core principles

that we were looking for.

First, we wanted to eliminate the influence of special interests

in B.C. elections. This meant the complete removal of all forms of

corporate and union influence, including in-kind contributions. This

bill accomplishes exactly that by ensuring only a resident of British

Columbia can donate to political parties. This is a monumental shift

away from the embedded system that was so reliant on corporate and union

donations.

We also wanted to see the influence of existing corporate and

union donations that have already been given limited to the greatest

extent possible. While we are supportive of what’s in the bill — that

they cannot be used in the next election’s campaign period — we’re

exploring every way possible to further restrict its use in the period

between now and the next election.

Second, we wanted to see B.C. have one of the lowest contribution

limits in the country. It’s very important to me and to my caucus

colleagues that British Columbia makes up for lost time by adopting one

of the lowest individual contribution limits in the country. A $1,200

limit, or $100 a month, puts British Columbia second only to Quebec,

which has a limit of $100 and is heavily reliant on public

financing.

As part of this change, we will also see a new allowance regime

introduced to our province. While the B.C. Liberals want to spin this as

some sort of new invention, when we look across Canada and, indeed, the

developed world, we see just how lazy, utterly lazy, this critique

really is. Six other provinces in Canada have public financing built

into their systems — including Ontario, that dealt with its own

fundraising scandals and responded with similar reforms.

Across the world, we can see that most OECD countries have some

form of public financing, including Britain, Japan, Germany and France.

In fact, the OECD published a report on campaign financing that

explicitly points to the beneficial role of public financing and how it

plays in creating a level playing field and limiting the potentially

corrosive impact that unregulated private contributions can

have.

[11:35 a.m.]

Furthermore, it is British Columbians who will be choosing —

through who they choose to cast their vote for during an election — who

receives their share of the public allowance. In this way, the public

financing advanced in this legislation increases the value of each

individual vote.

I’m baffled by the bombastic claims of the former Minister of

Finance in question period — that British Columbians are being forced to

pay for something they didn’t support, when in reality, it’s exactly the

opposite. Then again, a lot has baffled me over the last decade and

more. I welcome the debate and discussion on this

section of the bill.

But let’s try to incorporate some real facts into this discussion, not

just making things up as we go along.

Third, we wanted to see the overall spending limits reduced. I

don’t believe that the increasing cash being used in election periods,

whether from a political party or third-party advertiser, was being used

to better inform the debate. Instead, we saw more attack ads and more

smears.

In this past election, the now opposition paid to have a truck

mounted with attack ads follow another party around wherever they went.

For me, this was a new low in British Columbia politics. Speaking of

shame, yesterday me and my colleagues were exhorted on how to hang our

heads in shame. Yet this is one of the most shameful examples of

everything people fear politics has become, funded by a system that

allowed unlimited donations from any source.

That a party had enough money to pay for this kind of trolling —

the troll truck — instead of engaging British Columbians on the

substantive differences between parties only made me more certain that

our spending limits needed work. I would love to see the roughly 25

percent reduction in spending we see both at the riding level and at the

provincial level with political parties taken even further, but this

legislation is a huge step forward.

Fourth, we wanted to ensure that as we reform the campaign finance

laws for political parties, we are closing loopholes to avoid a

U.S.-style super-PAC system, where money flows to unaccountable third

parties. One of the potential side effects of limiting contributions and

spending with political parties was the creation of third-party groups

acting on behalf of a party’s interests with limited

regulation.

At all times, we must protect free speech, especially in an

election when citizens are most engaged in evaluating different

questions and different issues. However, allowing the same corrosive

money to influence elections through other channels would undermine what

we wanted to accomplish with campaign finance reform. We can see this in

the United States, where super PACs act as a donation clearinghouse,

paying for ads and resources for candidates with little

accountability.

Some of the most comprehensive changes in this bill concern

third-party advertising, which, at first glance, appears to address many

of the concerns that my colleagues and I have.

Finally, we felt it was critical that the legislation was tabled

early in this session. The B.C. Greens made campaign finance reform a

top priority in the campaign and in the formation of this minority

government. We will always make policy that increases trust in

government a priority. Changing the most outdated campaign finance laws

in the country was one of the most important things that could be done

to show through action that a minority government is better able to

implement good public policy.

We had almost two decades of majority governments that, for

personal political reasons, chose to not take any action. This is the

first minority government in over 70 years, and one of the first bills

to be tabled in this House is the bill to reform the finance laws. This

is how we will earn back the trust that has been so squandered in the

last several years.

[11:40 a.m.]

My colleagues across the aisle here want to confuse British

Columbians about this bill. They want you to forget that for the past 16

years, in every legislative session that went by with a B.C. Liberal

government, they made a choice not to limit the flow of corporate and

union donations — a choice. They chose not to put a cap on personal

donations. They chose to hold fundraisers in Alberta with industry that

wanted to do business in our province.

By my count, that is 22 sittings of this Legislature where they

could have chosen to bring forward reforms. This was their choice. This

is their record. This is what is finally changing with this minority

government.

So I am very happy to support this legislation and look forward to

the continued discussions that will take place in the weeks

ahead.

HÍSWḴE

SIÁM .

R. Glumac: I’m happy to speak today about the campaign financing

act.

I remember reading an article, recently, where a member opposite

was quoted as saying that what we’re proposing here is unfair. I want to

talk a little bit about fairness and how you define fairness. I

certainly have a definition for what that means. But trying to look at

it from the perspective of the individual who was talking about fairness

and understanding their world, world, I look over the last 16 years.

That’s the world which they live in that defines fairness.

Is it fair that $8 million was contributed from real estate

developers? Is that fair, and did that have any kind of influence on the

decisions that were being made here? I remember during the election

campaign, I walked up to this house — it was a big house — and I

thought: “Well, this is probably going to be a Liberal house. Because

it’s a very nice house, very rich people probably live

there.”

I knocked on the door, and an older gentleman opened the door. I

was starting to talk to him. He told me he’s a retired real estate

developer. I thought: “Okay. Well, definitely this is going to be a

Liberal house.” Interestingly, he told me that he was very involved in

the Liberal Party for many, many years. He’s been asked to sit on

various roundtables. You know, this $8 million, there is influence that

comes with that.

But when he was it describing to me that he was entering into his

retirement and thinking about… He was going to leave the industry, and

he had some real feedback that he wanted to give to the government at

the time about what’s happening with real estate and the price

escalation and everything else. He felt like he had some really good

ideas to contribute, and he didn’t have those ideas listened to in any

meaningful way.

Why is that? He said to me that for the first time in his life,

he’s going to vote for a different party. The reason is because he

thinks that influence would perhaps be diminished under a different

party and that the people like him would actually have a voice in

helping to define new legislation that can work in the best interests of

all British Columbians.

So is it fair that we had a system like that for 16 years that

didn’t change? Is it fair that we had $3.6 million contributed from big

oil companies? Is it fair that the climate action plan was written,

basically, in Calgary? Is that fair? Is that how we define fairness?

Well, $3.6 million is a lot of money — $55 million from the top 177

donors, $55 million from 177 people. And then you look at the $15

billion of public contracts and government payouts. Is that how we

define fairness? I would say no.

[11:45 a.m.]

How about out-of-province donations, which is something that this

new legislation would put an end to — $288,000 contributed from the

province of Alberta, $274,000 from Ontario? These out-of-province

donations also seem to me to…. How does that contribute to giving a

voice to British Columbians? There was 16 years that we could have

looked at that and tightened that up, but we didn’t.

What about third-party election spending? This bill will actually

provide greater transparency from third-party advertisers, requiring

them to register and report contributions if they engage in overtly

partisan advertising during, actually, the pre-campaign

period.

The unfairness comes also with the discussion of what this limit

is. The $1,200 is the limit that we’re talking about here. So the quote

that I read in this news

article was: “They’ve arbitrarily chosen a

figure of $1,200 for the amount that is the cap for donations, and

clearly, that will suit their interests. There’s no rationale for it

other than it suits the interests of the NDP.”

No rationale at all. Well, what rationale is there for the Wild

West of political cash and donations? The Wild West. There were no

limits on any of this stuff. The rationale for this is that we’re giving

British Columbians their province back. That’s the rationale. The

rationale is that we want a government free of influence. We want a

government that works in the interests of all British

Columbians.

I find it ironic that the individual who made this quote tabled a

bill with an arbitrary limit of $5,000. Well, where does that come from?

How can this choice, which is going to be the second-lowest in Canada,

be arbitrary? Yet $5,000 somehow is scientific. Manitoba has a limit of

$3,000. We’re looking at Ontario, a limit of $3,600. Quebec has $100,

which is quite low.

What else is this legislation doing? We’re putting restrictions on

fundraising events. Any event in a private residence will be required,

if it’s $100 or more a ticket for that…. If there is a leader or a

minister or a parliamentary secretary present, that will be

banned.

We’re also going to be looking at reducing the election spending

limits by 25 percent. We’re currently sitting at about $78,000. We’re

going to reduce that down to $58,000. As I mentioned before, third-party

advertising — any unions or corporations or wealthy donors outside B.C.

It’s going to be far more restrictive in terms of what they can do, and

it’s not only in the campaign period. It’s in the 60 days

prior.

[11:50 a.m.]

Third-party sponsors with ads that are totalling more than $10,000

must disclose their contributions within 14 days of receiving them and

must have its post-election disclosure report audited. They must also,

if there is more than $10,000 contributed, have a dedicated bank

account.

Currently, again — I mean, is this fair? — British Columbians have

no ability to find out who’s behind some of this advertising. So this is

going to provide a lot more transparency to that. These new rules, as I

said, will actually apply before the election, which I think is

important as well.

There has been a lot of discussion about public financing. I think

it’s raising a lot of fear on the other side of the House, because

public financing is well known around the world as a way of reducing and

eliminating, hopefully, influence in politics. On the other side of the

House, we have a party that is doing its best to represent the top 1

percent. There’s a lot of influence that is being gained through all of

that money that’s being donated to that party. So they’re attacking this

one element of the campaign financing act. It is probably one of the

most effective means of reducing that influence.

Really, we need to understand that that is what we’re trying to do

here. We want to represent all people in British Columbia. A lot of

people become disengaged in politics because they feel like they don’t

have a voice of any kind. I’ve spoken to many people that say: “They’re

not listening to me. The government doesn’t listen to me.” We have a

system in place. People that say this have a point. They have a system

in place where people get elected, and their campaigns get financed by

wealthy donors and corporate interests and union interests. What we need

is a system where people can feel that they have a voice.

I’ve talked to so many people in different circumstances. They’re

facing troubles. I see common themes across all of them — education….

People have been facing challenges in the health care system. People

have been facing tremendous challenges. Yet somehow, despite the fact

that they have all these common issues that they’re facing, they don’t

seem to have a voice. We’re seeing legislation being changed that…. I

haven’t heard anyone that I’ve talked to that has been asking for these

things.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

How can people have trust in a government? How can they have faith

that we’re representing them when we have a system that the framework

doesn’t seem to try to achieve those goals? This, to me, is fundamental

in having a democracy that represents people in our province — that we

change the system in which people get elected. We make it as free as

possible of influence from money providing special favours and creating

legislation. If we can do this, if we can help people get back to a

place where they feel that they actually are being represented, then

this could be the most significant legislation that will be passed in

this province in quite a long time.

I think we all should be doing that. We all should be doing our

best to make sure that this House and this government represents people

free of influence from money. That’s what we’re here to do. I mean,

that’s what we’re here to do.

[11:55 a.m.]

So when we’re attacking this public financing, and we’re saying it

was a broken promise and all this…. We’re trying to put together

legislation that is going to change the way people get elected in this

province, and this is a key part of it. And recognizing the fact that

that was something that was stated, this is going to be a temporary

measure.

Even though, in almost every country where public…. Like, the

United Kingdom has public financing. Australia has public financing.

France, Germany, Japan and six provinces in Canada have public

financing. This is a very common thing. This is something that is a

standard in eliminating and reducing influence in government.

We’re putting it in place in a temporary way because we want to

see how this is going to work. If you don’t like it after the five

years, we can eliminate it. It’s not there as a permanent measure. It’s

there for us to see if this can actually reduce influence by special

interests in government.

Those are my thoughts on this bill that is being proposed here

today. I’m very hopeful that this will have a tremendous positive effect

on democracy in our province going forward. I’m very excited that we

brought this forward with the cooperation of the Greens. I think we

should all feel very proud that we have the opportunity to represent

people here. If this legislation goes through, that representation will

only improve over time. So I’m very much looking forward to it. Thank

you very much.

R. Glumac moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. A. Dix moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

PUBLIC SAFETY

AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee met at 10:59 a.m.

On Vote 38: ministry operations, $774,876,000

(continued) .

[11:00 a.m.]

The Chair: Minister, did you have a statement? Or we’ll get right into

questions.

M. Morris: Good to be back here this morning. It’s still morning. We’ll have

a few questions on EMBC.

Maybe before we start, I’ve got my colleagues here from Cariboo

North, Cariboo-Chilcotin and Fraser-Nicola, who have a few questions to

ask you. Maybe, again, just for clarification, you could go into the

roles and functions of EMBC under your ministry versus what FLNRO might

be responsible for.

Hon. M. Farnworth: FLNRO manages the fires, so they fight the fires, and EMBC manages

the consequence of the fires. We deal with the evacuation side, for

example, of the fires, and then recovery, of course, would be

cross-ministry.

M. Morris: I think we’ll start with my colleague from Cariboo North first.

She can exercise her questions, and then we’ll just go to the other two

candidates after.

C. Oakes: I would first like to acknowledge all of the staff and the work

that was done through EMBC. It was a very difficult summer for us all. I

know from the daily calls how difficult it was on staff. On behalf of

all of us who represent communities affected by the wildfires, we just

want to put on record how much we appreciate everything that you

did.

I would also like to acknowledge the minister for permitting

morning calls. I think that was an important piece for us as MLAs to

have the ability to have a contact on the ground. Anytime a crisis like

this happens, there were significant emerging issues that were happening

that required immediate questions on the ground, and having the ability

to have somebody that we could talk to was significantly appreciated. So

I would just like to thank the minister, and of course the parliamentary

secretary as well, for your work on this.

My questions that I have today are probably more of…. I know we

will be going through debriefings and lessons learned, but maybe this is

an early opportunity to canvass some initial thoughts or how we can be

looking at it if we’re putting items into the budget.

My first question to the minister. We had three states of

emergency declared. Perhaps the minister could enlighten us. When a

state of emergency happens, what does that mean as far as

resourcing?

Hon. M. Farnworth: What the provincial state of emergency allows us to do is access

extraordinary powers that enable us, for example, to requisition

material; be able to requisition, if necessary, personnel; and to

requisition, if necessary, property in order to deal with the state of

emergency.

[11:05 a.m.]

I would add this as well. During the current state of emergency,

we actually did not have to use those extraordinary powers. We were

able, through existing agreements that are already in place, to deal

with much of those issues without saying, “Okay, under

section whatever

of the act, we need to commandeer a particular piece of equipment,” for

example. We were able to get everything we needed in terms of fighting

the fires.

C. Oakes: Was there a policy change or a directional change that happened

between the weeks of August 1 to August 12 that perhaps changed the

approach we were taking around the provincial state of

emergency?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No.

C. Oakes: Again, we really appreciated the ability, on the morning calls, to

provide feedback of what we were witnessing on the ground in

communities. When we did an analysis of going through each of the days,

the wildfire update days, and the ability to talk to the team on the

ground, there was a significant shift that happened in those first two

weeks of August.

So just a reminder that at the end of July, the evacuation order

for Williams Lake was lifted, and what we thought we would experience in

our communities was additional resources. So communities that…. It will

get a little bit more specific. We went from a shift of…. I’ll call it

the Plateau fire, because at one time, it was Quesnel east, Quesnel

west. You had 19 fires that all, throughout a course of those two weeks,

merged into one fire. I’ll speak specifically for that, but that same

time frame also was where we had other significant fires that emerged

throughout the Cariboo.

What we heard clearly on the ground, and we reflected it in our

morning calls, is…. During those first two weeks of August, we heard

significant comments — from people within the wildfire branch,

communities at large, the fire structural teams going in place — that we

were short of resources, and we raised that on the morning

calls.

We were concerned that there were not enough structural protection

units available for some of the communities. We were concerned that

there was a shift in IMT teams. There seemed to be concern on the ground

levels that we did not have adequate IMT teams for the depth of what we

were experiencing in the Cariboo.

A request had come forward. I know I put in the request, and I

know my colleagues put the request in, from a resourcing perspective —

understanding we were in a provincial state of emergency, understanding

that that did permit the minister to requisition additional resources —

and knowing that on the ground, people were concerned that we did not

have the structural protection units available, not enough of them, for

the breadth of the Cariboo.

Can the minister, again…? I guess the message our constituents

want to know is…. We had raised concerns. We did not have adequate

resources. We do understand that the minister had the ability to put the

requisition in. Just a question of why that did not happen.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That question, in terms of resources around…. That’s really a

FLNRO question, and you can address that to FLNRO. Those estimates are

still to come.

C. Oakes: I appreciate if any of these questions do not…. We’re just trying

to canvass and find out where the appropriate staff are for the

questions.

[11:10 a.m.]

From the perspective of the coordination on evacuations and

alerts, that was a coordination…. Could you perhaps walk us through what

that process was, through the EMBC process of how an evacuation or alert

was made?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That decision around evacuation orders and evacuation alerts is

made on advice to local governments and First Nations governments from

the fire services. That decision is then made at that level, based on

their advice.

C. Oakes: What would be the involvement from EMBC? Perhaps a more specific

question. At one point, we had over 40,000 people that were on

evacuation order or alert. Of course, that was challenging to any one

particular system.

As the summer moved on into August and September, we continued to

have orders and alerts. I guess for more of the remote, isolated

communities, one of the things we felt…. We worked really well when

there were large numbers…. At one time, we were prepared. But as the

summer moved on, it was difficult, with orders and alerts, to have that

coordination between EMBC and the multiple agencies. Was there a change

in staffing levels mid-August to September? Maybe that’s a more specific

question.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can tell the hon. member that there was no change in policy.

There was no change in terms of staff level other than the increase on

the provincial portion of EMBC. What they do is work with…. The

emergency social services is coordinated at the community level, using

very much a volunteer base. We work with them. In fact, the number of

staff that we had to work with increased during that period.

I would say that at that point in the season, resources…. People

are getting strained. Given the breadth and scope of this fire season, I

don’t think that would come as a surprise to either the member or to

myself.

C. Oakes: Two questions, and then I’ll pass it on to my colleagues. Then I

might have a few more, if that’s okay.

The provincial state of emergency. Does it provide any latitude to

work, for example, with any of the insurance companies? One of the

things that we heard — and that has really come out of the challenges

that, specifically, small businesses are having currently — is that

business interruption insurance did not apply unless you were in an area

of an order or an alert. My riding alone, having Highway 97 at Kersley

cut off for many weeks…. Many parts of our riding were cut off for

seven, eight weeks.

[11:15 a.m.]

For example, the Barkerville merchants…. At no time was

Barkerville on order or alert, but I can tell the minister that they

have been significantly affected. The merchants have been significantly

affected, as have so many of our small businesses in our region. They

have tried to apply for business interruption insurance, but it does not

apply, because they were not inadvertently affected by an alert or an

order. Is there any ability, because we were in a provincial state of

emergency, to look at backdating or any ability to apply those types of

insurances? Is there anything that the province can do for all of these

small businesses that were not able to access business interruption

insurance?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think the member raises a good point. I agree that it was

particularly in areas that weren’t covered by the order of evacuation

where it could be very challenging. In fact, when I met with the chamber

of commerce and the mayor, they pointed out that Quesnel and Barkerville

and many others had been impacted.

I think the challenge is twofold. When it comes to insurance

companies, you’re dealing with private insurance companies and they set

their terms and policy conditions. There are a number of programs we do

have in place that we coordinate through the Red Cross to help small

businesses that have been impacted by the fires.

I also think, though, that when we look at lessons learned in

terms of going forward — how do we improve and build on the systems we

have in place? — this is one of those areas that I think is worth

examining. It may be something with the province going to the insurance

companies and saying: “Look, we need to be able to deal with this issue

in the future.” So that’s what I would tell you at this particular point

in time.

C. Oakes: To the minister: thank you for that. I think there’s work that we

can all do together on that.

Maybe just a comment on the Red Cross. We, equally, had challenges

in communities that were not on alert or order with Red Cross, and we

continue to have some challenges. I know my colleagues will be

canvassing that.

In particular, for example, Horsefly was an area in our region

that was completely behind multiple fire lines — White and Spokin Lakes,

multiple fires — and couldn’t access Red Cross. They were told that they

would have to go to an EOC centre in order to register, but there was no

way for them to get to an EOC centre just because they were blocked off

by highway closures. It’s just something I raise, and maybe that would

be a conversation off line or that my colleagues will bring

forward.

I just wanted to turn to first responders. As the Minister of

Public Safety…. I want to first say thank you to the many first

responders that came and helped support our communities. I can tell you

that probably one of the most frightening professional days of my career

was being at the Kersley checkpoint on the night that there was the

evacuation.

[11:20 a.m.]

A team of first responders came to that checkpoint. We had a team

from Saskatchewan that came to the checkpoint at a time of incredible

peril. It was a very emotional time, as you can well imagine. They

stepped up.

There was one particular team from Delta. I wanted to put in a

recognition of the team. I was asking my colleague because I sent a

letter. I think I would like to acknowledge the team at some point. I

believe his name was Mike Rossin. Because I’m emotional, I can’t

remember his name, so my apologies to the poor gentleman from the Delta

team. He was at the checkpoint for two weeks.

I can tell you what we witnessed there. It was difficult. You had

family members that had left to go into town and their children were at

home, without the idea that there was going to be a closure of the

highway. You had fathers that were breaking down at the

checkpoint.

It was just people trying to get animals out, people trying to get

family members out, people getting evacuated to different parts. Some

were being evacuated north, and some were being evacuated south. It was

a very emotional time.

The first responders did a fantastic job. Perhaps what I would say

— from what I learned from the first responders, who were so passionate

about trying to help the communities — is they often felt that

information in such a large crisis was difficult. There were

evacuations, orders and alerts changing so quickly. Often the RCMP were

faced with not knowing.

At one point, we were telling people at McLeese Lake: “You’re fine

to go back. You’re not under order.” By the time we knew that they had

driven back, they were on order. I know it was very difficult for the

RCMP and the first responders to be at those checkpoints.

So a system of, perhaps, how we can look at making sure there’s

better communication with the multiple agencies — I don’t know if you’ve

had conversations about that or have met with the RCMP

specifically.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the comments from the member. It’s that kind of

anecdote that’s important in terms of when…. Now that the season is

coming to an end, we can start looking at the review of what works, what

needs to be improved, what are some of the challenges facing us. Those

very issues are, I think, crucial.

You know, communications. One of the things I heard — and I concur

with the member — is that it’s not just about large agencies, as well,

and individuals, but also how we improve the communication networks in

remote communities and isolated communities.

I know when I was at the Kamloops evacuation centre — actually, at

the Kamloops First Nations centre — I spoke with a couple of people.

They were telling me that not everybody has Internet service, not

everybody has a cell phone. Many of them still just have land lines. One

fellow raised with me…. He said: “I’ve got a great radio. There used to

be an AM station that just had an emergency…. But they don’t use it

anymore. Why not?” I said: “You know what? That’s a really good

question.”

These are the kinds of things, in terms of when we review how we

can improve it, that are clearly going to get a focus. I thank the

member for raising that issue. She’s right. The first responders did an

absolutely amazing job.

C. Oakes: My final. Deputy Denlinger will know that I’m a very passionate

advocate for our volunteer fire departments. What I can tell you,

throughout this fire season, is the incredible importance that they had

in supporting the initial attacks — but just the whole community element

of being that person or that group on the ground that provided so much

support, wraparound support, to a lot of these teams that were coming

in.

[11:25 a.m.]

I guess it is a budgetary question. A lot of these volunteer fire

departments are in unincorporated areas. They’re not supported through

taxation, so they run their volunteer fire departments on bottle drives

and garage sales, basically.

Throughout this fire season, they’ve utilized all their equipment.

So whether they might have spent, you know, 20 years to purchase a very

old fire truck or even just basic equipment, when that call came, all of

the volunteer fire departments in the Cariboo — well, all across the

province, of course — stepped up and came forward. Of specific concern

are those small volunteer fire departments that are not supported, which

now have no equipment because it’s been fully used up. Their limited

hours that they would have on any equipment is gone.

So perhaps a capital program that we might…. We used to have some

capital programs in place through the gaming…. I know that’s a separate

ministry, but if you’re looking at the ability of putting something

together to help support, I think that’s critically

important.

The other big challenge is that when this first happened, they

didn’t even have…. We need to set up our volunteer fire departments or

fire trailers across our smaller, isolated communities with things like

water tanks and coveralls. The team worked for multiple days on the

ground without basic interface-type firefighting equipment.

We are really good at training for structural training, but we

need to look at programs for helping our small, rural-based volunteer

fire departments prepare for wildfires. If there’s training or education

or basic equipment needs, I don’t think it would cost a lot of money to

help support that. But I would like to put that forward as a

recommendation.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for that ask and that recommendation. I will be

happy to look at it.

D. Barnett: Thank you to the minister for the opportunity for us to be here

today to ask some questions, and thank you to my colleague for allowing

us to be here.

As my colleague says, our volunteer fire departments were out

there fighting these fires. I have two fire departments. She has one;

she has some. They were out there for seven weeks protecting structures,

protecting homes, patrolling. There is no compensation available through

the process for their time, for their fuel, for the food, and we would

hope that the minister, through the programs available, would be able to

assist some of these fire departments.

As my colleague has said, they sell hot dogs. They have

fundraising. They are not supported by any level of government for

taxation. It is strictly community-based. They are the heart and soul of

these communities, and at this point in time they are very

frustrated.

They appreciate the work that the forestry staff did, that the

wildfire centres did, and they learned a lot, but we have been asked by

them to bring forward to the minister their budgets that they have put

together on their costs, which they have kept minimal, just to recoup

and recover some of their expenses that they now have to go out and

raise funds to cover because they used their credit cards.

That is a very big issue within a lot of these rural communities

at this point in time. I don’t know whether there’s an ability to help

them or not.

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think the member raises a good point. This was an unprecedented

season, and I think it’s one of those issues that the recovery

committee, the committee that’s in place, would be willing to take a

look at.

D. Barnett: So we do have files that we should bring to your office? Is that

where we should take these files from these fire departments?

The Chair: Through the Chair, of course.

D. Barnett: Oh, I’m sorry.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I would ask that the member meet with my staff, and we can move

things forward on that basis. Then on the issue itself, there are

existing policies that are in place, but as I said, this has been

unprecedented. I’m willing to take this to the cabinet committee to look

at the issue. In the meantime, if you would work with staff off line,

that would be great.

D. Barnett: Thank you to the minister. We shall do that, as we all, I believe,

have files.

Now I’d like to discuss the Red Cross, if I may. My first question

is: who sets the guidelines for how funding is distributed through the

Red Cross?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s a combination of the province working with the Red Cross on

what they do as best practices and, also, with what the best practices

were coming out of the Fort McMurray fire of a couple of years

ago.

D. Barnett: Is everyone receiving the same amount through the Red Cross? For

example, if I have one person in a family and I have ten in a family, is

the rate the same?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Everybody gets the same amount, but at the same time, as in many

things, there are exceptions. The Red Cross does case management. It

would strike me that, for example, a family of ten would be what the Red

Cross would have their case management for.

D. Barnett: There is great difficulty, and I really appreciate the volunteers

of the Red Cross. Most of them are volunteers, and they have come from

the United States, from back east. We’ve met people from all over

helping the Red Cross. But there seems to be a missing link.

We have people to this day who have not yet received any money

from the Red Cross. We have people in our offices — sometimes five,

sometimes ten, sometimes 15 people a day — still seeking that first $600

or the second $600. Or they still have issues where they’ve lost

everything, there’s supposed to be a caseworker, and this has not come

forward to them yet.

How can we expedite this process? There are many people out there

that need help.

[11:35 a.m.]

In our rural remote communities, we had no ESS. We had no Red

Cross. We had nothing. These people have been left out in the cold

through the whole process. There was nobody out there to help them, and

their only contact was my office.

We did a great job. The Red Cross volunteers did a great job, but

there was such a big missing component. Even though this was an

emergency that has never happened before in British Columbia, they did

not have help, and they still do not have people out there talking to

them one-on-one.

Hon. M. Farnworth: What I’ll tell the minister is that we will get a direct contact

for you with the Red Cross. If you have specific names of people that

have not received services, we will get you the right person at the Red

Cross who can hopefully resolve those issues. We will follow up with

you.

D. Barnett: I thank you, Minister. I have been aggravating the Red Cross. As

you well know, I’m good at it. Hey, I’m honest.

These people need help, and there is a big missing link. We’ve

learned a lot, but we need to listen to the people out there. I keep

hearing…. I was in local government for 17 years, and God bless

them.

We’ve forgotten the people. I can tell you stories, Minister, that

you probably don’t want to hear. I’ve been out meeting with communities

since this has happened, getting their input and their information. I

will be bringing you a personal report, because I think it needs to

happen.

Back to the Red Cross. We got a little off topic. Has the Premier

signed a financial agreement with the federal government to match the

funding that Premier Clark put up — the $100 million? Is there an

agreement signed that they will put up the same amount of money? What is

the commitment that the province has with the federal government for

these wildfires?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: There is not an agreement between the province and the federal

government. But there will be an agreement, is my understanding. It’s

not been signed yet, but there will be an agreement between the federal

government and the Red Cross. As to whether or not it’s matching, that

we’ll know when it’s made public.

D. Barnett: Can you tell me how much money the Red Cross has distributed out

of the $100 million? Also, how much has been donated by those raising

money in the private sector to the Red Cross for the

wildfires?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can get you the exact breakdown, but the rough estimate is that

about $30 million has gone out from the Red Cross. In terms of donations

to the Red Cross for the relief, it’s been about $20 million.

D. Barnett: I would like to know why the province has not signed an agreement

with the federal government for this wildfire recovery. Why is the Red

Cross the one that will be the recipient? Where will that funding be

directed to?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The funding, those moneys…. It’s not done the way that the member

has asked about. There are a number of different programs in place. For

example, the fencing comes through Agriculture and the federal ministry.

The broad disaster assistance program is done through an existing

agreement, the disaster financial assistance agreement that’s been in

place for quite some time and that every province is a party to with the

federal government. That’s how the federal money is

delivered.

In terms of the money that the Red Cross gets, how that money is

distributed is, in part, where the province sits down with the Red Cross

and determines what the key needs and priority areas are. But the bulk

of the assistance comes through the agreement that the provinces have

with the federal government — the DFAA.

[11:45 a.m.]

D. Barnett: What has been done for the First Nations communities that have

lost their housing and those that now have basically nothing in some of

our reserves, such as Ashcroft? Who is dealing with the First Nations

recovery? Is it INAC, or is it the provincial government?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s a combination of both. For structural issues on reserve, that

will be done by INAC and the federal government. Access to other issues

— for example, for traditional food sources — we work closely with First

Nations. We have been doing that, and we will continue to be doing that.

So it’s a combination of both.

The Chair: Noting the hour, Minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Actually, I was just going to…. Do you have any more

questions?

D. Barnett: Yes, we do.

The Chair: Yeah, we’ll be coming back.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Okay, in that case, I move the committee rise, report amazing

progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2017: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada