2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, May 25, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 27, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

Flooding in Cache Creek

J. Tegart

Tributes

Mervin Krywa

Hon. B. Bennett

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M222 — British Columbia Local Food Act, 2015

L. Popham

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

May Day celebrations in Boston Bar

L. Throness

Centennial of Ecole Quadra Elementary

R. Fleming

Yarrow Days and celebration of local culture and heritage

J. Martin

Fort Street Spring Scrub-Up

C. James

Rotary Club Ride for Rescue fundraiser

R. Sultan

HUB cycling advocacy organization

G. Heyman

Oral Questions

Youth death case and government support for youth in care and aging out of care

D. Donaldson

Hon. S. Cadieux

J. Rice

C. James

J. Horgan

First Nations consultation on sewage waste disposal in Nicola Valley

S. Fraser

Hon. M. Polak

B.C. Hydro management and hiring of former political staff

A. Dix

Hon. B. Bennett

Expenses of Kwantlen University board

K. Corrigan

Hon. A. Wilkinson

Petitions

L. Reimer

S. Simpson

L. Throness

Tabling Documents

Office of the Merit Commissioner, annual report, 2014-15

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 18 — Amendments to Nisga’a final agreement

Hon. J. Rustad

S. Fraser

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 20 — Election Amendment Act, 2015 (continued)

G. Holman

V. Huntington

A. Weaver

Hon. S. Anton

K. Corrigan

G. Heyman

B. Ralston

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued)

C. James

Hon. M. de Jong

A. Dix

K. Corrigan

J. Kwan

D. Eby

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

J. Darcy

Hon. T. Lake

A. Dix

B. Ralston

J. Rice

D. Donaldson

[ Page 8637 ]

MONDAY, MAY 25, 2015

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

L. Krog: Joining us for her last visit today as a high school student is a member of my executive, a hard-working young woman. This will be the last kick as a student, as I say. Prom is in sight. Graduation is in sight. Would the House please make Avery Valerio welcome.

J. Tegart: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce a number of very important guests from my riding of Fraser-Nicola.

Seated in the public gallery are Chief Harvey McLeod of the Upper Nicola Indian Band, Chief Aaron Sam of the Lower Nicola Indian Band, Chief Lee Spahan of the Coldwater Indian band, Chief Marcel Shackelly of the Nooaitch Indian Band and Grand Chief Percy Joe from the Shackan Indian Band. Joining the chiefs are elders Annie Major, Jimmy Toolikan, Joyce Dick, Amelia Washington and Howard Holmes.

I look forward to meeting with them later this afternoon. Would the House please give these people a very warm welcome.

M. Karagianis: Today we are joined in the gallery by HepCBC. They’ve been with us this morning doing testing and education on hep C. I hope that some members of the House were able to take advantage of that opportunity to get tested.

In the gallery with us today we have Cynthia Carter, who is the Hepatitis B.C. Education and Prevention Society board member, who has lived with hep C. She is also joined by her daughter Caitlin. We have Cheryl Reitz from the education and prevention society, a board member as well, who has also lived with hep C; and Bronwyn Black, who is the office manager.

Would the House please give them a very warm welcome and thank them for coming here today and helping do the testing.

[1335]

P. Pimm: I have a very special guest to announce today. My grandson, Lucas Laurie Waugh, was born on May 22, 2015, at 7:08 a.m. in Fort St. John. He was 7 pounds 6 ounces and 20½ inches long. He was born to my daughter Jennifer and her husband, Karl.

There were some complications, with the mother and baby having to be assessed by a team of professionals from B.C. Children’s Hospital and eventually airlifted to NICU ward in Prince George. Mom and baby are doing excellent. I want to thank all for their fantastic care of my daughter and grandson.

Will you please help me make them very welcome.

V. Huntington: In the gallery today are both of my extremely hard-working constituency assistants, Yvonne Parenteau and Bernadette Kudzin. Could the House please make them welcome.

D. Ashton: A lot happens in Penticton. There are a lot of events, a lot of functions. Behind that, there is always a hard-working individual. That young lady is here with us today. Her name is Barb Sheppard. She’s also a brand-new member of the school board in Penticton. I’d like the House to make her welcome.

Madame Speaker: Member for Stikine. Alberni–Pacific Rim. I apologize.

S. Fraser: This happened before. We’ll have to do something…. We’ll change our hairstyles.

I would like to join the member for Fraser-Nicola in welcoming the members from the Nicola Valley. I would note that Wilfred Tom is here, too, so I’d like to add his name to the list to be welcomed. By my count, there are other people from the Nicola Valley here today to attend the rally. All of you: I’d like to welcome you and wish you safe journeys and best of luck.

G. Hogg: The memories of our lives seem to be made up of significant people and significant events. Mark Twain once said: “The two most important days in our lives are the day we are born and the day we find out why.”

Two delightful members of our caucus staff have recently found out why. They have found each other, and a significant event, their wedding, will take place Saturday, May 30. Please join me in wishing Tracy Pellizzari and Jordan Grimsrud the very best that life has to offer.

J. Rice: I’d like to introduce three members in the House today. They’re not from my constituency, but nonetheless, they are my guests. Would the House please welcome Ken and Betty Cairns from the Victoria area as well as Margaret Briggs, who is the mother of a constituent of mine in Haida Gwaii.

I had the pleasure of having lunch with them today. The three of them knew each other in their youth, born in Manitoba and have gone west and east and come full circle and are now living in the Victoria area and have rekindled that long friendship. Would the House make them feel welcome.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Today joining us for question period will be 26 students and their teacher and parents from Alcuin College. It’s a kindergarten-to-grade-12 school.

[ Page 8638 ]

Their mission is that each student’s unique talents be uncovered and cultivated for a life that is full, rewarding and characterized by compassion and a love for learning. I would like the House to please make them feel welcome.

A. Weaver: Coming off a very successful annual general meeting, I’m pleased to introduce a number of our members who are visiting the Legislature here. Adam Olsen, the interim leader of the B.C. Green Party, Steve Sxwithul’txw, who is the newest member of the B.C. Green Party provincial council, Justin Whitehead, member of the UVic Greens, which is now the largest club on the campus of the University of Victoria, Nicole Charlwood, B.C. Green Party representative from Kootenay-Columbia, Robert Mellalieu from Kelowna, Gary Adams and Derek Pinto. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Statements

FLOODING IN CACHE CREEK

J. Tegart: I know that residents in the community of Cache Creek have been impacted in any number of ways by a flash flood which resulted from this Saturday’s intense rainstorm. Hard to believe we live in desert.

I would like to let the House know that I spoke with Mayor Ranta over the weekend to assure him that we are here to assist. I’m pleased to let the community know that disaster financial assistance has been approved by the province. I’m sure all of us in this House send our support as the cleanup begins.

[1340]

Tributes

MERVIN KRYWA

Hon. B. Bennett: It’s an honour for me to rise today and pay tribute to the memory of Merv Krywa, a Revelstoke man who many of us in this chamber knew well because of his enormous dedication to community service. From Merv’s days working on the Mica and Revelstoke dams to his time spent in search and rescue and firefighting, everybody remembered him as a man dedicated to improving his local community in our beloved province of British Columbia.

Many of us in this place knew him from his time being involved in politics. I suspect there are many here who didn’t agree with him from time to time. I would include myself in that category. He was a wonderful guy to spend time with and have a beer and argue about politics.

In any case, he was also a dedicated community supporter of hockey. He won coach of the year at the junior level. The players that he coached are better people for having known him.

On behalf of all the members of the B.C. Legislature, I’d like to convey our sincere sympathy to Merv’s family and friends, including his wife, Judy, and his children and grandchildren. Our thoughts and prayers are with them during this difficult time. Revelstoke has lost a favourite son, and we are all the poorer for it.

Introductions by Members

G. Holman: I also want to acknowledge Adam Olsen, who is a constituent of mine and a member of the Tsartlip Nation, and also acknowledge that there are other members of the Tsartlip here today in recognition of the situation in Nicola Valley — members of the Simon family and also Chief Don Tom.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

M. Bernier: I’m very lucky today to have two important people in my life with us today. First, my youngest son, Trevor, is with us. Trevor wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for my beautiful, amazing and supportive wife, Valerie. We thought: what better way to spend our 24th anniversary today than with all of you during question period?

I’d just like to again welcome both of them and say to my love: happy anniversary.

G. Hogg: In order to make the welcome to Adam Olsen unanimous, I’d like to provide our welcome as well to Adam.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M222 — BRITISH COLUMBIA

LOCAL FOOD ACT, 2015

L. Popham presented a bill intituled British Columbia Local Food Act, 2015.

L. Popham: I move that the British Columbia Local Food Act, 2015, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

L. Popham: The purpose of the British Columbia Local Food Act is to improve and maximize food security, economic return and population health outcomes from our public land trust, the agriculture land reserve. The legislation will accomplish these purposes through five core elements:

(1) Eliminating the two-tier ALR created under Bill 24 by transferring all ALR areas currently categorized in zone 2 into zone 1 and eliminating the zone 2 designation.

(2) Establishing a legislative committee on food and

[ Page 8639 ]

agriculture, which will have a voice in determining the chair and other members of the Agricultural Land Commission.

(3) Mandating this committee to prepare, in consultation with the Agriculture Minister, a plan to increase local food production, marketing and processing. The plan would set targets and implement policies to meet those targets, which would be reported annually to the Legislature.

(4) Implementing a comprehensive strategy on government purchasing locally grown food.

(5) Reintroducing the successful Buy B.C. program.

Our province currently lacks a comprehensive strategy that ensures we are fully capitalizing on our agricultural land base in a way that grows our economy and improves population health and food security. Instead, what the government has is a strategy to undermine our sacred land trust. By forcing the passage of Bill 24 last year, it created a two-tier ALR. Then, as a follow-up this spring, it unilaterally terminated the chair of the ALC solely out of political convenience.

Madame Speaker: Member, you’re speaking to your bill?

L. Popham: Yes, I am. Thank you for the reminder.

Meanwhile, other jurisdictions are ahead of B.C. in terms of encouraging farming and food processing to support, expand and sustain their agriculture sector. For example, Ontario, which has a greenbelt, has legislation that supports increasing local food production from its land base through establishing targets that the Minister of Agriculture needs to report on annually.

[1345]

Madame Speaker: The member needs to move second reading.

L. Popham: I move that it be placed on the order paper for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M222, British Columbia Local Food Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

MAY DAY CELEBRATIONS

IN BOSTON BAR

L. Throness: On Saturday I had the pleasure of attending the 88th annual May Day celebration in Boston Bar, the only community in Canada for which the Trans-Canada Highway is shut down every year for the May Day parade.

The parade had pretty much everything that big-city parades have, but few parades have royalty in attendance. One of the more interesting floats carried the royal family, made up of about a dozen well-dressed young people.

After the parade the royal family proceeded to the May Day stage where the new May Day queen, Tyra Isaac, was crowned by last year’s queen, Betty Davidson. There were speeches to their loyal subjects and even a young ring bearer to present a ring to the new queen. After that there were prizes for the best parade entries, dancing around the maypole, with me standing at a safe distance.

Thanks to organizers like Pat Davison and Shirley Crow, who has served as parade marshal for many years. Special honour was given to Lloyd Forman, who helped set up tents on the fairgrounds, drove a float in the parade and emceed the awards ceremony while his wife, Lillian, sold tickets in the background.

Lloyd and Lillian, who celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary last year, are integral to just about everything that happens in Boston Bar. For a generation they have farmed and logged and trucked in the area, while raising six fine children. Lloyd also served as a regional district director for 19 years and still volunteers for anything that needs getting done.

What I like about towns such as Boston Bar are these kinds of people — people who have deep roots in their community and are committed to its success, people who pitch in with a will to create fun events without monster cinemas and big-box stores.

Congratulations and thanks to May Day queens Tyra and Betty, and also Pat, Shirley, Lloyd, Lillian and so many other volunteers on a very successful 88th May Day festival in Boston Bar.

CENTENNIAL OF

ECOLE QUADRA ELEMENTARY

R. Fleming: In a couple of weeks a great school in my community will celebrate its centennial anniversary. Named after Don Juan Francisco Quadra, a Spanish explorer on the northwest coast, Ecole Quadra School enjoys a long and significant history in my community.

The school’s first class was taught in a tent until the main building was completed in 1914. Consisting then of only eight classrooms and an auditorium, the school would continue to expand over the years, adding 11 more classrooms, a gymnasium, administration office, adventure playgrounds and a French immersion program in 1979 and converting the old auditorium into the beautiful wood-panelled library that students enjoy today.

At present the school supports over 400 students from kindergarten to grade 4 from wonderfully diverse backgrounds. It also features a unique First Nations program, teaching cultural awareness. With a strong focus on pro-

[ Page 8640 ]

moting acceptance and respect, this year, led by local artist Renee Sala, the students at Ecole Quadra participated in a friendship flags project. Students created colourful canvas flags in the spirit of friendship which now hang proudly in the hallways of their historic school.

On June 6 the school will celebrate a century of learning. To acknowledge this significant milestone, the Quadra parent advisory committee commissioned local artist Tony Hunt Jr. to carve a commemorative totem. Tony’s carving tent has been set up in the school’s playground since March, when the large cedar log first arrived. Students have had the special opportunity to watch Tony at work. When the totem is completed, it will stand tall at the front entrance of the school.

I invite all members of the House to join me in congratulating the students, parents, teachers and staff at Ecole Quadra, and the entire community, on this historic anniversary. I want to thank all of those who are involved with the school for providing children in my community with such an enriching educational experience. Happy 100th, Ecole Quadra.

YARROW DAYS AND CELEBRATION OF

LOCAL CULTURE AND HERITAGE

J. Martin: Each and every one of us has within our constituency those unique and special districts, neighbourhoods and villages within the larger community. For instance, in my riding of Chilliwack I have Camp River, Greendale and the small community of Yarrow. Originally settled by Mennonites in the late 1920s, Yarrow has grown over the years with a strong agricultural economy, including dairy farms, poultry production and field crops.

[1350]

As this spring session winds up, I am reminded of an upcoming small-town festival happening next week. Yarrow Days is an outstanding celebration of local heritage and culture. Organized by Carol Bell, Jim Brenner and others in the Yarrow community, the annual Yarrow Days, held the first weekend in June, are always highly anticipated. Local businesses, churches and service clubs come together to host breakfasts; barbecues — mmm, barbecues; a community dance; entertainment stages; children’s activities; farmers markets; and of course, the Yarrow Days parade.

Within a population of 3,000 people, Yarrow residents always make us proud with their incredible spirit of community and volunteerism. As each of us heads back to our constituencies, I would encourage everyone to seek out these small towns, these unique neighbourhoods. Cheer on those hard-working organizing committees and volunteers hosting local festivals and events.

If each of us takes a staycation this summer, we’ll continue to share the importance of preserving local heritage and culture, supporting B.C. tourism, small business and encouraging others to do the same. Whether you’re heading up to Cultus Lake, or passing en route to the Okanagan, be sure to visit the village of Yarrow for a unique, small-town experience you’ll always remember.

FORT STREET SPRING SCRUB-UP

C. James: Early one Sunday morning Oscar and Libby’s merchant Teri Hustins left her shop to grab a coffee. She noticed the streets looked messy, and she remembered that long-time Victoria councillor Helen Hughes used to organize a scrub-up in the downtown area. Terry decided it was time to reinvigorate the tradition with a focus on Fort Street. The Fort Street Business Association got involved, and this little idea became big action.

Now in its second year, the scrub-up in May brings businesses, not-for-profits and property owners on Fort Street together with a common cause. It develops stronger community relationships and helps build local pride and a sense of accomplishment.

The event kicks off at the Bay Centre, and participants clean their way eastward from Government Street to Cook Street. This year there will be pink brooms, balloons and boas. There will be drawing with sidewalk chalk from artistic stores. There will be coffee from local businesses and music provided by the local radio stations.

Several community leaders will be taking part too, including Victoria Police Chief Frank Elsner and Victoria Fire Chief Paul Bruce. MP Murray Rankin’s office and my own office will also be taking part, as we’re both proudly located on the 1000 block of Fort Street.

To recognize the amazing community services on the street, Together Against Poverty was featured last year, and this year Power To Be will be highlighted.

For more information, check out their Facebook page called Fabulous Fort. I hope all members will join me in saying congratulations to the organizers and participants of the Fort Street Scrub-up. They’re creating a fabulous sense of pride through their commitment and their leadership.

ROTARY CLUB

RIDE FOR RESCUE FUNDRAISER

R. Sultan: Here’s a riddle. What do St. Paul’s Hospital operating room, people in T-shirts and flip-flops getting lost in cougar country and world polio all have in common? That’s easy. Sunrise Rotary Ride for the Rescue.

Five years ago members of this smallish rotary

chapter were exploring ideas for a new fundraiser. It’s but one of 34,000 chapters worldwide and 1.2 million members globally.

Cycling was growing fast. A cycling event on the North Shore was suggested. A B.C. Parks employee suggested a climb up Cypress Mountain. North Shore Rescue was identified as a main recipient of the funds raised. The late Tim Jones was enthusiastic.

Now, I can work up a sweat serving pancakes at the

[ Page 8641 ]

finish line, as spandex squadrons wearing the colours of Wedgewood Hotel, St. Paul’s OR doctors and Polygon Homes flash on by. Seventy percent of the substantial funds raised go to support North Shore Rescue, a growth business if ever there was one, as strangers to our shores and naive locals get into deep trouble in our wilderness.

The balance of funds will be devoted to such Rotary causes as abolishing world polio, virtually done except for Afghanistan and Pakistan; youth programs such as sending local students to Ottawa; and clean drinking water in Guatemala. Join us on June 13. Trevor Linden cranked his way to the top in only 38 minutes.

[1355]

HUB CYCLING ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION

G. Heyman: At the start of Bike to Work Week I’m pleased to profile a Vancouver-Fairview–based organization that encourages and facilitates cycling infrastructure and safety. HUB cycling is a community coalition founded in 1996 to make cycling safer and better across Metro Vancouver through infrastructure, laws and education.

Cycling is an efficient and healthy form of transportation, one that is necessary for many, but safety concerns can be a strong inhibitor to strapping on a bike helmet and getting in gear.

Housed within HUB and the B.C. Cycling Coalition is a program called Right to Bike, which advocates for a provincial youth cycling education framework. Last February I met campaign coordinator Sarah FioRito. Sarah explained that greater emphasis is needed on providing cycling education for all kids and families.

Between 2000 and 2010 the proportion of five-to-17-year-olds across Canada who use only inactive transportation modes to and from school increased from 51 to 62 percent. Evidence from the U.K. suggests a very strong correlation between cycling education and increased rates of cycling to school. Right to Bike is proposing a provincial framework for cycling promotion and safety for children and youth in both large and small communities that includes bicycle skills, responsible riding, sharing the road with traffic, education standards and instructor training.

Their working group includes representation from 14 communities across B.C., including educators, local government and public health officials.

Between 2008 and 2014 the number of daily cycling trips in Vancouver doubled to reach 100,000. With organizations like HUB supporting programs like Right to Bike, the bike to school challenge as well as Bike to Work Week, we can expect to see many more confident and safe cyclists throughout B.C.

Thank you, HUB; thank you, Right to Bike activists; and special thanks to all those who are cycling to work or school this week.

Madame Speaker: The Minister of Advanced Education seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I hope the House will welcome my two children in the gallery, Michael and Kate. During question period I hope to earn their respect.

Oral Questions

YOUTH DEATH CASE AND

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR YOUTH

IN CARE AND AGING OUT OF CARE

D. Donaldson: Paige was a young First Nations girl who died at 19 of a drug overdose in a communal washroom near Oppenheimer Park in Vancouver. She was intimately connected with the Ministry of Children and Family Development her entire life.

In that young life she was subject to 30 child protection reports from Kamloops, Fort St. James, as well as in Vancouver. As a 16-to-18-year-old, she moved 50 times between foster homes, safe houses, homeless shelters, detox centres and decrepit hotels in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.

Yet when Paige turned 19 this government severed her ties with the ministry. She aged out of care, and 11 months later she was dead. How could this government allow that to happen?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Like anyone who has read the report on this tragic circumstance will know, it is a horrible story. It is a tragic story. Anyone who reads it will be deeply, deeply saddened to know that this happened in British Columbia. There is no tougher challenge for social workers dealing with these issues. There is no easy solution when we are faced with issues of intergenerational poverty, violence and addiction.

Despite the dedicated and well-intentioned efforts of MCFD staff and service providers, both in government and outside of government, the reality is that the system ultimately failed to keep this young woman from harm. That result is unacceptable. Our job now is to learn from what has happened and from this young woman’s interactions with the ministry over a period of 20 years to see what we can do better to ensure that vulnerable people in our province, especially vulnerable children, do not see a similar thing happen to them.

[1400]

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a supplemental.

[ Page 8642 ]

D. Donaldson: The Representative for Children and Youth said Paige’s Story was perhaps the most difficult report her office has ever undertaken. She said the ministry mishandled Paige’s file and described the role the Ministry of Children and Family Development played in her life as “haphazard.” They failed to protect Paige from sexual abuse, to help extended family take care of her, to investigate Paige’s death.

To the minister: is the tragic death of this young First Nations girl due to a lack of leadership by this government or a lack of resources to get the job done for Paige and other vulnerable children?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I said, the result in this circumstance is unacceptable. We have to learn from what has happened. I have asked my deputy to broaden discussions that have already taken place and are already underway with all of our partners who would serve a vulnerable population like this.

I believe we need to look at the service delivery model, especially on the Downtown Eastside, to ensure that we are indeed wrapping around and seeking out individuals to ensure that services are brought to them and not rely on having individuals be responsible for coming to access the services themselves.

We are going to learn from what has occurred over a 20-year period. Much of what is in place today is different than what was in place in the early years of this young woman’s life. When we look back at something over a long period of time, we have the opportunity to gain insight. We don’t have the opportunity to reverse it. What we will do is move forward.

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a further supplemental.

D. Donaldson: It’s been two years since Paige’s death, and the ministry appears to have learned nothing. Youth are still being forced out of care, as a matter of course, at 19, while children in Alberta get continuing support until age 24. Every step of the way the focus is on the government’s bottom line, not the health and safety of children in their care.

On the day Paige turned 19, the ministry directed her foster home to pack up all her belongings in a garbage bag and leave them at her school. A garbage bag.

Will the minister promise today that not one more child in her care will be forced out at 19?

Hon. S. Cadieux: This government is committed to ensuring that young people transition as smoothly as possible to adulthood. When you are a child or youth in care, that transition is very difficult — much more difficult than it is for a child whose parents are there to support them. We understand that.

As a government we have the obligation to, and we do, look cross-jurisdictionally at what is happening in other jurisdictions to compare what we do with those jurisdictions to see where we might learn from programs or services that are offered in other jurisdictions as best practices. In fact, today British Columbia’s supports to youth leaving care already match or exceed most of what is available in the rest of Canada.

That is not to say that we cannot do more or that we will not do more. In fact, we have more initiatives underway now that we’ll look forward to speaking about in the coming weeks.

J. Rice: In February of 2013 the Minister of Children and Families pledged that she would “strengthen safe living options and life skills education for youth in care who are transitioning into adulthood.” A month later Paige was forced out of her foster care at age 19. She died soon after.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Families. How could this government have failed Paige so badly?

[1405]

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I’ve said, we are constantly looking at the ways we can improve the services we deliver. In fact, one of the things that we did last year was a partnership with the YWCA called Strive, which is a program that they offer in Vancouver to develop and work with youth leaving care, from ages 17 to 24, on life skills and transition.

That program has been very successful. We heard on Friday from a number of participants in that program what it means to them. In fact, we are continuing that program and expanding it now to include the North Shore, and we are looking to find ways with our partners around the province to be able to take that program further. We do recognize that for youth leaving care, there are additional challenges, and there are additional things we need to do to ensure that those transitions are smooth.

Madame Speaker: The member for North Coast on a supplemental.

J. Rice: Less than a year after Paige died, the current minister was asked about providing extended supports to children after age 19. She responded by saying the government provides sufficient services for youth who have aged out of care. Having read about Paige’s life and death, does the minister still believe that’s true?

[ Page 8643 ]

the way of services meets their needs, the needs that they are expressing to us. We are going to continue to do that.

C. James: It’s very clear that the system is not meeting the needs of children in care. It is very clear that the system did not meet the needs of Paige and other children out there. The children’s representative only received one report about Paige during the young girl’s life. The report said: “Paige is trading sex for alcohol, with older men.” It’s also acknowledged that Paige’s mother was still on the streets. And it suggested that Paige was “trying to get a youth agreement but has a serious alcohol problem.”

This government knew that Paige was being sexually abused. They knew she was homeless. They knew she wasn’t in school, and they knew she suffered from addiction. Yet she was forced out of care by this government. Will the minister acknowledge that forcing Paige out of care was the wrong decision?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I think what anyone who reads this report will understand is that despite the fact that there are systems, programs and services in place and despite the fact that there is lots of money being spent, the reality is that in these complex circumstances with families and individuals who have a history of deep intergenerational poverty, addiction and violence, there are no simple solutions.

We are learning from the report. We are continuing to make changes, and those changes come on top of the many, many changes that have strengthened child protection in this province over the last 20 years — including but not limited to the introduction of the Child, Family and Community Service Act and the subsequent changes we’ve made in terms of our reporting structure, thanks to the Hughes report.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: The minister’s response to Paige’s death is unacceptable, just as the care that was given to Paige when she was alive was unacceptable. One-off funding for limited services in just a few communities is an insulting, inadequate response. It is difficult to help children like Paige, but that is the government’s responsibility.

It takes political will, and it takes resources to make this happen. We have seen reports come forward before. We have heard commitments before to make changes that have not occurred. Specific action is needed now. Will the minister today order a full review for all children in care turning 19, to ensure that they have the supports that they need to prevent another tragedy in our province?

[1410]

Hon. S. Cadieux: To reiterate for the member, anyone who reads this report will be horrified by the tragedies that this young woman went through, throughout her entire life, despite the ongoing and multitude of interactions with MCFD, other ministries and other service providers. Unfortunately, collectively, the system did not support this woman.

I have asked my deputy to look at what we’re doing on the Downtown Eastside to broaden our discussion to include stakeholders we haven’t previously involved ourselves with, like the city of Vancouver. We’re going to learn from what we’ve already seen, in terms of changes in how we deliver service in the Downtown Eastside and other areas. We’re going to act to implement, for lack of a better term, a rapid response team model for the Downtown Eastside, involving all of those partners, to ensure that any time a youth comes in contact and is in need of protection, all of the necessary agencies are brought in immediately.

For youth who are turning 19 and leaving government care, we have a vast array of services and supports available. We need to make sure that youth have access to them.

J. Horgan: We’ve had two years of discussion about preparing a rapid response. That’s unacceptable.

We had knowledge that Paige was abused by men. We have knowledge that she was selling sexual favours for access to alcohol. We knew all of that. The state knew all of that. The ministry knew all of that. Despite that information, the government of British Columbia allowed Paige to drift away from the only thing that she had to hold onto. That was a foster family.

Will the minister ensure that this does not happen in the future, by taking action today and making sure that we don’t age people out because it’s cheap and convenient, that we take care of British Columbians to the best of our ability? It’s not happening now. Paige is an example of that.

How about a legacy, a lasting legacy in her name, that 19-year-olds will be protected, just as 20-year-olds and 21-year-olds should be — and, as Alberta does, to the age of 24? Will the minister commit to that today?

Hon. S. Cadieux: No one in this House, least of all myself, would hope to see a young woman go through what this young woman went through — nor, and especially not, to die such a tragic death at such a young age.

Government has a multitude of services in place, and we have social workers who work diligently every day, some of them for more than 20 years, on the Downtown Eastside to try and support individuals like this young woman. When families come in contact with the ministry and children are young, we have one set of things we can do. As children age, they actually have more say in what services they receive from the ministry, or don’t, and in what they access, or don’t.

Yes, that is a challenge, but we are committed, in the ministry, to ensuring the safety and well-being of the children and youth that come in contact with us. We will do everything in our power to ensure that that happens.

[ Page 8644 ]

FIRST NATIONS CONSULTATION ON SEWAGE

WASTE DISPOSAL IN NICOLA VALLEY

S. Fraser: This government has authorized the dumping of sewage waste in the Nicola Valley. This very controversial decision was made without consultation with the Nicola Valley Indian bands, who are represented well here today. To the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, who holds the responsibility to ensure that real and meaningful consultation actually happens: why didn’t it happen?

[1415]

Hon. M. Polak: Just to advise the member, as well as welcoming the chiefs here to the Legislature, I will be meeting with the chiefs later on, after question period today.

We’ve had ongoing dialogue about how to ensure that there is confidence in the safety of the materials that are used. But it’s important to note that these materials have been used by ranchers to enhance soils in the Nicola Valley and all around the province for well over ten years.

In terms of the composting facility, the composting facility is certainly regulated by the Ministry of Environment to ensure that they engage in safe practices. The location of the composting facility — and we’ve had this discussion with the Thompson-Nicola regional district and also with the chiefs — is one that is governed by local zoning, because the composting for commercial purposes is not a farm use.

I’m confident that with continued dialogue with the chiefs, we can find a collaborative circumstance that will enable us to assure their people that the proper practices are being engaged in so that indeed this can be done safely.

Madame Speaker: The member for Alberni–Pacific Rim on a supplemental.

S. Fraser: The focus of the rally here today, if any of the members had come out, the government members…. Nicola Indian chiefs are looking for a real dialogue with the province, with this government, about their decision to dump sewage waste in their territory. The people here today have no interest in platitudes. They are here to protect their territory for future generations. They travelled here all the way from the Nicola Valley because of this government’s failures — failure to fulfil its constitutional obligations, already failed, and failure to uphold the honour of the Crown.

Again, to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, will he acknowledge those failures and correct them by ensuring that his government engages in real and meaningful consultation with the Nicola Valley Indian bands?

Hon. M. Polak: Let me be clear to the member that the dialogue with the chiefs has been ongoing. I have met on a number of occasions with them. Other officials have met with them and continue to dialogue with them. We will indeed meet again today.

Perhaps the member would like to clarify what it is he’s suggesting around the types of constitutional obligations there are on private land. In this case, we are talking about private landowners who then are engaged in a farm practice that has been going on in the Nicola Valley for more than ten years.

We certainly know that the First Nations have concerns around the safe use of these materials, but that’s a matter for some collaborative discussion. In terms of a constitutional obligation, we take those very seriously. But in terms of private land and farm use on private land, if the member believes that that’s a subject for constitutional obligations to consult, then he should rise and say that.

B.C. HYDRO MANAGEMENT AND

HIRING OF FORMER POLITICAL STAFF

A. Dix: During this session, at B.C. Hydro we’ve been witness to project failures, missed targets, overruns, faulty towers, huge losses on private power contracts, out-of-control contracting out and IT schemes and chaos. It’s the ratepayers that have had to pick up the price tag for all of this, to the tune of 28 percent rate increases caused by decisions made in the Liberal cabinet room.

Well, we got a response from the minister last week to all of this. His response is to force B.C. Hydro to hire his political assistant to a newly created, high-priced job at B.C. Hydro. What message does the minister think…?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The members will come to order.

Just wait. Please continue.

A. Dix: Thank you, hon. Speaker. You can imagine that there’s no outrage for the ratepayers paying 28 percent over there. What message does it send? What message does the minister think forcing B.C. Hydro to hire his political assistant as the director for policy and reporting sends to ratepayers burdened by outrageous B.C. Liberal hydro rate increases?

[1420]

Hon. B. Bennett: I think what I just heard is the member opposite saying that if you work in this building as a political assistant, as a political staffer, you won’t have the skill set or the work ethic or the brains to actually earn a way to improve your life and to go to a different job, perhaps a better thing for you and your family. I think that’s what the member said. I think the member just suggested that without patronage, it’s not possible for any political staffer in this building, on either side of the House….

[ Page 8645 ]

On this side of the House we actually honour the people who work as political staffers for us. They work long, long hours. They work on weekends. In this case, there was a competition for this job.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: There were 30 applicants who applied for this job. There were four people who were interviewed — two of them from inside Hydro, two from outside Hydro. I’m really proud of the fact that this young man, who works his you-know-what off and who is very, very bright, earned the chance to get this job.

A. Dix: You know, it’s not a fair competition when 29 candidates have to run all of the bases while the other saunters home from third base. The winning formula for this job competition, this Liberal job competition, was to have no utility experience, no experience in energy policy other than time spent with the minister, no Crown corporation experience, no regulatory experience and no policy analyst experience. Presumably, the 29 unsuccessful candidates had never been B.C. Liberal field organizers or political assistants to Liberal cabinet members.

Treating B.C. Hydro as his personal version of the Canadian Senate is a sorry response to the problems the Liberal cabinet has caused to front-line workers of B.C. Hydro.. Will the minister do the right thing and ask the Hydro president, Jessica McDonald, to rescind this unfortunate nomination by him?

Hon. B. Bennett: There….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Should members wish question period to continue, the Chair will hear the answer and the question.

Hon. B. Bennett: There have been a number of political staffers over the years who have come through this place and who have moved on. I have to believe that they didn’t all move on and take good jobs as a result of patronage.

There was a fairly well-known NDP staffer, former staffer, who just won an election in Alberta. I’m sure that she didn’t get to where she is today on the basis of patronage.

I wonder what the member thinks of his friend who was also an adviser at the same time that that member was an adviser to the NDP government. When he took an appointment with the utility in 1999, he moved from Victoria to work for a utility. He was paid $90,000 in those days. The Leader of the Opposition moved as an adviser to the NDP government over to the Columbia Power Corporation.

He earned the vast sum, in those days, of $90,000. It equates to about $125,000 today. I would suggest to the House that he probably did that on the basis of merit, just the same as Mr. Sandve won his job, earned his job, on the basis of merit.

[1425]

EXPENSES OF

KWANTLEN UNIVERSITY BOARD

K. Corrigan: The Minister of Citizens’ Services approved a variety of trips for board members, including trips to San Francisco, Orlando and Maryland. Then in February of 2013 he authorized a $6,700 board retreat at the River Rock Casino in Richmond. Student dollars funded meals, valet parking, martinis and $50 bottles of Pinot Gris. But it doesn’t end there. Students also footed the bill for 14 attendees to stay overnight.

My question, to the Minister of Advanced Education: can the minister explain why board members were put up for the night when they were already in their own hometown?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think the members opposite, on this occasion, would join me in endorsing the important principle that publicly funded higher education must be delivered to students and must be used to provide teaching and research. That is exactly what our ministry has done last week — ensured that funds that were attributed to this goal were actually spent on that goal.

That is why we’ve called upon the institution in question to require reimbursement from the individuals involved for inappropriate expenses. That is already underway. We’ve also asked for an inventory from the other institutions, more than half of whom have already responded to say that there is no such inappropriate expenditure on their board expense sheets.

The member opposite can be satisfied that this matter has been pursued diligently and the results will be entirely satisfactory.

Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Well, I’m not sure what’s more troubling about this whole waste of student dollars — the fact that the Minister of Citizens’ Services approved of them while he was the vice-chair at Kwantlen, the fact that the Minister of Citizens’ Services did nothing to change this practice while he was Minister of Advanced Education or the fact that the current minister knew nothing about it until someone else FOI’d the records.

Can the Minister of Advanced Education tell the House why he’s relying on third-party FOIs to scrutinize university expenses? And maybe the minister can also tell the House if other boards are approving lavish expenditures

[ Page 8646 ]

with student funds or if this was a practice limited to the Minister of Citizens’ Services.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s truly a sad use of our time in this House during question period that the facts are simply stated incorrectly. The taxpayer accountability principles…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: …were imported almost a year ago. The policies that the member opposite says have only been reinstated during my tenure were in fact put into place almost two years ago.

This horse left the barn long ago. We are now in the cleanup phase. We’re tidying up some loose ends. The member opposite and her entire caucus can be assured that the house of Advanced Education is in very good order.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

L. Reimer: I’d like to present a petition gathered by the dock management plan working group containing approximately 1,955 signatures.

S. Simpson: I’m presenting a petition — over 300 signatures from students from Vancouver Technical Secondary School. They are petitioning this House to call upon the Ministry of Education to specifically mandate mental health education into the public education curriculum, with a focus on topics of depression, anxiety and psychosis, in collaboration with the Ministry of Health.

L. Throness: I’d like to present a petition from 375 residents of Hope and its surrounding area. Because they consider themselves to be part of the Fraser Valley in geography, economy, culture and administration, they do not wish to be part of the constituency of Fraser-Nicola but want to express their desire to remain in the constituency of Chilliwack-Hope.

[1430]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the 2014-2015 Annual Report , Office of the Merit Commissioner.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Motion 18 in this chamber; in the Birch Committee Room,

Section C, the continued Committee of Supply estimates of the Ministry of Health; and in

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, Committee of Supply, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Finance.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 18 — AMENDMENTS TO

NISGA’A FINAL AGREEMENT

Hon. J. Rustad: I move Motion 18 standing in my name on the order paper.

[Be it resolved that, pursuant to

section 38 of

Chapter 2 of the Nis g a’a Final Agreement, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia consents to the amendments to the Nis g a’a Final Agreement set out in the attached Nis g a’a Final Agreement Amending Agreement (No. 3).

NIS G A’A FINAL AGREEMENT

AMENDING AGREEMENT

(No. 3)

THIS AMENDING AGREEMENT is dated for reference October 29, 2014.

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as represented by the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation

(“British Columbia”)

AND

THE NIS G A’A NATION, as represented by the Nis g a’a Lisims Government Executive

(“Nis g a’a Nation”).

WHEREAS:

A. On May 11, 2000 the Nis g a’a Final Agreement came into effect.

B. The Nis g a’a Final Agreement provides for its amendment and specifies requirements for amendment of various of its provisions.

C. The parties to the Nis g a’a Final Agreement previously agreed to make certain amendments to the Nis g a’a Final Agreement so as to alter the boundaries of Anhluut’ukwsim La x mihl Angwinga’asanskwhl Nis g a’a , also known as the Nis g a’a Memorial Lava Bed Park (the “Park”), by removing certain lands from the Park and specifying the requirements for making alterations to the boundaries of the Park in paragraph 104 of

Chapter 3 — Lands.

D. The Parties have determined that under paragraph 104 of

Chapter 3 — Lands (as amended), only the consents of the Nis g a’a Nation and British Columbia are required to alter the boundaries of the Park, and that the processes set out in paragraphs 38 and 40 of

Chapter 2 — General Provisions apply to the amendments proposed in this Amending Agreement.

E. The Parties now propose additional amendments to the Nis g a’a Final Agreement set out in

Part II of this Amending Agreement to further alter the boundaries of the Park by removing certain lands from the Park.

F. The alterations to the boundaries of the Park set out in

Part II of this Amending Agreement will also be included in amendments proposed to

Schedule “D” to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act , S.B.C. 2000, c. 17 (the “Protected Areas Amendment”).

G. The Parties acknowledge that the amendments to the Nis g a’a Final Agreement set out in

Part II of this Amending Agreement should precede the Protected Areas Amendment.

NOW THEREFORE the Parties agree that:

[ Page 8647 ]

a) the proposed amendments to the Nis g a’a Final Agreement set out in

Part II of this Amending Agreement be recommended

i. by the Nis g a’a Lisims Government Executive to Wilp Si’ayuu k hl Nis g a’a, and

ii. by the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation to the Legislature of British Columbia; and

b) British Columbia will not bring the Protected Areas Amendment into force until the proposed amendments set out in

Part II of this Amending Agreement take effect in accordance

Part III of this Amending Agreement.

PART I —

DEFINITIONS

1. In this Amending Agreement:

a) “Nis g a’a Final Agreement” means the Nis g a’a Final Agreement among the Nis g a’a Nation, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and Her Majesty the Queen in right of British Columbia, as it took effect on May 11, 2000, as amended;

b) “Appendices” means the part of the Nis g a’a Final Agreement containing the Introduction and Appendices A - M, and includes the table of contents to that part;

c) “Parties” means the parties to this Amending Agreement and “Party” means any one of them;

d) a reference to a

Chapter by number or name is a reference to the

chapter of that number or name in the part of the Nis g a’a Final Agreement containing the

Preamble and Chapters 1 - 22; and

e) a reference to an Appendix by letter or number is a reference to the Appendix of that letter or number in the Appendices.

2. Words and expressions appearing in this Amending Agreement that are not defined in this Amending Agreement but are defined in the Nis g a’a Final Agreement have the meanings ascribed to them in the Nis g a’a Final Agreement.

PART II — AMENDMENTS REQUIRING CONSENT

3. Appendix G-1 is deleted, and the document entitled “Appendix G-1” and the map following that document attached to this Amending Agreement are substituted.

PART III — PROCEDURES

4. The proposed amendments set out in

Part II of this Amending Agreement will take effect in accordance with paragraph 41 of

Chapter 2 — General Provisions, on the date that the last Party required to consent to the amendments gives its consent.

5. This Amending Agreement may be signed in one or more counterparts. A signed counterpart may be delivered by one Party to another Party by facsimile transmission and a facsimile so transmitted will constitute an original document. Signed counterparts held by a Party, taken together, will constitute one and the same instrument.

FOR HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as represented by the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, signed this _______ day of ______________________, 2014.

___________________________________

The Honourable John Rustad, Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation

Witnessed by _________

FOR THE NIS G A’A NATION, as represented by the Nis g a’a Lisims Government Executive, signed this _______ day of ______________________, 2014.

___________________________________

H. Mitchell Stevens, President

Witnessed by _________

Schedule

APPENDIX G PARKS AND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE

Appendix G-1 Map and description of Anhluut’ukwsim La x mihl Angwinga’asanskwhl Nis g a’a , the Nis g a’a Memorial Lava Bed Park]

It’s my honour to rise in the House today to move the amendment to the Nisga’a final agreement, British Columbia’s first modern-day treaty. The purpose of this amendment is to update the description of the Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park that is set out in the treaty. The amendment removes 63.5 hectares from the park in order to support the construction and operations of the proposed Prince Rupert gas transmission line. Now that the pipeline project has received an environmental assessment certificate and pursuant to the B.C. Nisga’a treaty amending agreement, I am now moving this motion to amend the treaty.

The Ministry of Environment supports amending the park boundaries, and the Nisga’a Lisims Government approves amending their treaty. As you know, the Nisga’a Nation is a strong partner with the province in the development of liquefied natural gas in British Columbia.

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the Nisga’a Nation and the Ministry of Environment in making this amendment happen. It’s a key step in the process to permit construction of the natural gas pipeline that will run about 900 kilometres from the northeast out to the coast. This motion demonstrates the continued common vision of British Columbia and the Nisga’a Nation to create building blocks for liquefied natural gas.

S. Fraser: I’m honoured to stand in this House once again and to deal with this motion. I want to thank the minister first off. He provided me with a briefing and information available for the motion. I have had some inquiries around the nature of the motion and the implications of the motion and actually how it came about and how it will affect the future — from First Nations and from non-First Nations. I would like to read some of this into the record to try to clarify it. But I want to thank the minister for providing that briefing, first off.

[1435]

There will be approximately 64 hectares of the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Ltd. proposed pipeline project that crosses the Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park. I know we’ve dealt in a previous session with the lava bed park issue, and I would note that this is an ongoing issue. A motion seems an unusual process, I thought at first, to deal with this. Just a legislative amendment, I thought, would have been appropriate. But I do understand the role of the motion here.

In order for the regulatory permits to be issued to construct that portion of the proposed pipeline project that I just cited, the area must be removed from the park. As a description of the park boundary is set — that was in appendix G1 of the Nisga’a final agreement and as a

schedule to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act — I would note that it all must be amended to reflect the removal of the 63.5 hectares.

It was last year — October 29, actually — that the Nisga’a Lisims Government consented to amend the

[ Page 8648 ]

Nisga’a treaty, as described in the amending agreement, No. 3. Today we’re dealing with that. That is the motion. On November 25 the environmental assessment certificate — this is the order that it needs to proceed in — was issued. It needed to be issued prior to this process that’s happening today in the form of a motion in the House, of the Legislature. I would note that this is being supported fully by the Nisga’a Lisims Government.

Under the Nisga’a final agreement, the park boundary description is paramount over any other description in a provincial statute. Accordingly, the park description set out in the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act will be amended by regulation following the passing of the motion described above. During the fall 2014 session B.C. passed the required amendment to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act but did not bring it into force.

I must say that I was remiss. I didn’t catch the subtleties of that at the time. As I turns out, to complete the remaining steps under A3, B.C. must carry out the following, in order. This is critical, I think.

One is to introduce the resolution as a motion of the Legislative Assembly to consent to amend the Nisga’a Final Agreement Act. This resolution also causes the Nisga’a final agreement to automatically be amended. I know that some may find that confusing, and I still find it a little confusing. However, I think it’s important that this get read back into the record so that people can refer back to the process that’s required through this motion today.

The second issue that must be carried out is to seek a regulation to bring the amendment to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act into force. Now, that is the purpose of the motion today. Again, for the public watching and for First Nations watching, for Nisga’a watching, I would like to read into the record the formal position taken, leading up to this motion, by the Nisga’a themselves. This is dated May 11 of this year:

“I am writing with respect to the proposed amendments to the Nisga’a final agreement, as set out in

part II of the agreement, the amendments. The amendments will alter the boundaries of ….”

Now, I’m not going to try to do this pronunciation. I have some experience with speaking some Nuu-chah-nulth phrases, but this one, I believe, I would butcher. I will just refer to it as the Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park, all of which is described in appendix G-1 to the Nisga’a final agreement.

[1440]

“On October 29, 2014, Wilp Si’ayuukhl, the elected members of the Nisga’a Lisims Government, passed a resolution consenting to the amendments on behalf of the Nisga’a Nation, which consent was effective upon Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Ltd. obtaining an environmental assessment certificate under the Assessment Act, SBC 2002, c. 43, with respect to the Prince Rupert gas transmission project.

“British Columbia issued the relevant environmental assessment certificate on November 25, 2014. Accordingly, on November 27, 2014” — and this is directed directly to the minister today, the minister of the day — “you and I executed the agreement on behalf of British Columbia and the Nisga’a Nation respectively.

“I am, therefore, pleased to hear that in accordance with the terms of the agreement, you will be recommending that the Legislature consent to the amendment by way of resolution to be considered during the current legislative session.

“As also provided in the agreement, we understand that the resulting legislative amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act — SBC 2000 c.17 — will be brought into force following the amendments of the Nisga’a’s final agreement.”

This letter was signed on behalf of the Nisga’a Lisims Government by President Mitchell Stevens. I would note that the Nisga’a people are looking forward to this amendment. It’s part of a long list.

I have been informed in the government briefing — for those that have asked this question of me — that there should be no subsequent amendments or motions required to proceed and that this motion is, indeed, in order in this House.

I also note that we are at the very end of this legislative session. This is the last week, the first day of the last week, of the session, and it’s timely that this motion be heard today. I’m confident that certainly as far as the opposition is concerned, we will not be in any way opposing the decision made.

I would also like to commend the minister on working closely with the Nisga’a government. The Nisga’a treaty predates many of us in this House — I believe, the minister included, certainly myself. I just had my tenth year in this place. The anniversary was a week ago yesterday.

The Nisga’a agreement is a creation of a process that happened millennia ago, before, actually, the inception and the creation of the B.C. treaty process in this province. The Nisga’a government have evolved in a way, I think, as an example to other nations, and they should be applauded for the work they do.

As I would give credit where credit is due, the minister’s work here on this file is particularly appropriate. It was done very well and in a government-to-government manner befitting the Nisga’a government. Also, it was done with respect and recognition of that role of government, Nisga’a being the first nation in this province to come out from under the yoke of the Indian Act, which was a cause for celebration.

While I was not sitting, myself, as a member of this House during that time, I do remember it well. It was inspiring, and I would submit, it worked as the impetus and inspiration for what is today’s current B.C. treaty process. I still think that we can all learn from the process that predated the B.C. treaty process. I believe that the treaty process as it is today needs work, as I’m sure the minister has mentioned before.

I don’t think it was ever intended to be a static thing. It was supposed to be a dynamic process that reflected changes in case law and international declarations, like the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. But that being said, that’s today and that’s today’s treaty process.

[1445]

I’m hopeful we will see other treaties coming out in the near future that will be successful, and other nations being

[ Page 8649 ]

able to make these decisions and as a government, with the government of British Columbia, working with respect and recognition on a government-to-government basis.

I must say that I still have some questions of the minister or his staff on this, as far as the process following this day or the voting on this motion. I will just continue a little bit longer to highlight several of the questions that have been put to me which I was not able to answer.

On the record, I have been asked, around this motion, if there was a timeline set for work to begin on the pipeline that would follow from this resolution. I’ve also been asked if any work has occurred leading up to this resolution, if that was required, and if anything has happened that was preparatory to bringing in the motion following the environmental assessment certificate when it was issued not that long ago.

I guess one of the other issues around such a motion would be whether or not it is necessary in order for regulatory permits to be issued — if that’s a requirement from this motion. Also, does this ever have to come back to this Legislature? These are questions that I’m sure the minister and his staff will help me with. They have come in very recently. They’ve come in during the last week that we were not sitting.

I would also like to mention that there were questions around whether the amendment would affect the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, 2000 — if there was any direct correlation there. I’m sure we will find all of this out.

I understand, with a motion as opposed to legislation…. Again, this was asked of me, regarding this motion: whether or not there would be a chance, actually, for a committee stage. Of course, my understanding is that the motion does not allow for that, so that is why I think it’s important that the questions that were put to me as the critic or the spokesperson for Aboriginal Relations can be laid out here in the House today.

I guess the final question around this motion is why this is being done as a motion as opposed to an amendment to legislation. As I mentioned, along with that, the question was put whether other amendments would be required. I do not believe so. But again, I would stand corrected on that by the minister or his staff when they do get a chance for that.

With that, I would take my seat and express on behalf of the official opposition that we will be supporting the motion. I congratulate Nisga’a and the government for working closely together on a government-to-government relationship.

Hon. J. Rustad: I’m assuming that I’m up for closing comments, so I just want to thank the member for his comments and the discussion around treaty that he gave — some interesting comments.

Directly to the questions that he asked, we will make sure that we prepare some responses and get them to you. This isn’t an estimates process, so I can’t give you the direct answers here at this point. But regarding the one question around work to date, there was, of course….

As any permits go through and have to be addressed, in a park, there is exploratory work that needs to be done. To the best of my knowledge, construction work has not started to this date. But like I say, I’ll get that to you in writing in a direct response.

With that, we’re very pleased to be working with Nisga’a on this. I think that liquefied natural gas represents a tremendous opportunity for all British Columbians, but especially for First Nations. Nisga’a has proven time and time again that they’re interested in engaging, being part of the economy and working towards a prosperous future. I’m very pleased that we’re able to partner together.

With those comments, once again, thank you for the support from the opposition, and I move the motion.

Motion approved.

[1450]

Hon. M. Polak: I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 20.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 20 — ELECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 20; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 2:54 p.m.

On the amendment to

section 6 (continued) .

G. Holman: As provided to the Clerk, I would like to propose a subamendment to

section 6, to which the government has recently proposed an amendment to the original legislation.

[1455]

I have additional copies here for other members of the House.

[SECTION 6, by deleting the text highlighted by strikethrough and adding the underlined text as shown:

Section 51 (2) is repealed and the following substituted : is amended

(

a) in subsection (1) by striking out “ Subject to

section 275, the chief electoral officer” and substituting “The chief electoral officer ”, and

(

b) by repealing subsection (2) and substituting the following:

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), on On request and on payment of the reasonable costs of reproduction, the chief electoral officer must provide the following:

(

a) to a registered political party or member of the Legislative Assembly, a list of voters;

(

b) to a registered political party , or a registered constituency association as defined in

section 157 (1) (b),

[ Page 8650 ]

(

i) in respect of a the most recent general election for which the last writ of election was returned , a list of voters that indicates which voters on the list voted in the general that election , and

(ii) in respect of a by-election that takes place between the date of the most recent general election and the date the next general election is called, a list of voters that indicates which voters on the list voted in that by-election;

(

c) to a registered political party, in respect of a by-election that takes place between the date the writ referred to in paragraph (

b) was returned and the date the next general election is called, a list of voters that indicates which voters on the list voted in the by-election.

(

c) to a candidate, registered political party, or a registered constituency association as defined in

section 157 (1) (b), or an individual who was a candidate in an election referred to in subparagraph (

i) or a by-election referred to in subparagraph (ii),

(

i) in respect of the most recent general election, a list of voters in the electoral district for which the individual is a candidate or was a candidate that indicates which voters on the list voted in that election, and

(ii) in respect of a by-election that takes place between the date of the most recent general election and the date the next general election is called, a list of voters in the electoral district for which the individual is a candidate or was a candidate that indicates which voters on the list voted in that by-election.

(

d) Despite

section 275(3), records released under

section 51 may not be used for any purposes other than electoral purposes consistent with this Act, subject to any restrictions or requirements established by regulation, and any other use constitutes an offense under s.267.

(

e) For the purposes of this section, “electoral purposes” means uses that enable candidates of registered political parties, registered constituency associations as defined in s.157 1(

b) and registered political parties to, directly or indirectly, communicate with voters to promote or oppose a political party or candidate, or take a position on an issue with which a party or candidate is associated.

(

f) For greater certainty, a person must not

(

i) disclose the information about an individual’s voting to another unaffiliated person.

(

g) Registered political parties must develop a policy on the use, distribution and safeguards of information released under

section 51(2)(

b) and (

c) and file a copy of this policy with the chief electoral officer.]

On the subamendment.

The Chair: Member for Saanich North and the Islands, do you wish to speak to your subamendment?

G. Holman: I won’t bother to read the subamendment but just describe in more general terms the intent here. The intent is to get clearly on record what we think is wrong with the government’s amendment.

I do want to say, as well, that we do appreciate the government’s and the minister’s attempt to address some of the concerns that we and the independents have expressed around Bill 20 — the concern around privacy, the concerns around who would actually get the voter turnout records.

I do want to say I want to commend government to at least try to respond, to some degree, to these concerns. We don’t feel that the amendment presented by government to its own legislation, which was done very quickly….

The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has pointed out — as well as myself and others have — that the amendments being brought forward by the government have been rather hurried — in fact, two, one right after another — giving this side of the House very little chance to respond. There is a sense that this legislation is being changed on the fly.

I do want to acknowledge government for at least making an effort there, but we want to put on record the strengthening of the provisions around privacy, to clarify the issue around distribution of voter turnout records to the various candidates.

We want to make it clear, with this subamendment, where we stand — at least in terms of the official opposition on this particular

section of the bill. The subamendment removes government references to past candidates but does retain the reference to current candidates.

There is a concern expressed there, as I understand it, even by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, around distribution of this voter turnout record to candidates who ran in the previous election but who may not be running in the current election. That seems to us to be a clear flaw in the government’s proposed amendments. So that’s some of the language we’re proposing to strike because we feel that it broadens the distribution too wide and makes it open to abuse.

[1500]

This all harkens back to the letter by the Privacy Commissioner expressing great concern about Bill 20 — and this section, in particular. Our subamendment also adds to it key pieces from our original amendment, which was on the order paper and, I guess, in a way is superseded by government’s amendment. In this subamendment we’re trying to, again, bring us back and trying to make clear what our view as official opposition is on this particular section.

We’ve added to it, added to the government’s proposed amendments language regarding registered constituency associations; language referring to current candidates; all of our language on privacy protection, which restricts usage to electoral purposes only and makes any other use an offence. It more narrowly defines “electoral purposes” and prohibits providing this information to an unaffiliated person. And again, as our original amendment on the order paper did, we require a privacy policy to be filed with the Privacy Commissioner.

That’s a

summary of our subamendment. I’m assuming others may want to speak to this. Basically, our view is that if we can strengthen the privacy provisions…. They have to be stronger than what government has proposed. Even though government has come some way to addressing those concerns, in our view, those provisions are still not strong enough around privacy and around wide distribution of the voter turnout information.

[ Page 8651 ]

If we can’t come to an agreement with government on strengthening these provisions, we will not be supporting this

section and we will not be supporting this bill.

V. Huntington: Before I speak on the opposition subamendment, I would like some clarification by the Chair on what the process would be, because I, too, have a subamendment. And I would like to know…. My subamendment would move to strike paragraphs (2)(

b) and (

c) from this section, so I would like to know how to proceed.

I also have comments on the opposition subamendment.

The Chair: Certainly. We will move forward with the subamendment as proposed by the member for Saanich North and the Islands. Should that subamendment indeed pass, obviously then we will have the subamendment as part of the amendment. Perhaps if the member would like to amend the amended amendment, then the member can propose such. Should that subamendment fail, then it would be in order at that time for the member to put forward an additional subamendment to the amendment.

V. Huntington: Quite clear, with the exception that by that time I won’t have the correct wording for my subamendment, and I don’t know how to get it into the Clerk’s possession quickly enough. I don’t even have a copy of the subamendment actually.

The Chair: Should the subamendment pass, I will give ample time to be able to deal with it.

V. Huntington: To have my staff fix it up and get it to you?

The Chair: Yes.

V. Huntington: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Chair, and soon you will be saying that far more often. I recognize that.

I know that the member for Delta South wanted to speak further. I did note that she sat down, so I wanted to also speak. Unfortunately, I must speak against this subamendment. The reason why I must speak against this subamendment is that it falls into precisely the criticism that I made with the amendment brought forward by the government.

The government’s amendment was put on the table at the last minute. It was amended again. The subamendment was subamended and put on the following day. We’ve had a week break, for which we could have put this and gained some consultative process.

[1505]

I just received this. So how can I in good conscience speak to the support of a subamendment and not be viewed as a hypocrite, having criticized government for precisely the approach that the official opposition has done here — that is, provide a detailed, substantive subamendment that I simply have not had time to read? It has not even been read into the record.

As far as I can tell, it does not go far enough. I will be voting against this section, against the amendment first. This whole subsection —

section 6, as amended by the minister — is, in my view, a flagrant abuse of privacy. British Columbians do not want this. This subamendment, which may have been put forward with all the good intentions that it has, simply does not address that, simply has not been given to the independent members with any amount of time and does not bring us back to an amendment that was on the order paper.

Both the member for Delta South and I had amendments on the order paper for quite some time, in particular with

section 6. Of course, my amendment that was on the order paper is now moot in light of the fact that the government itself has introduced an amendment.

I’m assuming, if the track record in this House is consistent, that the government’s amendment will pass in light of the fact that we don’t very often see much opposition to legislation being put forward by the government from within its own caucus.

So unfortunately, this amendment…. While it may have been put forward with the best of intentions, nobody here knows. How can the minister speak either for or against this subamendment, when the minister is busy reading it right now, I’m sure?

I had to speak before I could read it. At least I’m giving the minister a chance to read it. So if the minister is asking me to keep raising some issues because the minister actually hasn’t read it yet either…. I’m going to pass the floor off to my friend from Delta South because I suspect she would like to speak on this topic as well.

G. Holman: I do understand the member for Delta South does want to speak to this. Just to the MLA for Oak Bay–Gordon Head: I share your pain. I absolutely understand the fact that these amendments and subamendments are being dealt with on the fly, particularly for legislation that’s so important, that’s so foundational as the Election Act of British Columbia. We should not be dealing with this legislation in this way.

My only defence is that this is the nature of the beast. This is the rushed, hurried process that the government has forced us into. This subamendment is being put forward in the spirit of trying to strengthen the legislation. But I absolutely agree with the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. It’s being done on the fly. Folks don’t have sufficient time to read it and process it and understand it and respond, and that includes everyone in this House.

My only defence is that this is the process we’re forced

[ Page 8652 ]

into. It’s not fitting for foundational legislation like this, the Election Act of British Columbia, to be dealt with in this manner. But quite honestly, we felt that we didn’t have a choice in the matter.

V. Huntington: I like those words. It’s not fitting that legislation of a foundational matter be dealt with in this way. I couldn’t agree more. It is a foundational piece of legislation that is of importance to every single citizen in this province, so many of whom have expressed true concern about this

section in particular.

If I had my way, I would get down on my hands and knees and ask the minister to please take further time on this bill, and this

section in particular, and do what’s right and listen to the concerns of the province.

However, I’ll speak just very briefly to the subamendment. Firstly, I appreciate the member’s comments about the wording of the amendment, which was in the bill, the first bill, the previous bill, the non-amended bill — “an individual who was a candidate.” It’s a fundamental flaw that I saw from the beginning.

[1510]

Not only did it leave out candidates of the election at that point, but “an individual who was a candidate” isn’t defined. It could be the former Premier asking for a list of those who voted. It could be anybody because it’s not defined.

I think that it should be restricted, as this subamendment does, to at least that individual who is a candidate in the coming election — the election, hopefully, referred to here, although I do have some questions about some of that language.

While I think that it is very good that this subamendment goes back to the original language of “a candidate, registered political party or registered constituency association,” which is found throughout the amended act itself and suddenly disappears in

section 6…. If you go back to it, it solves all of the issues.

While I support that element of this and feel that there is a flaw here with an individual who “was a candidate” remaining, I would strongly urge yet another amendment come forward by the province if they can’t see their way to supporting this amendment.

On the whole, I can’t support the amendment because I do not support, fundamentally, the issuance of a list of voters who voted being given to anybody from the Chief Electoral Officer. I’m split on my support for elements of this, and I would strongly suggest that the government do take a good, hard look at the words “an individual who was a candidate.”

G. Holman: A point of order in terms of process here. Do I need to read this subamendment into the record, Mr. Speaker? The fact that we provided hard copies to the Clerk and all…. Do I need to read this subamendment into the record, or does it stand as presented?

The Chair: I’m being told that you have to read it into the record. So if the member could read it into the record.

G. Holman: All right. My apologies to all in the House about, again, doing this on the fly, but

section 6 is amended as follows. I'll read out the subamendment.

“(

a) in subsection (1) by striking out ‘subject to

section 275 the chief electoral officer’ and substituting ‘the chief electoral officer’, and”

“(

b) by repealing subsection (2) and substituting the following:

“

(2) On request and on payment of the reasonable costs of reproduction, the chief electoral officer must provide the following:

“(

a) to a registered political party or member of the Legislative Assembly, a list of voters;

“(

b) to a registered political party or a registered constituency association as defined in

section 157 (1) (b),

“(

i) in respect of the most recent general election, a list of voters that indicates which voters on the list voted in that election, and…”

My apologies, because I’m trying to discern between struck-out and new language.

“…(ii) in respect of a by-election that takes place between the date of the most recent general election and the date the next general election is called, a list of voters that indicates which voters on the list voted in that by-election.”

Then replacing

section (

c) to read:

“(

c) to a candidate, registered political party or a registered constituency association as defined in

section 157 (1) (b).”

[1515]

In this

section (c), that’s where we’re trying to address the member for Delta South’s concern about distribution of the material to all candidates, not just constituency associations and registered parties. We’re trying to acknowledge that in this subamendment.

“(

i) in respect of the most recent general election, a list of voters in the electoral district for which the individual is a candidate that indicates which voters on the list voted in that election, and

“(ii) in respect of a by-election that takes place between the date of the most recent general election and the date the next general election is called, a list of voters in the electoral district for which the individual is a candidate” — and “or was a candidate” is struck out — “that indicates which voters on the list voted in that by-election.”

And then:

“(

d) Despite

section 275(3), records released under

section 51 may not be used for any purposes other than electoral purposes consistent with this act, subject to any restrictions or requirements established by regulation, and any other use constitutes an offence under s. 267.

“(

e) For the purposes of this section, ‘electoral purposes’ means uses that enable candidates of registered political parties, registered constituency associations as defined in s. 157 1(

b) and registered political parties to, directly or indirectly, communicate with voters to promote or oppose a political party or candidate or take a position on an issue with which a party or candidate is associated.

“(

f) For greater certainty, a person must not

“(

i) disclose the information about an individual’s voting to another unaffiliated person.”

And finally:

“(g): Registered political parties must develop a policy on the use, distribution and safeguards of information released under

section 51(2)(

b) and (

c) and file a copy of this policy with the chief electoral officer.”

Again, to repeat, the intent here is to…. Essentially, this wording reflects very closely, if not almost exactly,

[ Page 8653 ]

the amendment to

section 6 which appears on the order paper. My view, our view, is that we’re still making these amendments on the fly. In fact, this particular subamendment brings us back to an amendment that has been on the order paper for however long — a couple of weeks. So again, in defence of this subamendment, all we’re doing here is once again clarifying what the official opposition feels needs to happen for

section 6 to be acceptable and for Bill 20 to be acceptable.

Hon. S. Anton: It is certainly my position that the subamendment is not required, and I’ll say why. First of all, in terms of the critique that the response is too fast, too quick…. Several people have voiced that criticism, but I would observe that the amendment which I’m proposing simply adds to the original act as proposed originally, as originally submitted to this House. There are no fundamental changes to the act except that there are some additions to the act as originally proposed, and those additions are in response to some of the debate that we heard earlier.

That included the members for Delta South and for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. So we are proposing some additions, as I said, which are in the amendment which I have proposed.

In terms of the amendment which the member for Saanich North and the Islands has proposed, I would disagree with it for three reasons. He has three things in his amendment. One is that he wants to take out people who were a candidate. It’s very clear that the candidates must have been candidates in the most recent election. When you read the sections together in their entirety, that’s where you get to. So the proposition that we might be talking about candidates long past…. That is obviously not the intent, and it’s not the way the act itself reads. It must be the most recent election.

This particular piece was added in the proposed amendment which I put in recently in response to comments as to equality of opportunity. The opportunity should be equally between political parties and between candidates.

[1520]

In terms of concern about who should get the information — as I said, equality of opportunity but subject to having a privacy policy satisfactory to the Chief Electoral Officer. You cannot handle this information and you may not possess this information unless you can satisfy the Chief Electoral Officer as to your privacy policy. That comes a little later in the act.

The member is proposing to add a registered constituency association, but I’ll just point out that registered constituency associations are creatures of political parties themselves, so they are covered by the ability of the political party to receive the information.

As to privacy considerations and other things that are added or are proposed to be added in the subamendment, I would just observe two things. One is that in my proposed amendments on

section 21.1 there are much more significant privacy considerations added in response to some of the debate we heard in this House.

Secondly, I will observe, as well, that the Chief Electoral Officer has already got regulation-making authority in this area. I have said publicly on a number of occasions and I’ll say again right now that I will be fully in support should he wish to make additional changes — and obviously also at the request of the chief Privacy Commissioner.

For those reasons, it is my position that the subamendment does not add anything to it and, in fact, detracts from the amendment as proposed by myself earlier.

K. Corrigan: I just wanted to get on the record my support for this subamendment. Essentially, what it does is it reinforces or repeats, in many ways, what our original amendment was. I think one of the keys to it is the earlier language as well, making sure that the information is only used for electoral purposes. I think that is key and makes it very clear that removal of the references to past candidates getting the list…. Despite what the minister has said, that’s open to

interpretation, and I think we wanted to be clear in limiting that.

Really, the basis of this is to strengthen the privacy provisions with respect to use of this information. For that reason, I’m going to support the subamendment.

G. Holman: Thanks to the minister for your comments. Just in brief response, at the risk of repeating myself, the concern about candidates in previous elections was not so much about whether it was just the immediate previous election or a historical election. The concern is that, regardless, a candidate in a previous election may not be running in the current election. This is the issue.

Government, essentially, has opened the door to giving voter turnout information to someone who ran in the most recent previous election and who is not running in the subsequent election, in the current election to which this bill would…. That’s the concern, not whether it’s the immediate, previous or historical elections. Government has opened the door to giving voter turnout lists to somebody who ran in the most immediate previous election and who’s not running in the current one. That just seems bizarre to me, to this side of the House.

In terms of privacy, there are some very significant differences in our subamendment, which harkens back to our original amendment on the order paper. The language that’s still retained, as we understand it, in the government’s bill and in the government’s amendment is that these are conditions under which the voter turnout list can be distributed.

These lists, according to the government legislation…. Our amendment would remove this. It would narrow the purposes for which this voter turnout information could be provided quite substantially. Still, the government’s bill and amendment would include using the list to identify in-

[ Page 8654 ]

dividuals to be called to serve as jurors under the Jury Act. Now, what relevance voter turnout information has for the selection of jurors under the Jury Act is a puzzlement to us.

[1525]

The government legislation would also allow the turnout list to be used for purposes authorized by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Again, there’s a concern there that you’re opening the barn door somewhat. It’s not at all clear how much the barn door is widened, but we struck that provision from our amendment. We’ve been narrowing the use to which these turnout lists can be applied, again in response to the concerns expressed by the Privacy Commissioner.

Another purpose specified in the legislation to which the voter turnout list could be used is “for other purposes specified by regulation, subject to any restrictions or requirements that may be established by regulation.” Again, that language is very broad, and there’s a concern there that the use of these lists can be more broad than would be appropriate, given the concerns of the Privacy Commissioner.

It’s also our understanding, and we stand to be corrected if it’s not the case, that the voter turnout information can be provided to any individual who wishes to inspect or obtain a copy of the record. So as we understand it, the government bill, as proposed and as amended, again would provide this voter turnout information to virtually any individual who requests it as long as they submit some kind of privacy policy to the Electoral Officer.

There are a number of uses to which this voter turnout information can be applied, that is allowed under government legislation, that we have struck from our amendment, again to make the point that we’re trying to narrow the use of this information strictly for electoral purposes. We’ve tried to close that barn door.

V. Huntington: Can I ask a question at this point, of the minister?

The Chair: Please do.

V. Huntington: I wonder if the minister could explain the language to see how the government is thinking. If you are a candidate, you can get the voter turnout list from the most recent election.

The Chair: Actually, I’m sorry, Member. Perhaps we can…. I thought the question was to do with the subamendment.

V. Huntington: It is. It relates to my understanding of the government’s position on subamendment language and the misunderstanding that seems to be occurring from both sides and myself that if you are a candidate you’re entitled, with the amendments, to the most recent voter turnout list. But if you were a candidate, you’re also entitled to it because of the language — “an individual who was a candidate” — that’s in the minister’s amendment.

This amendment strikes out the language “if an individual was a candidate,” so I’m trying to ask why the government feels having both in there satisfies the same issue. If you are a candidate, you can get the list from the most recent general election. If you were a candidate, why do you want the list?

If you were a candidate and you could get the list, yes, you could only use it for electoral purposes, but why would you even want to give a failed candidate the list in the next election? I’m just struggling to understand why the government thinks that both languages are the same.

[1530]

Hon. S. Anton: One of the ways that this information will be able to be used by candidates or political organizations is to evaluate voter turnout efforts. What it does is it puts everyone on the same footing, whether you be a political party and your candidate may have won or lost in a particular riding or whether you may be an individual who may have won or lost in a riding.

As I said, this is in response to the request that everybody be on the same footing. That’s what we have done.

A. Weaver: I’m sorry. I didn’t…. I wanted to clarify, then. Let me give an example. If I am a candidate who runs as an independent in the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head and I am unsuccessful…. Now, I know that the elections boundaries are all being rejigged, so I could not formally declare myself as an independent candidate in the next election because we don’t know yet whether those ridings will or will not exist. That’s kind of my understanding.

My question, then, is: is the government introducing this to make a level playing field? It’s possible that an independent candidate who lost and so chooses to actually run again would not, during that intervening time, have access to the information that somebody who was with a political party would. Or is that understanding incorrect?

Hon. S. Anton: The amendment which government has proposed, as opposed to the subamendment, allows the kind of information that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head is describing.

The Chair: That being said, we are currently on the subamendment.

G. Heyman: I want to speak in support of the subamendment and acknowledge what has been raised by the members for Delta South, and Oak Bay–Gordon Head, and Saanich North and the Islands — that we are in many ways dealing with this on the fly. This is a complicated issue, and it’s one on which the public has expressed great concern. That great concern has been reported on at length.

At issue for the public is not whether life is easier for

[ Page 8655 ]

political parties and candidates but whether all reasonable measures are being taken to protect their privacy. Certainly, that was voiced by the Privacy Commissioner quite articulately, who suggested that the disclosure of this information needed to be done with care, if at all, and with great limitations.

We — and my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands — have tried, in putting forward this subamendment, to meet the concerns that have been expressed by members of the public and the Privacy Commissioner, not simply to paper it over or make some token attempt to address it while still leaving the door open wide enough for virtually anybody to come in to take information or for any amount of information to get out.

First of all, let me speak to the part of the subamendment that adds the requirement for “a registered constituency association” to registered political parties. I think we have seen tremendous contributions and questioning on any number of issues from independents in this Legislature. In some cases they belong to a registered political party — in some cases not. The provision to allow a registered constituency association access to the information on the same basis as registered political parties and candidates for registered political parties, seems to me to be a fundamental issue of respect for every member of this House and the contributions that they make.

There’s not a lot more to be said about that. It’s just, I think, simply equality. Its recognition that voters, certainly in Delta South, have indicated that they’re quite fine voting for somebody who isn’t a member of a registered political party if they believe the candidate is somebody who will represent their views to the best of her ability and in the way they want it represented.

[1535]

I’ll go on to say, as my colleague from Saanich North has said, that I cannot think of a single reason to release information to somebody who is not going to be a candidate but simply has been a candidate. What possible purpose could that person have for the information that’s consistent with the political purposes of the bill and the restrictions which we are proposing, and which the Privacy Commissioner has proposed, to severely curtail the scope of the uses of that information? I just don’t get it, and I suspect that the public certainly won’t get it. I don’t know why it’s in here.

I don’t know who dreamed it up, and I don’t know why it should stay there. We’re simply proposing to remove it because it shouldn’t be here.

If somebody is going to be a candidate and we are going to, at some point, agree on the scope of information to be released — whom should receive the information and what the restrictions on its use should be — then that’s fine. That may not meet the concerns of everyone in the public, but we’re struggling here to take an ill-conceived, ill-drafted piece of legislation that goes right to the root of people’s concerns about protection of privacy and make it manageable and constrain it.

But “was a candidate”? There are many people who have been candidates for office in British Columbia. Why would any of them have need of this information if they weren’t about to be a candidate again?

Let me simply continue by saying that it is important, and that’s why we’re introducing this subamendment. It is, I believe, critically important to constrain in as specific a way as possible the uses to which the information may be put, because everybody’s experience is that in the absence of such clearly defined constraint, people will find the cracks, the loopholes, the spaces with which to maneuver for the purposes that they wish.

That’s not good enough for the people of B.C. It’s not good enough for the Privacy Commissioner. It’s not good enough for us on this side of the House, and it should not be good enough for us as legislators.

I will simply say, notwithstanding the haste with which we’re having to react to this bill and to changes contemplated by the government side and by the Minister of Justice in order to appear to be addressing concerns…. They have been raised by everyone from columnists to members of general public — who are feeding information in to us on a daily basis — to the Privacy Commissioner, who has the advantage of having studied at some length what is acceptable practice in other jurisdictions in the context of accepted practice in protecting people’s personal privacy and information.

We are trying to put forward changes that will be specific, that will define the uses of information, that will limit the people who can access the information and that will also honour the role of independents in this Legislature. I and my colleagues will be supporting this subamendment.

[1540]

The Chair: If members could take their seats for the taking of the division.

[1545]

The question is the subamendment proposed by the member for Saanich North and the Islands to the amendment to

section 6 of Bill 20.

Subamendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 31

Hammell

Simpson

Robinson

Horgan

James

Dix

Ralston

Corrigan

Fleming

Kwan

Conroy

Austin

Chandra Herbert

Macdonald

Karagianis

Eby

Mungall

Bains

Elmore

Shin

Heyman

Darcy

Donaldson

Krog

Trevena

Simons

Fraser

Chouhan

Rice

Holman

B. Routley

[ Page 8656 ]

NAYS — 45

Sturdy

Bing

Hogg

Yamamoto

Michelle Stilwell

Stone

Fassbender

Oakes

Wat

Thomson

Virk

Rustad

Wilkinson

Pimm

Sultan

Hamilton

Reimer

Ashton

Morris

Hunt

Sullivan

Cadieux

Lake

Polak

de Jong

Coleman

Anton

Bennett

Letnick

Barnett

Yap

Thornthwaite

McRae

Kyllo

Tegart

Throness

Huntington

Bernier

Larson

Foster

Weaver

Dalton

Martin

Gibson

Moira Stilwell

The Chair: Moving back to the amendment, perhaps we’ll wait a moment until those members return to their other duties.

V. Huntington: I would also like to propose a subamendment to

section 6 of the bill. I move as follows:

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

Section 51 is amended

(

a) in subsection (1) by striking out “ Subject to

section 275, the chief electoral officer ” and substituting “ The chief electoral officer ”, and

(

b) by repealing subsection (2) (

b) and (

c) and substituting the following:

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), on On request and on payment of the reasonable costs of reproduction, the chief electoral officer must provide the following:

(

a) to a registered political party or member of the Legislative Assembly, a list of voters ; .

(

b) to a registered political party,

(

i) in respect of the most recent general election, a list of voters that indicates which voters on the list voted in that election, and

(ii) in respect of a by-election that takes place between the date of the most recent general election and the date the next general election is called, a list of voters that indicates which voters on the list voted in that by-election;

(

c) to a candidate or an individual who was a candidate in an election referred to in subparagraph (

i) or a by-election referred to in subparagraph (ii),

(

i) in respect of the most recent general election, a list of voters in the electoral district for which the individual is a candidate or was a candidate that iandicates which voters on the list voted in that election, and

(ii) in respect of a by-election that takes place between the date of the most recent general election and the date the next general election is called, a list of voters in the electoral district for which the individual is a candidate or was a candidate that indicates which voters on the list voted in that by-election. ]

On the subamendment.

[1550]

V. Huntington: Obviously, what this does is repeal what I consider to be the offending paragraphs of

section 6. I have not nor do I support the concept of distributing a list of voter turnout.

While the government has taken pains to introduce a number of privacy protections in an amendment to a later

section of this bill, I must say with all respect that people aren’t looking for privacy protections; they are looking for privacy — period — privacy from state and political intrusion and privacy surrounding their vote, their right to vote and their sense that it is nobody’s business whether they vote or not.

My concerns and the feedback I received from constituents will not be addressed by saying that this data cannot be used, for example, for commercial purposes. For anyone in this House who intends to support

section 6 generally and the government’s amendments to the section, I would ask: have you talked to your constituents? If you take the time to hear what people have to say, they are overwhelmingly opposed to giving parties access to this data.

Am I in order?

The Chair: Proceed, please, Member.

Perhaps in your remarks…. It has been brought to the Chair’s attention that the proposed subamendment appears to substantially, basically, remove all of the force of the amendment, and therefore, perhaps if the member could show the substance, other than simply defeating the amendment itself, that the subamendment would actually cause.

V. Huntington: Repeat that, Mr. Chair. Show the what?

The Chair: In other words, voting against the amendment itself would have the same practical effect as the subamendment being proposed.

V. Huntington: I disagree, because what I am doing is keeping the subsection, subparagraph…. Now I need the whole thing here. I’m still enabling a registered political party or a member of the Legislative Assembly to obtain the list of voters from the Chief Electoral Officer.

Voting against

section 6 in its entirety, we would therefore not enable any of the parties or the candidates to get the list of voters, which is generally what we always do get. Here I am saying that we would not get a list of voter turnout, but we would retain the right to get the list of voters. I do not think voting against

section 6 in its entirety….

The Chair: I was speaking to the amendment on the floor, not

section 6 in its entirety.

V. Huntington: Sorry, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I understand. And I know that the member’s comments are meant to provide guidance and not

[ Page 8657 ]

challenge the Chair as well.

Does the member have any further comments on the subamendment proposed?

V. Huntington: If I can understand the Chair’s ruling here — and I’m certainly not arguing with you — retaining the section, the clause that retains the right to obtain a list of voters and repealing or requesting the repeal of the clause that would enable you to get a list of voters who voted.

The Chair: I understand what the member is saying. Does the member have any further comments on the subamendment?

V. Huntington: Yes. Providing easy access to a list of citizens who voted represents an increasing invasion of privacy for both voters and non-voters, in my opinion.

Despite the government’s defence that they have no interest in increasing the number of phone calls or contacts with people at home, we know exactly that that is what is going to happen, (1) because now they’ll know who didn’t vote by meshing and merging the two lists and (2) because people who didn’t show up to vote in the last election can expect to be targeted in new ways. “We know you didn’t vote. Why not? What can we do to make you vote?”

[1555]

I am quite clearly distinguishing between obtaining a list of those who voted as opposed to obtaining the general voters list that is public in the first instance. The Privacy Commissioner has looked at the amendment that’s currently before the House, and she says she will work with government and the Chief Electoral Officer in regulations. But has there been enough time for due diligence on the part of all parties?

If there are privacy concerns about the

section as amended, the Privacy Commissioner has yet to comment on them. The fact that the list is being provided stands in direct opposition to her original concerns.

The government’s amendments to

section 6 do not adequately respond to the concerns raised, in my opinion, by the Information and Privacy Commissioner or the concerns I raised during second reading, as did members for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and Vancouver-Langara.

By all means, we should keep the language found in the proposed subsection 2(a), which represents an improvement to the act by making phrasing tweaks. It is a good change, and it retains the right to obtain the voters list. But the proposal to share data on who voted and who did not is not supportable. It’s not the state’s business.

I am therefore proposing this subamendment to respond to both the public’s concerns and the Privacy Commissioner’s initial concerns. It would remove paragraph 2(

b) and (

c) that require the CEO, the Chief Electoral Officer, to provide a list of who voted to political parties and candidates.

A. Weaver: I rise to support this subamendment as brought to us by the member for Delta South. Privacy rights are a significant human value. They are a human right and also a constitutional right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To quote from David Flaherty and his piece Reflections on Reform of the Federal Privacy Act:

“Canadians lobbied hard for privacy protection in the 1970s and early 1980s. Privacy was first recognized as a human right in the Canadian Human Rights Act and was subsequently entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result, Canadians have come to expect and deserve adequate privacy protection as an essential component of our human dignity in western societies.

“Appropriate resourcing of the implementation of data protection may also be problematic and therefore requires an ongoing commitment to the human rights goals of the legislation which Parliament and legislatures frequently forget. Data protection is part of a legal framework intended to afford reasonable expectations of privacy rights articulated by the courts under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“A privacy law is supposed to be about protecting human rights which gives privacy an elevated stature in the pantheon of Canadian values protected by law. Speaking for the entire Supreme Court in the 1997 case, Justice La Forest stated: ‘The protection of privacy is a fundamental value in a modern, democratic state. An expression of an individual’s unique personality or personhood, privacy is grounded on physical and moral autonomy, the freedom to engage in one’s own thoughts, actions and decisions.

“‘Privacy is also recognized in Canada as worthy of constitutional protection, at least insofar as it is encompassed by the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under

section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.’”

It’s for this reason that I stand and speak in support of the subamendment brought to us by the member for Delta South. We know that in the last elections something like 45 percent of eligible voters chose not to for whatever reason — cynicism, apathy, resentment, frustration.

This is indeed action that needs to be addressed. But it does need to be addressed in a manner that reflects the privacy of the individual voters in British Columbia. As Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham said:

“The original reason the Legislature authorized Elections B.C. to compile a list of voters was for the purpose of administering elections. I am deeply concerned that the proposed amendments allow for other uses and expand the already broad ability of political parties to collect information about voter participation. It would also certainly exceed what British Columbians anticipate when they provide their name to Elections B.C. I do not believe there has been any consultation on this expanded use of voters list.”

Giving voter turnout information to political parties after the fact, after the election has occurred, seems to actually contradict the government’s claims that this has anything to do with increasing voter turnout, as suggested by the Privacy Commissioner and as recognized by the member for Delta South, who is proposing the subamendment to the government’s amendment accordingly.

[1600]

We’ve got concrete options in front of us right now that we could, in fact, and should use to address voter turnout.

[ Page 8658 ]

I covered those earlier in my discussions on this piece. Undermining the privacy of citizens of British Columbia is not in the best interests of British Columbians, and it is not what British Columbians want. As the member for Delta South says, I ask the members opposite, each and every one of them: “Did you actually talk to your constituents?”

I don’t think they did. I don’t think they did, because if they did, they would recognize that their constituents would have found this egregious. This subamendment actually deals with that — removes the most concerning aspects of the bill before us, which are the privacy concerns, as demonstrated in

section 6.

With that, I offer my unreserved support for this amendment. I certainly hope members opposite will think and reflect. This is a bellwether issue. This is an issue that is going right to the very core of our democracy. It is an issue that will come back to haunt them in 2017, when British Columbians recognize that what government is doing here is not trying to increase voter turnout but attempting to increase voter suppression accordingly.

The Chair: I thank the member.

Although I felt it important for the members to be heard on this, upon further reflection and consultation with the Clerk, I do believe that, substantially, this amendment is a direct negative to the amendment currently on the floor. Therefore, I’m going to rule it out of order and move back to the amendment.

Subamendment ruled out of order.

The Chair: On the amendment, any further speakers?

A. Weaver: With respect, I have questions on

section 6, but as amended. I will raise a couple of them now simply because the context of the questions that I was going to ask on the original

section 6 are still relevant in the subamendment version — expanded application and distribution of this list.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The government has stated that the purpose of providing voter turnout lists is to help boost, bolster, voter turnout. We’ve seen dramatic declines in voter turnout over the past few years.

My question to the minister is: how does this information being provided to candidates who ran in the past election, to candidates who will run in the upcoming election and to political parties after an election has occurred actually affect voter turnout?

Hon. S. Anton: I would remind members from all parties that there was a consultation prior to the act being prepared and presented to the House. One of the pieces of consultation involved representatives from the main political parties in British Columbia, including the member’s party, where the people engaged in that consultation with the Chief Electoral Officer were in support of the change as proposed by

section 6. There was all-party support for this change.

The member is asking the purpose. The purpose is to evaluate turnout in a prior election and the election gone by and to assist in voter engagement leading up to a following election. As I said the other day, I would remind the member that this information is already public information.

[1605]

When you walk into your voting station, you are there in front of your friends and neighbours. That is a public place. When you vote, when you register with the election official, your name and your voter number are read out in a loud public voice so that people can hear it. Scrutineers from political parties are present, and they make note of that information. They can be there right up until five to eight, one minute to eight, sometimes even after eight if the lineup goes out the doorway — or whoever’s in the doorway. I think you have my point.

Those people who are voting, right up until the poll is closed on election day…. Whether or not people voted is a piece of public information. I do know that the member likes to, I think, think that it is not, but in fact, the act of voting is a public act. I would just remind him of that fact.

For the purposes that I mentioned a moment ago, that is the purpose of

section 6 as amended. Of course, the amendments as proposed do allow everybody the same kind of access to that information and, as we’ll come to later on, increase the privacy provisions around the use of that information.

A. Weaver: Wow. Never in my life would I have expected to hear a response like that. She didn’t answer my question, because clearly, there is no evidence that this would actually increase voter turnout. I’ll come back to that in a second with a follow-up question.

I would like to address the comments. Voting is not public. This is not a public…. I cannot go into anybody’s poll….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: What is public is the right to vote or not to vote. A political party in head office in Vancouver having access to data using the government’s information, to actually use taxpayer funding to provide information on whether a person has voted or not after an election occurred — not during the election, not scrutineers phoning in to get the voter turnout…. There’s no evidence at all. None. The minister could not provide me with any evidence as to how this would help voter turnout.

The minister talked about parties supporting it. I’ve actually spoken to the chair of the B.C. Green Party. They thought they were going into a discussion about explor-

[ Page 8659 ]

ing this further, not having a vote on a piece of legislation that no one had consulted on. The B.C. Green Party is a party that believes in consultation. Our chair went there, saying, “Yes, let’s consult further on this,” not “Hands up who votes for this.” They hadn’t seen this. This is government attempting to try to get information for purposes that it was never intended for. There is no need for it after.

My question again to the minister. In light of the fact that the minister has no evidence to put on the table here