Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, October 30, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 173

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 49 — Professional Governance Act (continued)

R. Sultan

M. Lee

S. Furstenau

S. Gibson

B. Ma

Hon. G. Heyman

Bill 40 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018 (continued)

On the amendment (continued)

M. Hunt

E. Ross

S. Gibson

J. Isaacs

T. Shypitka

T. Redies

T. Wat

G. Kyllo

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2018

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. H. Bains: I call second reading of Bill 49.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 49 — PROFESSIONAL

GOVERNANCE

ACT

(continued)

R. Sultan: I’m pleased to rise and offer my comments during second reading

debate of Bill 49, the Professional Governance Act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I will begin by quoting verbatim from an op-ed published in the

Vancouver Sun under my name on July 27 of this year,

headlined: “NDP Government Seeks to Regulate the Regulator.”

“In days of yore, Dalmatians ran ahead of stagecoaches to warn of

threats. In future days, when driving in the country, it may be prudent

to train these wonderful dogs to warn us of bridges ahead designed under

the supervision of lawyers at West Coast Environmental Law. For that

appears to be the intention of the Green-NDPs, who seem hell-bent on

taking over governance of our engineering profession and handing it over

to lawyers and environmental lobbyists.

“Or more broadly, in fact — taking over the governance of five

learned professions: engineering and geoscience, forestry, applied

biology, agrology, and applied science technologists and technicians.

These 55,000 British Columbians do everything from designing our

highways and heart valves, cutting blocks in forestry, protecting our

soils and streams from degradation and certifying the septic tank in

your backyard. The NDP government is now threatening the jobs of these

55,000 hard-working British Columbians. Why?

“Unfortunately, our current Green-NDP government is persuaded that

these professions’ collective performance has been unsatisfactory. They

have been convinced it was somehow a mistake to rely on highly trained

professionals. They accept the conclusions of another report: that

professional judgment and sense of responsibility has been impaired by

conflict of interest and — quoting a panel of ‘experts’ regarding a

tailings pond collapse — ‘misplaced faith in design parameters and

stability modeling…and blinded by the confidence of an authority or by

the assumed accuracy of prior testing.’ Or in other words, the NDP

believe the professionals overseeing complex projects have become too

reliant on established science.

“Worried? Don’t be. Mark Haddock, a lawyer with the Environmental

Law Centre of the University of Victoria, was hired to write yet another

report. But he arrives at the same conclusion: we cannot rely on these

skilled professionals to fulfil the heavy responsibilities thrust upon

them. They must therefore be closely supervised by more responsible

minds such as may be found, one must presume, among the lawyers of the

University of Victoria.

“There is every indication that the NDP accepts such Ministry of

Environment and Climate Change Strategy conclusions with enthusiasm and

intends to create and staff an über-regulator to govern the regulators:

the five professional colleges who were themselves created for the

purpose of ensuring professional competence and accountability and the

swearing of oaths upholding the public interest.

“It’s not as though engineers in this province are running around

without a strong regulatory framework to guide their work. The Engineers

and Geoscientists of British Columbia recently commissioned the U.K.’s

Professional Standards Authority, PSA, to audit and publicly report on

the performance of the regulator. This is the same audit team that has

been retained by B.C.’s government to look at the regulation of

dentists. The PSA’s conclusion: seven of the nine criteria assessed were

met, and action is already underway against the two outliers. Sure,

there is some improvement required, but let’s not throw the baby out

with the bathwater.

“The mind boggles. The engineering profession I have served for over

a half century licenses at least 22 categories of applied science, and

that is just the beginning.

[1:40 p.m.]

“Our highly educated professionals are set up to be self-governing.

Who else knows the…technical math and science needed to understand what

is safe or dangerous and who is competent or neglectful?

“It is not hard to draw up a list of technical mistakes which have

been made in the history of engineering. They will inevitably occur

again from time to time. It’s highly doubtful amateurs can make a

difference. Nevertheless, it appears self-government will be a relic of

the past under the NDP government’s prescription.

“Some observers claim the United States is in decline due to the

persistent dumbing down of the American education system. Is British

Columbia about to set out on a parallel course, replacing technical

expertise with organized ignorance, ideology and dogma? Heaven help

us.”

That’s the end of my Vancouver Sun op-ed of last

July.

I’ve worn my iron ring pretty much every day since graduating from

engineering at UBC a long time ago. The regulatory organization, of

which I’m a member, of Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C., EGBC, has

responded to the government’s über-regulator — or, as some would prefer,

overregulator — project with attempted understanding and

tact.

In a newsletter to members they stated, just excerpts:

“Changes are coming to the regulation of a number of professions in

B.C., and engineers and geoscientists are urged to take note. On June 28

the B.C. Minister of Environment and Climate Change released its final

report from the review. The report includes a number of proposed

recommendations, some of which would introduce sweep­ing changes

to the governance of regulators like Engineers and Geoscientists

B.C.

“While some of the proposed reforms are positive and align with the

association’s recommendations for improving the professional reliance

model, others are more problematic and could impact engineers and

geoscientists’ ability to function effectively as a regulator. In

addition, while the review and its recommendations focused on

professionals operating within the natural resource sector, only 20

percent of B.C. engineers and geoscientists worked in this sector. The

proposed changes would impact all engineers and geoscientists regardless

of their area of practice.”

The association’s comment went on to say:

“The two recommendations concerning professional governance are

likely to have the biggest impact. The first recommends the creation of

an independent office of professional regulation and oversight to

oversee the five associations subject to the review. The second proposes

that government standardize ten elements of professional governance

across the five associations through umbrella legislation.”

The Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, when

introducing this bill to the Legislature this morning, described, at

some length, the consultation process and many industry organizations

that were engaged. I would like to expand on what I understand actually

happened during that process.

The five impacted organizations, starting with the largest — known

as EGBC, the one I belong to — did spend, as I understand it, most of

May through August in meetings with ministry staff, who were highly

professional throughout, and key meetings were also held with the

Minister himself. The explanatory meetings by staff were not, I am told,

a dialogue, which is commonly the characteristic of consultation, but

were characterized to me as monologues — one-way communications and

PowerPoints of what was about to happen to these, up until now, mostly

self-regulating bodies.

But then again, I’m reading between the lines, because those being

consulted would only enjoy that privilege if they signed a secrecy oath

so they could not tell anybody what was actually happening. And I notice

reticence on their part to talk about it even now.

[1:45 p.m.]

It is not clear when the confidentiality agreements expire, if

ever. So here we have, across the aisle, a group of politicians who have

been quick to seize upon any evidence of scientists being muzzled by

government, a nefarious anti-intellectual, anti-true-science, muzzling

of free speech, invented, the legend goes, by politicians in Ottawa and

conveyed to them out here on the west coast, intended to muzzle any bad

news about the environment. It’s the common theme.

With that cultural backdrop, I find it more than curious that the

impacted five professional associations were forced to swear, in

writing, as the price of consultation, as one way as it was, to keep

their mouths shut about what was going on.

Now, these are organizations of applied sciences. I graduated from

the faculty of applied science at UBC. The NDP-Green coalition muzzled

and subjected to contracts of secrecy our applied science community.

That made it almost impossible for members of this community, such as

myself, to actually learn what was going on. So much for transparency

and openness, NDP-Green style.

Sorry, applied scientists. You’re not allowed to say anything to

anybody.

Nevertheless, hints of what was going on leaked out. Based on

glimmerings of information, journalist Tom Flet­cher wrote last

July, headline “Industry Groups Pan B.C.’s ‘Professional Reliance’

Review,” and cited the following: “Council of Forest Industries CEO

Susan Yurkovich said the proposal ‘would effectively take us back 25

years’ to the former NDP government’s forest practices code, which

proved a costly and ‘gridlocked regulatory scheme.’ The industry is now

regulated by the Forest Practices Board, which issues regular audits

that show a good record of compliance, Yurkovich said.”

Tom went on to quote Greg D’Avignon, president of the B.C.

Business Council, who “called Haddock’s report ‘a solution looking for a

problem,’ which confuses regulatory capacity in government with the role

of qualified professionals who design projects and conduct environmental

surveys.” D’Avignon went on to say: “Unfortunately, this report fails to

recognize that whether professionals work in the private or public

sector, they are all bound by the same legal and ethical

standards.”

Tom went on to quote AltaGas, which is building a propane export

facility at Prince Rupert, he reported. In its submission to Haddock’s

committee…warned that qualified professionals “should not be tasked with

making government resource management decisions. Government agencies

should be the decision-makers,” said Charles Lyons, vice-president for

environment and safety with AltaGas.

Subsequently, Keith Sashaw, CEO of the Association of Consulting

Engineers of British Columbia, wrote:

“We understand that the intended outcomes of this process are to

ensure the appropriate qualified professionals are hired for the work,

and that they are competent; ensure QPs, qualified professionals, give

unbiased advice; minimize controversy over natural resource decisions;

improve the timeliness of natural resource decisions; ensure adequate

oversight of QP regulators; increase the transparency and accountability

of the professional reliance model; and increase Indigenous nation and

public trust in natural resource decisions.”

Sashaw went on to say:

“We believe adoption of regulations that we support will work to

achieve these outcomes. The imposition of a heavy-handed, overseeing

entity will not contribute at all and, in fact, will add undue

complexity and confusion.”

[1:50 p.m.]

Who is the architect of these reforms? Well, that’s quite clear.

The minister, when he first introduced the proposed legislation, had

sitting in the galleries with, significantly perhaps, a representative

of the Professional Employees Association of B.C., a unit of the B.C.

Federation of Labour, one Mr. Haddock, a lawyer and instructor at the

University of Victoria who produced a report 135 pages long containing

121 recommendations — only the first two of his recommendations being

embodied in this proposed statute.

Mr. Haddock, who had previously worked with the Sierra Legal

Defence Fund and West Coast Environmental Law, in his report to the

Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy recommended changes

to agricultural waste control, contaminated sites, hazardous waste,

landfill gas management, municipal wastewater, mushroom compost

facilities, meat processing, lumber pricing, oil and gas roads and

drilling, and dam safety regulation.

If a mere two of his recommendations required a 110-page and

129-section bill to implement — that is to say, Bill 49 — we take with

considerable trepidation the question of how many pages of legislation

will be required to implement his other 119 recommendations.

Why are we considering the legislation right now? That’s easy.

It’s in the contract — the Green-NDP midnight agreement otherwise known

as CASA. It’s the Green’s price for continuing support of this

government. They make no secret of it. They exult in their curiously

disproportionate arrangement.

Exactly who is the government planning to regulate here? Well,

engineers and geoscientists, for starters, about 35,000 of them;

foresters, about 5,000; applied biologists, about 2,300 of them;

agrologists, a mere 1,200; and applied science technologists and

technicians, 10,000 of them. Whoa.

So here we have a total of 55,000 strong-willed, skeptical, highly

educated and necessary professionals who are not used to having

government or anybody else shove them around, ranging from engineers

working at the TRIUMF accelerator at UBC studying the engineering

physics of the universe to elevator technicians trying to make sure I

don’t get stuck between floors in my apartment building. Lots of luck,

Government, running that crowd out of the Attorney General’s

office.

What will the government’s über-regulator operating from the

shelter of the Attorney General’s office actually do? Well, it seems,

from reading this bill, that he or she can do just about anything — from

supervising, inspecting, hiring and firing, appointing members,

appointing members to a specialized roster, paying special attention to

whistle-blowers, defending whistle-blowers from retribution, licensing

the professionals, taking away the professionals’ licences.

Approving, or not, all the bylaws made by the regulators under

them; appointing public members, who must be present at each and every

committee meeting — and these organizations have perhaps 250 committees

— penalize and levy fines and toss out of the profession for deemed

infractions; and make sure everybody adheres to a code of ethics, which

shall be composed at the cabinet level of this government. Did I leave

anything out?

I’m tempted to shout: “Hail Caesar!” The disciplinary powers of

this new Caesar, as the member for Kamloops–​North Thompson has

already emphasized, are virtually unlimited. This person is not even

subject to the constraints of civil service rules. He or she is an

independent gendarme of the Attorney General answerable to nobody

except, it seems, the AG — or through the AG, answerable to cabinet

itself.

The analogy which springs to my mind is my late and much-lamented

dog, carrying the Swahili name of Baruti, a Rhodesian Ridgeback, a big

one. Those of you familiar with the breed will know them as large,

loyal, very strong and athletic lion hunters with independent views. The

only way to control Baruti was with a chain choke collar. If he was

misbehaving, you gave him a good yank on the choke collar, and he got

the message right away.

[1:55 p.m.]

The way things are unfolding, the superintendent of professionals

will be the government’s choke chain, as I see it, if the engineers

misbehave. And having been a registrant myself for many decades, I know

they can be independent and troublesome — unruly, in fact. The

superintendent will just give their choke chain a yank, and all will be

well. At least that’s the discipline model embodied in Bill

What could possibly go wrong? Well, here are six things which

could be problematic.

One, we’re dealing here with a world of applied science, which is

moving fast and evolving, as knowledge accelerates. The maintenance of

which knowledge, by the way, is one of the main thrusts of this proposed

law. And who could argue against that? We all get out of date very, very

quickly.

Well, why not try out some of your rules and paperwork, penalties

and permissions and choke chains on Elon Musk, Mr. Attorney General, and

see how far that gets you.

Two, cabinet will decide what is ethical, and engineers under

penalty of a yank on that choke chain are forbidden from being

unethical. For starters, it wouldn’t surprise me if they ban all work on

the Trans Mountain pipeline forthwith, and they, in turn, will

henceforth get all their engineering work done in Houston. It’s

unethical, you see — endangering the public, and so on.

Three, as the member for Kamloops–North Thompson has again

emphasized, the law says…. This has special meaning; listen up.

Engineers must — “must,” that’s a very pregnant word in law — report

what may…. Now, that’s another word laden with meaning. They must report

what may be deleterious to health and safety. That’s their professional

obligation. Ignore it, and you’re being unethical.

Well, “must” reporting “maybes” covers an awful lot of territory.

The member for Kamloops–North Thompson has already described the huge

off-duty obligations of professionals caught up in this act, who must

report any maybe that they observe. I suppose driving by a pipeline on

Sunday afternoon might be reportable.

Four, a clause requires professionals, all 55,000 of them, to make

a declaration of competence and conflict of interest on every job they

do. I figure about half a million declarations a year should just about

cover it. The thought which immediately ran through my mind was the

report I listened to last week from Vancouver Coastal’s on-time and

on-budget implementation of their health records IT system, with a

budget that they managed to meet of just a shade under $1

billion.

Five. While there are, indeed, five organizations, only two of

them are actually legally empowered regulators today. So we must make up

something in a hurry for the other three. But the minister, if I heard

him accurately this morning, is well aware of this, and drafting a scope

of practice will, I’m sure, begin immediately for 10,000 technicians and

technologists working on everything from electronics to concrete

testing.

Sixth and final. These are mobile, knowledge-based enterprises and

professionals — savvy. Look at some of them crosswise, and they may just

say: “I’m out of here. I’m going to Calgary or Seattle.”

These are only six of the most obvious complexities of making

operational Bill 49. Square one will be to gain the trust and

cooperation of the registrants, because leg. counsel doesn’t have a clue

about what is involved, as skilled and professional as I know they are —

and they are indeed.

The only way to discipline the professionals and hold them to some

standard is to have the professionals design what it is and what those

standards actually are. Sorry. Minister, you must start to make nice to

them right away and keep that choke chain in your hand, hidden behind

your back, because that’s a good way to spook my Baruti,

ridgeback.

[2:00 p.m.]

Now, having said all of that, and I appreciate I’ve said quite a

bit…. To a degree which might surprise the proponents, I have

considerable sympathy for the goals and objectives the drafters of Bill

49 are trying to achieve. I have sympathy for what they are trying to

achieve. Unfortunately, the way they’re going about it is going to

create a tremendous snafu. If you don’t know what snafu means, look it

up.

M. Lee: Well, I think snafu means a really big problem. I was thinking

Scooby Doo, but anyway….

It’s a pleasure to rise today to speak on behalf of others, with

our opposition caucus here, on Bill 49, the Professional Governance Act.

I couldn’t help but comment on the Freudian slip by my colleague, the

member for Kamloops–North Thompson, when he stood up to speak and

started to refer to Bill 40. I think, of course, that as Members of the

Legislative Assembly, we’re all about trying to improve our governance

in this province, in this chamber. The challenges we’ve spoken about and

will continue to speak about through the course of today, about Bill 40,

have been a lack of understanding of what good governance is and a real

challenge to our province.

In terms of Bill 49, much as I would like to continue talking

about Bill 40, it’s another challenge. I, like the member for West

Vancouver–Capilano, also share a recognition of some of the objectives

that we understand from the Minister of Environment in tabling this

bill. But I hope that all members of this chamber…. Certainly, members

on this side of the House recognize what this province is good

at.

This province is strong in responsible resource development.

Professional reliance is a critical component of that. What has been

evolving in this province over the last 15 years has been a maintenance

of government oversight of that, but a greater focus on monitoring,

compliance and enforcement of development activity. That has enabled

projects to be done in a responsible way — considerations around the

environment, social licence, relationship with First Nations and other

considerations on project development as we go forward. Safety.

Protection of our waterways, our rivers, our lands.

This has been a critical component — but also recognizing that we

need to move forward with this. When we look at the associations — the

five professional associations, from the engineers and geoscientists to

the forest professionals, the biologists, the agrologists, and the

applied science technologists and technicians — they all play a role in

this. They do it in a professional manner, as we would know, of course,

I would hope.

They’re all trained to do this. They are trained in their

educational institutions. They receive their licence and practice

certifications. They are governed by their professional bodies under a

code of conduct, a code of ethics, professional standards. They need to

continue to maintain and perform their roles in the public interest.

That is the professional reliance we’re hoping to accomplish in this

province. Admittedly, sometimes there have been some challenges with

that. That’s what’s been identified. But this is clearly an overreach,

an overreaction to that.

[2:05 p.m.]

When we look at how public interest is being defined, I look at

the Haddock report. I must say that the member for West

Vancouver–Capilano made some general references to UVic law school. I’m

a proud graduate of that law school, so I know how strong the law

program is there. In the Haddock report, on page 43, it says: “The more

that government does to make known its management objectives and desired

results in law and policy, the more clarity there is for professional

organizations and their members to determine what constitutes

professional and ethical conduct in a given context.” I think that that

is a challenge.

Professional and ethical conduct is something that should be

determined by the profession itself. It is something that they form

these associations to do, and when government starts to suggest how

their ethics should change in a given context, I think that’s a concern.

The overarching nature of the ability and the powers given to the

superintendent under this bill suggests that there is a greater public

interest that is not defined.

In the briefings that we were able to have, the two colleagues who

have spoken and myself, with the Minister of Environment’s staff, it’s

quite clear — and I’m sure we’ll get to this in committee — as to what

the government has in its mind, in its intention. What are the

objectives of this government, the true objectives, in forming this

superintendent office? Without knowing that, we cannot have a meaningful

discussion about this bill. Just as the member for West

Vancouver–Capilano said, the consultation really appeared to be more

one-way than two-way.

In this House, I believe it’s the responsibility of this

government to explain to this chamber what the true objectives of this

bill are, understanding how they define “public interest” in a different

way depending on how these professionals should be operating, in terms

of their professional ethics and conduct. I think it’s one thing to say

that the government should be doing what they ought to be doing, which

is setting the environmental regulatory framework for this province. But

the trained professionals of each of these five associations ought to be

enabled and allowed to perform their duties, to continue to set their

standards — their code in which they operate, their

certifications.

I know that one of the aspects in this bill that would suggest

that the superintendent knows better is the competence and the conflict

of interest declarations. The bill effectively says that as a registrant

under this act is engaged to provide services, under

section 60, that

are within the registrant’s regulated practice, that registrant needs to

file, within the prescribed time and the prescribed form and manner, a

competence declaration. Are we saying that the superintendent now is the

determinant of who is competent in this province, ultimately?

It’s not clear who this competence declaration goes to.

Presumably, it goes to the registrant’s professional organization, but

ultimately, that organization reports to the superintendent. That’s the

purpose of this new provision. Does that shift the burden of

responsibility, where the superintendent and the government of British

Columbia are now blessing the competence of these professionals, so that

if something goes wrong, the superintendent and the government bear that

responsibility?

In terms of conflicts of interest, under that same section,

there’s a conflict-of-interest declaration, which includes a “perceived

conflict of interest.” In the context of what public interest is, what

is that perceived conflict going to look like? These are important

questions that I think we need to be addressing at the committee

stage.

Ultimately, I understand that the government is trying to address

what would be a standardization of good governance practices across

these particular organizations, with more to follow, potentially —

setting standards for code of ethics, audit, continuing education

expectations, professional standards. I think government can do

that.

[2:10 p.m.]

There are other guidelines that government puts out to Crown

corporations, for example, about good governance. Why is it that we need

to combine and take away responsibility and oversight from the line

ministries that are currently directly involved with these

organizations, which include the Ministry of Advanced Education;

Ministry of Environment; Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource

Operations and Rural Development; and the Ministry of Agriculture? Those

four main ministries are responsible for these five professional

organizations.

Why isn’t it that those ministries, with the expertise that is at

their ministry levels of staff…? Knowing the sectors which these

organizations operate in, why isn’t it those ministries that are still

responsible for the governance of those organizations, particularly

when, on natural resource development matters, these associations are

operating in the same sectoral expertise areas? So when there’s a shift

here, this superintendent’s office now has to have a greater level of

expertise — expertise that’s already there in the government.

This is a duplication of resources, to say the least. As I was

saying before, it’s unclear to me why government can’t just set the

standards across the board. There can be guidelines that are put out as

to what the expectations should be around a form of a code of conduct,

expectations around continuing education which are specific to that

organization. These are things that can be done with­out a new

super-oversight body, a super-oversight body in the form of the

superintendent that dives deep into the operations of a council, even in

the area where you are talking about a self-governance

organization.

When you look at the Haddock report and the tenor of this bill, it

suggests that self-governing professional organizations aren’t capable

of governing themselves. They aren’t capable of passing appropriate

bylaws around professional standards, audit investigation, fees to

continue to support that organization — that government needs to step in

and govern that organization of professionals for themselves. I don’t

think that is the appropriate direction this government should be

taking.

What we’re trying to continue to build with the toughest safety

and environmental standards in the world, regulatory standards, is

excellence in this province, excellence for resource development. That

is something that we do in collaboration with the strong professional

organizations that, in the area of resource development, are

world-leading.

I recognize that the point’s been made, in terms of the engineers

and geoscientists of British Columbia, that only 20 percent of its

members, potentially, are in the natural resource area. I spent 20 years

prior to coming to this House working in the natural resource space as a

lawyer, working with forestry, mining and energy companies in this

province. In the area of mining engineering and geoscientists, I’ve seen

the quality of the work that they’ve put across not just for projects

here in this province but elsewhere in the world.

So to say to a geoscientist and an engineer that you need to

provide a competency certificate — I question the overall framework of

that. Already, of course, to meet their own standards professionally,

and to also meet the requirements of other regulators like the

Securities Commission’s, for example, we have different forms of

certificates already being provided — qualified persons certificates,

confirmation of independence. It’s unclear to me why this additional

layer is necessary.

[2:15 p.m.]

In fact, when you look at the quality of the work that’s being

done in this province by these professional organizations…. I think this

government is undercutting the confidence of the public in these

organizations when they present a bill in the tenor which they’ve done

it in.

This is the reason why the superintendent’s office needs to be

looked at in great detail. As I say, because of the public interest

objective of that superintendent’s office, it introduces the ability of

cabinet and this government to be achieving different objectives through

the superintendent’s office in the way that that superintendent

intervenes in the governance of these professional organizations. This

is the concern that I know members on this side of the House have about

this bill.

We know that professionals, with the advanced education that they

have and the required sophisticated experience, are there to accomplish

what is necessary in the interests of the public, that that is part of

their profession already. This bill is a bill that effectively will

produce gridlock, as one of the leaders of industry has mentioned. This

is regulatory gridlock that we don’t need to have. This is going to

effectively stall the further development of responsible resource

development in this province.

When I look at specific areas of the bill itself, we know that

under

section 23, an area to be discussed at committee stage, will be

the composition of the regulatory bodies themselves, the ratio of

registrant councillors to lay councillors. This will be an area where we

look at what the ap­pro­priate composition is of these

bodies. I question, again, the need to introduce this level, because it

suggests that in the interest of transparency, we don’t have confidence

in these professional bodies.

The duty to report has been mentioned already. It is a question

around what the reasonable and probable grounds are, where a continued

practice of a regulated practice would pose or may pose significant harm

to the environment. Well, what is that standard of significant harm?

What is the obligation that we’re placing on each of the registrants

under these professional organizations? How practical is that going to

be in terms of how a professional engineer or forest professional is

going to operate and work?

It also suggests that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can

specify a further code of ethical guidelines and ethical principles for

these professional bodies. Again, I question what the ability of

government is to do that when we know that the ethics in which

professionals ought to operate should be determined by themselves,

because they are in the best position to do that.

As I said before, in terms of the public interest mandate, that

needs to be defined in the context of each of these regulatory councils.

It is an area where I believe, because of the contextual nature that’s

been indicated in the Haddock report, we need to have a better

understanding of exactly what that would mean.

[2:20 p.m.]

For these regulatory councils to be able to govern themselves,

they need to understand what standard they’re being held to account to

and in what ways the superintendent would be operating. I also say, in

terms of the bylaws of this organization themselves, that this is a

situation where the superintendent has the heavy-handed ability to

impose new bylaws, potentially, on these organizations which would

change the whole function of these organizations in the interests of

that public interest which has still yet to be defined.

As I said, I do join my colleagues here in questioning the nature

and the scope of the superintendent’s office, the powers and the duties

of that superintendent, in terms of the way that superintendent can

effectively take over the governance of these organizations. Right now,

in terms of where we are in this province, we should be talking about

how we work with these professional organizations, with the regulators,

in a way to move forward projects, not add further burdens to that whole

process.

I look forward to discussing more aspects of the bill at the

committee stage.

S. Furstenau: It is my sincere pleasure to rise today and speak to the

Professional Governance Act. I hope that some of what I provide to this

debate will answer some of the questions that have been raised by the

official opposition members.

The management of our province’s resources impacts all British

Columbians, and this legislation is a key step towards ensuring the

public trust that those decisions will protect their best interests too.

For too long in B.C., the status quo of regulation and enforcement has

led to cases both large and small that have impacted the health of

communities and environments across the province and undermined that

precious and essential public trust.

The status quo or regulatory model known as professional reliance

is a system introduced over the last 16 years that shifted the expertise

and responsibility for environmental stewardship out of government and

replaced it with reliance on qualified professionals. The professional

reliance model lacks sufficient oversight to ensure that our natural

resources are being managed for the benefit of their economic, social

and ecological values, and it has impacted communities, professionals

and industry across the province.

It was, indeed, these impacts that first inspired me to get

involved in politics. My home is in the community of Shawnigan Lake,

where contaminated soil has been deposited at the headwaters of our

drinking watershed. This watershed is not only an important ecosystem

unto itself; it is also the source of drinking water for thousands of

people. It was these impacts that motivated me to run for office as a

CVRD director in 2014.

I moved to Shawnigan Lake in 2011 with my family and started

teaching at what was then Dwight School, located on the shores of the

lake. We not only loved living in a place as beautiful as Shawnigan but

quickly came to love the people and the community. We soon noticed

signs, however, with skulls and crossbones dotted along the road edges

and learned that the provincial government was considering issuing a

permit to a company operating a quarry at the south end of Shawnigan

Lake, halfway up a mountain that overlooked the entire

watershed.

The site has Shawnigan Creek on its eastern edge, which feeds

directly into Shawnigan Lake, and a so-called ephe­meral stream,

which is almost always running, on its western edge, which ultimately

also runs into Shawnigan Creek. A CVRD park runs along the western edge

of the quarry site. From that park, you can look down and see all of

Shawnigan Lake, a lake that is the drinking water source for our

community.

It was astonishing to us, having moved from Victoria with its

fenced-off watershed, which one can only visit on guided tours, that a

community’s drinking watershed could be subject to such degradation. In

addition to the quarrying that was happening, there was significant

logging within the watershed. And since 2012, a number of so-called soil

farms have proliferated in Shawnigan and Mill Bay.

These soil farms are lands where private owners accept truckload

after truckload of dirt being removed, largely from development sites in

the CRD, and deposited in our watersheds.

[2:25 p.m.]

We have seen landslides into riparian areas, impacts to

salmon-bearing streams and growing concerns about what may or may not be

in these soils.

The proposed contaminated landfill was even more shocking. At a

public hearing in July 2012, hundreds of people from the community

attended, and all but two expressed vehement opposition to the proposed

permit. The two people in favour of it? One was the daughter of the

quarry owner. The other was the then Chief of Malahat First Nation, who

later resigned after it was revealed that he had a deal with the quarry

owner.in-

We had hope as a community that government would do what we

expected of it. It would protect our environment, our drinking water,

our community and our future. That hope was dashed over and over

again.

First, on the Thursday afternoon of Easter weekend in 2013, we

were shocked when a draft permit was issued for the contaminated

landfill. It was the list of contaminants that would be permitted at the

site that left us in a state of disbelief: benzene, toluene, xylene,

styrene, methyl tertiary butyl ether, volatile petroleum, hydrocarbons,

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, chloride, sodium, glycols —

essentially a laundry list of everything you do not want anywhere near

your drinking water source.

We responded with vigour and determination. Over 300 written

submissions were made to the ministry, all of them making the case for

not allowing this permit to go forward. But go forward it did, and thus

began our community’s fight for the future that we wanted.

There was a moment that captured for me our community’s

determination and desperation. It was the morning of December 15, 2015.

That night I sat down to write out what was happening. This is what I

wrote:

“A message arrived in my in-box at 7:32 a.m. this morning,

accompanied by a photo. ‘Help,’ it said. This is what it has come to in

Shawnigan Lake: a young mother, her baby strapped to her chest, and a

grandfather standing together in front of a 40-tonne dump truck, before

dawn on a cold December morning.

“I can’t look at this image without weeping. I weep for all of the

lost mornings, days, afternoons, evenings and nights. I weep because of

the insanity of this situation — the colossal unfairness of it, the

unbelievable injustice that is playing out day after day in this

community.

“I weep because all of us would rather be at home at seven in the

morning, drinking coffee with our families, getting our kids off to

school, thinking about the day ahead.

“I weep because each day we lose more faith in the agencies that are

supposed to protect us.

“Every morning we return to the mountain — sometimes dozens of us,

sometimes only a few. We return because the situation — a company being

allowed by our government to dump contaminated soil in our watershed —

is an affront to democracy, to common sense, to logic and to science.

And it is a threat to our survival as a community.”

For 3½ years, we thought we had enough to make this stop. We

thought 300 people coming to a public meeting where all but two

expressed vehement opposition to the plan of putting this contaminated

landfill into our watershed would send a clear message to the government

and would be enough to stop this in its tracks.

We thought that over 300 letters written to the statutory

decision–maker would be enough. We thought the opposition of the CVRD,

the CRD, VIHA, Cowichan Tribes and the people of Shawnigan would be

enough. We thought that hundreds and hundreds of letters to MLAs,

ministers and the Premier would be enough.

We thought that nine expert witnesses at the environmental appeal

board hearings, including geologists, hydrogeologists, engineers and a

water treatment specialist, all of whom identified problems with the

site assessment, the plan, the design and the engineering, would be

enough.

We thought that over 15,000 signatures collected and presented to

the Minister of Environment would be enough. We thought that 1,600

people on the Legislature lawn would be enough.

We thought that documenting the long-standing history this company

has of non-compliance with its mines permit would be enough. We thought

that documents revealing a secret agreement between the owners of the

site and their engineers, who were acting as qualified professionals,

would be enough.

[2:30 p.m.]

We thought that allegations of fraud, perjury, bribery and

misrepresentation through the entire permitting process would be enough.

We thought that evidence of a breach of water off the site, which

resulted in a do-not-use water advisory for the people of Shawnigan

Lake, would be enough. We thought that evidence of a water treatment

system that did not function as designed would be enough.

We thought that ongoing documented non-compliance with the MOE

permit would be enough. We thought that water samples that showed that

the site is already impacting the environment would be enough. We

thought that an engineering report that identifies water leaving the

site is bypassing the water containment, treatment and testing systems

would be enough. But nothing seemed to be enough.

In 2015, we were willing to continue to ask the Ministry of

Environment to do the right thing and protect our water. At the time, we

were clear that until they decided to act on behalf of the citizens of

Shawnigan Lake, rather than on behalf of one company, what we had left

were our bodies and our willingness to put our bodies in front of

40-tonne trucks.

Ultimately, over a year later, the ministry did suspend and then

cancel the permit, but not before tens of thousands of tonnes of

contaminated soil was deposited at the site and not before both the CVRD

and the Shawnigan Residents Association spent millions between them on

court cases.

Why is this relevant to today’s legislation? Because at the heart

of the issue in Shawnigan Lake was professional reliance. The engineers

who were tasked with putting a technical assessment report in front of

the government statutory decision–maker were hired by the quarry owners.

In July 2015, we discovered, because of an anonymous whistle-blower,

that the quarry owners and the engineers did not just have a contractual

agreement; they had a profit-sharing agreement.

As a community, we were shocked to discover that, under

professional reliance legislation, this is an acceptable situation.

Supreme Court Justice Sewell, in his January 2017 decision to set aside

the Environmental Appeal Board’s decision and reinstate the stay on this

permit, did not think it was an acceptable situation either. He stated

in his decision:

“It is clear from the evidence that the delegate relied on the

technical assessment report and on further information provided by

Active Earth in assessing the application and deciding to issue the

permit. If the question before me had been whether to set aside the

permit, I would have had no difficulty in setting it aside and remitting

it to the ministry for reconsideration because the technical assessment

report was prepared by persons who were biased in favour of approving

the project.”

He went further in his decision. Justice Sewell said:

“I am satisfied that the board ought to have been made aware that

the design of the facility and the technical assessment report presented

to the delegate was prepared by engineers who were not independent and

who stood to profit from the continued operation of the facility. This

is a circumstance that goes to the heart of the integrity of the

approval process under the Environmental Management Act. The delegate

and the board proceeded throughout on the basis that Active Earth were

professionals acting on a fee-for-service basis.”

[L. Reid in the chair.]

For me, this realization that legislation allowed for that kind of

conflict of interest governing land use decisions in B.C. was what

propelled me to want to run to be an MLA.

Our community was not willing to accept the risks that it posed to

our health and our future. But as we organized, we soon discovered that

the problem was bigger than Shaw­nigan. Sadly, it has been echoed

in communities and eco­systems across the province.

In Peachland, residents have seen boil-water advisories increase,

as impacts from logging, mining and other activities have accumulated in

their watershed. In the Hullcar valley, ground water monitoring was

insufficient in detecting water quality concerns before it became a

crisis. The result was a health hazard to the community that depends on

the Hullcar aquifer for drinking water.

In the community of Ymir, residents are concerned about logging in

their small, already stressed watersheds. They are worried that the

forest management decisions are not taking into account impacts on other

ecosystem factors.

Meanwhile, the Swansea Point community has experienced two

devastating landslides. Residents had to bear the burden of significant

costs for infrastructure repair, while logging activity continues to

increase.

[2:35 p.m.]

The most infamous example, however, took place four years ago in

central B.C. In 2014, 24 million cubic metres of mining waste flooded

lakes and rivers when the mine tailings dam at Mount Polley failed.

Residents of the area say they woke that morning to a sound that

resembled multiple airplanes taking off at once as heavy metal–mud

poured into an otherwise pristine lake. The impacted watershed was an

important source of drinking water and spawning territory for

one-quarter of B.C.’s sockeye salmon.

Four years later, although the photographs are not as striking,

the bottom of the formerly pristine Quesnel Lake re­mains lined

with a mask of phosphorus. The salmon are beginning to come back, but so

are inexplicable algae blooms that choke out oxygen. The impacted

communities also struggle to recover. People are afraid to drink the

water, and the impact to their tourism industry has prompted some

residents to relocate.

It will be years before we can fully understand the environmental

and social impacts of the Mount Polley disaster, but what is clear from

the Auditor General’s report into the matter is that several failures in

compliance and enforcement were contributing factors.

Shawnigan, Mount Polley and the other communities I listed are

just a few examples of how our current resource management model has

failed to protect the best interests of British Columbians. This is why

when we ran in 2017, reviewing the professional reliance model was a key

aspect of our platform, and it is why when we formed our confidence and

supply agreement with government last year, professional reliance was

identified as a key shared policy initiative.

These commitments initiated an independent review into the

professional reliance model, which took into consideration over 2,200

public feedback forms, 102 stakeholder submissions and 1,800 surveys

from qualified professionals. People were concerned about the state of

resource management in our province, and they made their voices heard.

The culmination of these efforts was Mark Haddock’s final report,

published this summer.

The Haddock report is extensive. It covers the history of

professional reliance in British Columbia, as well as the complex legal

and policy framework that substantiates it. It covers issues with

governance, legislation and multiple resource industries, ultimately

making 121 recommendations for change.

From my perspective, the recommendations made by the report are

important and signal a shift in a positive direction. I was encouraged

by the scope of public and professional engagement and by the common

theme shared by the submissions that “there is room for improvement.” I

agree.

Perspectives on the shape and the scope of that improvement,

however, differ. For that reason, this summer, I convened two round

tables on the professional reliance report. We invited stakeholders from

industry, professional associations, environmental organizations, legal

groups, unions, Indigenous groups and impacted communities. The purpose

of our discussion was to seek input on the Haddock report and its

recommendations in a collaborative, forward-looking environment, and I

was pleased with the results.

The discussions prompted by the round tables provided unique

insights into the various responses to the professional reliance report.

Ultimately, there were more similarities be­tween stakeholder

perspectives than there were differences. Several key themes emerged

from these conversations, and I’d like to take a moment to touch on them

now.

First, we heard that stakeholders were concerned with B.C.’s legal

landscape. They did not find that the law worked sufficiently to protect

the public interest in resource management. When the former government

began deregulating resource management in the early 2000s, legal groups

attempted to enforce the deregulatory legislation, but with little

success.

Many stakeholders were also concerned about the lack of legal

protection for whistle-blowers, which, I am pleased to note, this

legislation before us addresses.

Stakeholders stress that the legislative response to the Haddock

report must implement recommendations with clarity across the

professional associations so that the legislation acts as an accessible

tool and provides greater consistency for all actors involved. They also

suggested that government set new resource use objectives — objectives

that are based in scientific expertise; that are easily enforceable; and

that take into account economic, social and ecological

values.

[2:40 p.m.]

The stakeholders that we spoke to also highlighted that in order

to adequately fulfil Haddock’s recommendations, capacity is a key

concern. In the public bodies tasked with professional oversight roles,

it is essential that staffing levels as well as expertise are improved.

Thanks to nearly two decades of deregulation, numerous positions have

been eliminated, leaving those tasked with enforcement unable to

ade­quately address the numerous concerns brought to their

attention.

Professionals, in particular, have flagged the importance of

expertise. Civil servants overseeing particular professions need to have

the scientific and technical knowledge to best inform their decisions.

Capacity challenges also impact marginalized groups, especially

Indigenous peoples. Those who face other systemic barriers often lack

the resources and staff to fully participate in natural resource

decisions.

This government has committed to implementing the United Nations

declaration on the rights of Indigenous peo­ples. In order to do

so, Indigenous peoples must be equitably and meaningfully included in

resource management.

The stakeholders that we spoke to also raised the importance of

follow-through. In other words, in order to improve the professional

reliance model in a consistent and meaningful way, we cannot simply

address the first two recommendations of Mark Haddock’s report. It is

crucial we examine the other 119 recommendations and work to implement

them to better protect the public interest and provide greater certainty

for qualified professionals.

I’m pleased to see the legislation before us today, but I cannot

stress this point enough: if we do not commit to the other

recommendations of the Haddock report, if we do not continue to

implement positive and consistent change in resource management, then

this Professional Governance Act will not be able to achieve its

aims.

A step in the right direction does not reach the destination. We

must continue moving forward. This is what we heard from British

Columbians. They are concerned, and we have the opportunity now to do

better by them.

This issue is about ensuring that communities can rely on and

benefit from their resources for generations to come. It’s about looking

at things holistically rather than evaluating each resource separately

from others, because we know that the water, the trees, the soil and the

air are all interconnected.

It’s also about collaboration. Professional associations, industry

and environmentalists are all calling for improvement and consistency.

The Professional Governance Act and continued action on the professional

reliance file stand to benefit all stakeholders involved.

The legislation before us today sets an important precedent. It

addresses two of the Haddock report recommendations by establishing an

office of the superintendent of professional governance and legislating

critical elements of professional governance in a standardized

way.

The office of the superintendent will be built within the Ministry

of Attorney General. Primarily responsible for oversight and general

governance matters, they will be em­powered to conduct research

into best practices and established policies. The superintendent, in

overseeing the administration of this act, will be able to publish

information that is in the public interest and conduct investigations

into non-compliance. The superintendent will also provide annual reports

to the minister. This contributes to the accountability, while

simultaneously ensuring that improvements to professional governance

will be assessed at regular intervals along the way.

All five of B.C.’s professional associations — the Applied Science

Technologists and Technicians, the Association of B.C. Forest

Professionals, the B.C. Institute of Agrologists, the College of Applied

Biology and the Engineers and Geo­scientists of B.C. — will now be

held to the same standards. In other words, it will not only be better

government oversight to professional regulation, but professional

associations can know with certainty that there are consistent

guidelines for them to rely on. This helps them make the best decisions

possible as they make governance decisions that impact the entire model

of resource management.

Professionals themselves will also be able to better perform their

roles thanks to the provisions of this bill. Improved standards of

conduct and competence, as well as exclusive rights to practise, will

give professionals the best tools and capacity to engage in a level

playing field. It shows that their work is valued, not just by their

employer but by the province that depends on them.

As I already mentioned, thanks to the new whistle-blower

protections, professionals can be confident that if they report

unethical conduct, their own livelihoods will not be at risk. Oaths of

office, a common set of ethical principles and a duty to report

unethical conduct will also go a long way towards the rebuilding of the

trust of the public.

[2:45 p.m.]

This is a net positive for professionals, public government and

industry alike. If we know that the decision-making process has the best

interests and key values of British Columbia at heart, our industries

will be more competitive and our province healthier as a

whole.

I do have some concerns about this act, given the significance of

this issue and the breadth and scope of the Haddock recommendations. As

our stakeholders stress, there is much room for improvement in resource

management in British Columbia, and I remain eager not only to engage in

this legislation at committee stage but to follow its

implementation.

For communities such as Shawnigan, Peachland, the Hull­car

valley, Ymir, Swansea Point and those impacted by Mount Polley —

Williams Lake, Likely, Horsefly — this may not be able to restore their

drinking water and environments, but it may prevent future crises. We

owe it to those communities and to British Columbians writ large to

implement the Professional Governance Act with care for detail and

transparency. As legislators, we also owe a commitment to fulfil all of

the recommendations of the Haddock report in order to restore the trust

that was lost.

In Shawnigan, the soil that was deposited at the quarry remains

there today, and it leaves the community understandably worried. As I

have said all along, the story of Shawnigan Lake is not over until the

site is cleaned up and the soil removed, and I remain committed to that

outcome.

The permit should never have been issued. The soil should never

have been brought to our watershed. Our community.... No community in

B.C. should ever have to go through the years of worry, of turmoil, of

costly legal battles as a result of land use decisions.

This legislation does not ensure that, but it is a step, and it is

an important one. Ultimately, I am encouraged by the legislation on the

table today.

The Professional Governance Act does represent a

signifi­cant step in the right direction, and although there is a

great deal of work yet to be done in order to adequately address the

shortcomings of resource management in British Columbia, I am proud to

speak in support of this act. It is a testament to the benefits of

consultation and collaboration as well as perseverance of those

impacted.

Moving forward, I am hopeful that British Columbians can begin to

trust that the decisions made in our province protect the economic,

social and ecological values that they hold dear.

S. Gibson: I want to say, in particular, thank you to the member for West

Vancouver–Capilano and also the member for Vancouver-Langara for

excellent comments, and I hope to complement those with my few brief

remarks today with regard to Bill 49, the Professional Governance

Act.

I just listened to the previous speaker here, representing the

Green Party. You can see a bit of the design here that’s reflected in

the government and the Third Party working together on what potentially

— to me, at least — is representing government interference that’s

really not welcomed and not requested.

As I read through the documents that I’ve had the opportunity to

review, it is clear to me that these five professional associations

really know what’s best for them. They have the integrity. They have the

reputation. For the record, it’s the B.C. Institute of Agrologists; the

Applied Science Technologists and Technicians; the College of Applied

Biology; engineers and geoscientists; and the Association of B.C. Forest

Professionals.

Now, I hold all of these folks in well regard. As a matter of

fact, during my five years here as an MLA, I’ve had the opportunity to

meet representatives of all five associations, and I have a really high

regard for their integrity and their commitment to providing the best

quality to our citizens, serving government with diligence and

excellence. Nothing has really discouraged me or dissuaded me from

feeling that way today. I don’t want to overstate it, hon. Speaker, but

in some ways, I would characterize this as guilty before being innocent,

almost switching the paradigm.

[2:50 p.m.]

The education and preparation for these professions is quite

significant, if you review the credentials necessary. I know from

talking to my colleague here that there’s a lot of enterprise and a lot

of scholarly work that needs to be done not only to complete the

credential but to gain membership.

I think that we are really, in some ways, discrediting them. I

think that if I was a member of one of these professional associations

today instead of being an MLA, I would feel…. I don’t know if “hurt” is

the right word, but I think I would feel demeaned somewhat. I think I

would feel demeaned, in light of the fact that government is trying to

correct something that really doesn’t exist. I pick up on a point made

by the hon. member here for West Van–Capilano. I think the phrase was:

“Correcting a problem that doesn’t exist.” Something of that nature. I

have to subscribe to that as well.

These associations have that integrity. They’re well

re­garded provincewide, and when it comes to the resource sector,

we need these folks desperately to be willing to do the job. If we’re

going to set up any kind of a bureaucracy such as the one that’s being

proposed here, I worry that’s going to be compromised.

I don’t happen to come from a resource-based commu­nity.

However, all of us in this province come from a resource-based community

in the sense that mining companies have head offices in downtown. I have

significant logging operations in my community, gravel extraction. So we

need not only to protect the resource economy but nurture it, and I’m

afraid that this legislation proposed here does nothing to do that. In

fact, it may even stifle it, which would be troubling, and I hope I’m

not correct in that.

I think it’s true that from time to time, professional

organizations need to be scrutinized, to be reviewed. I think we would

agree with that. The question is: how is that done? What is the process

used? I believe that Bill 49 is really an intrusion into the governance

and regulation of these five critical agencies, professional

organizations, that serve our public so well. I heard the phrase from

one of my colleagues earlier on, “heavy-handed,” and I think that’s

accurate. There’s some veracity to the term “heavy-handed.”

These organizations do act in the public interest. May I say this,

too, that professional organizations, to keep their integrity, to keep

their standards with the public, operate under scrupulous ideals. They

have regulatory bodies — we see that in here — because they realize that

if they do something that’s seen to be irresponsible, even just seen to

be, it’s a reflection on everyone. So today, as I see this legislation

being proposed by government, it’s also a reflection on the very

integrity of the organizations which they’re trying to control or

regulate.

Self-regulation really says to the public: “We have that

professional spirit. We know what the public expects of us, what

government expects from us, and we will live up to that.”

A concern that I have is that currently, these associations have

an excellent rapport, a natural line of communication, with the relevant

ministries. That’s a healthy thing. The ministries and the associations

and their executives can have that level of communication. However,

under this model, that will be mitigated, diminished significantly, with

this new super-body of 11 members and the superintendent.

Now, previous colleagues here on this side of the House have

spoken significantly, at some length, about the superintendent, and I

won’t speak in so much detail. However, I would make the remark that as

I looked at the documentation, I, too, worry about this position. In

fact, this new position could supersede the discussions of the elected

professional councils. Who is this superintendent? What is his or her

skill set? Is this some kind of super-bureaucrat who kind of floats

above the associations? It’s quite vague as to the skill set.

[2:55 p.m.]

Now, we do notice in here some of the roles that this individual

has. The previous speaker, the member from the Green Party, enumerated

some of those in detail.

I would point out as well, and the previous speakers have spoken

to this with some detail as well, that these associations are quite

diverse. They’re quite different, and this is kind of an umbrella,

one-size-fits-all. I worry that this is not going to help not only their

professionalism but their capacity to work expeditiously on projects, to

do it within a good time frame and meeting budgets, because every time

you introduce bureaucracy, it complicates things.

I come out of a local government background. In fact, many of us

around this Legislature do. I come from Abbotsford council. One thing we

noticed as council working with our staff was that every time the staff

came up with an idea to maybe add some different legislative

procedures…. We realized that their intentions were honourable. They

were good to protect the public. The problem was that they slowed down

the development process. That’s why you have elected councils to kind of

counter, often, what staff would like to do in terms of

regulation.

Now, in the extreme case, we hear sometimes in Metro Vancouver it

gets so bogged down that approvals drag on month after month, year after

year, and that’s, of course, troubling. So really, the comment there is

that these associations are diverse, and they need a sense of

understanding of their different roles because they’re quite

varied.

I’m saddened by the government’s attitude reflected in this

legislation. It’s almost saying to the associations: “You know, we’re

going to move in on you. This is going to be heavy-handed.” And even

though perhaps some of them are not saying as much as maybe I would like

them to say, frankly, I understand why they’re trying to be respectful

under this new government’s paradigm. Self-government was working well,

and now we’re finding an intrusive side to this government as they

relate to these different associations.

I think professional reliance has served the public well in the

natural resource sector and has developed well in providing responsible

development. The public has been protected. We hear about red tape. I

don’t think a week goes by when I don’t hear somebody talking about red

tape in government. Whether it’s local, provincial or federal, it’s

always wondering about all the different regulations you’ve got to go

through.

For anybody that’s tried to operate a business…. I had my own

manufacturing company for a while, just a small company with only 13

employees, but I always struggled with dealing with different levels of

government. Well, this isn’t going to help. This is going to slow

development significantly. This new superintendent is going to be quite

intrusive, in my view, cumbersome and potentially bureaucratic. I think

it will slow down the development process. Even though the intention

might be honourable, I believe that the execution will not

be.

Approval timelines are critical. When we meet with the different

resource sectors, I think the classic lament is: “We just need to keep

this project moving. Can you help us out there, please?” We’ve got all

these government agencies, which is going to be aggravated with this new

paradigm, under Bill 49, with the superintendent.

Further remarks on the superintendent. Very powerful. You will

notice that the superintendent can interfere with the organizations,

investigate, and one of the troubling things is that cabinet is kind of

the court of last resort. If the superintendent is dissatisfied with the

process, he or she can go to cabinet, so government can actually get

involved. That’s a bit troubling.

All these employees that are going to be hired to execute this

plan. You’ve got the board. They’re going to have meetings. What is the

cost of all of this huge new bureaucracy?

One thing I have noticed in my years in local government, and now

in provincial, is that once an organization is set up, more employees

are added, never taken away, right?

[3:00 p.m.]

Say we have this group of employees. Next year we’ll hire a couple

more, and then they need their assistants. Then they need executive

assistants and then secretaries, so you get this whole layer. It becomes

self-perpetuating.

I do worry that once this thing gets — to use an expression my

daughter uses — rocking and rolling, then you add a lot more folks to

it. Again, I’m not saying that you don’t need people to do a job.

However, I’m saying, in this case, that I worry that we’re going to get

very bureaucratic.

This role is powerful. We’re not quite sure what the length of

term of the superintendent is. And the other thing is that you’ve got

the professionals and laypeople, but I’m not quite clear how that

benefits the public’s confidence. Now, sometimes laypeople can provide

another dimension, but if they don’t have the skill set, if they don’t

have the abilities or knowledge of that file, having laypeople there may

not be in the interest of the public. That’s why the current paradigm, I

think, works so well. So as I’ve commented, this is really guilty until

proven innocent.

I want to also make some comment about the investigative powers of

the superintendent — quite dramatic. The superintendent can even abandon

these — disqualify or diminish the power of these various professional

associations by appointing a public administrator. This is hovering over

them as a threat. “If you guys don’t do a good job, the superintendent

will move in with lightning speed and really interfere with the

process.”

Really, I believe this is guilty until proven innocent. I worry

that government is getting into something that’s really administratively

chaotic. I worry that these associations are being diminished

dramatically, that their professional integrity is being questioned, so

I, like my colleagues, will not be supporting Bill 49.

I am the last speaker, hon. Speaker, representing opposition

speaking to Bill 49 today.

B. Ma: I am a professional engineer. My professional body, Engineers and

Geoscientists of B.C., is one of the organizations impacted by this

legislation. So I’m pleased to be able to speak to Bill 49, the

Professional Governance Act.

As you can imagine, when word spread about the changes coming to

the professional reliance model, I was contacted by many, many

professional colleagues. I’m exceptionally grateful for their contact,

because all feedback, both good and bad, on any of the work that our

government is doing informs me in my work as an MLA.

It was this feedback that allowed me to speak with the minister’s

office, the Minister of Environment, learn about their intentions, the

likely way forward that they would take on the professional reliance

report that came out, and it allowed me to express the concerns that

many professionals share with me.

There were several discussions, and I’m grateful for how open and

willing to engage the Minister of Environment was on this issue. I was

particularly impressed by how he extended the same offer he gave to me

to be involved to the members of the official opposition also — in

particular, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, who we heard speak

today.

I left each conversation feeling like the concerns being brought

forward by these professionals had in fact been heard and would be

carefully considered and addressed in the legislative framework. With a

bill now on the table, with supportive statements of those impacted

organizations, I’m pleased to see how well the ministry has balanced the

concerns of these professionals about the professional reliance model

and its changes and the absolute critical need not only for public

safety but for public confidence in that.

I know that there are concerns about the details of the bill from

the opposition. I will not rehash them here. We will have an opportunity

to explore them, as a House, during the committee stage of the

bill.

[3:05 p.m.]

The member for Abbotsford-Mission expressed concern that this bill

would personally offend members of the organizations, implying that

professional engineers like myself who have worked very hard to obtain

their degree….

I worked very many years as an engineer in training. I wrote a log

that ended up, I think, being 40 pages long, just to submit it for my

application to become a PEng. I took all my tests. I did the hard work

to get my professional designation. I am proud of that

designation.

The member for Abbotsford-Mission implied that I would be offended

by this bill. I can assure you that I am not, and I will be supporting

this bill. I will be supporting this bill because it is not about me. It

is about the public. I will be supporting this bill because I take pride

in being a member of one of the most trusted professions in the world. I

am concerned that that trust is in peril here in B.C.

The member for Cowichan Valley gave a chilling account of her

experience at Shawnigan Lake. If anybody watching this speech might want

to hear her speech, I encourage them to do so by going through the

Hansard record. Goosebumps ran up my spine as I listened to

her. There is likely no better story than that to demonstrate why this

act is needed. Again, not only because the environment and the welfare

of the public must be safeguarded, but because the public must have

confidence that they are being safeguarded.

I’ll be supporting this bill, because my professional engineering

designation was granted to me on the condition that I know and abide by

a code of ethics, which included an obligation to the public requiring

that I safeguard and hold paramount human life, public welfare and the

environment. It’s a simple concept it might seem. Yet if you dig deeper

into this obligation, the execution of it becomes much more

complex.

If I create a machine that is perfectly safe, and then it’s used

to displace thousands of workers without transition, leaving them

unemployed and impoverished, did I hold paramount the welfare of the

public? If I develop a new energy source that is then weaponized and

used against innocent civilians, did I hold paramount human life to the

fullest extent that I was able to?

If we believe that professionals play a role in our world critical

enough to warrant regulation and codes of ethics, then our collective

obligation to the public does not and should not end with our fingertips

upon a calculator.

It is not possible to truly hold paramount the safety and welfare

of the public without looking beyond the narrow scope of our immediate

work to the legislative frameworks that we operate under. These are

highly complex issues that do not disappear simply because we’ve applied

the correct factor of safety to our designs.

If I know the environmental regulation regarding the discharge of

a certain chemical into a local lake is inadequate, but maybe my company

insists that I continue to do the bare minimum required to keep the

operation legal, have I met my ethical obligation? If I appropriately

design my project but do not advocate for the correction of that

regulation, have I truly safeguarded the public and the environment?

Something being legal is not the same as something being ethical or

moral.

So just how far does my responsibility to society go? I argue it

goes at least as far as supporting this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Environment closes

debate.

Hon. G. Heyman: I want to thank the members of this House for their comments on

Bill 49, the Professional Governance Act — the member for Kamloops–North

Thompson, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, the member for

Vancouver-Langara and the member for Abbotsford-Mission.

I want to acknowledge and thank the member for North

Vancouver–Lonsdale, who, in her capacity as both a member and a

professional engineer, provided invaluable feedback to myself and my

staff as we went through the process of speaking with professional

engineers and members of other professions, addressing and finding ways

to accommodate the concerns which they raised.

[3:10 p.m.]

I also want to thank the member for Cowichan Valley. In

particular, I want to acknowledge that the member for Cowichan Valley

told the stories, the real stories of impacted communities, negative

impacts, significant impacts, public health impacts, safety impacts,

impacts of feeling secure in their environment and their water that

people should not have to face and that are at the root of why we

commissioned the report on professional reliance and why we’re today

debating this piece of legislation.

We need to ensure that if there are gaps in the professional

reliance model, we fulfil the responsibility of government on behalf of

the people of British Columbia to address those gaps if they’re

identified, not to create another layer of regulation, not to supplant

the responsible nature of professional regulatory associations, but to

fulfil our responsibility to address issues of public trust.

The member for Cowichan Valley — also as the member for North

Vancouver–Lonsdale did — was extremely helpful in identifying, for staff

in my ministry and for me, issues that needed to be addressed from a

public perspective. It’s not out of any antipathy to the professions

that are being regulated or the professionals who perform their job, not

out of any antipathy to the model at its core, but out of a sincere

desire to ensure that as we regulate natural resource operations in the

province of British Columbia, as we regulate environmental protection in

British Columbia or the construction of public works, we always keep

first and foremost the safety, security and health of British

Columbians.

Our responsibility as legislators, and particularly as government,

is to ensure that the public can have trust in the mechanisms and

systems we put in place to protect them.

A theme that I heard repeated from members of the official

opposition in their comments was concern about extensive powers that

this bill might give to the new position of the superintendent of

professional governance. But professionals themselves….

As we put out a discussion paper on not only the changes contained

in this act but the other recommendations — which will ultimately and in

the fullness of time be addressed by ministries to whom they were

directed — we heard from many professionals who expressed over and over

again that they wished to see…. They wished to rely on their government

to ensure that the public had trust and if there were measures that

could be introduced to increase transparency and public trust, that we

took those measures.

In response to the member for Cowichan Valley, she has said this

legislation is a good start with governance, and I believe it is. We

also look forward to working with all members of this House, with the

member for Cowichan Valley, with the professions and with industry to

thoughtfully address the remaining recommendations in the report. I look

forward to that.

In the view of this government, this bill contains the necessary

tools to ensure that the public interest is protected and that the

regulatory associations continue to actively govern their members but do

so within the context of a common set of rigorous and appropriate

standards. This would occur under the oversight of the superintendent

with regard to the overall application of the standards, not to exercise

control by the superintendent over the day-to-day operations of the

regulatory associations themselves. The superintendent, as a member of

the public service, will, in turn, operate under the oversight of the

responsible minister, the Attorney General.

Aligning and consolidating standards and expectations in one act

and in one ministry — standards and expectations that currently exist in

four acts and four ministries — does not add new levels of regulation

and oversight. Rather, it streamlines them for greater efficiency and

certainty.

[3:15 p.m.]

This legislation will, if enacted, also empower professionals

regulated under the act to themselves consider and take action to ensure

protection of the public interest through strong standards that will

apply in accordance with the act.

Professional reliance relies on a common sense of responsibility

and accountability by members of professions to adhere to and to act in

accordance with certain expectations. This legislation makes those

expectations clear in a way that will be fundamentally consistent across

the professions governed under the act while also allowing the

regulatory associations to make their own bylaws, elaborating on those

expectations as appropriate for each profession.

This isn’t a blind, one-size-fits-all template. This is a set of

appropriate, broad standards under which the associations will tailor

their bylaws, their oversight and their expectations to fit the

particular activities of the professionals they regulate. If we had done

something else, we would not have received, for this legislation, the

endorsement of all five of the regulatory associations that are being

covered. In fact, the only criticism by the associations was by the

professional foresters, who said we needed to move quickly to address

other recommendations in the report.

Those associations did not start at that point. But because of our

consultation and our discussion with the associations — our

accommodation of their interests, our explaining our intent, our working

through with them how it would be implemented and how it would operate

and our commitment to work with them on the development of the

regulations that will give this legislation life — they understand that

it is good legislation that incorporates many of the suggestions they

made and which will increase public trust in their

activities.

That is also why business groups have endorsed this legislation as

well, because they believe that it will create more certainty and social

licence for their operations.

As I noted in my opening remarks, perspectives vary. But a common

goal that everyone directly involved in professional reliance should be

able to agree with is that it must be carried out in ways that are

transparent and accountable to communities all across our province. This

act provides for that by creating a centre of expertise in government

headed by a public servant, the superintendent, whose job will be to

protect the public interest in a variety of contexts that must and will

be considered within the framework set out by the act.

Although the creation of this bill came as a direct result of the

review of professional reliance and natural resource decisions and is

important to improving the model, best practice in professional

governance applies irrespective of profession. Implementing a framework

for oversight of self-regulating professions that incorporates elements

of governance that are best practice for all professions of these

regulatory bodies will increase public trust in the work they do,

whether in the natural resource sector or elsewhere.

The oversight role of the superintendent comes with certain

authorities in order to ensure that this role can be carried out

effectively. Much of the superintendent’s role will involve actively

working with the regulatory associations under the act to achieve the

act’s objectives.

The authority of the superintendent to conduct investigations and

audits, to issue directives and, as a last resort, to take enforcement

action reflects the core purpose of this act — that is, to make sure

that the practices of professions governed under the act are carried out

in a manner that is transparent and is accountable to the people of B.C.

as represented by the government.

I was proud to introduce this legislation. I look forward to the

next steps.

[3:20 p.m.]

I look forward to working with the public, with professionals,

with Indigenous nations and with colleagues to ensure that as we

implement the legislation and act on remaining recommendations, we do

the best job possible to protect the public interest and ensure that we

have certainty in the natural resource operations, the businesses that

conduct these operations and provide jobs for British Columbians in a

way to enhance and support our economy and the interaction of resource

businesses with the communities in which they operate.

With that, I move second reading.

[3:25 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Second reading of Bill 49 approved on the following

division:

YEAS — 43

Chouhan

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Glumac

NAYS — 38

Cadieux

de Jong

Bond

Polak

Lee

Stone

Wat

Bernier

Thornthwaite

Paton

Ashton

Barnett

Yap

Martin

Davies

Kyllo

Sullivan

Isaacs

Stilwell

Ross

Oakes

Johal

Redies

Rustad

Milobar

Sturdy

Shypitka

Hunt

Throness

Tegart

Stewart

Sultan

Gibson

Reid

Letnick

Thomson

Larson

Foster

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 49, Professional Governance Act, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 40, on the

amendment.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

BILL 40 — ELECTORAL REFORM

REFERENDUM

2018 AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

On the amendment (continued) .

[3:30 p.m.]

M. Hunt: To conclude my remarks on the proposal for the amendment, it is

simply that there is such an absolute lack of information and detail

that this needs to go to committee so that the committee can come and

get more information, get greater understanding so that there can be a

greater awareness of what’s really going on with this whole

thing.

I think it’s sort of the old mushroom illustration. They’re in the

dark, and they’re fed certain commodities, fertilizers, and it’s just an

absolute mess. It needs to go to committee. That’s why I have moved the

motion.

E. Ross: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this

amendment to Bill 40, as put forward by my colleague from

Surrey-Cloverdale.

Having a referendum on electoral reform is a good thing, if the

conversation is done in an open and transparent manner with complete

information. Complete information. A government that sets in motion a

referendum on electoral reform that will fundamentally change our

democracy is wrong if it is not done in an unbiased setting, ensuring,

without a doubt, that they’ve done everything they could to receive the

will of the people.

That can only be achieved by giving the people all the information

they need. It’s a huge, complicated, expensive task to undertake, but

for a topic as important as democracy, it’s well worth it.

Now, I have to admit, on this topic, I’m being pulled in different

directions in terms of the amendment itself, which I agree with. It

should be sent to a select standing committee. But I’m also being pulled

in different directions on proportional representation itself in terms

of the process and also the outcome if it passes.

I’ve never liked taking a political stance on anything. Even in my

previous job, I really tried to get to the facts. And on behalf of my

constituents, I think that’s my job. I think that’s my duty. But in this

case, I’m having a real tough time finding those facts. What I’m

finding, to a large degree, is rhetoric, slogans — that somehow the

current system we have is not good enough and that this other model

that’s used in other parts of the world is much, much better than what

we have in Canada.

Explaining this to voters who want more information and want to

understand what exactly it is they’re voting on is extremely difficult.

When we ask about it in the House or even if we look in the paper to see

what our Premier says about it, he just encourages us to take a leap of

faith.

Even recently it was pointed out that this side of the House has

little faith and that we should get some more faith. It’s not about

faith. That’s not the issue here. The issue is a lack of information.

Even before the lack of information topic comes up, how are we supposed

to have faith in a government that broke promises in terms of an

electoral reform referendum in the first place?

The Premier, in the campaign stage, promised that there would be a

simple yes-or-no question. It was simple. The reporter asked the now

Premier: “So you are going to give them one system to vote on?” “Yeah,

exactly.” That’s what the response was on May 1, 2017.

Now it’s not a simple yes or no. The question that the voters are

being asked to choose from is one option of keeping the current system

we have and three options of proportional representation, two of which

have not been used in any place around the world.

The second promise that was broken was that this should go to an

all-party committee to engage the public on changing the electoral

system: “…set up an all-party committee to hear from citizens and

formulate a referendum question at the conclusion of that process.” It

was said by our now Premier to Fair Vote Canada, April 10, 2017 —

another promise broken. Instead, the entire process was handled by one

person, the Attorney General.

Regional threshold — again, a promise. And this promise was a big

promise. There was a promise made about reasonable threshold on a

referendum similar to the Canadian constitution. This is a big promise

when you talk about the Canadian constitution. “The amending formula for

our constitution, for example, requires approval by seven provinces,

with 50 percent of Canada’s population. So it is an absolute 50 percent,

but it has to include seven provinces….”

[3:35 p.m.]

“This amending formula is similar to the kind of formula we’d need

for a plebiscite on changing how we elect people in B.C.” That was said

by our now Premier to Fair Vote Canada, April 10, 2017.

How are people in this House, let alone the voters, supposed to

have faith when three big promises were broken, in term of how this

referendum would roll out? The referendum that we’re currently looking

at will only require a 50-percent-plus-one threshold and no regional

threshold to pass, meaning that Metro Vancouver could outvote all of

rural British Columbia.

I’ve been asked lately about how this will affect Aboriginals.

Fifteen years ago, I was the typical, average Aboriginal suffering from

apathy. I didn’t participate in my own band council elections,

provincial elections, federal elections, municipal elections. But I

didn’t know that everything that was happening down here in Victoria was

absolutely affecting everything that was happening my territory. I

didn’t know the conversations in here were stalling the LNG initiative,

which would actually drag our people out of poverty, from Prince George

to Kitimat.

Apathy is still a big problem within First Nations communities. So

no matter what happens, they’re just basically going to be a victim of a

process that they didn’t participate in. Most of us, including myself up

to 15 years ago, didn’t understand the current system we engage in —

first-past-the-post.

It’s not a lack of faith; it’s a lack of information. For

something as fundamental as changing the democratic right of voters in

British Columbia, I think it’s only fair to ask for complete

information. You talk about the broken promises. It makes you wonder

about what the agenda is, if there’s no information and every promise in

terms of the referendum is broken to begin with. What is the underlying

agenda?

That’s why I fully support the amendment put forward by my

colleague from Surrey-Cloverdale. It would send this to the select

committee and maybe talk about this as well as other flaws in this

process.

The Premier also said in his debate that you don’t have to be a

political scientist to understand this. I thought it would help having a

political degree to understand this, but apparently it doesn’t, which

now a lot of my colleagues in this House know. But to question, to even

point out to a voter and question their intelligence level, to say that

you don’t need a political science degree to understand this, is

insulting voters — and to suggest that to get the missing information

that voters are craving, they should just google it. Why not, as a

responsible government, just provide the information?

I did take the Premier up on that suggestion, and I did google one

aspect of what was said in this House, what was mentioned and suggested.

I googled Droop formula. I had never even heard this term before — Droop

math, I had a really tough time understanding this.

It was said that the Droop formula would be used to determine the

outcome in a rural-urban proportion. Okay. So what is the urban Droop

formula? This is what Wikipedia said: “The Droop formula is calculated

by dividing the total number of valid votes cast by the number of seats

to be filled plus one. One is then added to the quotient.” The formula

is quota equals, in brackets, total value divided by total seats, end of

brackets, plus one. Okay.

[3:40 p.m.]

Currently under first-past-the-post, I know that whoever gets the

most votes in a riding gets sent to Victoria. It’s simple. I don’t think

it’s fair that we ask voters to go back to college or high school and

learn formulaic, mathematical equations to understand if they’re going

to get a representative of their choosing to represent them in Victoria.

I don’t think that’s fair. If it is, then British Columbian voters

should know: it won’t be exactly as you vote. It won’t be who gets the

most votes. It’ll be set up by some mathematician in

Victoria.

That’s the kind of information that I want to get out to the

members so they can vote, so they can understand what’s happening with

this process. Because I’m having a tough time trying to find an unbiased

example of where proportional representation works around the world.

Both sides of this fight, of this campaign, are all using rhetoric and

all using slogans.

What I don’t see is people arguing about how great this country

became in the first place under a system that’s worked for the last 200

to 300 years — first-past-the-post. The amendment could at least send

this back to a select standing committee, and they could have this

conversation. That’s why I’m supporting the amendment.

There’s another argument, about collaboration. It’ll make this

place collaborate a lot more. Well, we’re already seeing what

collaboration looks like with the agreement that was signed between the

Green Party and the NDP, which is called the supply and confidence

agreement. That’s not the right term, right?

Interjection.

E. Ross: Confidence and supply agreement. Thank you to my colleague from

Parksville-Qualicum.

In exchange for the Greens supporting Site C, the speculation tax

and, indirectly, supporting LNG, the Greens get a referendum that will

fundamentally change the democratic vote in B.C. That’s collaboration.

That collaboration was part of an agreement that was negotiated in the

back rooms of the Legislature, then brought to the Legislature, and

that’s what forms government. That is collaboration.

I don’t see proportional representation being any different.

Because if even half the registered parties in B.C. get elected to this

place, there’ll be 13 parties in this House. Right now there are two

major parties, with 80 seats or so, give or take, and there’s one party

of three seats. How are we going to collaborate or get all these

agreements put together between 13 parties? That’s going to be a

nightmare, not to mention the cost and the doubling of size of what will

happen in this House.

We already know that the confidence and supply agreement is

already costing taxpayers $1 million a year to make sure that three

members of the Green Party play nice with the NDP government and vice

versa, the secretariat. It’s costing $1 million a year.

Now if you have a coalition of eight parties with all different

agendas, how much is that going to cost? With all these parties, they’re

all going to need House Leaders, they’re all going to need a wage,

they’re all going to need a whip. That’s more cost. Then you’re going to

need staff for every one of these 12 parties. God forbid all 26 parties

get in here. We’ll spend months, if not years, negotiating confidence

and supply agreements.

The articles I read from around the world about proportional

representation…. It takes them months to set up these agreements to

govern, and then they’re on shaky ground. At any time, they could be

brought down because one party is not happy with the lack of influence

that they’re exerting on the propped-up government. It’s no different

here.

We had a chance to debate and vote on the legislation that would

look at an agreement signed between this government and LNG Canada, but

for some reason or not, it will not come to the floor for

debate.

[3:45 p.m.]

It will not come for a vote. Why? Is it because the Green Party

already said that they would not endorse it on the floor of this House,

and it would be up to the B.C. Liberals to vote for it? I was all ready

to vote for it.

Interjection.

E. Ross: Thank you. Thank you to the opposite side.

Why don’t we take it to the House? Why don’t we see the terms of

that agreement? Why don’t we vote on it? That’s what the coalition

government agreed to do. They agreed to work together for the betterment

of B.C. I don’t know if the betterment of B.C. is in the agreement or

not. I just threw it in there.

I’m trying to sort out all the information, especially in terms of

the outcomes. I already have a good idea of what’s going to happen in

this House when we have a bunch of coalition agreements running around

here and people trying to get the best deal to prop up a government or

be propped up.

In terms of the individual MLA now, I know there’s a question

about whether or not rural B.C. will lose their MLAs. But in looking at

the party appointing an MLA under PR: what’s the point of even running

in an election?

The running joke in the hallway in this place, if you haven’t

heard it yet, is that there’s no point in running for election. You’re

better off if you get onto one of these party lists, whether it’s open

or closed. Who cares if it’s open or closed? It’s a party list. This

means you don’t have to run for election. You can just get appointed to

a region by a party because the party owes you a favour.

Believe me, there are plenty of people in British Columbia who are

anti-LNG who would love to get appointed to represent the riding of

Skeena where the $40 billion investment that LNG Canada is going to put

into B.C. is proposed and will get built. There are many people that

would love to be the MLA and not get elected to it but be appointed off

a party list. Many people. I would hate to see what would happen if a

member of the Communist Party got appointed to be the Skeena MLA off a

party list.

There are two things obvious to me because I’m relatively new to

this place — about a year. It’s going to take a long time for me to

still figure out everything about the Legislature and all the rules. I’m

breaking rules day in and day out by accident because I’m trying to

absorb all this stuff. It’s like drinking out of a fire hose. It’s just

too much information to understand. On top of that, you’re trying to

understand the politics, the allegiances, the agreements.

But what strikes me most about this place is the tremendous amount

of knowledge and educated people. I’m surrounded by them. The people in

this place that have explained to me in very simple terms these

complicated and complex rules have no idea how much I appreciate their

time and their effort in bringing me up to speed.

I’ve always respected knowledge. I’ve always respected education.

Unfortunately, knowledge and education don’t always equal wisdom or even

integrity. That’s a lesson I learned long before coming here. Some of

the most unedu­cated elders in my community were the most

knowledgable, honest people I ever met in my life. Simple people —

simple because they simply knew the difference between right and wrong.

They didn’t have to go through complex processes or understand complex

formulas to understand that something was wrong.

What’s happening here is wrong. When people are coming to my

office in Terrace and trying to ask me how to fill in the ballot for

this referendum because they didn’t even know the referendum was

happening in the first place, there’s something wrong.

[3:50 p.m.]

I agree with a lot of members in this House that said it would

have been simpler if we had it in conjunction with another election and

that it should have been sent to a people’s assembly, a citizens’

assembly. Let them deal with it at arm’s length from government, at

arm’s length from politics. I agree with that.

In saying that and in talking about the incredible capacity of

this place in terms of knowledge and education, with the wealth of

knowledge in this place and the wealth of education that individuals

have in this House, why is it so hard to do an exhaustive exercise in

making sure the average citizen has enough information about a voting

process combined with an unbiased, non-political discussion about the

pros and cons about any type of electoral system, including

first-past-the-post?

One of the biggest reasons I hear out here is how proportional

representation will keep a political party out of power. Even members of

this House stated it, that if they go to proportional representation, it

will keep certain parties of this House out of power. That is such a

shortsighted, self-serving reason. It doesn’t take into consideration

the voters five, ten, 15, 30, 50 years from now.

Once a system like this is in place, it will be next to impossible

to change it. You’ll have minority governments for the rest of our lives

propped up by coalition agreements, because no political party that has

a chance to prop up a government would vote themselves out, let alone a

party that would be governing themselves, even with less than 30 percent

of the vote.

Unbiased information is in short supply nowadays. People are most

likely to believe anything on Facebook or Twitter, especially if it’s

just slogans or rhetoric about how bad things are and how we got a great

solution but without giving any substance or facts.

I depend on traditional media for information, no matter what the

topic. To be honest, sometimes I don’t like what they write. But I

respect them, especially the reporters in this place, because quite a

few of them have been here for years, if not decades. They make good

critics. They make really good critics, because they know the system

from watching and following what is said and proposed by both sides of

this House. They can sift through what is politics, and what is good

governance.

can see how both sides are using inflammatory statements for or against

proportional representation or for or against first-past-the-post. The

people in the middle of this are average citizens who just want a

brighter future, that want stability and want to know that they are in a

place where they can actually buy a house, raise a family and get a job.

That’s all they want.

For the political fanatics and the political geeks out there, this

is fascinating, what’s happening in the House. But unfortunately, we’re

not all political geeks or political fanatics. I’m trying to be, but

it’s hard. In fact, just to catch up, I’m going to my research people

almost on a daily basis to try to get facts. I’m going to my

communications people to try to get facts. In turn, what they do is go

to the library, and they pull out articles for me to read, or they give

me statements and quotes. This helps me immensely, even if it’s a quote

coming from a newspaper or coming from a reporter. It helps. But voters

don’t have the same access to information I do.

[3:55 p.m.]

Voters do not have the same access to resources like I do; 99

percent of voters right now can’t do what I do when I need information.

their neighbour, who probably knows less about it than they do. But it’s

politically charged against one party or another. This is not a good

basis for going forward when we’re going to change something as

fundamental as the way we send representatives to Victoria.

Now, with traditional media…. I’m talking about traditional media

like Global TV, Vancouver Sun , Globe and Mail ,

Huffington Post . I’m talking about all these major outlets.

I know they’re under tremendous strain to stay alive just because of

information, of unbiased information. There’s a tremendous amount of

reporters that can see right now how flawed this referendum is. There

are a lot of quotes out there.

This is what I encourage voters to do: not to listen to the pro

side or the con side. If they feel it’s being sensationalized, go to the

reporters that have been in this place for the last 20 years. See what

they have to say, because they don’t have any political affiliations

with any of the parties in the House.

These are direct quotes coming from these guys that are sitting in

this House. The Vancouver Sun editorial board on October 29,

2018, said: “The biggest problem with the latest electoral reform

referendum is how badly the NDP has handled the issue and how partisan

the process has become.” Shane Woodford and Vaughn Palmer on Inside

Politics , October 5, 2018: “It’s very hard to explain to people

how this is going to work, because the Attorney General has engineered

it so we won’t know until after the vote is over.”

This is not the Liberals talking about this. These are reporters

doing their job, trying to report what they see and hear. Vaughn Palmer

in the Vancouver Sun , October 4, 2018: “When Premier Horgan

calls on voters to take a leap of faith….”

Sorry, am I allowed to say that with a quote? Yeah?

“When Premier…calls on voters to take a leap of faith with him on

proportional representation, he means ‘leap in the dark.’”

I corrected that, right?

Deputy Speaker: That’s fine. Carry on.

E. Ross: That’s twice today I did that.

Jon McComb, CKNW, October 24, 2017: “The NDP, unlike previous

attempts to change our voting system, has set the bar pretty

low.”

Mike Smyth, CKNW, November 30, 2017: “They are setting the bar as

low as possible for this referendum to succeed.”

Keith Baldrey, Global News, May 9, 2018: “This is the nanny state

approach to governing gone rogue.”

Gary Mason, Globe and Mail , May 15, 2018: “It is just so

badly flawed, so poorly conceived, any outcome will be rendered

defective and in violation of the fundamental tenets of

democracy.”

Kirk LaPointe, Business in Vancouver , October 19, 2018:

“We are lurching, wobbling, staggering somewhat blindly and quite deafly

into the fog of conscious confusion and deliberate under-information

that calls itself the 2018 referendum on electoral reform.” Kirk

LaPointe, Business in Vancouver , October 19, 2018. That’s just

recently.

Bill Good, June 22, 2018: “It appears they are determined to

manipulate the process,” meaning the government.

Mel Rothenburger, Armchair Mayor, November 27, 2017: “What they

ignore is that first-past-the-post puts power into the hands of local

communities.”

[4:00 p.m.]

Todd Whitcombe, Prince George Citizen , October 8, 2018:

“…proportional representation…will ensure a signifi­cant portion

of those MLAs will not be accountable to anyone but their party.” That’s

a pretty scary commentary coming from the media.

In closing, I want to touch on a comment that was made about what

proportional representation will bring to this House — respect. This is

the most disrespectful place I’ve ever worked in. If you think

proportional representation or any other form of electoral reform is

going to bring respect to this place, think again.

S. Gibson: Good for me to be able to speak again, for the second time, here

in this House. Thank you to the government members for requesting me. I

appreciate that.

I want to share a little story as I begin, if I may. I was walking

into a grocery store the other day. There was an older gentleman and a

young fellow beside him. I would say the older gentleman was probably in

his 80s, frankly. The younger gentleman was maybe 20. They were holding

hands as they walked into the supermarket, so my assumption was that the

young fellow was looking after the older man who was walking along —

beside each other. They were together.

I was moving fairly quickly, as I do, and I moved up beside them

as we entered the supermarket. I noticed that the young man was blind.

The older gentleman was guiding the young man into the store. The reason

I mention that is that my assumption was flawed. It was incorrect. The

young man needed the help of the older man.

May I say that this reflection applies, I believe, to our

discussion of proportional representation and Bill 40. What you see

isn’t necessarily what you get.

I want to share, if I may, too, that I’ve been privileged to serve

in elected office both locally and provincially for 38 years and lived

in both of our capital cities. I went to university in Ottawa and had

the privilege of working part-time in a legislative office while I was

doing a degree at Carleton University. Even here in Victoria, some years

ago, as you might expect, getting to know, in those days, a party, which

we sometimes forget, called Social Credit. A privilege to get to know

some of those folks over the years and appreciating and growing, with an

interest in democracy.

My parents also had a similar interest, as I mentioned here.

Perhaps some of you will recall that they both served during World War

II, fighting for the democracy that we find precious today. We’ve been

accused, at times, on this side of the House, of fearmongering. I heard

somebody recently make up the expression fear mongrel, as someone who

perpetuates fearmongering, but that’s for another time.

I think in many ways, we’re dealing with something that I would

characterize as pyrrhic. Most of you will know the meaning of the word

pyrrhic. Pyrrhic is a victory that inflicts such a terrible toll on the

victor that it really represents defeat. It’s named after King Pyrrhus

of Epirus, and he suffered many casualties — this is many years ago —

against the Romans. It was irreplaceable. He couldn’t replace his

forces, even though he technically won.

I want to address my remarks to the new, highly idealistic members

of the B.C. government caucus. Some of those MLAs arrived here with high

ideals and are now perhaps struggling with this paradigm of proportional

representation. Some of them know that if proportional representation is

approved and finally adopted, so many years hence, if they’re still

here, they may not even have a seat here. So that’s kind of a

tragedy.

[4:05 p.m.]

It’s a Pyrrhic victory if this is successful because the result —

even though it meets the specifications and request of the Third Party,

the Greens — really destroys democracy as we know it. I want to comment

favourably on the remarks made a moment ago by the hon. member for

Skeena. I thought his remarks were right on.

We’re elected here. It’s a privilege to be elected here. But we

also know that under most of these models of proportional

representation, even those that are imaginary, that appointed MLAs will

be the order of the day.

I like being the representative of Abbotsford-Mission. People can

come by my office and talk to me. I never ask them: “Oh, by the way,

just before you begin your conversation, how did you vote last time?”

It’s irrelevant. Isn’t that right, hon. Member for West

Vancouver–Capilano? It’s irrelevant.

Now, if we proceed with proportional representation, it’s going to

become a partisan environment. We’re going to have appointed

representatives of other parties. It’s going to be such a tragic

departure from the British parliamentary system that was conceived all

those many centuries ago and has served us well.

You’ll recall that the Leader of the Green Party, in a speech,

said — and I’m paraphrasing — that this will be the best way to keep out

a B.C. Liberal majority. Well, may I say that he forgot to mention that

it will also be a good way to keep out an NDP majority. Majority

governments may be over. The confidence people have, the security people

have of a majority government could be washed away with proportional

representation.

I don’t come from a secret list. It’s very transparent. The person

with the most votes is elected. On election night, there’s no

mathematical formulas or somebody with a computer doing all kinds of

calculations. We find out that the hon. member for West

Vancouver–Capilano is elected, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale is

elected, the member from Surrey-Whalley is elected. There are no

complications. You don’t have to wait for many hours to figure out the

formula.

Many years ago in this province, there was a single transferable

ballot — before my time. That was conceived in 1952, and the Social

Credit Party of the day, under W.A.C. Bennett, formed a minority

government in 1952 under the single transferable ballot.

I had the privilege of meeting somebody called Eric Martin, who

sat here oh-so-many years ago in this Legislature. I kind of interviewed

him. He was elected under the single transferable ballot. Remember, this

is pre-computers. This is all done manually. He said to me: “I had to

wait for days, putting my nose against the window of the elections

office to find out that I finally made it.”

Some of you who studied history will know what hap­pened the

very next year. It was abandoned and replaced by the great system we

have now, and the Social Credit Party, under W.A.C. Bennett, formed

government from 1952 to 1972.

So here we are discussing something that is troubling for so many

in this House and, I believe, for many members of the government too. I

think there are discussions that lead me to believe that there’s not

unanimity on that side of the House about this in those secret

moments.

There’s no regional threshold. Winner takes all in this model,

ironically, so Metro could control the paradigm. In 2005 and then in

2009, we had proportional representation ballots, or at least elections

deciding referendums at the time of the elections to see what system

we’d have here.

[4:10 p.m.]

I’ve been told that the reason that it was defeated so heavily —

so openly, if you will — in that year was because maps were produced.

Once they saw maps, people saw maps, they’d go: “Oh, hold on now. This

is scary.”

Even in my riding of Abbotsford-Mission — and I’m here to

represent my constituents and speak on their behalf — I don’t what’s

going to happen. I do know the tragedy will be that these large rural

ridings will be replaced by even larger ridings. You’ll have to spend

weeks to go and meet your MLA. Kind of sad to see that. So the lack of

detail is ominous.

I have somebody in my riding…. He’s actually a friend of mine.

He’s a good guy. He was on council in Mission for some time. He said: “I

believe in proportional representation. There is a legitimate, I think,

viewpoint on that.” However, my friend is voting against this

referendum. Why? Because he believes that the government is not

providing the proper information, not providing the information to allow

voters to make an intelligent decision.

I want to pick up again, if I may, on the point made a moment ago

by the hon. member for Skeena in his thoughtful remarks regarding the

concerns he has about this legislation, Bill 40. He said: “It needs to

be so simple that somebody without a lot of schooling can understand

it.” Yeah, that’s a good point. Not all of us want to be enveloped in

the intrigue and glamour of political life. Just average folks, average

people, making a living want to be able to go in there and say: “Okay, I

understand this.”

It’s not the case. As a matter of fact, I’ve had people tell me

they look at that brochure and they say: “I don’t get it. I don’t

understand. There’s not enough information there.” The government tells

us: “Well, just wait. We’ll get more information to you later. We just

want to get a feeling, just get an emotional feeling about this.” Well,

that’s a little scary. It goes back to the Premier’s comment: “Just have

faith. Just trust us.”

This NDP-Green coalition is moving ahead on this. Yet, we know

that so many governments that advocate this and live it go through

hundreds of days before they can form government because there are so

many little parties arguing. I want to bring something out, if I can

find it quickly here. This is particularly provocative, and I hope the

government will be attentive to this.

One of the real concerns I have is that proportional

representation is more expensive. As a matter of fact, I have some

information from economists that I think will be quite troubling. These

economists studied different systems of government, and they concluded

that the economic effects of proportional representation mean that

spending was almost 6 percent higher of GDP in countries as opposed to

those with our majoritarian plurality systems.

These economists feel that it’s because what happens is that

there’s so much negotiation with the small parties that spending

increases.

The member, I think, is acknowledging that. Thank you. A member

here with an economic background.

Jason Clemens and Taylor Jackson authored this report. It’s quite

troubli