Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, November 19, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 292

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 38 — Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act, 2019 (continued)

B. Ma

S. Furstenau

Hon. G. Heyman

Bill 39 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) and Statute Revision Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. D. Eby

P. Milobar

Hon. D. Eby

Bill 40 —

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. D. Eby

L. Larson

A. Weaver

T. Shypitka

R. Kahlon

Hon. D. Eby

Bill 43 — Election Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. D. Eby

J. Yap

S. Furstenau

Hon. D. Eby

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 37 — Financial Institutions Amendment Act, 2019

S. Bond

Hon. C. James

S. Cadieux

A. Olsen

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 41 — Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (continued)

M. de Jong

Hon. S. Fraser

M. Lee

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2019

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

J. Thornthwaite: I have some very special guests in the gallery today. It’s a very,

very special day for them, as well as tomorrow, and, moving forward, in

other days coming.

I spoke on a documentary called Krow’s TRANSformation in the

last session. Since then, the producer-director of this film, who is a

constituent of mine, has been globetrotting around the world showing this

marvellous, marvellous documentary on an individual that transformed into a

man and is now a transgender model — a very, very successful model. This

documentary is actually going to be viewed today by our caucus, as well as

the government caucus, which is very exciting.

I’d like to introduce the members to the House and start off with Gina

Hole Lazarowich. She’s the director and the producer, and she’s my

constituent. The main subject of the film is Krow. Kas Baker is also a

subject in the film, as is Ashton Sciacallo. Then we’ve got the moms and the

dads who are there to support them: Nancy Van Neste-Baker, Michael Baker,

Lisa Jacobsen and Bianca Sutton, who is the publicist for OUTtv, because

tomorrow they are launching their film on OUTtv.

[1:35 p.m.]

It’s a very exciting day, and I’d like the House to please join me in

making them feel very, very welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I would like to say I’ve got special guests, but indeed,

everyone in this Legislature has special guests here. We have special

guests, as my colleague from North Vancouver–Seymour identified.

Tomorrow is Transgender Day of Remembrance, and I really want to thank

Gina Hole Lazarowich and the entire team behind Krow’s

TRANSformation for coming here at this time to share their

documentary with us. It’s a documentary that I’ve yet to see, which is

unusual, because if something features me in it, I have to see it right

away. But not this time. I’m learning humility. Maybe it’s having a kid kick

my butt every morning.

Anyway, it’s so good to have them here, to learn from them, to be able

to share the story, and just a special thank you to Gina especially. I first

met Gina in the days of Save B.C. Film, when we were working around the film

industry and how to best support the film industry. Through that period, we

got to know each other better and also, over that time, watch as this

Legislature grappled with gender identity, expression and how we could get

it into our human rights legislation, which we were eventually successful

doing.

Thank you to Gina. Thank you to the entire team for sharing your

stories, for being so vulnerable and out there. It’s not easy work, but it’s

very important work. You’re making our province a better place because of

it.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 38,

Climate Change Accountability Act, and in Committee A, Douglas Fir Room, I call

continued committee stage on Bill 41, Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples Act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 38 — CLIMATE CHANGE

ACCOUNTABILITY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

(continued)

B. Ma: I’m pleased to be able to resume my place here in the chambers to

talk about Bill 38, intituled Climate Change Accountability Amendment

Act. This act, of course, as I was talking about before we took a break

for lunch, is

an act that helps us get to a cleaner B.C. It’s based on

the work of CleanBC, which is our climate action strategy. I won’t

rehash the information that I provided before, but I do want to

re-emphasize that CleanBC is an exceptionally important climate action

strategy, not only because it reduces emissions by electrifying our

transportation system or increasing the emissions efficiency of our

buildings but also because it works to transition our economy away from

fossil fuels and transition our economy towards a greener

future.

Economic transformation is probably the most important thing that

we need to do as a government, that we need to do as a jurisdiction,

that the entire world needs to do in order to actually tackle climate

change. Technology isn’t the problem. It has never been the problem. We

have had electric vehicles for decades. We have known for almost a

century what we were doing with the fossil fuel industry and what we

were doing with greenhouse gases. We have known for what seems like

forever what was necessary to actually save us from this future that we

are now currently headed towards together.

Our economic and financial system is captured by the fossil fuel

industry, and I say this extremely seriously. It’s not just B.C. We see

it across Canada. Canada was economically built on resource extraction.

I think that it’s important to acknowledge that, and it’s important to

respect and be grateful for what resource extraction has done for our

country and be grateful for what petroleum products have brought to

civilization. But just because we have come from a place where fossil

fuels have been embedded into our economic and financial system doesn’t

mean that we need to continue forward in that way. We have to

transition.

[1:40 p.m.]

We have seen…. I have seen in my time as an MLA here how captured

our entire system is by this industry, how it influences the way that

individuals see their options for prosperity in certain parts of the

country. We have seen the way that it limits the kinds of choices that

governments feel like they can make. I have learned about how many wars,

how many regime changes, how many sanctions have been placed on

countries around the world, based on whether or not they will or won’t

play ball in terms of fossil fuel and gas and petroleum exports — in

particular, with the United States.

This is something that we all need to grapple with as we go

forward into actually meeting our climate targets, because it’s not just

about emissions. Emissions on their own won’t release us from the grasp

of the fossil fuel industry.

I come from a generation…. I’m a millennial, an elder millennial,

probably on the earlier end, in terms of the years that millennials are

considered to be millennials. I remember when we, as a generation,

sounded the alarm on intergenerational inequality — not just financial

inequality, not just on wealth and income, but also on climate and the

environment.

As a generation, we were told to shut up. We were called “lazy,

entitled, naive.” We were told to stop whining, to go get a job. “Come

back to the table when you have more experience. Then talk to us about

what’s going on. Go out and work really hard, and stop being lazy. Give

up your avocado toast and your lattes, and then everything will be

fine.”

You know what? That’s what we did. We went out, we got jobs, and

we put our concerns aside for a while. We lived in smaller homes, rode

our bikes, took public transit, composted and recycled, and it didn’t

fix the problem. It did not fix the problem, and now we are back. But

this time, we won’t stay silent, and you can’t get rid of us.

We are in your workforce. We are in your streets. We are

supporting people who are even younger than us and encouraging them to

speak up, not sit down. We are also in your city councils, and yes, we

are in your legislatures. Not that many of us, mind you. Out of 87 MLAs

in the B.C. Legislature, only three of us are millennials, despite

making up the largest voting bloc today. We make up only less than 3.5

percent of the people who sit in this House and make laws for future

generations.

We’re demanding action on climate change, and we’re demanding

accountability with our leaders, with community members. We’re

organizing people together to fight for our future. This bill, Bill 38,

is exactly the kind of bill that I left my career for in order to run to

be an MLA — so I could stand in this House and support the incredible

work of the Minister of Environment and climate action, the incredible

members of the Third Party and all of the colleagues that I know sit in

this House who support climate action.

I came here to support this work. So I’m really proud to be able

to vote for it. But I also have to say that it is not enough. B.C. is

leading the continent on climate action, yet it is still not enough, not

only because B.C. needs to do more but also because the rest of the

world needs to do more. Canada, the States, China — all of the different

countries around the world need to be pulling together in order to do

exactly the kinds of things that we’re striving to do right here under

the leadership of the Minister of Environment and Climate

Change.

I know that the minister knows this to be true, because I have

seen him fight every single day to make us better — make our province

better, to encourage the country to be better — and to show himself and

our province to be a leader on the world stage.

I’m very pleased to be able to support this bill, and I look

forward to helping all of my colleagues in this House continue to be

better as we move forward into a better future.

[1:45 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to be speaking to Bill 38 today, the Climate Change

Accountability Amendment Act. I’d just like to follow on my colleague

the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale and her passionate words just

now.

What she reminded me of is one of our incredible policy staffers

in our office, Claire Hume, who often frames our work on climate as a

“yes, and.” There is so much to do. It is such a complicated and,

seemingly at times, intractable issue. But what we have to do is adopt a

stance of “yes, and.” Yes, the bill is not perfect yet, and we’re going

to keep doing better. Yes, other regions haven’t come on board to do

their part, and we’re going to keep showing them how.

I appreciate the member’s passion and her words. I also want to

acknowledge how much I appreciate Claire for guiding us as well in her

“yes, and” stance that she takes.

I will start my comments today with an overview of the broader

climate change context within which Bill 38 is situated before turning

to its main policy components. From there, I’d like to speak about Bill

38 as an example of good governance and compare it also to the work

being done on both vaping and LNG, before finishing with a few remarks

on how it relates to the future of our province. It may seem a little

off-topic at times, but I can assure you that if you stick with me, I’ll

bring it back to the important task at hand: a second reading debate on

the Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act, 2019.

As my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head stated in his speech,

climate policy rhetoric is nothing without transparent, accurate, timely

and publicly accessible data, and political promises are worthless

without legislated accountability. “Trust us” is not a good climate

policy. It is my sincere hope that the transparency and accountability

mechanisms in this bill, if passed, will last well beyond this current

government and set an evidence-based foundation from which future

climate policy can be built.

I can only begin to describe how desperately this bill is needed.

To that end, I’d like to remind everyone of the major reports that have

been published just in the last year alone. To start, there was the 2018

IPCC special report, in which the world’s leading climate scientists

warned that there are only a dozen years for global warming to be kept

at a maximum of 1.5 degrees Celsius, beyond which even half a degree

will significantly worsen the risk of drought, floods, extreme heat and

poverty for hundreds of millions of people.

A few months later, Canada’s Changing Climate Report was

published by the federal government. The report noted that northern

Canada is warming at twice the global rate and highlighted B.C. as being

particularly vulnerable to drought, glacial loss, severe wildfires and

sea level rise, which will salinate farmland.

Shortly after that, we had the report from the UN

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem

Services that stated, in stark terms, that we are in the midst of an

extinction crisis, with a million species likely disappearing within

decades. The consequences of this will be devastating for ecosystem

stability and food production.

Then we got the report from the UN special rapporteur on extreme

poverty and human rights. Professor Alston said that the world is on

course for climate apartheid, where the rich will buy their way out of

the worst effects of global warming and the poor will suffer. “Even

under the best-case scenario, hundreds of millions will face food

insecurity, forced migration, disease and death…. Staying the course

will be disastrous for the global economy and put vast numbers of people

into poverty,” he wrote.

Then this summer the province quietly released their strategic

climate risk assessment for British Columbia. In it, severe wildfires,

seasonal water shortages and heatwaves were the three highest-ranked

risks facing the province in terms of severity, magnitude and

likelihood. Ocean acidification, glacier mass loss and long-term water

shortages also topped the list.

Just last week, the Climate Transparency analysis of G20 nations

found that Canada is in the top three countries furthest off track from

meeting their emissions targets. Our per-capita emissions are 18.9

tonnes. The G20 average is 7.5 tonnes.

[1:50 p.m.]

We talk a lot about being environmentally conscious in B.C. and in

Canada, but the data tells a very different story. Politicians have a

moral responsibility to think further into the future and govern not

just for their term but for their children and their children’s

grandchildren. This is the moon shot of our of our generation. Let’s

talk about some of the policy logistics that will help us land

it.

The main components of Bill 38 are as follows: a requirement for

government to set an interim emissions target on the path to the

legislated 2030 target, which is 40 percent in greenhouse gas reductions

below 2007 levels. This is similar to the interim targets set for 2012

and 2016.

The bill will have a requirement for government to set separate

2030 sectoral targets following engagement with stakeholders, Indigenous

peoples and communities throughout the province. This will make sure

that the responsibility to reduce carbon pollution is effectively

distributed across B.C.’s economy and between ministries. The Minister

of Environment alone cannot tackle this challenge.

A requirement for government to table an annual report on actions

taken to reduce carbon pollution along with their costs and how they

will achieve the government’s legislative emissions reductions

targets.

The annual reports will outline the latest emissions data and

projections as well as actions planned for future years and the effect

they are expected to have. It will also include a determination of

climate risks our province is facing along with risk reduction policies

and any mitigation or adaptation plans.

The bill will have a requirement for government to establish an

independent advisory committee that will be modelled on the Climate

Solutions and Clean Growth Advisory Council now that the council has

fulfilled its mandate.

The committee will be made up of members from diverse areas of

expertise in regions of the province and can provide advice to the

minister on policies that can lead to further reductions, progress

towards targets, opportunities for sustainable economic development,

opportunities for climate mitigation and adaptation, among other matters

related to the act.

Lastly, this bill gives government the ability to set more

detailed targets and other environmental standards for publicly owned

buildings and vehicle fleets to help reduce emissions, improve

environmental performance, save money and support innovation.

The Climate Change Accountability Act as currently written already

includes legislated greenhouse gas reduction targets as well as a

requirement to collect data for tracking emissions. But our targets are

set ten years apart, and data is published on a two-year delay. Combine

that with the four-year government mandate, and you create a situation

where political parties spend the first two years blaming their

predecessors for bad results and the next two years saying they are just

getting started while making promises they can only fulfil if you vote

them back in.

Then before you know it, the ten-year target is within sight, but

by that time it is too late to substantively change your emissions

trajectory. Bill 38 aims to cut through those excuses by shortening the

time scale and increasing transparency. For example, by including

interim targets again, we’ll be able to evaluate our progress prior to

2030. If it shows we’re on track, great. That adds credibility to

government so they can continue their course.

If not, they will be responsible for correcting the trajectory

prior to the end of the decade. By reporting emissions annually, the

public will get a better sense of where emissions originate, which

policies are working, which are not and how all of the above align with

the next year’s fiscal forecast.

The existing act also already has a provision that allows the

minister to establish sectoral targets, but it is written as an option.

Section (4): “The minister may, by order, establish greenhouse gas

emissions targets for individual sectors” instead of a requirement. So

it has gone unused.

The practice of using sectoral targets to help guide reductions is

well established. New Zealand; Victoria, Australia; Germany; and the

U.K., for example, all have variations on the policy. New Zealand and

Victoria, Australia, in particular, are good policy proxies for B.C.

because of their comparable population size.

A commitment to set sectoral targets was also included in the

minister’s mandate letter and the 2017 NDP platform. So its inclusion in

Bill 38 should come as no surprise.

[1:55 p.m.]

Ultimately, this bill is about basic good governance. It says that

governments should follow the law. Government should ensure every

industry operates in accordance with the law, and government should

report back to British Columbians with accurate, timely data about the

progress taxpayers are funding.

To understand why such a basic fundamental bill is so noteworthy

and so important, one must consider the state of governance in the

fossil fuel area, a political economy so intertwined that the roles have

evolved to favour those who stand to gain the most. It is the politics

of accommodation. It pivots on the threats of competitiveness, bends to

meet demands of fossil fuel interests and is willing to sacrifice all

else for their profit. The concentrated power of business as usual

exists just to justify the short-term concentration of benefits among

the few, even as it comes at the cost to the many and leads us all

toward an increasingly catastrophic outcome.

As academics Thomas Princen, Jack Manno and Pamela Martin

write:

“Burning fossil fuels has social and environmental consequences that

must…be taken into account. These are real costs spread throughout

society and borne mostly by those who never profit directly from fossil

fuels.”

They continue:

“Decisions considered to be the subjects of debate are limited to

conserving energy, keeping the prices affordable, siting infrastructure,

encouraging discovery and development of new sources and cleaning up the

messes — but never the decision about whether to extract in the first

place…. Given the environmental and societal consequences of fossil fuel

dependence, energy decisions should be determined by a logic other than

one based solely on industry profits….”

Instead, ensuring that every British Columbian has the conditions

to live a healthy, fulfilling life in a flourishing, supportive

environment should be the government’s most important responsibility.

Again, to paraphrase Princen, Manno and Martin, just as tobacco went

from being medicinal and cool to lethal and disgusting, the

delegitimization of fossil fuels recognizes that a substance once deemed

net beneficial can come to be deemed net detrimental.

In the context of Bill 38 and government’s response to climate

change, I think it’s worth considering how they respond to other public

health threats. Let’s look at vaping. With vaping rates skyrocketing

amongst teenagers, parents, teachers and governments are rightfully

concerned. Decades of anti-smoking progress in the face of concerted and

relentless lobbying efforts from the tobacco industry are being

reversed. As we all well know, in addition to vaping-related lung

disease, the longer-term impacts of nicotine addiction can be dire. Just

last month B.C.’s provincial health officer confirmed the first probable

case of vaping-related illness.

Less than four weeks later, government unveiled an ambitious and

comprehensive suite of policy, regulatory, educational and taxation

measures to address the issue, with the Minister of Health, the Minister

of Education, the Minister of Finance, the B.C. Lung Association and the

Canadian Cancer Society standing united in their efforts to protect

British Columbians from this health risk. That is good governance in

action, and I applaud government for their decisive plan to protect

youth.

It is challenging, however, to see their vaping reaction stand in

such stark contrast to their endorsement of the LNG industry. Reports

from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have made it

painfully clear that climate change is the largest public health

challenge that we face, with only a few short years to steer away from

catastrophic outcomes by dramatically reducing our greenhouse gas

emissions, starting now. Yet every member of the B.C. Liberals and the

B.C. NDP voted in favour of a fossil fuel project that plans to

drastically increase our emissions from 2023 through the year 2060, not

only permitting their expansion but subsidizing them every step of the

way.

[2:00 p.m.]

LNG Canada, a project set to become the single biggest point

source of emissions in our province, will pollute until after our

children have retired. It will pollute the province our grandchildren

are born into.

I appreciate there are important distinctions between smoking and

fossil fuels that allow government to act definitively. For one, it is

easier to make a connection between someone vaping and that same person

ending up in hospital with acute lung disease. The immediate cause and

effect is clear. That said, government also takes the nicotine addiction

aspect of vaping seriously, declaring it a public health hazard, with

plans to regulate its content level, going forward. Nicotine, much like

fossil fuel combustion, has a longer lag between the use and the

connected harm. Even still, government strives to regulate nicotine

because of its future damage.

Industry lobbying efforts are also important aspects of these

files. In one, we are discerning enough to recognize that there are some

legitimate uses for the product while also maintaining they should not

be used excessively throughout society. We trust the guidance of medical

professionals who confirm that vaping can be a helpful smoking

replacement or cessation tool, and we trust our gut when industry tells

us that cotton candy–flavoured, bubble-gum-pink vaping products peddled

Taking both into account, we tailor our regulations

appropriately.

With climate change, however, we seem to, at best, be lacking the

urgency required, and, at worst, be working on both sides of the issue.

Where government’s choices in response to vaping have been complete and

absolute, geared to taking us to a place where our children are not put

at risk, the government’s climate response is to build a credible road

map and then allow for a growing oil and gas sector.

Which brings us back to the importance of good governance. Instead

of the politics of industry accommodation, we need a new governance

story that recognizes interdependence — a belief that my well-being is

directly related to your well-being, to the well-being of the river, the

forest, the salmon, and to the well-being of children, and an

understanding and acceptance that what we do to the world, we do to

ourselves. Even if we can physically survive after the last orca or the

last caribou or the last steelhead has gone extinct, when life around us

withers and dies, so, too, do we.

We are immensely fortunate to live in British Columbia. It is,

quite literally, one of the best locations on the planet from which to

navigate the climate-related challenges ahead. We have access to

boundless renewable energy, fibre and water like no other jurisdiction

in the world. We have incredible potential to create clean, renewable

energy and a forestry sector that could be sustainable.

Transitioning to a carbon-neutral world doesn’t mean going back to

the Dark Ages. It means transitioning to a cleaner, safer, more

sustainable society where economic, social and environmental concerns

are central in all of our decision-making. I applaud the work by local

governments around the province and across the country that have

recognized that now is the time to take action on climate

change.

In particular, it’s heartening to see the recognition that climate

action is not limited to reducing emissions or levelling up renewable

energy. On Sunday, it was reported that 50 mayors and councillors from

across Canada have signed the Victoria call to action, a promise to

build communities that can react to climate change.

Recognizing that helping our communities become more connected,

creating a greater sense of belonging for all citizens, ensuring that

our neighbourhoods are places where we know that we are looking out for

each other and where we work to deepen our empathy for each other,

engaging in decolonization and building equity — all of these are

essential aspects of climate action. And the outcomes not only benefit

our biosphere. They benefit each and every one of us in our day-to-day

lives.

[2:05 p.m.]

Climate change is the result of an imbalance. Human activity has

resulted in an overabundance of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere,

which is undermining the very delicate balance of our global climate

system. But there are other imbalances that we can and must address in

this time of transformation: the imbalance of inequality, the

overabundance of isolation in our communities, the hollowing out of

neighbourhoods while housing becomes a commodity to invest in instead of

homes to raise families in.

We have so much to gain. The shift that we can — that we must —

take can be the vehicle to deliver a more just, equitable and healthy

society in which we put the health of our planet, the health of our

communities and neighbourhoods and our own health at the centre of our

decision-making.

To capitalize on these possibilities, we need to start planning

beyond the next election cycle. We need to focus on building a new

economy that works for all of us, not just the privileged

few.

That’s what Bill 38, ultimately, is about. It is the foundation

for what comes next.

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

Climate Change Strategy will close the debate.

Hon. G. Heyman: I want to thank all of the members of the House, in all three

parties, who rose to speak to Bill 38, the Climate Change Accountability

Amendment Act, and the important issues that led to the introduction of

this bill.

I want to reflect on some of the comments. The Leader of the Third

Party spoke about the non-partisan nature of all of us, as leaders and

politicians in this province, coming together to address climate change,

to develop a plan and to be willing to be transparent and accountable

about the effectiveness and the truth of the measures that we both

outlined and then act on to meet the challenges, to meet our targets and

to meet the particular steps along the path. I agree with the Leader of

the Third Party.

I think it is important to acknowledge and thank all of the

members of the Third Party for their work with our caucus and with me,

in particular, to develop our CleanBC plan, to discuss an appropriate

response to climate change and to discuss the kind of role we can play

here in British Columbia.

We’ve demonstrated, I think, that we have discovered in our two

caucuses that while we may disagree on elements of a plan, maybe even

disagree on issues — as has been highlighted by the remarks of the

member for Cowichan Valley — we don’t need to let that stop us from

finding common ground and the ability to agree on a suite of actions

that will make a difference, that move us forward while we continue to

discuss and resolve areas of disagreement. That’s critically important

and should be something that we think long and hard about in this

chamber, about how we can work together.

I also want to thank all the speakers. Particularly, I want to

thank the two millennial members of the New Democrat caucus who both

spoke passionately about their own feelings and beliefs about the

challenges that they see ahead of them, for what I hope will be many

more decades of their lives, and the concerns of the people in their

constituencies, as well as the people in their generation. The real

threat, the real existential threat that they feel, not just in terms of

the challenges we face today from droughts or wildfires or rising sea

levels or impacts on our forests or wildlife or fish but their worry

about the scientific reports about how rapidly the threat is escalating

and how much more rapidly it will escalate if we do nothing. I take

those seriously.

I know that I have been impacted by meeting with young people,

particularly teenagers, who came and met with me both individually and

in a joint meeting with the Premier, who participated here in Victoria

in the climate strikes — the increasing climate strikes and the

increasing number of young people and their allies from older

generations who are making their voices heard and thinking that this

issue is so critical that they have to stand for it and have to be seen

to be standing for it.

[2:10 p.m.]

It was the passion, the articulation, the urgency, the reality of

the issues facing teenagers, ranging from 12 to 18, that I met with and

the Premier met with — who asked us hard questions — that I know for me,

and I’m sure for the Premier, led to our conviction that we needed not

just a plan and not just to say we have a plan and not just legislated

targets, but a demonstrated willingness to be held accountable for what

we do every single year to move our plan forward and to demonstrate that

we would be willing to be transparent if our plans needed to be amended,

if they needed to be shifted, if they weren’t being successful in a

particular area or if we were backsliding.

In my opening remarks, I noted and acknowledged, and I will

acknowledge again, that one of the reasons that B.C. is seen as a leader

in climate action, and particularly through carbon pricing, is because

the government of Gordon Campbell introduced a carbon tax in 2008. It

showed that we could affect emissions, that we could bring down

emissions and that we could still develop a sustainable economy while we

appropriately priced carbon. Many corporations have been shadow pricing

carbon for years because they understand that’s necessary.

I acknowledged that that work was begun. I think that’s something

for us to celebrate, because it indicates, I hope, that in this chamber,

we can reach agreement and move together on this most critical issue of

our time, this climate emergency that is recognized by citizens across

Canada.

I will say I listened carefully to the speeches of the members of

the opposition. I don’t personally think it’s good enough to say there

is nothing new in this bill or that all this bill does is to continue

the work that was already in place from a previous government. The fact

is that under the government of Christy Clark, from 2011 onward, climate

action in this province stalled. In fact, it slid backwards.

That is what happens sometimes in political cycles. What this bill

is about is ensuring that if governments make choices to deprioritize

this most critical issue of our time and cease to move forward on the

plans that we’ve announced, the plans that people depend on, we will be

reporting regularly in detail on exactly how we are failing to meet our

commitments. It’s important for accountability, but it’s also important

to keep us on track.

That’s what this bill is about. It’s about using the tools we have

to better reach our targets by ensuring that we have guidance and

mileposts through interim and sectoral targets. It’s about demonstrating

leadership in the public sector by doing what we can to bring down

emissions very, very explicitly — not just buying offsets, though those

have a role, but actually specifying requirements and

targets.

It’s also about reporting, in a detailed manner every year, on

what we plan to do every single year for three years going forward; the

specific measures and the funding we put in place to meet those

measures; then looking backward at the previous year and one year

further back, for which the reporting is verified, to say exactly how

successful we’ve been or where we may need to recalibrate; and also to

ensure that the advice and commentary of an independent council is

reported transparently to the public.

That won’t always be easy for this government or any government,

because it is not possible to be perfect, but it is possible to act with

goodwill. It is possible to reflect on how we’re doing, and it is

possible to show British Columbians that we’re doing everything we can

to meet our commitments in this most important challenge. That’s

important.

We’ll have an opportunity at third reading to look at the elements

of the bill in some considerable detail. But I would say that this bill

is important for a number of reasons.

[2:15 p.m.]

It tells those young people and others who want to see concrete

action that we not only have a target, that we not only have a detailed

plan to meet that target, but that we’re willing to report regularly and

be held accountable for how we are doing — whether we are keeping our

promises, whether we are meeting the challenge that they demand that we

meet.

Comments were made that we only have a plan for 75 percent. We are

working on the rest of the plan, and our commitment is to detail the

rest of that over the course of the next 13 months. What this bill says

is that if we fail to do that, we will be accountable for that. That is

not different from the Gordon Campbell plan, who also came forward with

a plan to say how 75 percent of the targets would be met. So people knew

how we were starting as we continued to develop the work.

We are seeing success. We had a target of 10 percent of new car

and light duty vehicle sales being clean energy vehicles by 2025. This

month, in 2019, we met that target six years early. That’s what having a

plan means. That’s what having financial measures to address that plan

means. That’s what it means to be accountable and take seriously our

commitments, and we intend to do that with every element of our CleanBC

plan.

The member for Kamloops–North Thompson said that I said, in a

speech to municipal leaders, that B.C. is only responsible for 2/10 of 1

percent of global emissions. That’s true, and the reason I said it was

to make the point that we still have a responsibility to do our part. In

doing so — through carbon pricing, through emission reduction and

through building a diversified, modern, low-carbon economy while

reducing emissions across society — we can show the rest of Canada and

the rest of the world that we need to take action, that we can take

action and that we can prosper economically through a new diversified

economy while we do that.

I see we’ve been joined in the gallery by a number of students.

I’m happy to see young faces here for the closing of debate on second

reading of a bill that will affect your lives, that will affect the

lives of other students. We are serious in this government about doing

everything we can to meet the climate challenge. This bill says that

we’ll be accountable to you and to every British Columbian for how we’re

doing.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 38.

Motion approved.

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 38, Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act, 2019, 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. G. Heyman: I call second reading of Bill 39, the Miscellaneous Statutes

(Minor Corrections) Act, 2019.

Interjection.

BILL 39 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(MINOR CORRECTIONS)

AND STATUTE

REVISION AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Hon. D. Eby: Glad to hear the Leader of the Third Party is very enthusiastic

about this bill.

I move the bill be now read a second time.

Bill 39 makes minor corrections and housekeeping amend­ments

to various statutes. They are all meant to be straightforward,

non-controversial corrections and minor in nature. The contents of the

bill, when read, reflect that. I say “meant to be” because we have had

some very interesting discussion and debate about commas, semicolons,

and so forth, in this place on this bill, and the Leader of the Third

Party often leads the discussion.

The office of the legislative counsel gathers minor corrections as

part of the routine statute revision process. The result of that work is

what we have in this bill. The office of legislative counsel, I should

note, takes great pride in the work that they do, and it serves this

House very well. I’m certainly very proud of the work that they

do.

The changes in the bill are presented before the Legislature so

that this Legislature can approve all changes to statutes, no matter how

small or minor they may appear. In other words, there is a very

important principle here that people cannot simply go in and change the

law. They have to have the approval of the Legislature before any

changes may be made, no matter how apparently minor. The changes need to

be done with the authority of this House to ensure that B.C. statutes

are orderly and correct — a goal, I would hope, of any administration in

this province.

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure to rise to Bill 39, the hard-hitting

Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) and Statute Revision

Amendment Act.

[2:20 p.m.]

As we heard from the minister, I look forward to committee stage,

where we will delve deeply into the difference between round brackets

being switched out with square or box brackets and other similar

punctuation and formatting changes that are being made. I would note

that a lot of these are actually very serious acts that these changes

are happening in. I’m not trying to make light of things like the

Adoption Act and Adult Guardianship Act and those of that nature, but

certainly, this bill is one of the few times where it’s really as minor

as the title would indicate.

As I say, I look forward to the committee stage, where we will get

into all of the machinations that are the world of

punctuation.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney General to close the

debate.

Hon. D. Eby: With some regret, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

for the next sitting after today.

Bill 39, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) and Statute

Revision Amendment Act, 2019, read a second time and referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Hon. D. Eby: I call Bill 40, the

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2019, second

reading.

BILL 40 —

INTERPRETATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby: I move this bill be now read a second time.

This bill responds to the very clear message from British

Columbians that they wish to end the practice of changing our clocks

twice a year. This summer we had the biggest response to a public

engagement in the province’s history. Over 220,000 British Columbians

responded to a survey asking how they felt about our current practice of

changing the clocks and whether they’d prefer to be on daylight saving

time year-round. The results were clear. Ninety-three percent said they

want to stay on daylight saving time, or DST. This support was

consistent across all regions of the province, all age groups and nearly

all occupations. It’s as clear a message as we could expect to

receive.

It’s important to note that a majority, albeit a smaller one, also

indicated that it’s important to align our time observance with our

neighbours to the south and the north. Overall, 54 percent said that was

important or very important. The industry groups we heard from,

including the Vancouver Airport Authority and the B.C. Chamber of

Commerce, were also very clear on this point.

Operating at a different time zone from our neighbours to the

north and south could create uncertainty and unnecessary confusion for

business, consumers and travellers. That’s why the change proposed would

not come into effect immediately. Instead, it would happen by regulation

so that we can synchronize our time change with those in Yukon and in

neighbouring U.S. states on the Pacific coast: Washington, Oregon and

California.

I should note that the States require approval of the U.S.

Congress to make this change, so the timing is not in their hands. But

passing this legislation now will leave us ready to respond at the

appropriate time.

I should also point out that this bill does not make any changes

to provisions in the Local Government Act and Community Charter that

permit areas of the province to observe Mountain Time. Essentially,

that’s the Peace River region and the East Kootenays. That’s been a

long-standing practice, following a plebiscite in the areas bordering

Alberta in the 1970s.

We’re continuing the practice of letting those areas determine

whether they wish to observe Mountain Time. The bill would create a new

name for our time zone, Pacific Time, and would remove the

regulation-making authority that’s currently in the act that permits us

to move to daylight saving time for part of the year.

Pacific Time is the simplest and clearest way of expressing the

new time zone. It effectively becomes our new standard time and will be

seven hours behind Universal Coordinated Time, which used to be called

Greenwich Mean Time. That seven hours’ difference is the same as what we

currently observe during daylight saving time.

The practical effect of this change is that in winter months,

sunrise and sunset will be an hour later than they are currently. We

recognize that this will be an adjustment for some. With a later sunrise

in mid-winter, schools, for example, may want to look at their starting

and ending times. But the biggest change will be for people who have

great difficulty adjusting to disruptions in their sleep. For most of

us, changing the clocks is simply a bit of a nuisance, but for some

people, it can cause significant problems and disrupt their health for a

period of time after the actual date of the change.

For all these reasons, I think we’re doing the right thing in

responding to this clear message from British Columbians and ending the

practice of changing our clocks twice a year. I look forward to hearing

from other members of the House on this bill.

L. Larson: Thank you, Minister. After two years and three private members’

bills, I am pleased to finally be able to speak to second reading of

Bill 40, the

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2019.

[2:25 p.m.]

This is truly a non-partisan issue for the people of British

Columbia. Changing our clocks twice a year affects all of us, regardless

of age, economics, cultural diversity, urban or rural. For some, the

effects are more than just the effort of switching. For some, there is a

very real physical and mental impact.

For all of you with small children, you know that it will take at

least a week of adjustment before everyone is sleeping and eating again

on a comfortable household schedule. For seniors, either living at home

or in care facilities, just adjusting meal times and medications is

stressful. While experts cannot agree on which time zone is the best for

our health overall, all agree that switching itself causes the greatest

health and safety concerns.

Seventy-nine percent of the world’s population does not adjust

their time twice a year. Many of the 21 percent of jurisdictions who

have done time switching are now enacting legislation to just stay on

one time zone. The choice is generally daylight savings time, as most

are in the northern hemisphere, where dark winter evenings are more

likely on standard time. I’m sure our weather plays a big role in the

desire of most to have more daylight in the evenings of our warmer

seasons of the year.

The European Parliament, in 2018, backed a review of time-shifting

related to daylight savings time. European lawmakers called for a

commission to launch a full evaluation of their current systems. In

North America, discussions on the time-shifting have been going on for

many years, and several jurisdictions have now moved into proposed

legislation. Florida passed the Sunshine Protection Act, which will make

daylight savings time their year-round time zone. Washington State and

Oregon have legislation in process to stay on daylight savings all year

round.

The community of Grand Forks, in my riding, was the first to bring

forward politically to the UBCM a resolution to stay on daylight savings

time all year round, and two years in a row, it was supported by the

UBCM membership. In Kamloops, local citizens Bob Dieno and Tara Holmes

started an on-line petition a few years ago to stop the time changing.

Their survey results were similar to the B.C. government survey this

past summer, with over 90 percent supporting stopping the practice, and

75 percent of those wanting to stay on daylight savings time. They had

over 25,000 who responded to their local initiative.

Now we have the results of the government’s own survey that

confirms that the people of British Columbia want to keep daylight

savings time all year long, with or without, in some cases, the rest of

the west coast moving in that direction. I understand the common sense

that would suggest the entire Pacific Time zone all move in unison, but

I have no doubt that if British Columbia moves into daylight savings

time in the spring and no longer falls back, the other jurisdictions

will either move quickly to follow suit or adjust

accordingly.

We all experience different time zones when we travel for pleasure

or business, and we adapt. Twice a year, we have been disrupting our

lives with this time switch without tangible benefits for anybody. While

those who work a standard day shift or something similar manage to catch

up on a missing hour, think about those who work on a 24-hour clock and

how all their lives are affected.

In closing, I will again suggest that British Columbia make the

coming spring forward the last time change, even if other jurisdictions

are not following immediately. I do not believe that commerce and travel

will grind to a halt between B.C. and those south of the border if we

are not unified. Technology will continue to manage our lives, as it

does now when we switch the time twice a year. After all, Saskatchewan

ended the practice of time changing in 1966, and they’re still part of

Canada. Planes still

schedule flights to the province, and football

games still happen on time.

I want to thank the Premier for following through with the

provincial survey, and the Attorney General and the staff who have put

this bill together. I look forward to Bill 40 moving to committee

stage.

[2:30 p.m.]

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in the second reading debate on Bill 40,

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2019. This bill proposes to enable

government to permanently set the province of British Columbia on

daylight savings time, but without prejudicing some of the existing law

within local government and acts which enable certain jurisdictions to

change between mountain time and standard time.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

I’m rising to speak in opposition to this bill for a number of

reasons. First and foremost, I would argue that the process which led to

the public feedback into this is fundamentally flawed. Two, I don’t

think the evidence has actually been explored thoroughly as to why we

would shift to daylight, as opposed to standard, time. Let me first say

that in politics, it’s often very useful to actually remember what we’ve

done in the past. Too often, societies repeat the same issues that we’ve

done time and time again.

We only need go back to the Second World War, when the United

States went to daylight time during the extension of the war, to

conserve energy, and then went back immediately following the war. We

also know that in the U.S., when the OPEC crisis was on, it was decreed

that they would stay on daylight saving time during the OPEC crisis.

However, 11 months into what was going to be, I believe, a 16-month

period, they switched back to standard time, because of the complaints

and issues that I’ll raise in a second.

More importantly, in 1968, Great Britain went down the path for

three full years of actually only having daylight saving time. Then they

switched back in 1971 for the reason that I’ll articulate in a few

moments — they were seeing, sure, a decrease in the amount of accidents

at night, but an increase in the amount of accidents in the day — for

safety issues, and people complaining about the fact that they no longer

were waking up and seeing any sun.

Right now in the province of British Columbia, we actually have

three time zones. We have where we stand here today. We’re standing,

presently, on Pacific Standard Time, which is basically coordinated

universal time minus eight hours. That’s on the day we’ll be debating

the bill. When the bill was introduced, we were on Pacific Daylight

Time, which is coordinated universal time minus seven hours.

Fort St. John and the area around there — Dawson Creek, etc. —

stay on Mountain Standard Time throughout the year. So there’s always a

time difference between Fort St. John and Vancouver in the winter

months, but not so much in the summer months, when they are on Mountain

Standard Time and we’re on daylight saving time.

To throw a wrench into it, Cranbrook and the areas around there

have mountain time, but they still continually switch between mountain

daylight time and Mountain Standard Time. The reason why I raise that is

that right off the bat, evidence suggests that any argument that we need

to be consistent within neighbouring jurisdictions clearly doesn’t hold

up to scrutiny, in that we’re not even consistent in our own

jurisdiction.

More importantly, when we look right now, what would happen on

December 21 of this year…. Let us suppose we were not…. Well, if we’re

on standard time, as we are now, on December 21 — that’s the shortest

day of the year — in Victoria, sunrise would be at 8:02 in the morning.

If we were on daylight saving time, sunrise would be at 9:02 in the

morning. If we’re in Prince George, Pacific Standard Time, sunrise on

December 21 of this year would be at 8:27. If we were on Pacific

Daylight Time — or Pacific Time, as referred to in this bill — sunrise

on December 21 would be at 9:27 in the morning.

Now, this is precisely the reason why these failed experiments,

which occurred in the U.K. and in the U.S., to stay on daylight saving

time were reversed. People would wake up, particularly in places like

Prince George or Victoria, their kids would go to school, and it would

be pitch black, not even simple twilight. There would be accidents, and

there would be children getting hurt, and complaints. One of the reasons

why we know that there will be complaints is because the reason why we

set standard time is to ensure that the solar clock actually matches

with our internal clock. There’s a reason why we use standard

time.

[2:35 p.m.]

For example, coming back to my illustration on December 21. On

December 21 of this year, noon in Victoria will occur at 12:11,

coinciding with the maximum solar altitude. There’s a reason for that.

It’s because our bodies have adjusted over millennia to understand that

in the morning, we wake up in the sun; at noon is when the high sun is

there; and at evening, our sleep cycles take us to sleep. If we stayed

on daylight time, it would be the high sun at 13:12, an hour later,

which is inconsistent with our own internal body clocks.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Member, may I pause for a moment?

M. Stilwell: May I seek leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Stilwell: Joining us in the House today is an award-winning Canadian comedian

and performer. He doesn’t have as many awards as I have, so hopefully he can

step up his game the next time he comes here to visit. He is the host of

CBC’s The Debaters , which has his participants debating top

Canadian topics such as are forks better than spoons, or was Darth Vader a

bad father?

I often draw inspiration from Steve’s shows as we debate here in the

House, just as he will be gathering some information here today to formulate

some of his future stand-up performances. I believe he actually keeps me

around as his friend because our political conversations give him a wealth

of material to draw from.

For the record, forks are better than spoons. I think all British

Columbians need to know that.

Would the House please make my friend Steve Patterson feel very

welcome.

Debate Continued

A. Weaver: Well, I am very pleased to know that we have The Debaters

coordinator there. I’m looking so very forward to this upcoming

Saturday’s debate, where we actually have: “Be it resolved that this

House approve going to daylight savings time or staying on standard

time.” I think there could be some very good comedy framed around that,

in which I’m sure members in this House would be delighted to

participate.

More importantly, the fundamental reason why this process has been

flawed is that you don’t ask British Columbians in the height of summer,

when they’re sitting on their patios sipping their pina coladas and

their margaritas, saying, “Oh, isn’t it glorious to have this evening

sunshine,” when they’re not actually thinking at the same time, “What

about that loss of morning sunshine?” because it’s sunny all the time….

You don’t ask them: “Do you want to stay on daylight savings or

not?”

In essence, that was the question. There was no option there for

staying on standard time, the option that I suspect we’ll see the

European Union go, the option that actually makes sense from our

internal clocks and actually the option that makes sense in terms of the

solar altitude being overhead at noon in as many jurisdictions as

possible.

It is no surprise that government had so many people signing up,

because they were given one option in the summer, when they’re enjoying

their late evenings. Who wouldn’t want to have lots of late evenings?

The information was not provided to the people of British Columbia about

many of the negative aspects of doing it — the effects on our internal

clocks; the published research on seasonal affective disorder; the fact

that we know, historically, there have been safety issues with children

going to school; the fact that historically, this failed experiment has

been done in the U.K. for three years and twice in America already. Each

time, because of complaints, it’s reverted back to the

process.

Now, I’m not arguing that we should continue with the switch from

daylight savings to Pacific Standard, because that, too, is an

artificial construct. What I’m arguing is that if we’re going to move

forward with this…. We don’t need this legislation to do that because

already, government has the ability, through regulation, to switch us

permanently to standard time if they wish to do so. This legislation

only allows us to potentially give government a decision as to whether

they want to move permanently on daylight time.

[2:40 p.m.]

Given that I would argue, fundamentally, that year-round daylight

time is simply the wrong approach; and given that the existing

legislation already allows government to move, through regulation, on

permanent, year-round standard time, which I would have no problem

speaking in favour of; and given that it’s clear that people in British

Columbia don’t like the switches; it seems to me that this legislation

is entirely unnecessary, and if enacted, only gives government options

of doing something that we know, historically, we’re just going to turn

around.

I look forward to three years from now, if this bill passes and we

follow it on this path, to pointing to Hansard and saying:

“Look, I told you so.” Everyone is complaining now because Johnny and

Jill going to school at eight in the morning are going through in

pitch-black, walking around, and their first accidents are happening.

The public outcry is going to be there. We’re going to either revert

back to standard time, or we’re going to revert back to a

switch.

Standard time would be my preference. I think standard time would

be the preference if people were given the information on which to make

an informed decision, other than just giving them one option in the

midst of summer when we all enjoy our summer evenings.

For that reason, I’ll be voting in opposition to this bill. Thank

you for your attention.

T. Shypitka: It brings me great pleasure to stand in line here and debate Bill 40,

the

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2019. It’s great to have this debate on

what seems like such a simple bill — one page — yet there are a lot of

complexities to it.

I applaud the government for trying to come up with a solution to

standardize a time and coordinate in a concerted effort with the United

States and some of those Pacific Time zone areas in the northwest of the

U.S. to coordinate and concert an effort to bring a standardized time

without moving our clocks twice a year.

It is a bit of a discomfort to some. I know my family. Your kids get

up for school in the morning, and you get that extra hour of sleep, or

sometimes you get an hour less. I know even my dog has a hard time with the

moving of the clocks. In the fall, he’s looking for his meal at seven

o’clock. He’s going to have to wait another hour, and he’s drooling all over

the floor.

It is a bit of a complex issue. I want to speak to that complexity a

little bit because we have a bit of a disconnect in this province. As the

member of the Green Party, the leader of the Green Party stated, we actually

have three time zones in B.C. I’m glad he did his homework on that. I don’t

think a lot of people understand that.

Yes, we have a Pacific daylight savings time zone that switches twice

a year. We have a Mountain Standard Time, which stays flat for the whole

year. Then we have Mountain daylight savings time.

The leader of the Green Party forgot to mention that Creston was

actually on Mountain Standard Time as well as the Peace. So there are lots

of bits and pieces throughout the province, and I don’t think general

populations throughout the province understand it.

For an example, I can travel 40 minutes and drive through three time

zones in the province of British Columbia. A lot of people scratch their

heads, and they don’t understand that. I think that’s what happened here. I

think my problem with….

The bill, in general, is a fine one, and, like I said, it’s a simple

and a short one. But it’s how we came upon this, where we are today. The

member, the leader of the Green Party, stated that it was flawed.

Well, I’ve got a bit of a beef with the bill as well. It’s just more

or less housekeeping on it, how it was surveyed and how it was done. The

province and the Attorney General has said himself it provides clarity to

British Columbia. Well, maybe for those in the Pacific Time zone region. But

for those of us that live in Mountain daylight savings time, not so

much.

A survey went out. People took

part in a survey on how they wanted to

address the time zone. Of course, the whole province was included, and

that’s great. Unfortunately, when the results come back, the survey that

they participated in doesn’t reflect how they are going to be addressing

time zone changes.

People in my riding, as well as the Columbia River–Revelstoke riding,

the two ridings up in the Peace and the half a riding, actually, in the

Nelson-Creston area — so there are actually 4½ ridings in B.C. that are

affected by this — are a little perturbed that they seem to be excluded.

This is kind of part and parcel of a lot of things that happen in B.C. We’re

stuck in a…. Not stuck; we’re strategically and beautifully located in the

southeast corner of the province.

[2:45 p.m.]

Sometimes, our connection to Alberta is a lot stronger than the

connection we have with the rest of British Columbia just because of

commerce, our access to health care, wildlife, land access issues. We do a

lot of trade with Alberta in numerous ways.

I wanted to take the House down a little bit of a historical road here

to tell you how we came up and why we are where we are right now. There was

a referendum in 1972. It was held in British Columbia on August 30, and it

was simultaneous with the general election of that year. The actual

referendum only took place in four electoral districts and part of a fifth,

like I stated — two in the Peace, two in the Kootenays and a half in the

West Kootenays. The purpose of the vote was to determine which areas

favoured following Mountain Time rather than Pacific Time and whether to

follow daylight savings time or not. All areas chose to follow Mountain

Time.

The referendum was the result of events in Alberta, where, in 1971,

Alberta voted to enact daylight savings time. Areas in the Peace River and

the southeast were economically tied to Alberta, as I stated, and hence were

also on Mountain Time. The question in the referendum was: “Are you in

favour of Pacific Standard Time, including Pacific daylight saving time, as

it is applicable now throughout the prov­ince?”

Only four ridings and part of the fifth, as I mentioned, took

part in

the referendum. The two ridings in the northeastern part of the province

were North Peace River and South Peace River. The two ridings in the

southeastern part were, as I mentioned, Columbia River–Revelstoke and

Kootenay. Residents of Nelson-Creston east of an imaginary line running

through Kootenay Lake and the Kootenay River that bisected that riding also

took part.

The results of the referendum are fairly substantial, as I’m looking

down the line here. For the record, Columbia River voted 62.56 percent.

Kootenay East voted 62.11 percent. Nelson-Creston was a little bit more

50-50. They were 50.61 percent. North Peace was 68.77 percent, and South

Peace was 68.87 percent. Many people took

part in the poll. I believe there

were about 33,000 that took part, so it was a pretty wide spectrum of people

that took

part in it.

The result of the referendum was Mountain Time being used instead of

Pacific Time in places that rejected Pacific Time, which had been

provincewide at the time. Hence, the boundary between time zones in British

Columbia ended up being different from the provincial boundaries.

The northeast is on Mountain Standard Time, as the leader said,

year-round, without daylight savings time. In practice, this means that time

there is identical with Alberta in the winter and the rest of B.C. in the

summer. The southeast is similar, with most of the applicable areas on

Mountain Time and following daylight savings time. The Creston area is

exceptional, ignoring daylight savings time. This puts that town in a

situation similar to the northeast.

Since the time referendum, the issue has flared up in Cres­ton

politics at least twice. At least two referendums have been held, neither of

which succeeded in changing the status quo. In 2014, residents of Fort

Nelson voted in favour of switching from Pacific Time with daylight savings

time to year-round Mountain Standard Time.

Does everybody understand that? It’s not as clear as a lot of people

would think. I think that the real issue for me right now is to bring some

clarity to the House. I like the fact that the leader of the Green Party did

some homework on it. As I mentioned, you forgot Creston on the Mountain

Standard Time.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: Well, no, Creston is the same as the Peace. I can drive through three

time zones in literally 40 minutes where I’m at. It’s really complex. I

really wanted to bring that forward.

I wanted to say that going forward, we have these surveys. We really

need to think before we act. We need to ask all of British Columbia where

they stand on issues and consider the fact that there are three time zones

in British Columbia.

I don’t know how many times I have people flying in and out of

Cranbrook going: “You’re on Alberta time?” Sure, I guess that’s a definition

of sorts. But no, we’re British Columbians.

There are three different time zones in B.C. I really wanted to make

sure the House was aware of this. It may seem trivial to a lot of folks here

but really is not so trivial where I live, because we feel disconnected a

lot of the time because of this issue.

[2:50 p.m.]

With that, I’d like to support the efforts that the government has

done. But I will be taking this back to my regional areas.

As the leader of the Green Party stated, municipalities do have that

authority to change their time zone, as they see fit, within the boundaries

of that region. I will see what my region says, and I’ll be coordinating

with the north and see if there’s a buy-in to do something concerted that

way. But first and foremost, the residents of Kootenay East will be well

represented in bringing forward some kind of a consistent language on the

time zone.

With that, I’ll take my place.

R. Kahlon: It’s my pleasure to stand and speak on behalf of this bill that’s in

front of the House.

I want to thank the member for Boundary-Similkameen for her

consistency and persistence in advocating for this.

It’s amazing to think that about 240,000 people participated in the

consultation to have this bill come forward. It just blows your mind at how

many people are fired up and engaged on this topic.

I remember when the member across the way first raised this. There was

an

article in my local paper. My first phone call was from my partner, who

said: “You need to support this.” Then the second call was from my

brother-in-law, who said: “This needs to happen.” I felt right away the

pressure at home. It shows you how much it affects people in their day to

day.

I really appreciate the efforts made to consult the general public to

ensure that we heard from British Columbians on what they felt was an

important matter. Obviously, we try to address many important issues that

happen in the province and that people are facing day to day. Sometimes you

forget that these issues that might seem small to some are actually a very

big deal to many.

I appreciate the leader of the Green Party for sharing his concerns.

You know, I did hear from a few groups who were concerned. They didn’t want

us to go about changing this without being aligned with other

jurisdictions.

My understanding is the Premier has had conversations with the leaders

from Oregon state, from Washington state and from California. There is an

interest in those jurisdictions to move this conversation along. It takes a

little bit more time for those jurisdictions to move as opposed to, say,

here in B.C. It is my great hope that we see those jurisdictions move with

us so that we can see alignment when it comes to the film industry and many

other pieces that we collectively want to advance.

It’s my pleasure to take that moment to stand to support Bill 40 and

the

Interpretation Act. I think we’ll close debate and let the Attorney

General take it from here.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister shall close

debate.

Hon. D. Eby: I did want to note that I was remiss in my opening remarks to

recognize the work of the member for Boundary-Similkameen on this bill, a

commitment of hers for many years. The Premier has a great interest in this

as well.

I want to thank all members for their comments on the bill.

With that, I move second reading.

[2:55 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Farnworth: I see they are leaving the gallery, but there are currently 86

students from Cedar Drive Elementary School in my riding. Cedar Drive is one

of the best elementary schools in the entire province. They’re here with

their teacher, Nadine Darts. I would hope the House will make them all

really welcome.

[3:00 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Second reading of Bill 40 approved on the following

division:

YEAS — 80

Chouhan

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Sims

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Malcolmson

Glumac

Cadieux

de Jong

Bond

Polak

Wilkinson

Lee

Coleman

Wat

Bernier

Thornthwaite

Paton

Ashton

Barnett

Yap

Martin

Davies

Kyllo

Sullivan

Reid

Morris

Stilwell

Ross

Oakes

Johal

Rustad

Milobar

Sturdy

Clovechok

Shypitka

Hunt

Throness

Tegart

Stewart

Sultan

Gibson

Isaacs

Letnick

Thomson

Larson

Foster

NAYS — 3

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 40,

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2019, 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 second reading of Bill 43, Election Amendment

Act.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

BILL 43 — ELECTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be now read a second time.

This legislation acts on the Chief Electoral Officer’s

recommendations for changes to the Election Act and provides the most

significant update to voting administration in more than two

decades.

British Columbia has changed a lot since the act was last repealed

and replaced in 1995. Our population has increased by about 1.2 million

people. Technology has become more affordable and widely available.

Voters are increasingly looking for voting options that provide

flexibility and choice.

In 1996, just under 6 percent of votes were cast at advance

voting. In 2017, 30 percent of voters found it more convenient to vote

on one of the six advance voting days. Between 1996 and 2017, the number

of ballots cast by voters outside of their assigned voting place or

using a mail ballot or voting in a district electoral office increased

by 225 percent.

Voters in B.C. have the benefit of more days of advance voting

than any other province. Also unique to B.C., voting away from your

assigned voting place is allowed at any voting opportunity, including on

election day.

The Chief Electoral Officer’s report from May 2018, with

recommendations for legislative change, is persuasive in making the case

for voting modernization. I will not go into detail and repeat the

evidence that was provided in the report, but it is worth highlighting

that the Chief Electoral Officer states that the procedures for advance

and absentee voting were not designed to handle the volume of voters

using those voting options today.

[3:05 p.m.]

The modernized voting administration model enabled by this bill

enhances the existing voter-centric approach to elections

administration, recognizing that this bill will better facilitate the

many different voting options British Columbians currently

enjoy.

The bill also changes the terminology for referring to the last

day of voting during a campaign period. General voting day may once have

been the day that nearly everyone voted, but that is increasingly not

the case. The bill would change the term “general voting day” to “final

voting day” to practically and symbolically emphasize voting

This bill makes changes to allow Elections B.C. to better serve

voters during the entire voting period and to efficiently handle the

various other voting options. Ultimately, British Columbians can choose

from any one of seven days of voting or choose from a menu of other

options to meet their needs. As an example, this bill removes

restrictions on who may vote by mail or vote in a district electoral

office.

A critically important element of voting modernization is

permitting the use of electronic voting books, ballot printers and

vote-counting equipment. It is important to be clear that this bill

would not permit Internet voting. It would also not permit the use of

electronic voting machines to cast ballots. The bill preserves the

requirement that voters mark a paper ballot, which continues to be an

important measure for transparency and voter confidence.

Instead, the technology allowed by this bill is limited to types

that have been used successfully in other Canadian provincial and local

elections and here in British Columbia for referenda and plebiscites.

What will be different for voters is that once fully implemented by

Elections B.C., the vast majority of voters will see the following

changes of voting opportunities where technology is used.

Voters would line up and be served by the first available election

official, instead of going to an assigned table.

Election officials would search voter registration information

electronically and, for those that need to register, use a computer to

create a voter registration record. Election officials would use the

electronic voting book to record that voters had been given a ballot,

which makes it possible to update the record of voter participation in

real time.

Voters would be given a ballot and be given directions on how to

fill the circle next to their preferred candidate’s name. Voters

attending a voting place other than their assigned voting place would be

given a custom-printed ballot with the candidate names for the correct

electoral district, instead of a write-in ballot.

After marking the ballot, the voter would put it in a secrecy

sleeve and insert the ballot into a vote-counting machine set up on top

of a ballot box. In the event that the ballot marking cannot be read by

the machine, the election official would notify the voter so the voter

can mark a new ballot if the voter wishes to.

Overall, the process will still feel very familiar to voters, but

these changes would greatly improve efficiency while maintaining

integrity and voter service. Perhaps the biggest change for voters is

that the process will be the same regardless of where they vote — at

their assigned voting place, at another voting place within their

electoral district or, indeed, in another electoral district altogether.

The technology will enable a custom-printed ballot and real-time

strike-off in the voting book, so the process for the voter is

simplified, regardless where they vote.

Another benefit of the modernization changes is that the vast

majority of ballots can be counted at the close of voting. This is

because far fewer people will need to vote by the current absentee

ballot procedure, which requires counting at the final count some days

after the polls close.

I should also note that some areas of the province will continue

to vote using the current paper-based process. These will include areas

that are geographically remote, where Internet connectivity is not

reliable and some site-based mobile polls. Overall, Elections B.C.

estimates that around 90 percent of voters in the province will

eventually vote using the updated process.

In acting on the Chief Electoral Officer’s voting modernization

recommendation, this bill will give Elections B.C. the tools they need

to serve voters better and build on our province’s strong tradition of

making voting convenient and accessible for British

Columbians.

I’m pleased to announce that the bill acts on another priority

recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer — the creation of a list

of future voters. The legislation for federal elections adopted last

year establishes a provisional registration concept similar to what is

proposed in this bill. Many other provinces have also adopted similar

measures to improve voter registration rates for young

adults.

In contributing to this national trend towards supporting youth

participation, this bill would allow youth aged 16 and 17 to apply to be

added to the list of future voters. Just like with the actual voter

list, B.C. residents who are already on the federal register of future

electors can be automatically added to B.C.’s list of future voters.

Most importantly, the amendments would result in youth aged 16 and 17 on

the list of future voters being transferred to the voters list so

they’re ready to vote at age 18.

[3:10 p.m.]

In a time of declining voter participation rates, it is critically

important to support youth engagement in our formal democratic process.

Being registered is the first step towards voting and, I hope, towards a

lifelong habit of voting.

The bill would also address the Chief Electoral Officer’s two

other priority recommendations. An up-to-date, accurate voters list

helps serve voters more efficiently. The bill would improve the Chief

Electoral Officer’s ability to maintain the voters list by obtaining

addresses and related information from a provincial identity information

services provider.

The Chief Electoral Officer has had the ability to obtain

information from drivers’ licenses to update voter registration

information for two decades. But this single source of information is

not enough to maintain a fully accurate list, particularly in regard to

current addresses of voters. As an example, currency of non-drivers’

information on the voters list is lower than that of drivers.

As well, the Chief Electoral Officer noted that B.C. has one of

the shortest campaign periods of any Canadian jurisdiction, which is a

challenge when faced with an unscheduled or snap general election. As

requested by the Chief Electoral Officer, the bill would extend the

campaign period for snap elections by between 4 to 10 days as needed to

maintain Saturday as the final voting day in the voting period.

Elections B.C. needs to secure district electoral offices and voting

places, hire and train staff, print ballots, and provide information and

support to the public and to election participants alike.

It is also of interest to political parties and prospective

candidates to have a bit more time to make sure that they get their

nomination papers to Elections B.C. on time so that they are ready to

run. These details are crucial for a well-run election. Again, this

change would apply only to snap general elections, not the regularly

scheduled elections that everyone can prepare for well in advance. Those

campaign periods will remain 28 days long.

The bill also acts on a large number of other Chief Electoral

Officer recommendations, ranging from minor administrative and

housekeeping amendments to more noteworthy policy changes. For example,

nomination contestants would be required to file a financing report,

similar to what a leadership contestant or a candidate files. This will

help to ensure compliance with political contribution limits, which

apply to nomination contestants as well as to political parties and

candidates.

Deposits paid by candidates, as part of their nomination packages

filed with Elections B.C., would be returned when candidates filed their

election financing report, instead of being dependent on obtaining a

certain percentage of the vote in their districts.

The Chief Electoral Officer would be given the authority to issue

a notice to an advertiser, either on on-line platforms such as Facebook

or Google or traditional media, to produce information and records in

order to support the Chief Electoral Officer’s role in upholding the

election advertising rules. The Chief Electoral Officer would also have

the authority to apply to the court for a notice to produce information

and records in support of an examination of a potential contravention of

the act.

My remarks on the content of this bill have been necessarily at a

general level, given the volume of amendments in this bill. I look

forward to canvassing the bill’s provisions more specifically during

committee stage. I’m pleased to provide this legislation for members’

consideration, and I hope they will join me in supporting this

initiative to act on the Chief Electoral Officer’s recommended changes

to the Election Act.

J. Yap: I’m honoured to take my place in the second-reading debate on Bill

43, the Election Amendment Act, 2019. It is timely, just over a week

after Remembrance Day, that we undertake this review and look at

amending the Election Act. Because these processes are so critical to

ensuring that we have the democratic system that British Columbians

enjoy, we need to ensure that these are the best possible systems to

give British Columbians confidence in their election system. I’m pleased

to be able to take

part in today’s debate.

This bill, as mentioned by the Attorney General, reflects the

findings and recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer’s 2018

report. That was in May of 2018, when Dr. Keith Archer, B.C.’s Chief

Electoral Officer at the time, published this report, with

recommendations for this House to consider in looking at amending and

improving B.C.’s election legislation.

[3:15 p.m.]

All of us want the secure, reliable and, obviously, fair elections

that are paramount to our democratic system. We need a system that will

provide that, to not only maintain but strengthen our democracy. As

mentioned by the Attorney General, there are four priority

recommendations that were in the report and that are now going to be

brought into the legislation. I’ll just briefly touch on

them.

The first was the priority to facilitate more participation in the

electoral process, to get more people to vote. It almost seems that with

every election, whether it’s a local government election or the recent

federal election, there is a level of anxiety in communities, in

society, about: will people come out to vote in numbers that should

reflect the fact that we all have the privilege of living in a democracy

and should, as part of our duty as citizens, exercise our right to vote?

Always, in every election, at whatever level of government, it seems to

be a topical issue.

We have seen fluctuation over time in the voter participation

rate. Certainly, in the demographic of younger voters, it has been an

issue of concern for most observers that it would be a good thing for

our province, for society, if more people, and especially younger

people, decided to engage and exercise their right to vote. This bill

will seek to support that by allowing early registration of youth who

are 16 and 17 years of age, to encourage those new voters to become

engaged and, when they turn 18, to exercise their right to

vote.

The other priority that is going to be reflected in this

legislation is the need to provide Elections B.C. with the tools to

continuously and accurately update the voters list. As we heard from the

Attorney General, Elections B.C. does have the ability to do that

currently, through databases, including ICBC. But it’s important that if

there are other avenues for providing the information to keep the voters

list updated, that would be an appropriate thing. This bill will seek to

provide Elections B.C. with the ability to do just that.

We also will see the recognition that as technology advances — we

all face this in communities around the province, the continuous march

of technological change — there’s no reason that our democratic process

should not look at the impact of technology that can help our democratic

system work in a more efficient and effective way.

The minister mentioned that at this time we will not be

considering Internet voting or electronic voting, that it will still be

paper-based. I think it goes without saying that, sure, we want

technological advancement and the best possible technology, but we also

need to ensure that our voting system can be relied upon, can be trusted

and that British Columbians can have confidence in it. As we have heard

anecdotally, in other jurisdictions where there is electronic voting,

where there’s no paper ballot, there have been issues. I think it’s

appropriate that we step carefully into the world of non-paper-based

voting systems.

[3:20 p.m.]

The technology that is being contemplated is really to be able to

generate ballots that look like regular ballots, pre-printed ballots

that voters would be able to use and be able to go to any voting area in

the province. The voter would feel like they are voting as they would

have in the old system at their home voting area or poll. That is one of

the proposals: to use technology.

We can talk about this system. There’s so much that goes into

ensuring that the system works. The minister mentioned about how…. We

would electronically transmit the ballot to create a ballot where the

voter is seeking to vote, and it would feel like they were in his or her

home riding casting the vote. But not every part of the province will

have high-speed Internet and be able to transmit the image so that the

ballot can be printed. So there will be additional systems that would

have to be part of this, including telephone technology to facilitate

this. Overall, this should lead, when it’s fully up and running, to a

more efficient and effective system that voters can embrace and have

confidence in.

The fourth major priority is to look at adding additional days to

the election period, to add them to the writ period, so that we would be

able, should it ever be necessary, to handle a non-scheduled election or

a snap election. That is simply to recognize that with a general

election, there is a huge amount of logistics that has to happen in a

very compressed period of time. The Elections B.C. folks will have to

get organized, to rent space around the province, to hire people, to

train them, to print ballots and to get organized in a very compressed

period of time. I think it is reasonable to expect that if we want to

have an election system that runs in an efficient way, in an effective

way, in a cost-effective way to taxpayers, it probably makes sense to

consider adding to the election period.

From our initial review, the bill does not depart from the report

of Dr. Archer. It is basically a reflection of the recommendations, not

just of the major priorities — those four priorities that I referred to

— but in the other areas that were referred to and that the minister had

touched on. I’m pleased to see that the hard work of the Chief Electoral

Officer has been honoured and that the government has responded with

bringing forward this bill. Our democratic processes need to be

continually improved to meet new challenges, such as what we had

mentioned earlier — voter engagement — and to benefit from new

opportunities, including the advance of technology.

I mentioned that the Chief Electoral Officer will, with this bill,

have enhanced access to voter data to ensure that the voters list can be

as accurate as possible and as up-to-date as possible. The Chief

Electoral Officer will be able to list future voters by pre-registering

16- to 17-year-olds. This is something that is already happening in

other jurisdictions. As mentioned, with the federal voters list, that is

already the case.

This will be of great interest to those members and future

candidates who are in areas with higher-density residential areas. It

will put into the act the requirement that those voters living in strata

title properties would have to give reasonable access to candidates and

their representatives who might want to access strata properties to be

able to canvass and spread communications and look for

support.

[3:25 p.m.]

I’m sure that all members who live in, perhaps, more urban areas,

where there are a lot of strata properties, will find this to be a good

change that is being considered.

The amendments to the act will also bring nomination contests into

the financial reporting that’s required of successful candidates and of

leadership candidates. So where there is a nominations contest at an

electoral district, the unsuccessful candidates will need to provide

financial reporting, which will be a new requirement.

There also will be changes with this act to require third-party

advertising reporting. Third parties that spend $500 or more in

advertising — that is, political messaging — will be required, in this

act, to provide a report so that their involvement is

disclosed.

Now, just a few more comments. I mentioned earlier about the

technology that will be used. Well, some of the technology, actually, is

familiar to many British Columbians who vote in municipal elections,

local government elections. A machine, which is the scanner, will read

the ballot that had been filled in by the voter. That is not really

brand-new technology. It’s existing technology. But with the provincial

election, the amendment act will allow counting machines to read the

ballots. Obviously, that would lead to a more efficient, faster count,

and results would be known a lot quicker and in a way that will save

taxpayers in terms of the time cost and the salary cost, which the

current manual system requires.

In the report, Elections B.C. had done a cost-benefit analysis,

which, I was intrigued to see, shows a projected savings to the province

if we go, with this amendment act, to this new world of using technology

and the changes proposed. We’ll certainly be looking forward to those

savings hopefully being achieved in due course.

One of the aspects of this act will be the transfer of a lot of

the responsibility and decision-making power away from regulations and

into the hands of the Chief Electoral Officer. We’ll look forward to the

opportunity to discuss this, to canvass this in committee stage debate

as we go through the bill. But generally, on behalf of this side of the

House, we’re pleased to see the government take the report of the Chief

Electoral Officer and that the government has come forward with Bill 43.

We look forward to further canvassing, in detail, this bill at committee

stage.

With that, I’ll take my place.

S. Furstenau: I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill 43, the

Election Amendment Act. I think that this is a step that…. We’re seeing

our province moving into the 21st century in a lot of ways with

electronic tabulators, which have been operating at the local level for

a long time. The province has been a bit slow to the uptake on that. So

it’s great to see the modernization of these rules that will help reduce

barriers to voting.

It’s interesting. My first election was actually at the local

level. Electronic tabulators were used for that election but not for the

election at the MLA level.

[3:30 p.m.]

I’m also happy to see the commonsense changes introduced, such as

extending campaign periods during snap elections; updating voters lists

with the same data that the Ministry of Citizens’ Services uses; and

also some language changes which are welcome additions to this bill,

that make elections more self-explanatory and commonsense, in terms of

the language.

What I’d like to focus on is the aspect of this bill that moves to

see registration of voters at 16 years old. We are, as a caucus, very

supportive of this. Of course, it’s well known that we’re also very

supportive of the next step, which would be to extend the vote to

16-year-olds in British Columbia.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I just want to speak a little bit about a student in my riding. He

was a grade 8 student in 2018 at Quamichan. At 14 years old, Simon

Minkow collected 400 signatures asking the government to lower the

voting age in B.C. to 16. Simon did a great job of pointing out that

other jurisdictions have already done this, including Brazil in 1988,

Austria in 2010, Argentina in 2012 and, most recently, Scotland in

As the most recent example, Scotland is interesting for us to look

at, because before the voting age was lowered to 16 in Scotland, only

about a third of the citizens of Scotland approved of the notion of

allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in the election. However, after

the first election in which 16- and 17-year-olds were able to vote, the

support in Scotland amongst the general population to maintain the vote

for 16-year-olds rose to 60 percent. That was a doubling of the support

in Scotland after one election where 16- and 17-year-olds were able to

vote.

This reinforces what we know from research about youth voting,

which is that the younger you are when you vote in your first election,

the more likely you are to be a participant in future elections. Young

voters turn into lifetime voters. Having the opportunity to ensure that

while students are still in high school, there is the opportunity not

just for registration — and I applaud the government for moving to this

step — but the opportunity for students to learn about what it means to

vote in their first election….

I’m a high school teacher, and most of my students couldn’t vote.

Some of them would have turned 18 just in time for elections, so they

did vote. But as a teacher, I took this responsibility very seriously. I

would invite all of the candidates into my classroom so that my students

could meet those candidates, could get information about the party

platforms, could learn about what was happening in their ridings and

what the issues were that were being debated in the election. Then they

would do research, and they would come to their own decisions about how

they would vote if they could — or, in the case of some of the

18-year-olds, they would go out and vote on election day.

That engagement at that very early age means that we’ve just

established a lifelong habit that when election time comes, you become

an engaged citizen. You participate in your democracy, and a democracy

only matters if there’s participation in it. Anything that we can do to

increase engagement, to increase participation in democracy and

particularly to engage youth in our democracy, I think, is absolutely

essential in our role here as legislators.

I also want to point out…. If you look at the movements in the

last few years, there are two in particular that I’d like to point to.

One is after the Parkland shootings in the United States. The youth from

that school mobilized literally millions of people in the United States

to rise up and demand that there be better legislation on gun control in

the United States. They were able to bring that issue to the forefront

and to lay it out starkly and clearly for the important issue that it

is, unlike any other group or any other demographic in the United

States.

Then we have the youth climate strikers. Inspired just over a year

ago by one teenage girl, this has turned into a movement of millions of

youth around the world who are calling on all of the decision-makers,

including us, around the world to make decisions that put them and their

well-being at the centre of our decision-making.

[3:35 p.m.]

They have mobilized a movement on climate action unsurpassed by

any other time in history. These have been youth under the age of 18,

for the most part. They have inspired not only other youth; they’ve

inspired older youth in their 20s and 30s. They’ve inspired all of us.

They’ve inspired their grandparents.

This is an example of what engagement in the world around looks

like in these incredible youth. So the notion that it would be too risky

to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote…. I think that myth has been laid

bare very clearly in the last few years. All we have to do is recognize

the extraordinary achievements of 16- and 17-year-olds around the world

in moving political issues to the forefront of an agenda that adults in

their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s had not managed to put

at the forefront of the agenda where they belonged.

I would say that young people like Simon Minkow are the rule, not

the exception. If we spend time listening and recognizing the incredible

value and perspective that young people have, we would recognize that

extending the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds is a logical step for us to

take. I hope that this is, indeed, a first step that we’re going to see

from the government and that it will culminate in the next and proper

step, which is to extend the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds.

I’m delighted at the changes that we’re seeing. Our caucus is in

support of this bill, and I look forward to the next amendment act on

the elections.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney is now to close the

debate.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to all members for their comments on this important

legislation for British Columbians and certainly to the House Leader for

the Third Party for her comments about youth participation.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 43, Election Amendment Act, 2019, 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. C. James: I will call committee stage for Bill 37, Financial

Institutions Amendment Act.

Deputy Speaker: The House will be in recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 3:38 p.m. to 3:46 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 37 — FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 37;

R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 3:46 p.m.

section 1.

S. Bond: We’re pleased to be able to take some time with the minister and

her staff to walk through the committee stage of Bill 37, some

amendments to the Financial Institutions Act. I think we had a

constructive discussion during second reading, which I always

appreciate, with the minister.

My co-critic and I intend to walk through a variety of sections.

I’m wondering if the minister — and she’s usually very good about this —

would mind if, at this point, we just asked a couple of general

questions about the consultation process before we get into the

technical nature of the bill. I see her nodding, and we very much

appreciate that.

Can the minister just confirm and outline for us the consultation

process that was undertaken with stakeholders prior to the legislation?

We did talk yesterday a little bit about how it started and has actually

crossed two governments. So we were very pleased to see that work

continue.

So perhaps a little bit of the context and if anything changed

between the 2015 consultation process and what happened as it worked its

way through what is, essentially, phase 2.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I’ll start off, as I often do, by introducing staff who I have

here with me today: Tara Richards, who’s our assistant deputy minister

in the policy and legislation division; Kari Toovey, director of the

financial and corporate sector policy branch; and Sally Reid who is the

senior policy adviser for the financial and corporate sector policy

branch.

As the member suggested, we had a good discussion at second

reading to talk about, in fact, the importance of work that happens

between governments — work that needs to continue on and consultations

that have occurred. I think this is one of those examples of continued

good government, which was…. The consultation paper, as the member has

said, was released in 2015 — out for consultation, out for feedback.

Then the consultation feedback was released. There was a paper released

on the consultation feedback.

There were more in-person consultations and more discussions on

the feedback that had been received. Then a 2018 paper was released with

recommendations — again, more feedback and more follow-up. Usually that

would have then been released — the consultation document from 2018

would have been released — but the stakeholders were pushing for

legislation. They wanted the legislation to come in. They felt there had

been a good discussion between 2015 on. So the feedback and follow-up

then led to the drafting of the legislation and the legislation to be

introduced.

The member asked: was there any change in the kinds of groups and

organizations? No. In fact, it was about the same kind of people who

were giving feedback and consultation. Obviously, all the sectors

involved in this bill were part of that consultation.

S. Bond: Thanks for that answer. We appreciate it.

The other piece that was, I think, handled slightly differently….

After the first round of consultation, the feedback that was provided

was published. It was made public. I know that after phase 2, it doesn’t

appear that the input that was received was made public. Maybe the

minister could just provide us with her rationale. I think that

certainly the minister has argued, and we would agree, that transparency

is very critical. We’d just be interested in the minister’s thinking

about why that information wasn’t made public.

Secondly, if there were any…. As I noted yesterday in my remarks,

and my colleague’s also…. My co-critic mentioned that credit unions, in

particular, have been very invested in this discussion, from 2014

onward, and have done some excellent work in bringing forward ideas.

Were there any major shifts in what would have been heard in phase 1,

let’s call it, 2014-15, and then the phase that was certainly undertaken

by the new government when they continued the process? Any major shifts

in thinking from either the credit unions or the insurance groups

related to the feedback that they provided?

Hon. C. James: Sorry, I should have made it clearer. That’s the mention I made

about wanting to move to legislation — was the reason that the feedback

was released. Because it was 2018 by the time the consultation paper….

Then we moved into 2019, and we got the legislation in place. We

certainly can release…. I’m happy to share the consultation that

happened. I’m happy to share those documents. But it was a matter of

timing and getting the legislation on board, which is what people were

looking at.

There weren’t any major shifts in the kind of discussion that was

occurring. There was some discussion around deposit insurance that

happened with credit unions around what was happening at the federal

level, what was happening at the provincial level and what was

necessary. But for the most part, it was the same kind of feedback

received.

S. Bond: Before we move on to

section 1 in the

definitions section, which

my colleague will cover, I think it’s fair to say that there certainly

looked to be consistency between what we saw in the 2014-2015

information and the feedback that we received.

[3:55 p.m.]

Would the minister characterize the overarching response from

either insurance groups or from credit unions as generally positive,

with one or two suggestions for adjustments to the bill? Certainly,

that’s our impression of it. Would the minister confirm that that’s how

she and the ministry feel about that?

Hon. C. James: I think that’s a good description. Certainly, there was positive

feedback. People were pleased, for the most part, for the changes that

were being made, and they were, in fact, things that they’ve been asking

for from the beginning.

S. Cadieux: These amendments in

section 1 in the

definitions certainly seem to

streamline the framework for extra­provincial credit unions. But,

as we know, there are no provinces at this point with reciprocal

frameworks.

Has the minister done any work with regard to advancing those

frameworks for extraprovincial reciprocity?

Hon. C. James: I think I’d describe this, perhaps, as an easy, straightforward

way to describe proactive work.

Other provinces haven’t expressed interest. We certainly reached

out, but other provinces haven’t expressed interest. But from our

perspective, putting in the extraprovincial credit union reciprocity

agreement gives us the opportunity, if another province was interested.

There is now a federal framework, so it may make this not necessary.

People may want to utilize the federal framework. But we saw it as

proactive work.

I think B.C., as we talked about in second reading, really has

been a leader when it comes to credit unions. We have a large number of

credit unions so we felt that it was good to get this work done. But at

this point, other provinces haven’t expressed interest.

S. Cadieux: Given the prospect — and certainly, the work seems to be underway

for credit unions expanding — what are the minister’s expectations

regarding the growth and scope of practice of B.C. credit unions

specifically?

Hon. C. James: I think we have the structure in place. Coast Capital, as the

member will know, led the way in some ways as wanting to look at the

federal infrastructure as well.

We have put in place requirements, though there’s a structure

through the regulator, a structure that people have to follow if they’re

looking at the federal area. There are requirements around voting for

members. I think the democratic process within a credit union is very

clear, and it’s often why people are members of credit unions. There is,

again, a very clear structure to be followed around a vote to be able to

look at expansion.

[4:00 p.m.]

We haven’t, at this point, had other credit unions come forward to

express that interest. But because we’ve seen one move ahead, I think it

is possible and it is important for us to be able to have those

regulatory structures in place, so there is a clear process that has to

occur if someone else does express interest.

S. Cadieux: When we see these first movers with the size of the institutions

in British Columbia already, it is likely that we’ll see others move for

competitive reasons, as well, over time. But I appreciate the

answer.

Moving on, in subsection (b), in (

b) the non-equity shares appear

to be phased out from the definition of “depositor” in 2020. Can the

minister explain this process and how it will impact

depositors?

Hon. C. James: Non-equity shares, which have been offered by credit unions, are

really a part of the past in many respects. They were used before life

insurance products became very common on the market. Credit unions don’t

issue them anymore. They’re no longer eligible. They don’t offer them,

but we recognize that there needs to be a period of windup because there

may still be non-equity shares out there, so we want to make sure that

those are covered. Non-equity shares won’t be included after January

Again, they haven’t issued them for years, so it’s not really a

change in that respect, but we will ensure, through this, that the

existing shares are covered. It tends to be older clients of credit

unions who may still have those shares, and we want to make sure that

there’s not a gap there for those individuals.

S. Cadieux: Do we have an estimate on the number of depositors that non-equity

shares would affect at this point in time, and the windup will

affect?

Hon. C. James: We don’t have a specific number, but the credit unions’ feedback

is that it’s very, very small — that’s how they’re describing it —

because they haven’t been issuing them for years. But they still expect

that there are a few out there, and we want to make sure those people

are covered.

S. Cadieux: Per subsection (c), societies will now qualify, I believe, as

insurance companies, but extraprovincial non-share corporations do not.

Can the minister explain the operational difference between the changes

and what delineates the two types of entities?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: This section, or this definition, talks about two different kinds

of societies that provide insurance. I’ll just walk through the history.

I think that’s the easiest piece.

Pre-1991, they were called grandfathered societies, and those are

societies that are exempt from most of the provisions that are in the

act. Those are small societies, like sports associations, and they will

continue to provide insurance. They’ll continue to be exempt. They’re

small organizations, and they would be considered grandfathered

societies.

Then there’s a second type of society called deemed business

authorization societies. Those societies are deemed under the act, and

the provisions in the act apply to them. What this change does is

basically say there’s no requirement for them to be deemed under the

act. They will be called insurance providers, and all provisions will

apply to them. There are some sections that give them the opportunity to

request to be exempt from a part of the act, but otherwise, all

provisions in the act would apply to them.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

S. Bond: This

section talks about false representation in the use of names

and words.

I’m wondering if the minister can give us a sense of whether or

not she anticipates there are going to be any changes to the way that

the enforcement is done. We’re looking at a broader scope here, and

we’re wondering whether or not there would be additional resources or

whether the enforcement pattern would somehow be changed or

enhanced.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: This

section just, in fact, puts back the use of terminology that

was inadvertently removed in 2012. So it corrects that.

It doesn’t actually expand the provisions in this piece. They are

also under

section 252. They already exist. What this does is make it

easier for the regulator. It defines it. They were there before, in

2012. They’re put back in now, in this section, to make it easier for

the regulator to enforce. That’s what this

section is about.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

S. Bond: Can the minister provide, in

section 5, what the rationale for the

section is and, perhaps, in that description, let us know if this

affects the operations of the FSA in any way?

Hon. C. James: This really is about a more efficient operation and more

efficiencies throughout the authority. It allows information, personal

information that people are providing, to be shared with the

superintendent rather than the authority itself. That just provides, as

I said, some administrative efficiencies within the

organization.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. So does this allow for the

superintendent to delegate the reception of information under this

section?

Hon. C. James: The act actually requires the information to be submitted to the

superintendent. So it’s not a delegation piece. It actually requires

that through this section.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

[4:15 p.m.]

S. Bond: Can the minister explain what their reason was for adding this

provision? Did something occur? Were there circumstances that led to the

addition of the discussion around the Supreme Court and the ability to

basically deal with a dissolution by a court order? Did something lead

to the addition of that provision? Or why was it added?

Hon. C. James: This language is added, consistent with Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Basically, nothing has occurred here in B.C. that would cause us to

bring it forward, but we wanted to make sure we were consistent with the

other provinces. It’s simply looking at laying out the specifics for the

court to look at, and it mirrors the language in Alberta and

Saskatchewan.

S. Bond: If we’ve looked at other jurisdictions…. I’m not sure if we would

know this for British Columbia. Do we have a sense of how many inactive

companies require court-ordered dissolution that have not yet dissolved?

How big a challenge is this? Do we know what the situation is in B.C.?

Have we looked at what the trends would have been in other

jurisdictions?

Hon. C. James: We certainly believe that the issue is not unique in any of the

provinces. In fact, they’re all in the same kind of place, of having

this be a very, very rare occurrence. It’s so rare that we don’t contain

annual numbers because it doesn’t happen annually. It’s a rare

occurrence, and we believe that’s pretty common across the

provinces.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

S. Bond: This deals with provisional liquidation. Could the minister

describe for us whether or not this process is different from the

current system and, if it is, give us some sense of what that might look

like and why changes would have been necessary?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: This is a new provision. This provision just gives the authority

tools to intervene more quickly. This is, again, a kind of consumer

protection, an ability to protect policyholders. This provision is very

similar to the provisions — again, as the previous one we talked about —

in Alberta and Saskatchewan as well.

S. Bond: When the discussions took place with the credit unions and other

organizations, was there any feedback about the addition of this

particular new provision?

Hon. C. James: This provision mainly applies to insurance companies. There are

already structures in place for credit unions. So it’s mainly insurance

companies that are impacted by this. And the insurance companies were

comfortable with this provision because, again, it mirrors the work they

do in other provinces and the clauses in other provinces as

well.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

S. Bond: In

section 8…. This establishes a shorter process for amending

financial institutions’ business authorization. Typically, we appreciate

shorter processes, but perhaps the minister can advise how this makes

the process shorter in terms of the existing practice. So maybe give us

a sense of what that looks like in terms of shortening the length of

time for that financial institution’s business authorization, for making

an amendment.

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: This is a piece that I think is welcome because it’s about

reducing burden and reducing cost to financial institutions. Currently

they have to apply for new business authorization for any change. They

have to pay the full application fee of $2,500 and go through the

process. That then has to be reviewed by the authorities. So they have

to go through that process.

What this will allow is that the authority can actually issue a

business authorization change as long as they meet the criteria. It

doesn’t soften any of the criteria that is still required to make sure

that all of the policy is followed, but it allows the authority to do

that, which reduces the burden, and they wouldn’t have to pay the

fee.

S. Bond: Just, then, to reiterate what the minister has said, it allows

them to immediately and independently issue that business authorization,

and it reduces the cost in order to do that.

Hon. C. James: The member is correct. They would still have to make an

application, but the authority then could go through the process, rather

than them having to go through the process of a new fee each time that

they put in for the business authorization.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

S. Cadieux: This

section deals with capital liquidity requirements for the

institutions themselves.

Can the minister explain how this

section would apply differently

between a larger institution, say a Vancity, and a smaller institution

like Kootenay Savings? Will there be flexibility, and how will that be

built in?

Hon. C. James: This, as the member knows, provides rule-making for the authority.

What it provides through rule-making is the flexibility. Exactly as the

member has described, there are different-sized credit unions. There are

different requirements. So this will provide the authority with the

ability to use a range of numbers, for example, which again can be

applied depending on the size and depending on the unique circumstances

of each individual credit union. So, yes, this does provide that ability

through rule-making for the authority.

S. Cadieux: I would assume, then, that with the flexibility of the

regulation-making authority we’re giving, that that should give the

institutions some comfort that there will be the ability to know ahead

of time what the expectations are for a credit union of their size and

let them discern from that what the expectations are for them in

managing their business, and these things are not going to be something

that is flexible on a regular basis. They’re going to be able to plan

and manage in relation to that.

Can the minister confirm, then, that assuming criteria (

a) through

(

d) is met in (2.1), that the institution is free to do business

otherwise, then, without interfer