2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, May 11, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 26, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

Castlegar Sculpturewalk

K. Conroy

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M217 — Honouring Our Military Act, 2015

M. Karagianis

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Response to earthquake in Nepal

S. Gibson

Pat Bay Highway visitor information centre

G. Holman

Chilliwack Sports Hall of Fame

J. Martin

Child care providers

M. Karagianis

Anaerobic digester project in Delta

S. Hamilton

Federation of B.C. Naturalists

S. Chandra Herbert

Oral Questions

Use of agricultural land for carbon offsets

J. Horgan

Hon. N. Letnick

L. Popham

V. Huntington

B.C. Hydro management and information technology plan

A. Dix

Hon. B. Bennett

C. James

Permit for soil dumping in Shawnigan Lake watershed

B. Routley

Hon. M. Polak

Conservation officer service

S. Chandra Herbert

Hon. M. Polak

Motions Without Notice

Committee of Supply to sit in three sections

Hon. M. de Jong

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Election Amendment Act, 2015 (continued)

M. Farnworth

Moira Stilwell

C. Trevena

A. Weaver

G. Heyman

M. Elmore

R. Fleming

S. Simpson

V. Huntington

N. Macdonald

S. Hammell

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Justice (continued)

B. Ralston

Hon. S. Anton

H. Bains

M. Karagianis

B. Routley

L. Krog

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health

Hon. T. Lake

J. Darcy

[ Page 8243 ]

MONDAY, MAY 11, 2015

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Fassbender: It’s my real pleasure to rise in the House today to welcome a visiting delegation from the Bavarian state legislature, who are with us. The members of the presiding council joining us in the gallery this afternoon are the hon. Barbara Stamm, the Speaker; the hon. Reinhold Bocklet; hon. Peter Myer; Ulricke Gote; hon. Prof. Dr. Peter Paul Gantzer; hon. Hans Herold; hon. Angelika Schorer; hon. Reserl Sem; and the hon. Sylvia Stierstorfer.

With them are a number of other officials. They met with various members of the legislative precinct today, and they’re in the gallery to observe how we do it here in British Columbia. I would ask all of the members of the House to join me in giving our guests a herzlich willkommen .

L. Krog: On behalf of the official opposition, I would like to join in welcoming our German visitors and guests. They prove with their intelligent conversation and their charm and wit why public education has been such a great success in Germany. They demonstrate it in great quantity.

I want all the members to again join in welcoming them here. Hopefully, this will be the first of many other visits and exchanges between our respective legislatures.

Hon. S. Anton: In July 1943 a young Saskatchewan man did what many young Saskatchewan men did at that time. He joined the navy. After training, he spent the next 18 or so months as a radio operator on the minesweeper HMCS Oshawa in that treacherous endeavour of escorting convoys across the Atlantic.

Seventy years ago, on the 8th of May, 1945, the Oshawa was in Halifax when Victory in Europe Day was declared. Their orders were to stay in port because of trouble in the city, the Halifax Riots. Well, no riot on the Oshawa, but I gather the fellas found some supplies and had a pretty good celebration of their own.

On the 11th of May, 1945, exactly 70 years ago today, the HMCS Oshawa took the surrender of one of the vessels which had so tormented the allies all those long years of the Battle of the Atlantic — U-boat 889.

[1335]

That young man from Saskatchewan is with us today. He is joined by his son, my husband of 35 years, Olin Anton, and he is also joined by a proud family tuned in from across the country.

Would the House please thank him for his service and make welcome Battle of the Atlantic veteran and my father-in-law, Mr. Clifford Anton.

M. Karagianis: It’s very timely that I would make my introduction just after the minister. I am very pleased today to welcome a number of visitors here in the gallery from the Esquimalt Legion. Bernie MacLean, our branch president, is an army veteran who served in the Cold War with operational services in Europe. He is joined by his partner Barb McFarland.

Doug Grant, branch manager, who served in the Cold War with operational service in the high seas, is joined by his partner, Sylvia Vink. Bob Haldane, branch first president, a naval veteran who served in the Cold War with operational service on the high seas — he’s a recipient of the Minister of Veteran Affairs Commendation for his work at the candlelight vigil at God’s Acre in the Esquimalt Veterans Cemetery.

Jim MacMillan-Murphy, our branch second vice-president, airborne veteran, served in the Cold War and as a peacekeeper with operational services in Cyprus and the Golan Heights and is a recent recipient of the Minister of Veteran Affairs commendation for veteran advocate work with veterans — also joined by his partner, Karen MacMillan-Murphy. Ken Irvine is the branch service officer, army veteran with operational service in the Second World War.

Neil Townsend, branch office staff, airborne veteran with operational service in the Cold War, as a peacekeeper in Cyprus — a long-service veteran who was awarded the Order of Military Merit, a degree of member, and the command commendation for his leadership to the Canadian Armed forces — is joined by his wife, Catherine Townsend.

They are here today to pay witness to a bill that I’m going to be introducing shortly, but I know them all well. They are wonderful people in our community, and all of them are heroic individuals and veterans. Please give them the very warmest welcome.

Hon. A. Virk: It’s my pleasure to introduce to you today in the House three individuals within my community in Surrey who have a passion for history. With us are Steven Purewal, Paul Mann and Manjinder Sidhu, who are visiting the Legislature today, along with their historical display titled Duty, Honour and Izzat.

The display shows the contribution of the British Indian Army and their contribution to Allied forces in World War I. It is especially important on the occasion of the centennial of the writing of In Flanders Fields , where the Indian Army fought side by side with Canadians.

I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the House to go and take a look at the display. It’ll be up until the end of the day. Will everyone join me in welcoming Steven, Paul and Manjinder to the House.

[ Page 8244 ]

D. Horne: Each spring session the Legislature hosts ten recent university graduates as interns. In the gallery today, joining the familiar faces of our current 2014 interns, are six of the incoming interns for 2016. Would the members welcome Sharday Bouquette from Simon Fraser University; and Heather Clifford, Jamie Cooke, Robert Hill, David McCauley, Michael MacDonald from the University of Victoria.

I’d say to the interns who are joining us here for question period that if today is a raucous occasion, that’s not normal. It usually is a very polite affair, but given the fact that we have two more weeks, it seems to get more outrageous each day.

I hope that each of the members will make them truly welcome.

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce the parents of our intern Sarah Marriott and more importantly, my constituents — Michael Marriott and Martha Stein-Marriott. They’re also joined by Sarah’s cousin Nancy Newman. Please join me to give them a very warm welcome.

P. Pimm: I would like to introduce John Turner, Jeff Beale, Doug Boyd, who are in the gallery today representing Northern Opportunities. Northern Opportunities is a very successful model demonstrating the power of partnerships, involving industry, school districts of the Peace River North and South and Fort Nelson, Northern Lights College, BCIT and First Nations.

[1340]

To date they’ve assisted over 2,000 secondary students from communities in northeastern B.C. by providing seamless transitions into career pathways. I’d like to ask the members of the House to please join me in welcoming them to the House and encourage them in continuing their efforts providing opportunities for students and assisting their development of a highly skilled workforce.

They’re here today trying to find additional funding opportunities to keep this very successful program as successful as it has been in the past. Please help me welcome them.

Statements

CASTLEGAR SCULPTUREWALK

K. Conroy: I want to introduce everyone to the sculpture capital of Canada. And you might ask: where is that? Well, it’s in Castlegar, B.C., where on Saturday they kicked off the sixth year of Sculpturewalk.

This year there are 31 amazing sculptures from artists around the world, including Cuba, Australia, Iran, 11 from the U.S. and 17 from Canada — 15 of those from B.C. You can also go on sculpturewalkcastlegar.com and see the beautiful pictures.

Since its inception, every year the community has voted on the best one. The city, along with a number of sponsors, has purchased the sculpture, and it’s been installed permanently in the city.

Businesses have also bought sculptures and installed them. Also, neighbouring communities have gotten involved and are buying sculptures and are also supporting the whole endeavour. One can travel throughout the entire West Kootenays and see first-class art.

Congratulations to all involved, and please take the time and come and visit the sculpture capital of Canada — Castlegar, B.C.

Introductions by Members

J. Thornthwaite: I’d like to introduce a constituent of mine, Shaun Hollingsworth, who is the Canadian chair of the Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission. In addition to meeting with me, he met with the Minister of Energy and Mines, the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. I thank them for meeting with him. He’s a great guy, and I’d like the gallery to welcome him to Victoria.

B. Ralston: I, too, would like to join the Minister of Technology in welcoming our guests who are here in conjunction with the display on the history of Sikh veterans in the British Army. It’s a little-known part of history. There are many descendants of those Sikh officers and soldiers who emigrated to Canada and are among us in our communities here in British Columbia today. It’s a story well worth reviewing, and I commend it to all members of the Legislature.

Hon. S. Anton: I’d like to introduce a constituent of mine, well known to many in this house, Mr. Daljit Sidhu, longtime president of the Punjabi Market Association, here to see the Sikh exhibit, the Indian Army exhibit — and also a member of the insurance industry, which works very closely with government on matters relating to emergency management.

I’d like the House to make Mr. Daljit Sidhu welcome.

Hon. B. Bennett: There are several people here today from the Christian Labour Association of Canada somewhere in the gallery. I know they’re there.

I’m going to list the workers before the officials. Dave Fuoco is here from Peter Kiewit Infrastructure. He’s an operator. Karen Brimner is here. She is a lane tech, TCP. Joshua Sinclair is in the gallery. He works with Flatiron, and he’s a carpenter. T.J. Hatton is with Maple Reinders. He’s an ironworker.

The officials from CLAC are David Prentice, the B.C. provincial director; Ryan Bruce, membership development, government relations; Larry Richardson, direc-

[ Page 8245 ]

tor of training; Rob Schmidt, regional director; Kevin Kohut, provincial construction and mining coordinator; Tony van Hengel, provincial health care manufacturing and service coordinator; Paul de Jong, president of PCA; Darrel Reid, associate VP, PCA; Mike Martens, director of public affairs, western Canada PCA.

Please help me make all these folks welcome.

Moira Stilwell: I, too, would like to welcome my constituent, Mr. Daljit Sidhu, to the House today. He is one of many community-minded merchants who have established and supported the Punjabi Market in my riding for many, many years. I want to thank him for all the work that he’s done.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M217 — HONOURING OUR

MILITARY ACT, 2015

M. Karagianis presented a bill intituled Honouring Our Military Act, 2015.

M. Karagianis: I move introduction of the Honouring Our Military Act for first reading now.

Motion approved.

[1345]

M. Karagianis: As the MLA for Esquimalt–Royal Roads, I am very proud to introduce the Honouring Our Military Act.

This bill will create a provincial honour, the military service pin. It will recognize men and women who have served in wartime, dangerous peacekeeping missions and in domestic operations here in British Columbia, in Canada and abroad. This military service honour will recognize individuals from our province who have made tremendous sacrifices to represent Canada, to defend our cornerstone principles of democracy, freedom, peace and justice.

Qualifying recipients will have been based in British Columbia to protect our borders or to have been a British Columbian resident who has protected and served our country and our province abroad. They would be retired or current members of the regular and reserved army forces. Honourees would receive a certificate signed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and a lapel pin intended to be worn on civilian clothing so that we might recognize those who serve when they are not in uniform.

With this act, British Columbia would join with other parts of our country that have enacted such legislation. This honour was first introduced in Saskatchewan and has since been adopted in Ontario as well.

As the MLA for a community with a long and rich military history, it gives me great pride to table this bill today. The military service pin will symbolize the gratitude of the Crown and the people of British Columbia for our service men and women who have served with honour and valour.

I move that this bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M217, Honouring Our Military Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

RESPONSE TO EARTHQUAKE IN NEPAL

S. Gibson: I am certain that all members of the House will join me in congratulating Canadian disaster relief workers who recently travelled to Nepal to help save lives following the worst earthquake in 80 years to hit that country. The 7.8 magnitude quake killed more than 8,000 people, injured thousands and left countless more missing.

A team of 20 firefighters from Burnaby in my own riding of Abbotsford-Mission joined the efforts to find survivors following that tragic event. The call for volunteers was spearheaded by retired Burnaby firefighter, Mark Pullin, a member of the B.C. disaster dog society, who was joined by two firefighters from Mission, each with their own rescue dog.

These are highly specialized dogs. They assist rescuers by locating people trapped under the rubble. The dog will bark, scratch the sound and wag their tail if they find somebody alive. If somebody is deceased, they will lie down and cry. I understand this kind of work impacts the dog psychologically just as much as it does the handlers.

Our government is providing the Canadian Red Cross with funding to support emergency disaster relief efforts in Nepal. British Columbia’s $300,000 donation will provide urgently needed assistance to communities throughout the country’s worst-hit areas to help support search and rescue, food distribution and aid, such as blankets, hygiene kits and sleeping mats.

Customers of B.C. Liquor Stores can donate to the Red Cross earthquake relief efforts for Nepal at any of the 196 B.C. Liquor Stores throughout the province until June 6, 2015.

PAT BAY HIGHWAY

VISITOR INFORMATION CENTRE

G. Holman: On behalf of the Saanich Peninsula business community, I want to announce the re-opening of the Pat Bay Highway visitor centre this Friday, May 15.

[ Page 8246 ]

The centre will showcase the truly unique rural landscape, the walking and cycling trails, the parks and beaches of the Saanich Peninsula, as well as the venues like the butterfly gardens, Shaw Ocean Discovery Centre, world-famous Butchart Gardens, the Aviation Museum and a great mix of retail stores and restaurants — too many attractions to mention here.

The visitor centre is well placed, just north of Sidney on the Pat Bay Highway, to welcome ferry travellers to south Vancouver Island. The staff and volunteers at the centre will have conversations with tens of thousands of these visitors — yes, despite it all, there are still a few ferry travellers to south Vancouver Island — and encourage them to enjoy the amenities and attractions of the south Island.

[1350]

The Peninsula chamber is working to enhance the appeal and viability of the information centre and have even relocated their office to this site. This will improve the viability of the centre and allow it to move from a seasonal operation to a full-year service that is particularly important in the shoulder and off-seasons for local businesses.

Hats off to the Peninsula chamber board, its president Ian Brown, the executive director, Denny Warner, for their determination and resourcefulness in revitalizing the information centre and, of course, to all those volunteers who work so hard to welcome visitors to the Island.

I hope that members of this House will find an opportunity to visit the Pat Bay information centre. You will have to get in that right-hand lane, and some of you may have to slow down to make that turnoff, but I promise your visit will be worthwhile.

I hope both sides of the House will recognize that the Pat Bay visitor centre is an important gateway to south Vancouver Island and support the centre and our local businesses accordingly.

CHILLIWACK SPORTS HALL OF FAME

J. Martin: As we know, every community in this great province has a rich sporting history and a fervent local team spirit. A few years ago a small group of volunteers assembled to establish the Chilliwack Sports Hall of Fame, a time and place to recognize those Chilliwack athletes, teams and coaches who have left such a memorable legacy.

Inspired by the display in Delta, then president, the late Judy Fitzsimmons, got to work bringing together Chilliwack sports organizations, media, sponsors and community partners. Glen Ringdal and the Chilliwack Chiefs were eager to support the initiative. Working with Barry Douglas, the hall of fame was established on the concourse in Chilliwack’s Prospera Centre.

The goal of the hall’s board is to preserve the legacy of present-day athletes while reminding residents of the heroes of yesteryear. The first two hall of fame induction ceremonies have included honourees such as the former B.C. Lions defensive linesman Rick Klassen, the Canadian Armed Forces 3-Field Squadron, Olympic hockey player Dave Archibald, long-time high school basketball coach Joe Ogmundson and the Turbo junior baseball team, who qualify for five straight national championships.

I’m so proud of the partnership that current hall of fame president Eric Welsh and his board have formed with the Chilliwack Museum and Archives. Through this work, the Chilliwack Sports Hall of Fame is inspiring many new young athletes to take up sport and develop habits of active, healthy living. Together, they are further enriching our community and celebrating the spirit of teamwork, athletic development and leadership.

CHILD CARE PROVIDERS

M. Karagianis: May is Child Care Month. We’re celebrating the work of thousands of caring and dedicated child care operators and early childhood educators right across British Columbia.

Friday, May 8 was Provider Appreciation Day. It’s a special day to recognize child care providers, teachers and other educators of young children everywhere. Every day, they make a difference in the lives of children by reading stories, helping them explore and learn through play, introducing them to the joys of music through songs and so much more.

Provincewide, aboriginal child care centres help aboriginal children connect to their cultural roots through singing, drumming and language-learning opportunities. This month the B.C. Aboriginal Child Care Society is renewing its From Seed to Cedar campaign. The goal of the campaign is to increase awareness in communities and to encourage our leaders to make aboriginal early childhood development and care a big priority.

A priority it must be for all children. Some experts believe that 80 percent of our essential life skills are learned before the age of six. Those early years provide a critical foundation that helps shape how we treat ourselves and others and how we live our lives.

B.C.’s child care providers deliver quality, non-profit, universal and accessible child care, and they do it day in and day out, often without the enormous credit that they deserve. They allow working parents the opportunity to go to work, secure in the knowledge that their children are in good hands while they provide financial security for their families and keep B.C.’s economy thriving.

To the thousands of early childhood educators and assistants, I say: “Thank you for a job well done.” You are making a difference in the lives of children and building a good foundation for the better future of our children and all of our society.

[ Page 8247 ]

ANAEROBIC DIGESTER PROJECT

IN DELTA

S. Hamilton: I rise today to speak to the House a little bit about a creative example of farming in my community of Delta. Just down the road from my home is Jerry Keulen, the owner of Seabreeze Farm. He recently completed the installation of an anaerobic digestion system on his dairy farm. He decided to pursue this project after researching biogas facilities in Europe and determined his farm would be a good candidate for a similar system.

[1355]

Anaerobic digestion systems are used to store and ferment agricultural waste products and feedstock in order to produce a renewable source of energy known as biomethane. Waste products are stored in large tanks which capture the methane that is released from the material as it decomposes.

The methane is then cleaned and sold to FortisBC, which distributes the gas throughout its existing infrastructure to heat the homes and businesses in our community. The remaining biomass material can then be used to fertilize crops. In other words, Jerry will be turning waste from his dairy cows into energy for our community.

This sustainable approach to farming has many benefits. It diversifies agriculture, allowing farmers multiple sources of income and thus helping to support growing generations on the farm. It significantly reduces agricultural odours, generates rich fertilizer, helps fight climate change and reduces landfill tonnage.

Delta is a rich hub for agriculture in British Columbia. In fact, the Minister of Agriculture has visited Delta on several occasions in order to tour some of our prized agricultural areas. He more recently made a stop at Seabreeze Farm to learn more about its exciting approach to sustainable practices in agriculture.

I wish the Keulen family all the best for this project. I know it will be a resounding success, and I anticipate this will spur more innovative approaches to creating a sustainable agricultural industry in British Columbia.

FEDERATION OF B.C. NATURALISTS

S. Chandra Herbert: That would be my take on the opening music to Hinterland Who’s Who . I have one for the House. Who loves to get out there and expose themselves to nature, fascinated by being in the buff? Well, I speak of the Federation of B.C. Naturalists — not naturists, so members can keep their clothes on. No, the B.C. naturalists. They’re interested in the bufflehead, of course — birds, botany, bugs, earth, land, air, water.

B.C. Nature, as they are known to more of us, a group of 5,700 members with 53 naturalist clubs…

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: I hear one of them in the House right now.

…was founded in 1963, with their mandate for us to get to know nature and keep nature worth knowing. Indeed, we have some expertise in this House. They’ve been instrumental in protecting some of our most loved parks, wild spaces, creatures and on and on it goes.

Now, they haven’t stopped. Indeed, they have not stopped. They call us on our difficulties in this House in having a good relationship with nature and remind us that it’s not about domination but in relation to nature. They’re advocates, citizen scientists. There’s also the Young Naturalists Club, helping young people connect to nature in a world where tweets mean more to a kid about being on the phone than being out in nature.

I’m here just to say thank you to our naturalist clubs, to B.C. Nature, for doing so much to connect us to the place that really gives us a reason to be. Our provincial motto, of course, is “Splendour without diminishment.” I want to thank B.C. Nature, thank B.C. naturalists for ensuring that our province continues to be splendour without diminishment.

Oral Questions

USE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND

FOR CARBON OFFSETS

J. Horgan: I think we’ll all agree — rarely, in this House, but I think on this issue we can — that our agricultural land reserve was created to protect farmland for farming. It was with that in mind that the agricultural spokesperson for the official opposition raised an issue with the minister in late April about foreign companies buying agricultural land for carbon sinks.

What that is, hon. Speaker, as you will know, is that companies purchase farmland to plant trees where food used to grow and then sell that offset to companies that are emitting carbon in other parts of the world, in fact, much less other parts of British Columbia. At the time, the minister diminished the question, said it was radical and it was appropriate that the Agricultural Land Commission deal with these issues.

[1400]

On May 8 the Agriculture Council, formerly headed by the radical from Kelowna, sent a letter to the minister saying: “The B.C. Agriculture Council is concerned that our province’s land use policies do not adequately manage foreign ownership of farmland.” Now, at the time we raised the issue, it was outlandish.

I’m asking the minister: when the B.C. Agriculture Council raises the same issue, will that be the same response?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I really appreciate hearing

[ Page 8248 ]

from the Leader of the Opposition as well as hearing from the B.C. Ag Council and all constituents throughout British Columbia about the agricultural land reserve, which we all respect and want to see continue.

Actually, 4.7 million hectares are in the agriculture land reserve today, which is 38,000 hectares more than back in 2001. We will continue to support the agricultural land reserve throughout British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: The minister will forgive me if I question his math in this regard, because when the member for Saanich South raised the issue in estimates, the minister said: “There are approximately 2,000 hectares of B.C. agricultural land that’ve been used for carbon credits. About 1,500 of those are in ALR land.”

That was the minister’s proposition not that many weeks ago, but quietly last week the Ministry of Agriculture released information that showed that it’s actually 8,500 hectares of ALR land, not 1,500.

The question, I think, for British Columbians is…. If we have over one million hectares of forest land that is not being restocked, where trees used to grow and we cut them down, and we’re now taking agricultural land where food used to grow and plant trees, there’s a bit of a disconnect.

Why don’t we focus on growing trees and carbon sinks in our deforested lands rather than on our agricultural?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. We all know that tree farming is a permitted use on ALR lands. However, tying up ALR lands by covenant, which is what would be required to get the carbon offset credits that the member is talking about, has to go through the Agricultural Land Commission for the authority for that covenant to hold any weight.

That, as we know, was changed in November 2011 by all members of this House unanimously passing an amendment to the Agricultural Land Commission Act which would see that any covenant…. Actually, I think I have it right here, and I’ll read it out: “A covenant that restricts or prohibits the use of agricultural land for farm purposes has no effect until approved by the commission.”

This was approved by all members of the House. I would ask the members on both sides of the House to give the Agricultural Land Commission a chance to do their work.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: That’s going to be news to the Agriculture Council. In their letter of last week to the minister, they wrote: “There is no mechanism to ensure that the ALC is aware of proposed restrictive covenants. This means that the agency delegated with the authority to protect farmland has no way of monitoring whether this is happening.”

There’s clearly, again, yet another disconnect — planting trees where food used to grow and not planting trees where trees used to grow. Perhaps we could get the minister responsible for Natural Resource Operations and the Minister of Agriculture to get together and figure out where we need to aggressively plant trees and where we need to aggressively plant food.

Again, will the minister respond appropriately to the Agriculture Council, who has the same concerns as we on this side of the House — that food should be grown on farmland, not trees?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you, Madame Speaker, for the opportunity to respond to the question. Once again, I have to say that the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve is respected by parties on both sides of this House. We continue to see growth in the agricultural land reserve and continue to see funds going to the Agricultural Land Commission. Indeed, over the last few years we’ve seen an increase from about $2.5 million to $3.5 million in annual funding for the reserve to do its work.

[1405]

The covenant was brought in by vote by all members of this House. All we’re asking for is the opportunity for the independent Agricultural Land Commission to do its work to examine these extra hectares that have been proposed as being used for carbon offsets. If it turns out that their covenant has been put on and has been respected by some third party, let the Agricultural Land Commission look at whether there are some compliance and enforcement issues.

I’d just say the Agricultural Land Commission is an independent body when it makes these decisions. Unlike maybe some other members of the House, who have in the past overruled the Agricultural Land Commission, we on this side of the House want to see them do their work.

L. Popham: On April 17 and again today the minister said government put a change to the Agricultural Land Commission Act which said: “A covenant that restricts or prohibits the use of agricultural land for farm purposes has no effect until approved by the commission.” The Agriculture Council has a more practical view. It told the minister that the ALC is most often made aware of restricted covenants only after the land has been removed from production or as a result of a complaint, so the legislation doesn’t work.

Who should British Columbians believe: a minister who changes his story every day or the Agriculture Council?

Interjections.

[ Page 8249 ]

Madame Speaker: Members. The Chair will hear the answer and the question.

Hon. N. Letnick: On both sides of this House we recognize the importance of preserving good agricultural land for future generations. We’ve continued to do that throughout the years that we’ve been in government, since 2001. The independent Agricultural Land Commission, indeed, now has 38,000 more hectares in the ALR than it did in 2001, so I don’t think anybody on this side of the House needs to take lessons from people on that side of the House.

Specifically to what the Agricultural Land Commission can do if it finds that covenants have been placed inappropriately, they can, if they find some contravention, make sure that they include the ability to ensure a stop-work order, remediation or mitigation of damage that has been done. That’s totally within their power as a quasi-judicial body.

Madame Speaker: The member for Saanich South on a supplemental.

L. Popham: The minister likes to boast that since 2001, 38,000 hectares have been added to the ALR, but this minister didn’t even know until last week that more than 20 percent of that area that’s been added to the ALR has been converted into carbon sinks. Worse still, this minister has no idea how to stop it.

I think it’s finally time that the minister admits that he doesn’t understand what’s going on in the ALR and put a stop to it. This situation is out of control.

Hon. N. Letnick: There we have, again, someone who’s declaring someone guilty without even having a proper investigation done. I think that’s inappropriate. If any members of this House….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Swan Lake.

Please continue.

Hon. N. Letnick: When it was brought forward to my attention that there potentially were more acres that had used for carbon offsets, we immediately forwarded that information to the independent Agricultural Land Commission. They now have the opportunity to review the file and make a determination as to whether or not covenants have been placed. If they have been placed improperly, they have all the tools necessary to take care of the issue. I would ask all members of this House to have patience and let the independent Agricultural Land Commission do their work.

[1410]

V. Huntington: The B.C. Agriculture Council says that government needs to take threats to our farming land base seriously. In its letter the council says: “Establishing clear, allowable use restrictions and implementing processes to support proactive management and enforcement represents only a portion of the solution. Land use regulations” — and those regulations are the ones the minister is responsible for — “administered by Agricultural Land Commission must also address these issues if we are to keep farmland in B.C. for farming.”

The Agriculture Council is reaching out to the minister, and I would like him to tell us how he intends to respond to their call for stronger land use regulations that will protect B.C. farmers from having to compete with international investors.

Hon. N. Letnick: Madame Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to answer the question and, to the member opposite, for the question.

We have a great working relationship with the B.C. Ag Council. We have for many years taken their advice very seriously. We have reflected their advice many times in different regulations and legislative changes that we’ve seen here in this House. We’ll continue to do that.

We received the letter last week. I’m going to look at it, obviously. I’ve asked staff to review the letter and provide me with some briefing on the contents and potential answers to the letter. But let there be no doubt that we on this side of the House — and I would assume, they, on the other side of the House as well as the independent — take very seriously our agricultural land reserve and want to see it continue for generations to come.

Madame Speaker: The member for Delta South on a supplemental.

V. Huntington: I think what the letter is trying to say to the minister is that an agriculture industry needs agricultural land. In their letter to the minister, the council goes on to say: “The B.C. Agriculture Council believes in the holistic approach to economic development, one that provides not just for today but for future generations of British Columbians. We call for the development of foreign ownership land regulations that support B.C. business, care for B.C.’s environment and support the well-being of future generations of B.C. families.”

Other provinces — Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec — put restrictions on foreign ownership of farmland. It needs to happen here. My question is: how will B.C.’s Minister of Agriculture respond to the council’s concerns about this real and growing problem?

[ Page 8250 ]

Hon. N. Letnick: Madame Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to answer the question.

We’ve seen an increase in agriculture performance, in terms of GDP impact, over the last few years. We’ve seen it go up by 3.5 percent per year. That’s in comparison to 1.9 percent per year for the general economy.

We’ve seen 60,000 people directly employed in agriculture — 20,000 farm families, which hasn’t changed very much over the last few years. We continue to see new entrants coming into agriculture. Indeed, when you go around the province, as I have and many of the members have, you see an agriculture industry that’s booming.

We see areas of tree fruits that are moving forward with the replant program — $8.2 million over seven years. We see the highest meat prices that we’ve seen in many generations. So we’ll continue to support agriculture throughout British Columbia. We’ll continue to look at these regulations.

On the question, specifically, it’s not a matter of who owns the land; it’s how the land is used. We’re working right now to make sure that we work with the ALC so they can come to a conclusion on that particular aspect.

B.C. HYDRO MANAGEMENT AND

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PLAN

A. Dix: For three weeks the government has been unable to answer basic questions about B.C. Hydro’s five-year technology and telecommunications plan — a scheme that is years late, over budget, half-finished and missing all of its performance targets.

It’s late. We’re in year 7 of a five-year-plan. I think that’s late.

Over budget. They’ve spent $492 million even though they budgeted $400 million.

Half–finished. They’ve managed to complete three of the six key components, missing all the targets they promised to reduce. If you gave them half a billion dollars to spend, they could reduce operating spending by 30 percent. Operating spending has gone up as well. A Liberal daily double.

Why is the plan late, half-finished, over budget and not achieving its targets?

[1415]

Hon. B. Bennett: It’s no surprise that my critic with B.C. Hydro would want to focus on things where he thinks there’s a political opportunity. What I can say to the member is that the IT program within B.C. Hydro did have problems. There’s no question about that, and I acknowledged that when the critic questioned me during estimates. There’s no reason for me to say otherwise.

What I can also say, though, is that those problems were recognized in the 2011 review that was done by the deputy ministers committee. Systems were put in place to resolve those difficulties. And in fact, when the new CEO was hired, one of the things that she did after the first six months that she was there…. And she has not been there even one calendar year yet.

What she did was she actually replaced the CIO with B.C. Hydro because there had been some serious issues in 2000 and 2010. Hydro is on top of it at this point in time. I have faith in the CEO to resolve the issues around IT and make sure that ratepayers are being treated respectfully.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, I have in front of me the “B.C. Hydro Information Technology and Telecommunications Five-Year Plan,” the one they originally did and the update. I just want to take the minister through it.

On page 8, he’ll recall in estimates, the five-year target to reduce operating costs by 30 percent. It’s two-thirds of the way down the page on page 8. You know, the one they said didn’t exist? Well, they completely missed it. On page 31 there’s a $400 million budget. They’ve spent $492 million of it, and they’re only half finished. There’s the commitment to finish the system in 2014. I guess they got in charge of this in 2011, according to the minister. That’s on page 26 and numerous other pages.

They’ve finished half of it. They’re half finished, and they’ve spent all of the money. That’s the checklist here. Rate, check. Over budget, check. Wasteful, check. Unfinished, check. Completely unsuccessful, check. And ratepayers have to pay for it, checkmate, to the tune of massive and ongoing rate increases.

Can the minister explain when that system, when that five-year plan, now in year 7, will finally be finished?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, here’s what I can tell the member of the opposition. In 2010 there was a recognition that there were issues at B.C. Hydro around IT. Frankly, there was a recognition by government that there were other issues that needed to be looked at. In 2011 there was a deputy ministers committee that was struck by the previous Minister of Energy and Mines. That deputy ministers committee went in and worked…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: …with B.C. Hydro. The result of that was, first of all, that they found almost $400 million in operating costs that no longer exist. So they saved almost $400 million over three years in operating costs.

B.C. Hydro was put under a commitment that their operating costs would not rise any more than one-half of the rate of inflation, and they’ve been successful since 2011 in doing that. There aren’t that many corporations, either public or private, that would be able to do

[ Page 8251 ]

that. They have eliminated almost 1,000 positions at B.C. Hydro. Again, that is not an easy thing for either a private or a public corporation to do.

The new CEO, on the IT front, has had to let go of the person who was in charge of IT and is fixing what needs to be fixed on the IT front. We’ve taken the steps that are necessary to take pressure off rates and to make sure that our rates here in British Columbia remain the third lowest in North America.

[1420]

C. James: I heard the minister basically say to the public: “Trust us.” Well, if you take a look at this government’s record when it comes to IT and computer systems, you might forgive the public for never trusting this government on any computer system.

Let’s take a look at the list. First, the Education Ministry — $97 million wasted on a system that never worked. Children and Families Ministry — $182 million, and the system still isn’t fully up and running. Then there’s the Health Ministry. Millions of dollars, and their systems work is stalled. Now, here, B.C. Hydro — a five-year information technology plan without any end in sight.

Again to the minister, can he tell us how much more of ratepayers’ money it’s going to cost before B.C. Hydro completes its so-called five-year plan, and when is the plan actually going to be done?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I’ve already acknowledged that in 2009 and 2010 there were issues around the IT budget, but let me tell the member what the rest of the years look like. In 2011, in terms of capital spent on IT, there was a budget of $84 million. What was spent: $80 million — $80.8 million, to be exact — so under budget in 2011.

They don’t want to hear what the actual facts are. In 2012 the actual budget for IT was $87 million. What did they spend?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: They actually spent $82 million, so under budget again. In 2013 — under budget again by over $10 million. In 2014 — under budget again. In 2015 the budget was $88.4 million. They spent $69.8 million. So for the last — let me count them — one, two, three, four, five years they’ve actually been under budget on their IT.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: We’re back in Alice in Wonderland. We’re over budget on under budget, and we’re over budget on things that haven’t got an end yet. The minister can’t get his stories straight.

It’s important to note that the oversight for this project ultimately touches directly on the Premier’s office. Dan Doyle, the Premier’s current chief of staff, was the chair of the board of directors at B.C. Hydro as this mess was unfolding. He was actually a member of the audit and finance committee responsible for “monitoring strategic issues related to information technology.”

So we have a project that’s over budget, that’s missed its target, that’s still not finished. Can the minister tell us why the oversight of B.C. Hydro, including the Premier’s current chief of staff, completely failed?

Hon. B. Bennett: It’s one thing to criticize B.C. Hydro. That’s allowed in question period and any other time, I suppose. It’s another thing to criticize government and my leadership of the ministry. That’s fair. That’s allowed. But to denigrate somebody who has spent his whole life serving the public of British Columbia — not only for a B.C. Liberal government but also for their government of the 1990s, in that failed, dismal decade when they were in government….

You know, if the member who said the things that she just said about….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Please continue.

Hon. B. Bennett: I think it’s unfortunate that the member would bring that person into this discussion. So let me end my answer.

I just gave some numbers on capital and how B.C. Hydro over the last five years was actually under budget. Let’s look at operating for the last five years — actually, the last six years. In 2010 they were under budget for operating. In 2011 they were under budget. In 2012 they were under budget — 2013, 2014 — and it’s estimated that in 2015 they will be under budget for operating, on the IT front, for B.C. Hydro.

[1425]

PERMIT FOR SOIL DUMPING IN

SHAWNIGAN LAKE WATERSHED

B. Routley: The Ministry of Environment is investigating South Island Aggregates regarding concerns of contamination coming from their site and going into Shawnigan Creek. Now the Ministry of Energy and Mines is investigating the same company due to suspected illegal dumping of contaminated fill, in violation of their Mines permit.

Will the Minister of Environment confirm today that no contaminated soil will be permitted to be dumped from the South Island Aggregates site until all of the requirements and conditions of their permit are met?

[ Page 8252 ]

Hon. M. Polak: Permit conditions are legally binding. That means that we enforce those conditions, and if companies wish to operate under a permit, they therefore need to abide by the conditions of the permit.

Madame Speaker: Member for Cowichan Valley on a supplemental.

B. Routley: That’s an interesting answer, because the minister has to confirm or…. Basically, I don’t know whether she’ll deny the reports that South Island Aggregates was shipping contaminated soil on Friday, May 8, from a site on Blanshard Street right here in Victoria to its quarry site in Shawnigan. They were shipping contaminated soil before requirements of its permit had even been met. Will the minister commit to take action to enforce the government’s permit requirements?

Hon. M. Polak: I know the member will be aware that the site involves more than one lot. With respect to lot 21, there is a Mines Act permit. We are all aware now that the Ministry of Energy and Mines has taken action with respect to concerns that they have regarding the permit that has been issued to the company under the Mines Act with respect to permitting under the Ministry of Environment.

The member will also know that there is a sampling plan that has been developed together with the CVRD — that our staff will be engaging in additional testing. If there are any contraventions of permit conditions that are legally binding, then we enforce the conditions of the permit.

CONSERVATION OFFICER SERVICE

S. Chandra Herbert: The Society of B.C. Conservation Officers says: “Inadequate staffing levels is resulting in higher caseloads, slower response times and/or no response at all. Our motto used to be ‘Any time, anywhere.’ Now it is ‘Sometimes, maybe.’ We need more boots on the ground.”

The conservation officers have been speaking out. As we’ve seen, reports of pollution, poaching and environmental violations have shot through the roof. Their numbers have been flatlined. My question to the Minister of Environment, how can she still accept a standard of a “Sometimes, maybe” response to environmental pollution rather than standing up for our conservation officers and our environment?

Hon. M. Polak: The member seems to be aware that staffing levels for the conservation officer service have remained on par with previous years. What the member seems unaware of, though, is that the service has changed over the years. One of those significant changes is that they are now joined on the ground by another 150 natural resource officers.

They coordinate the work that they do in enforcing various pieces of legislation both under the Ministry of Environment as well as the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. We’ve also added technological components to their work that they did not have access to in the past, which now allow them to be a mobile force, to respond in a zone system similar to other first responders in other areas.

I am quite confident that our conservation officer service continues to provide the best in on-the-ground law enforcement in our natural environment of any place in North America.

[1430]

[End of question period.]

Motions Without Notice

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

TO SIT IN THREE SECTIONS

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move the following motion:

[Further to the motion adopted on February 26, 2015, that this House hereby authorizes the Committee of Supply for this Session to sit in an additional third

section designated

Section C which will sit in the Birch Committee Room as may be appointed from time to time. All rules and provisions of the motion related to Committee of Supply,

Section A shall apply to

Section C. The Members of Committee of Supply,

Section C shall be identical to the composition of Committee of Supply,

Section A.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Justice. In

Section C, now the Birch Room, the Committee of Supply estimates of the Ministry of Health. And in this chamber, the ongoing second reading debate of Bill 20, the Election Amendment Act.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 20 — ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

(continued)

M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to pick up where I left on Thursday on Bill 20, with my remarks around that particular piece of legislation. I know there were a number of issues at that particular time on which I was mak-

[ Page 8253 ]

ing clear that the opposition had considerable concern around this bill.

For the elucidation and the information of members who may not be familiar with the debate up to date, Bill 20 will make significant changes in terms of voting in the province of British Columbia. A number of these changes have been put in place on recommendations on behalf of the Chief Electoral Officer. But others, not so much.

I think I’ve outlined previously my concern around issues regarding the lack of action on the controlling of spending during the pre-election campaign period and how that is leading somewhat to more of an Americanization of politics in British Columbia. It’s interesting to point out that other provinces are taking the opposite road and are looking to ensure that there are some controls in terms of that spending taking place in the pre-election campaign period.

As I said at that time, prior to the adoption of the fixed date you had a 28-day campaign or sometimes six weeks, and it literally was all hands on deck. You had a very heavily focused campaign where the money was all spent during that time period.

One of the significant changes that I outlined with the adoption of the fixed calendar is that now that we know when the election date is going to be, we see a significant extension of, in essence, the campaign period. There is still the formal campaign period, but there is now a very long informal campaign period, which requires money to function. I think that that’s one of the weaknesses, a significant weakness, of this particular piece of legislation.

I want to talk in the time that I have remaining…. I suspect it’s probably somewhere around 15 minutes. If the Clerk gives a nod or something like that, I’d be more than happy. I see 11 minutes. I think that’s what I get in terms of hand signals.

Deputy Speaker: Ten minutes.

[1435]

M. Farnworth: I want to touch on another issue that I think is important and a particular weakness in this particular piece of legislation, and that is around the lack of adoption of the recommendation around allowing young people in grade 12, in that 17-year-old age group, to be able to register to vote while in school, ahead of the election date.

I think that’s particularly unfortunate. I think all of us in this chamber — and in fact, people outside this chamber — have expressed concern about the decline in voter participation over the last few decades. There’s a constant desire to look at how we can increase voter turnout and how we can encourage voter turnout.

Of course, part of that is up to politicians themselves, to be able to excite voters, to engage voters, to encourage them to get involved in the campaign, to be aware of what’s going on. Part of that is also, in today’s society where people are far more mobile than they used to be and with the advances in technology: how do we make it easier for people to vote, more convenient for people to vote?

There have, of course, been changes around that, in terms of increasing the number of advance polling days. Mail-in ballots are also a good way to encourage people to vote. We have seen how people have taken advantage of those. But there are still fundamental problems in terms of the demographics of the population who actually get out to vote.

We know that the older people are, the more likely they are to vote. We know for a fact that the percentage of the population with the highest participation in voting in elections is those people aged 55 and over. The demographic with the lowest participation rates is people under 30, and the sad fact is that that has been declining. It has not been increasing.

I think it’s crucial to the long-term health of our democracy and to the long-term health of our election process that young people are involved. It’s very disheartening when you see in this jurisdiction, nationally and in other jurisdictions around the world, where young people say: “Voting is irrelevant” or “It doesn’t matter.”

There is nothing, I think, that should concern us more when we are debating changes to an election act, than that we recognize the importance of ensuring that young people vote — that it is something that is important, that it is something that matters and that it is something that is incredibly relevant, not just to them today but to the future of our society in the years and decades to come.

A key part of that, as in most things: expose people to something when they’re young, and they’re more likely to adopt it. It doesn’t matter what that is. Whether it is learning a language…. If you learn it young, you’ll learn it over your lifetime. It will stick with you. Good eating habits, exercise, participation — all of those things, the younger you are involving young people, the more likely they are to stay engaged, the more likely they are to be aware of the importance of it and to embrace it.

That’s why in school, in social studies, we teach about how our government works, how our democracy works. We have tour groups that come around to the galleries to watch and see how our system of government works. All of us as MLAs have been into schools to talk to young people about the importance of government and how it affects them.

So I find it unbelievable that we would not want to adopt a recommendation — that we would not want to see in this piece of legislation — making it easier for young people to vote, particularly at that age when they are getting ready to graduate from high school, when they are going to turn that calendar clock, that milestone in their lives when they turn 18, and we wouldn’t want to say, “You know what? You graduate from high school, and you’re already registered to vote and able to par-

[ Page 8254 ]

ticipate at the first opportunity that there is an election,” whether it is a local election or a provincial election or, indeed, a federal election.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why you would not want to encourage that, why you would not want to encourage that by making it easier for young people in this province who are at school to become engaged.

[1440]

We’ve seen it work in other jurisdictions. Last year, for example, in Scotland they had a referendum on the long-term future of Scotland, whether or not to remain part of the United Kingdom, and they lowered the voting age to 16. It engaged people. They realized that they had a stake in government, and it was a very unique opportunity in this sense. It’s not even what we’re talking about here, but they engaged 16-year-olds. They gave them the ability to vote on a fundamental question. That’s an example of how you get young people involved, and it’s important to do that.

What we’re saying…. There was a recommendation. Allow 17-year-olds to register to vote. How is that radical? How is that so problematic? I mean, I know that the Minister of Finance has stated in the past, when he ran for the leadership campaign, that he thought it was a good idea.

Now the government says: “Well, we didn’t have time to get it into the legislation.” Didn’t have time to get it into the legislation? It would be a two-sentence paragraph. We had a piece of legislation tabled in this House that’s probably got at least a dozen amendments to it on the order paper, Bill 5, including one that has to change the title of the piece of legislation.

If the government can find time to introduce an amendment to change the title on a bill because of shoddy drafting, surely one would have expected more thought into a piece of legislation. It would not be that hard to add a

section to this Bill 20 to say that students or persons who are in their 17th year of age have the right or the ability to register to vote while in school. It’s not rocket science. It’s really simple, and if the government had really been serious, they would have included that in this particular piece of legislation.

You have to ask yourself why. Why would that not be in here? All I can think of is that it’s designed to discourage turnout, that despite all of the good intentions, despite all of the great words of how we want to encourage voter turnout, want people to come out and vote….

I think one of the sad things about our democratic process is that too much is relied on, in essence, what is voter suppression, which is to encourage people not to vote through particular forms of campaigning, by targeting and understanding that some people…. It’s like, in essence, encouraging them to stay home, not directly.

But it’s also by saying: “You know what? We think young people aren’t necessarily going to be with us. They may be with a different party. Therefore, there’s no real advantage for us to encourage them to get out and vote.” I hope that’s not the reason. I’d like to think that it was just simple oversight.

I think a piece of legislation like this should meet the needs of all British Columbians. It should not just meet the needs of a governing party. It should not just meet the needs of an opposition party. It should not just meet the needs of independents. But it should fundamentally extend rights to all British Columbians and make it as easy as possible to register to vote.

I can see that my time is coming near to an end, and I would suggest that I have only 1½ minutes left. With that, I would like to acknowledge that there are areas of this bill that I think are positive, but there are some areas in this bill that have significant problems. One is on the spending limits. Another is on the registration of young people.

I think that that is something that this government could resolve. It is not too late to add a

section in here on that. They could do it at committee stage, and it would have support from all sides of this House.

With that, I know that other colleagues have additional comments on this legislation, addressing some of the topics that I have not been able to touch on. I look forward to their comments and to committee stage debate, where we may see some of the issues dealt with in a way that resolves some of the concerns around this particular piece of legislation.

[1445]

Moira Stilwell: It’s a privilege to rise in this House today to speak to the Election Amendment Act, 2015. Frankly, I cannot think of a more important subject for this House than the state of our democracy and what we can do to improve it. But at least some provisions of this amendment do not improve our democracy and do not improve our ability to increase voter turnout nor produce better oversight of election results.

So I am standing to speak against those provisions in the legislation specifically providing voter information to political parties, not because I’m against improving voter turnout or because I am opposed to making our democracy better. On the contrary.

I stand to speak out against these changes because I know that they do not have anything to do with improving voter turnout or improving our democracy. Quite simply, these changes are in the interests of political parties, not in the interest of individual British Columbian voters.

There are lots of ways to increase voter turnout or increase political awareness or ways to get people more involved in their province’s democracy. But giving political parties more access to information that the voters believe is private, and should be private, and allowing them, in turn, to harass voters is not how we’re going to get more people more engaged in our political process.

I suggest all of us in the House go out and talk to our constituents about this. I invite anyone in this House to

[ Page 8255 ]

go out and really explain this change and what it means in terms of granting political parties more access to personal voter information and what they will do with it. Then ask your constituents: do you think this is a good idea? I believe the answer will be a resounding no — a “hell no,” in fact.

The fact is voters do not want political parties to have more information about them, including whether or not they voted. When asked, people mistrust political parties and politicians and believe, in the majority, that political parties, if they could, would manipulate election results.

I know this because I have been asking. Quite frankly, after I have voted and the ballots have been burned, it is no one’s business whether or not I voted, and it’s certainly no business of political parties on the right, left or centre.

This change of the government providing this access to political parties will only serve to make voters even more cynical, more skeptical and more guarded in their relationship with politics and politicians.

The fact is that if someone wants to vote, great. If someone wants to vote for me, I’ll pick them up and drive them to the polls. If someone doesn’t want to vote, that’s disappointing, but it’s also their right. While the act of voting in itself is public, after the winners are declared, whether or not people vote or not is not the business of political parties.

We all know, as politicians, what will happen to that information. I will not take the time to enter into Hansard the Privacy Commissioner’s comments and concerns about this, which I felt were worthy of consideration. I regret that at the end they deflected into that wide morass known as: “But I trust you’ll use the data wisely.”

Also, when I spoke to my constituents, in fact, zero of my constituents expressed the concern that the information would be used commercially. That did not come up. However, they know that once we get our hands on that information, the first thing we will do is to target those people, particularly those who did not vote.

We will bombard them with e-mails, phone calls, junk mail and more. We will make their dinner hours more miserable as we try to reach them on the phone with automated telephone calls or corner them on the doorstep. Frankly, I believe voters have a right to be left alone between elections.

So providing a list of who voted and who didn’t to political parties is like throwing chum in the water to attract sharks. What makes me even more skeptical about this change is the fact that only political parties will get the information, not independent candidates. These changes are in the interest of political parties, not in the interest of ordinary British Columbians, who have a right to vote or not and to have that information destroyed once that election is over.

The pretext for these changes points to encouraging voter turnout and preventing voter fraud. I asked the legislative librarians, and they could not find any case where so-called voter fraud has overturned a final election result. Now, I know there are many of my learned friends on both sides of the aisle who will be dying to jump up to tell me about a case, but the truth is this. The bar is incredibly high, and I believe for this amendment it is a red herring.

[1450]

The threat is small, and we should keep it small. The idea that knowing who voted after the ballots have been destroyed and the winners have been seated in the Legislature, to me, does not pass muster.

The other reason given for this change is to encourage voter turnout. I am very skeptical. I don’t think there’s any evidence whatsoever of this. I don’t believe these changes will encourage people to get out and vote. Frankly, I think it will make them feel even more vulnerable and cynical about the political system that we, as politicians and political parties, have crafted and built over the years, often seemingly for our own benefit. The changes are for the sole convenience of the political parties and our get-out-the-vote machines. They’re not aimed at helping voters.

Those of us who are elected to office are just the tip of the iceberg. Our election only happens because hundreds and sometimes thousands of engaged and interested citizens get involved in building and running election campaigns. When you’re in the middle of an election and you’re surrounded by like-minded people who are excited and share your interest in campaigns and politics and policy, we sometimes forget that for many and most Canadians, probably, politics is something they see or hear about on TV or in the newspaper and something they may or may not do every few years on voting day.

For a growing number of British Columbians and Canadians, politics and even voting is beginning to look and feel more foreign. For many, particularly the age group that reflects our children, politics and voting and getting involved is, at best, a “hold your nose and vote” chore that rolls around every few years.

To see that happening in our cities, province and country has got to be heartbreaking, particularly for people who lived through the Second World War, many of whom were in the gallery today, or the Great Depression or who are immigrants from countries where voting is something you dream of but never get the chance to actually do. I say that well aware that around the world many people would give anything to be able to stand up in a room like this and speak their mind — to speak their mind and know that they can do it freely without fear of government, without fear of being imprisoned and free of political party harassment.

What we take for granted is not the norm around the world. We only have to look at recent demonstrations calling for democracy in Hong Kong to realize how lucky we are here in British Columbia. In Hong Kong the citizens want to elect leaders they nominate, not individuals handpicked by their government.

[ Page 8256 ]

Can you imagine British Columbians or Canadians being told: “You can vote, but only for the people government selects”? We wouldn’t stand for it. But in many parts of the world handpicked candidates put up by government or monopoly party is the rule and not the exception.

Here in Canada and British Columbia we constantly try to figure out how to get more people engaged in politics and get them to participate in their own democracy, yet we struggle. We struggle to find people who want to put their name forward in elections. We struggle to get people out to vote. Always we wonder why we take democracy for granted. Yet only last fall we saw that when people believe in something and believe it’s worthwhile, they will participate, and they will engage, and they will vote.

Last fall, after a 300-year relationship, the Scots voted, as they did last week as well, on the issue of independence from the United Kingdom. The turnout was a record. Voter turnout was the highest since universal suffrage was introduced in the 1950s — a worthy cause, I might also add. They voted in a record 85 percent turnout.

Because the issue was of such importance to the future of Scots and Scotland, they let the future vote. They allowed 16- and 17-year-olds to vote. And if anyone thinks young people are not interested in politics, just look at the Scottish referendum numbers. Eighty percent of 16- and 17-year-olds stepped up to vote. Why? Because they were asked to be part of something important. So was every Scot, and they turned out in droves.

They turned out because they wanted their voice heard, and they genuinely believed that their vote mattered. Perhaps that is the difference. Too often people feel like their voice, or vote, does not matter. But if you ask those young people in Hong Kong or those voters in Scotland, they will tell you that voices do matter.

Closer to home we saw just last week in Alberta that after 44 years the ruling party was tossed out. Voter turnout was the highest in 22 years — almost 10 percent higher than the average. Why? Quite simply, because Albertans had a big decision to make, and they knew it. That decision engaged them and made them feel they had to step up and speak out and be heard. They knew their vote mattered. Just look at the number of close races, where winners were determined by the slimmest of margins.

[1455]

Frankly, it’s a lesson for all of us in this room, particularly for those of us who sit in the Legislature here in Victoria or in parliament in Ottawa. Our citizens do want to be heard. They want to know their voice and vote actually means something and that it counts for something. Part of our job as elected politicians is to make sure that happens. We sit in this House at the pleasure of the people, and, frankly, I would say to every member in this House that the people of British Columbia do not want this change.

Now, it’s true many are actually not even aware of the provision tucked so neatly into a larger bill. But if you specifically go out and explain it to people, they do not want more of their information in the hands of political parties. When I canvass my constituents, I use those favourite arguments of all adolescents, which we’re going to hear in the House and have heard: other people do it, and we can get the information anyway.

Most of the people I spoke to in my constituency did not know that. They had not participated as scrutineers or participated in election campaigns. But at the end of the explanation that other people are doing it and we can get the information anyway, people still shook their heads and said: “There is no reason for the government,” which is what we are doing, “to give more information about me to political parties.”

They told me they thought it was wrong. They do not want to be singled out or on any list based on whether or not they have voted. They believe that it is their business and not the business of political campaigns and the people who run them. As I said earlier, if you think I’m wrong, just ask your constituents, and they will probably tell you in no uncertain terms, possibly not politely, to keep your hands off their voting records.

Whether we look at the protests for democracy in Hong Kong or record voter turnout in Scotland or Alberta or, for that matter, PEI, where they had an 85 percent turnout in their last provincial election, all of us are reminded that we stand on the shoulders of men and women who got us this far in the pursuit of democracy and who are counting on us to carry on even further.

When you look at those voters in Scotland, the protesters in Hong Kong or those Albertans who spoke up for change after 44 years, they all have one thing in common: they were activated, they were engaged and they cared enough to get involved. Frankly, that’s changing in our society. The fact is that people are becoming less engaged, more cynical and more skeptical, and this kind of legislative change only increases our constituents’ skepticism.

It’s no secret that as individuals most of us in this House are held in some esteem by the people who know us. Then why is it that as politicians we are held in such low esteem as a group? The answer is simple. It is this kind of self-serving legislative change that makes people feel that we are disconnected from them, that we’re not honest with them or that somehow as a self-appointed elite we know best. I say again: ask your constituents if they think their voting information should be turned over to political parties, and you should not be surprised by the answer.

[ Page 8257 ]

When we disregard strong feeling in favour of helping out our political parties, don’t be surprised by voter reaction as we drop a further notch or two in terms of public approval. Every single member in this House knows what our constituents would say about this change if we actually asked them to release the information each election, yet many in this House are prepared to support the change — and we wonder why voters do not trust politicians.

If we want to increase voter turnout, give people something important and worthwhile to vote for. Scotland did it. Alberta did it. You certainly don’t do it by harassing voters after an election because you have some list that divides up British Columbians into those who voted and those who did not.

The changes in front of the House sound reasonable and benign and non-partisan. They are not. They are none of those things, and we know that. They fly in the face of how we know that our fellow citizens feel and vote. The changes do nothing but help political parties, not citizens.

If we are serious about voter engagement and turnout, there are plenty of real tools to help with that, starting with making people feel that politicians and politics are worth caring about and voting for. A vote in favour of these changes does nothing to change the opinion of voters about politicians. It only reinforces their cynicism, and in my opinion, deservedly so.

So as we look at the order paper, which has turned into a veritable amendment-writing workshop, I hope that we will view them through the focus and through the lens of what the Premier herself said last week. She said our focus has always been to think about what’s best for British Columbians.

[1500]

What about British Columbians? What is good for the people of the province? As leaders it is not our job to ask ourselves how circumstances, how our goals, can somehow fit into our personal ambitions. On that note, I will ask you to view this legislation through that lens.

C. Trevena: I take my place to speak on Bill 20, the Election Amendment Act, following the very thoughtful remarks of the member for Vancouver-Langara. It’s very nice to be engaged in a debate. She raises, I think, some very important issues, some very important concerns about trust and about how to reinvigorate our democracy.

This is something that many of us on this side of the House have spoken about quite regularly, the sense that we have a huge privilege here, that we have a need to really engage voters and make sure that what we are doing is relevant to the people whom we represent and also that this institution is relevant to the people whom we represent.

We see time and again the declining voter turnout and ask ourselves: “Why is this?” A lot, as my colleague from Coquitlam said earlier on, is up to us as politicians to inspire the electorate. But we also have to be very aware that the electorate is fully conscious — or one hopes is conscious — of the way that the system works.

The member for Vancouver-Langara has specified a specific section,

section 6, of this bill, which will allow parties to get additional information on voters. As she also mentioned, there are many amendments on the order paper which would tighten up that section.

My concern with Bill 20, which has a number of changes…. I’ll go through them very quickly before concentrating on the areas that concern me, but I’ll just highlight it now. It’s the ability for political parties to spend more, more, more money.

While the member for Vancouver-Langara talked about how what information we as politicians have of the electorate will scare people away and will disengage them, I think it’s that use of basically buying the vote — spending and spending and spending — and advertising, often negative advertising, to try to win support. It’s the use, as we have seen both federally at the moment and provincially before every election, of public money for very partisan purposes.

We have seen in other jurisdictions a tightening of this and a much closer lens on how public money is spent to make sure it isn’t used for partisan purposes. But I would say that is one area that causes voter disengagement and public disengagement.

There is also, as has been mentioned before, the issue of trying to engage young people. Again, I’ll be talking about that in my remarks. I think that is something where we have the opportunity here to engage more young people to increase the voter turnout, increase the engagement.

There are bigger problems, I think. The fact is that the system we have, this so-called first-past-the-post — it’s a strange name for it, because that would be a direct horse race — where the winner takes all, doesn’t really reflect the intentions of the voting public.

People make reference to the most recent election. While we on this side of the House are looking very much at what happened in Alberta, I’m also very conscious of what happened in the United Kingdom very recently, where we had very clear incidents where the results of the election with the first-past-the-post system, like we have here, have left many people feeling disenfranchised.

We had a very large proportion that supported one particular party, whether or not you like it, a party called the UK Independence Party. A large proportion of people voted for that, and they ended up with one seat. Far fewer people, at this time around, supported the Scottish National Party. They ended up with 53 seats and nearly swept the country of Scotland because of the system of voting.

I think that addressing the voting system, as we on this side of House have said we will do, will help re-engage people and will show the relevance that their vote really

[ Page 8258 ]

matters, that their vote literally does count. When you move into systems of proportional representation, your vote literally counts.

[1505]

I think there are other ways that we need to engage, and that is some of our ideas. We need to ensure that people understand that and also that, really, people understand the privilege that we in B.C., in Canada and in the western democracies have. We are extraordinarily fortunate to have the freedoms that we have here: the freedom for voting, the freedom for our electorate to decide our government — that we are individually elected in.

I think that everyone in this House — all 85 members of us — is hugely aware of the privilege and the responsibility of being an elected official here. It really is. I don’t diminish that on any side of the House. But how do we make that more relevant? I don’t think Bill 20 really does it. It broadens things out in some ways. It will make some aspects more accessible.

It eliminates spending restrictions for third parties in the pre-election period. That is very problematic, and I’ll come back to that. As the member for Vancouver-Langaramentioned, it requires the Chief Electoral Officer to provide parties with a list of voters after an election, indicating who voted. That, again, is something that I will be addressing.

It is dealt with if the amendments that…. We have a number of amendments for this

section ourselves, the opposition. The two independents have both put forward amendments to this which would change that and tighten it up. Bearing in mind what the member for Vancouver-Langara said, and looking through the lens of what’s best for British Columbians, I think that these amendments would tighten it up and would make it relevant both for the people of British Columbia and the political parties.

The bill also expands the scope of fundraising expenses that don’t count under expense limits. That’s for people who are fundraising because it costs money to run elections whether you’re buying your signs or putting your ads out. It expands the scope of that.

The Chief Electoral Officer. This actually all stems from a report by the Chief Electoral Officer published last October. Some of his recommendations include an exemption for filing expense reports for leadership candidates that are acclaimed and haven’t raised or spent any money. They don’t have to go through the process of filing expense reports.

It permits constituency associations to incur election expenses on behalf of a candidate for the full period of the campaign instead of the first ten days.

It tightens up the identity requirements for vouching. That’s for people who can’t prove that they are who they say they are. This was one of the Chief Electoral Officer’s recommendations.

We have some concerns about that. There are people who may not have the identity, but you’re in a small community or a small polling station and everybody knows that person is who they say they are. So what will this do? We want to make sure that we’re not disenfranchising people, not turning people away. There are people who don’t necessarily have that ID available. So there’s a bit of concern there.

Again, the Chief Electoral Officer wanted to provide election officials with the authority to provide voter turnout information to candidates during advance voting and general voting.

That’s the broad scope of the bill. There are some areas which are of concern to a number of people. It’s interesting what the member for Vancouver-Langara says: “Go and talk to your constituents.” I think we all talk to our constituents about legislation when we have the opportunity. We’re here Monday to Thursday, which gives us Friday, Saturday and Sunday to have a general debate in whatever way we do. Just go and talk with people, as well as using other avenues of how we relate with people in our constituency.

I’ve been raising the discussion about this bill with people, because this is a chance. Let’s start talking about how our democracy works, how our electoral system works. What people have been coming back to me about is the concern about the removal of spending limits on political parties and candidates.

[1510]

They’re not so concerned about the parties finding out who is going to vote or how they’re voting, because as the member said, parties can find out through the scrutineer system, through other systems, in get-out-the-vote on election day, who has voted. Every voter has a number, and we can match them up. That’s why you get that call at five minutes to the close of polls saying: “Have you voted?” There are processes that go on. So that hasn’t been a concern for people.

What has been a real concern is the removing of the spending limits on the parties and candidates. And people really do fear…. They fear two things. They fear that it is going to simply allow those with deep pockets to spend more and buy the election — simply put, like that. People also are concerned that it would Americanize our elections, where we’ve seen in the United States these super PACs come up, where you have fundraising groups being able to fundraise extraordinary amounts of money for a candidate or a party. Really, people are very concerned about that.

We have a democracy that I wouldn’t say is vibrant in

[ Page 8259 ]

Canada at the moment, or in B.C. We’ve had this spur on, yes, a large voter turnout in P.E.I. for their provincial election, a good voter turnout in Alberta, but generally, we don’t see people engaged.

If we start allowing increasing spending, increasing in advertisements, increasing in the selling of a potential government, what we usually see with that…. I think that they are done because people say they work. I think that many people who I do talk to find it offensive. But you see an increase in attack ads, often very nasty attack ads — which work. It either scares people, or it turns people off. They say: “I don’t want to have anything to have to do with anyone.” But all of this comes because parties have money, and they have money to spend.

What this bill does is it does allow the increase in spending. It says that it’s responding to the courts which shot down restrictions on third-party advertising in the pre-campaign period. But the bill also removes the spending limits. It removes the spending limits on political parties and candidates, and by removing the spending limits, you are, by force of nature, giving advantage to those who have more money. So those parties that are able to raise more money can spend a lot more money and can effectively try to buy the election.

It sounds, as I say it, very cynical — that any one party could buy the election. But if you can inundate the air waves, you know, whether it’s during the hockey playoffs…. Our elections are in the spring, so there is a lot of advertising going on in the hockey playoffs. You inundate all the popular times of advertising with your message, time and time again because you’re the ones with the money.

So you’re putting your message out. You’re using, at times, often public money to spin out your message, and you are using the money that you have raised to attack the other parties. You are effectively in a position to buy an election.

What I’ve heard from people when we’ve been having this discussion in my constituency…. It’s very interesting what people say is: “We should just back out of it totally. We should say ‘no spending,’ or we should have it, as was done federally for some time, that each party gets a certain amount of money based on the proportion of the votes gained.” But to have a free-for-all that this bill will allow, is really very, very concerning.

Just to go back a little, back in 2009 there were the third-party election advertising rules, which included a 60-day pre-campaign period, which kicked in before the 28-day election campaign window. That was challenged. It was a Charter challenge. There was huge concern about it, and the court said that spending limits during this extra time was an excessive limit on free speech.

In 2012 the Liberal government brought in a miscellaneous bill — which was one of the omnibus bills, in any other terms — and amended the Election Act to shorten that 60-day period to 40 days for third-party advertisers. These were not brought into force, and the government referred the issue to the Court of Appeal. In October of 2012 the Court of Appeal found the provisions unconstitutional.

[1515]

So it’s dealing with that, but this bill adds this elimination of the 60-day pre-campaign period for third parties as well as removing the pre-campaign period’s spending limit for political parties and candidates. So under the present act, parties are limited to $1.1 million and candidates to $70,000 in the 60-day pre-campaign period. Under this bill all limits on spending by political parties and candidates are eliminated in the lead-up to the drop of the writ. So that’s any time up until the start of the 28-day period, the election period.

It’s of huge concern that it will allow those with money just to bombard people. I mean, I think it’s not what the member for Vancouver-Langara is worried about, the amount of contact with political parties. It’s just this complete blitzing of information, of advertising, that really is a huge worry.

The other area I’d like to talk about…. As I say, this, I think, will jeopardize our democracy. It will increase voter cynicism. People don’t like that sense of being bought. They don’t like the constant advertising. There are people who look at ads as the way to find out just what each party is standing for, but most people want to be treated with respect. They don’t want to have their democracy treated like a package of soap — that is just: how are you best going to sell it, who looks the prettiest, who’s going to smile the most, who’s going to look good in certain situations — and sell it on that.

We shouldn’t be pandering to that either. We should be responsible and ensuring that we are telling people honestly what we are going to do, how we’re going to do it, and making sure that we are engaging people. That’s how we start re-engaging in our democracy.

The other thing in this, the potential we have here — again, we are addressing this in an amendment — is the question of getting young people involved and having youth voter registration. It’s extraordinary; it’s unfortunate that this isn’t in the bill.

We have tabled an amendment, again, which we’ll get to when we get into committee stage, which allows for youth voter registration. The reason for doing this is getting young people engaged will make sure that they…. Basically, once you start voting, you continue voting. It’s been proven — you talk to sociologists, political scientists — that if you first start voting at 18, you’re likely to carry on voting for the rest of your life, once you’ve made that step. But you have to be registered.

Because young people are not given the opportunity to register and many young people don’t know how to…. They don’t know how to go about voting. I think we’ve all been to the different schools and talked to young people, engaging young people at different ages. Under the cur-

[ Page 8260 ]

riculum we have here in B.C., practically…. Social studies, civics, are taught in grade 5 — so you’re about ten or 11 years old — and then in grade 11, in socials 11, which is a huge, all-encompassing course, absolutely extraordinary course, built into one semester. That is, for many young people….

There are, obviously, exceptions to this. There are young people who want to get engaged in other things, get engaged in political parties, get engaged in issues, get engaged in campaigning for whatever cause that they feel moved by. Young people are very engaged in that way. But they don’t get that connect the dots, that to make change, you need to vote; to make change on pretty well anything that young people get engaged in, you need to vote. The next dot is that if you need to vote, you need to register to vote.

If this bill widened the vote, widened the ability for youth voter registration, you would immediately be able to start reinvigorating our democracy, because you’d get young people wanting to vote.

In the Chief Electoral Officer’s recommendations that came in October 2014, he mentions that other jurisdictions have already taken steps to address the issue by allowing the provisional registration of otherwise eligible individuals under the age of 18.

[1520]

Nova Scotia allows the Chief Electoral Officer to collect the registration information of 16- and 17-year-olds. Quebec has a provisional registrar for potential voters who, unless they decline, are automatically added to the voters list. Alberta, in the previous government, had an amendment which hadn’t come into force — but maybe the new government there will bring this in — which enables the Chief Electoral Officer to request directly from school boards the registration information of 16- and 17-year-olds to register them to vote. There are nine U.S. states which have registration for 16- and 17-year-olds. Australia has addressed the issue by provisional voter registration of 17-year-olds.

As the member for Vancouver-Langara and the member for Port Coquitlam mentioned, in the U.K., in Scotland, 16- and 17-year-olds were registered so they could actually vote. Not just that they were registered so they could vote when they’re 18; they took the step that 16-year-olds could vote in the referendum. And you saw huge engagement, huge debate, and that translated into what happened last week in the United Kingdom, when there was a massive swing to the Scottish National Party in Scotland. You had that engagement. You had people who really cared.

That’s what would be healthy for all democracies: to engage young people. Get them involved. Allow them to have that voice. They know that when you want to make change…. Whether it’s about the environment or whether it’s about health issues, whatever it is that young people are engaged in…. You talk to everyone and sort of say, “What do you care about?” and I’ll tell you, you get a whole bunch of really engaged people, and they would come in, and they would vote. It’s a very simple opportunity.

The Chief Electoral Officer in his report recommends that legislatures continue to consider allowing the provisional registration of individuals when they are 16 years of age. Committing to early registration at age 16 “would permit Elections B.C. to work with schools and the driver-licensing program to ensure maximum exposure to the registration process for young voters. Many high school teachers have expressed support for this concept, as it would allow meaningful action by their students in the context of civics education.”

In fact, I knew a high school teacher who, as part of socials 11, encouraged his students and took them down to register to vote. This was just as an on-the-side thing that he did, and it really engaged them. And when you came to the election, and you were talking to those young people, they knew that they had the right to vote. They knew, also, that with it came responsibility — because you have the right to vote and the responsibility about voting.

That’s the other thing. Once you give people the right for registration, people also understand there is a responsibility. There is an acceptance that you’ve got to understand the issues and not to be bombarded with masses of advertising that will, effectively, sway an election — but to start talking about what is concerning people. These are the ways that we can engage our democracy and reinvigorate our democracies, broadening the franchise, ensuring that more and more people can get engaged.

It really is, as I say, an extraordinary privilege that we have to be here and to be representing people and to have the freedom to have the elections as we do. We’ve seen in many places where that doesn’t occur. People have referenced, whether it’s Hong Kong or other areas, you see places where…. I’ve worked in places with first elections, and you see people lining up to vote. You see people really wanting to embrace the democracy, and it is incumbent upon us to ensure that that continues.

I’ll briefly touch, in my closing remarks, on the

section where people are concerned about the privacy issues of who is going to find out what information of who has voted. I know that there is a real concern that people are very private. Everybody has the right for their vote to be kept private and a secret ballot.

We know that if you ask people, “Who did you vote for?” they have every right to say: “I’m not going to tell you.” They have every right, when somebody knocks on the door in the campaign period or calls them up and says, “We’d like to talk to you about this. Will you vote for me?” to say no or: “I’m not going to tell you who I’m going to vote for.” There is a secret ballot, so there is that. You can understand people’s concerns about getting bombarded with the phone calls, the e-mails and everything else from political parties.

[1525]

[ Page 8261 ]

There are two sides of it. There is a need, again, to engage people, ensure that people have as much information as possible. This was a request by a number of the political parties — from ourselves, from, obviously, the governing party and from the Green Party. We’re all engaged in this.

There have been a number of amendments that would make this

section acceptable and I think would deal with some of the member for Vancouver-Langara’s concerns in ensuring that this information wouldn’t be misused, that it would be used very cautiously and that we would be able to really, again, encourage people to participate, encourage people to get engaged. I think this is one of the things…. I go back to my opening remarks. This is one of the unfortunate things about this bill. It doesn’t really allow greater engagement. It is using what we already have for the benefit of those who are already there.

We as legislators, I think, have a responsibility of ensuring that more people get engaged, that people understand the importance of this place, of what happens here, that they feel that they are participating in it and they feel that they are part of it, that this is important for them, that it’s important for their families and it’s important for their society. If we end up individualizing it, if we end up just letting a huge amount of money be spent on advertising, if we try and restrict the number of people who are going to get engaged, I think we have problems.

It was mentioned…. I’m not sure who mentioned this, the idea by not allowing this

section on youth voter registration, getting 16- and 17-year-olds registered to vote, it’s tantamount to voter suppression, and I think there are arguments for that. It really is. You’re saying: “Well, we’re not going to encourage you to vote. We’re not going to make it easy for you to vote.” If you don’t make it easy for people to vote, you are going to be suppressing the vote. You make it that much harder. That is not healthy for us in our democracy to be doing that.

We know that older people vote. They can make that connection. But will that continue? If people aren’t voting when they’re young, will they continue not voting as they get older? And that then begs the question — every time we look at voter turnout, the legitimacy of every government. If you’re elected with a very small percentage of the population, both in numbers and in demographics, and you are making laws that are to govern, supposedly, for the greater good of society but you don’t have the support of your society, it is questionable.

So I think that we on this side of the House have put forward in this session of the Legislature since February…. I think it’s about ten different pieces of legislation which would revitalize our democracy. We have put forward a bill which would allow for youth voter registration. We’ve done so for a number of years. We really need to be encouraging our democracy, revitalizing our democracy, broadening the base, getting people involved and not turning to, effectively: “The lowest common denominator of increased spending is going to be the solution, and let’s keep the doors closed for everybody else.”

I think it’s going to be a very interesting debate. I’m looking forward to hearing other speakers. I think the next stage is going to be very interesting as we get to some of the amendments, and I hope the government looks on them wisely and accepts them.

I think we have, really, a missed opportunity. We could engage people. We could make this a way to reinvigorate our democracy, and Bill 20 doesn’t do that.

A. Weaver: I rise today to speak on Bill 20, the Elections Amendment Act. My speech today will revolve around three key elements of the bill. First, I’d like to discuss government’s apparent decision to give up its fight to better regulate the influence of big money during the pre-campaign period. Second, I’ll outline and speak in support of several aspects of this bill that follow from the recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer.

[1530]

Finally, I’ll express my serious reservations about parts of the bill where, under the guise of increasing voter turnout, government has made it easier for political parties to build up their databases. Low voter turnout is a serious issue and deserves far more than a token effort to resolve it, and I’ll touch upon this more later on in the speech.

First to pre-writ spending. I’ll deal with each of these in turn, beginning with the pre-campaign period. This is a complex issue that deserves some context.

In 2001 British Columbia became the first jurisdiction in Canada to introduce fixed election dates. Since then we’ve been followed by seven other provinces as well as by the federal government.

With fixed election dates came new concerns about the role of money in politics. Many commentators warned of a free-for-all occurring in the days and even the months before the writ was officially dropped. This turned out to be remarkably accurate. For evidence of this, just turn on Hockey Night in Canada and count the number of political ads that are aimed at the federal election that is still many months away.

In 2008 the province tried to address this new challenge and introduced an Election Amendment Act quite different from the one before us today. That bill set out financing limits for political organizations as well as third parties in the 60 days before the official start of the election.

Spending limits are incredibly important in a vibrant democracy. They work to promote equality in our political discourse. They ensure that wealthy voices don’t drown out the rest and help retain confidence in our electoral system.

An important component of any electoral spending law is a limit on third-party spending. Without these limits, political parties can easily circumvent the rules by creating special interest groups to convey their message for them. The limits also prevent the possibility of wealthy individuals or organizations dictating the terms

[ Page 8262 ]

of public discourse and, by extension, the election itself.

One portion of the previous bill, the pre-writ spending limits for third parties, was struck down by the B.C. appellate courts. Their concerns were not with the principle of pre-campaign spending limits but, rather, with the heavy-handed way government put them into place.

The court ruled that the government’s definition of what constituted election advertising was far too broad. Instead of just stopping campaign advertising, it would have muffled commentary from any third parties regarding the budget, throne speech and government legislation in a pre-campaign period that included the sitting of the Legislature.

Government rewrote their legislation, submitted it to the Court of Appeal and once again faced a ruling that their language was far too broad. It is in response to this history that I presume we see the Election Amendment Act, 2015, repeal the pre-writ spending not just for third parties but, rather, for all political parties as well.

It seems that since government’s attempts to create rules that cover a period before the writ is issued have so far failed the court tests, they are levelling the playing fields to ensure that political parties are not disadvantaged with limits that others do not share.

While I agree wholeheartedly with the government’s early attempts to control spending in the pre-campaign period, I recognize that it has been difficult to properly enforce these regulations, given the court’s ruling, but I would like to quote from the court opinion of Hon. Justice Ryan.

“I am not persuaded that there are not ways of dealing with election advertising that do not interfere with political speech while Legislature is in session. For example, the fixed election date might be changed to a different time of year, the campaign period extended or the definition narrowed. These are matters for the Legislature to determine.”

Government’s attempt to control election spending was an important step on an issue that is pivotal to democracy. I must wonder, however, if we are not walking away from this effort prematurely. I would urge this House to take the advice of Hon. Justice Ryan. With a bill like this, we have an opportunity to tighten their

definitions and resubmit legislation. With this bill, we have an opportunity to once again redefine the election process and allow every voice to be heard more clearly.

There are a number of positive elements in this bill. With that said, the elements of the bill that I support are as follows.

In October B.C.’s Chief Electoral Officer released a report on legislative recommendations. These were primarily commonsense measures that could bring about positive change. Government has put many of these into place in the Election Amendment Act before us today.

[1535]

For instance, they have changed the rules surrounding advanced voting. By giving greater flexibility to Elections B.C., this bill would provide more opportunities for rural voters to cast their ballots early.

The government has also loosened the restrictions on leadership races with only one candidate. Before this, a candidate acclaimed with no opposition and therefore no expenses would still have had to fill out an expense report.

Finally, government has fixed inconsistencies in the vouching process. As it stands now, a person vouching for their friend has to prove their identity, while a person claiming to be a relative does not. By changing the vouching process, government has brought more confidence to our electoral process.

However, these were not the only recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer. During his consultation, the Chief Electoral Officer discussed solutions to an incredibly important issue facing British Columbians today and, indeed, Canadians as a whole. That is the issue of low voter turnout.

In the last election only 55 percent of eligible British Columbians voted, so 45 percent had a chance to speak, and they stayed silent. Cynicism, apathy, anger, a feeling that there was no one to vote for unless a “none of the above” box was added to the ballot — whatever their reason for silence, it is clear that action must be taken.

With this in mind, the Chief Electoral Officer advised government to take some action. He asked them to authorize Elections B.C. to give candidates a list of voter sequence numbers at the end of each advanced voting day as well as the election itself. The bill before us has followed the Chief Electoral Officer’s recommendation in this regard and codified an already existing practice.

While everyone in this House can recognize the need to address low voter turnout, it’s important to tread carefully. The information citizens give when voting should be used with the greatest care, and this bill must safeguard this responsibility.

These concerns are echoed by the Privacy Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham. I would like to quote Ms. Denham’s letter to the Minister of Justice.

“I fully support the need to address low voter participation, and I recognize that the purpose of sections 96 and 99 amendments is to increase voter turnout in a manner that is controlled by Elections B.C. and fair to all candidates. It’s important to ensure that personal information disclosed to candidates during advanced and general voting is only used for this purpose….

“I would also recommend that Bill 20 require that voter participation information disclosed pursuant to sections 96 and 97 be destroyed following the election.”

It’s with this in mind that I’ve put two amendments on the order paper. Following the advice of the Privacy Commissioner, these amendments would require the voter information gathered by candidates in the new ways laid out in

section 96 and 97 to be destroyed following the election.

I recognize the government’s rationale with respect to these sections. I simply urge them to move forward with the utmost caution when it comes to disclosing any voter information.

[ Page 8263 ]

In fact, my own view is that whether a person votes or doesn’t vote is no one else’s business apart from the voter and Elections B.C. There are many ways of improving voter turnout, not the least of which is offering people something to vote for instead of vote against.

Privacy concerns also render

section 6 of this bill very worrisome. This

section would require Elections B.C. to offer the list of voters to registered political parties. This list would include their name, address and the new addition, advanced under this bill, of whether or not they actually voted. It did not come from the Chief Electoral Officer’s recommendations, and it has faced serious criticisms from the Privacy Commissioner. To quote Ms. Denham once again:

“The original reason the Legislature authorized Elections B.C. to compile a list of voters was for the purpose of administering elections. I am deeply concerned that the proposed amendments allow for other uses and expand the already broad ability of political parties to collect information about voter participation.

“It would also certainly exceed what British Columbians anticipate when they provide their name to Elections B.C. I do not believe there has been any public consultation on this expanded use of the voters list.”

[1540]

I recognize that much of this information is already collected by scrutineers and, as such, available to political parties. I recognize government’s argument that this simply codifies existing practices and is intended to increase voter turnout. However, I feel that these arguments fail to recognize one simple fact: this information is given out after an election.

Hon. Speaker, I’m sure you’ll agree with me that it will be very difficult to get people to vote in an election that has already happened. If we generously prescribe government’s motivation to getting out the vote, then it is done in an incredibly inefficient and ineffective manner, one that requires the concomitant creation of a time machine. If, as is far more likely, this information is being gathered to enhance the databases of political parties, then it’s incredibly effective.

Giving voter turnout information to political parties after an election seems to contradict the government’s claims that this has anything to do with increasing voter turnout. One of the reasons cited in discussions of this provision notes that with decreasing engagement, some political parties are facing a shortage of volunteers. This is putting pressure on political parties to find scrutineers and other election day volunteers to help them get out their vote.

I have significant issues with this line of reasoning. In my view, the use of technology in elections should be used to enhance the relationship that a candidate and a political party has with the voters. It can’t help facilitate an ongoing relationship with far more voters than was previously possible.

However, if we allow it — that’s technology — it can also boil the incredibly important human interactions that are essential in a thriving democracy down to data points, and this we must be concerned about.

To maintain a connection to the electorate requires hard work, especially in a time when voter engagement is on the decline. If we truly want to address voter disengagement, let’s do it in a way that offers new engagement opportunities, not by providing political parties with information about the electorate that boils it down to data points so that they don’t have to worry about working hard to gather it themselves.

Furthermore, this provision is especially discriminatory towards independent candidates. Right now only political parties will be able to take advantage of it. There’s no reason for independent candidates, like the esteemed member for Delta South, to be boxed out of the process even further. A variety of voices gives life to debate in the House. This act, whether intentional or not, provides a huge advantage to political parties at the expense of independent voices.

I’d urge government to retract this

section entirely. It’s poorly constructed, it did not come through consultation, and it does not serve the interests of British Columbians.

Failing that, I’d urge them to adopt another amendment that I’ve added to the order paper. It would not fix the act entirely, but it could be an important step in the right direction. This amendment would address one of the Privacy Commissioner’s most important concerns and put stringent conditions on the use of voter participation information. It would allow Elections B.C. to regulate the use of information under the definition of electoral purposes and explicitly prohibit the use of information for commercial purposes or the disclosure of information to any organization or public body.

Now let’s turn to voter turnout. Ostensibly, the aforementioned new disclosure is made in order to increase voter turnout. If this really is the case, government has missed its mark entirely, sacrificing privacy without fixing the problem. Government needs to get serious about dealing with low voter turnout and address it in a way that actually has the evidence to back up its claims. It deserves serious discussion and debate, and it deserves to be the very core of this bill.

With that in mind, there are certainly ideas I would love to have seen in this bill that could take practical steps towards increasing voter turnout. One example is an idea that was actually raised by the official opposition in the last election and has been recommended by the chief elections officer: bring in voter register to 16. By lowering registration age, we would empower Elections B.C. to work with driver’s licence programs as well as schools.

Every single high school student in the province of British Columbia is required to take social studies in grade 11, and a large part of that class is learning about democracy and citizenship. This unit could culminate in registering to vote, with the importance of this duty fresh in the minds of the students taking the course.

[1545]

[ Page 8264 ]

We should have all British Columbians registered by the time they can vote; 18- to 24-year-olds have the lowest voter registration rates, and voting is habit-forming. A generation that votes when they’re young is far more likely to do so when they’re older. If we can impact change at a young age, it will carry forward in the years to come.

In fact, perhaps we should be reducing the voter age to 16. If 16-year-olds are allowed to drive, perhaps we should initiate a conversation concerning whether they should be allowed to vote as well. After all, the youth of today live the consequences of the decisions we make. It’s important that we engage them early in our democratic institutions.

This would be a positive step forward, but alone it is not enough. We need to start a serious conversation on how to rebuild public engagement and convince British Columbians to let their voices be heard. We should have consultation from a wide variety of sources and forums that draw bold legislation that can impact real change. This should start with the introduction of a ban on union and corporate donations, as is the case federally. Neither unions nor corporations vote. People vote.

In conclusion, there are many things that our electoral system requires, many ways to breathe new life into our democracy. We need spending limits in the weeks leading up to a campaign. Groups with the most money should not be able to drown out every other voice. If we’re going to hear the diverse set of voices that make up a dynamic campaign, we need to keep the drone of money down.

At the same time, we need to carefully balance spending limits with people’s right to criticize or compliment government and its actions. In its previous laws on pre-writ spending, the government’s goals may have been noble, but its delivery was flawed. This prognosis rings unfortunately true for the legislation before us.

Getting out the vote is remarkably important to any true democracy, but it cannot come at the expense of the rights democracy is designed to protect. There is no way I can justify trading our privacy for a weak attempt — an unjustified attempt — at increasing engagement. If government is serious about bringing more people to the polls, they should make a concerted effort to do so. They should engage stakeholders, work with experts and build consensus. If they brought forward a bill which promised to effect real and positive change in this area, then I would support it wholeheartedly.

As it stands, I cannot support this token effort when real action is needed. I cannot support an attack on privacy when entrenched political parties are the only ones who will benefit. For these, I cannot support this bill and will be voting against it at second reading.

G. Heyman: It’s important that we give serious consideration to all of the issues entailed in a bill that amends the Election Act. There are a number of reasons I’ll be opposing this bill. I’ll elaborate them over the course of some time in my remarks.

I’d like to start by noting that on one hand you could see an election amendment act as simply meeting the challenges or the requirements placed before us by the courts or by dealing with certain mechanics of voting or the electoral process. It, in fact, does that. But I think it’s also important to look at an amendment to the Election Act, an amendment that we’re not likely to revisit session after session, as an opportunity to deal with the fundamentals of democracy, as the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has pointed out.

Much of what we need to consider in this Legislature is the nature of our democracy, how it is changing, how participation is changing and what that means not only for today but for the future, what it means to our ability as elected representatives to do a good job if more and more people, particularly young people, are disengaged from the electoral process.

[1550]

We all pay lip service to the fact that we think this is not a good thing. We all say this is