2016 Legislative Session: Fifth 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, March 14, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 35, Number 4

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

MONDAY, MARCH 14, 2016

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Speaker’s Statement

COMMONWEALTH DAY

Madame Speaker: Good afternoon, hon. Members.

Today is Commonwealth Day, and in recognition, the Royal Union flag, or Union Jack, is being flown in the precinct today from dawn until dusk. Her Majesty the Queen, head of the Commonwealth, has provided the following message to be read in the chamber this afternoon.

[1335]

“Wherever we live in the Commonwealth, we can always benefit from being open to the ideas and encouragement of those around us. Each of us can also make a positive difference in the lives of others by being willing to contribute and offer support.

“This is an essential ingredient of belonging to the Commonwealth: the willingness to share, to exchange and to act for the common good. By including others, drawing on collective insights, knowledge and resources, and thinking and working together, we lay the foundations for a harmonious and progressive society. The greater the diversity of those included in such a shared enterprise, the greater the gain. Each of us has cause to celebrate the sense of belonging expressed in our 2016 theme, ‘An inclusive Commonwealth.’

“Our recognition of this value and the wisdom of mutual respect for each other is set out in the Commonwealth Charter. Its opening words, ‘We the people of the Commonwealth,’ convey the conviction that individuals as well as governments build and shape our success.

“Being inclusive and accepting diversity goes far deeper than accepting differences at face value and being tolerant. True celebration of the dignity of each person and the value of their uniqueness and contribution involves reaching out, recognizing and embracing their individual identity.

“At the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, there were forums for women, for youth, for business and for civil society. These forums were a place for reflection on how to contribute collectively to achieving positive global change, for which the Commonwealth is widely respected.

“Today, and in the year ahead, the theme ‘An inclusive Commonwealth’ is an inspiration for us all. Let us give it practical effect by supporting those in need and those who feel excluded in all walks of life. By doing so, we will continue to build a truly representative Commonwealth country and community.

“On behalf of the Queen, thank you for your attention.”

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Lake: It’s my pleasure to introduce and welcome to the House today students joining us from the UBC political advocacy committee. The group is attending the Legislature today to meet with and have conversations with various MLAs on health policy issues for their annual B.C. lobby day. I’m looking forward this afternoon to meeting with Emma Mitchell, Claire Schiller, Eric Zhao and Simran Lehal.

The mandate of the committee is to outline educational, political and social issues of importance to medical students, advocating for change on behalf of UBC medical students, and educating and training students how to advocate for systemic change. I also have a bad knee that I want them to take a look at while I’m in the meeting.

Would the House please make these students very welcome here in the House.

J. Darcy: It’s a great pleasure to join with the Minister of Health in welcoming UBC medical students here today. I know many people on both sides of the House have had the opportunity to meet with them. I was very inspired this morning, as I am every time they visit us, that these are students who are both dedicated to doing the best possible job as physicians in the future, and they are also incredibly socially conscious and came here to talk to us about affordability of prescription drugs for all people in British Columbia. I join the minister in making them very welcome.

I have a couple of other groups to welcome today. From New Westminster, a dear friend and also my optometrist, Brenda Horner. When people say, “I love the colours in your glasses,” it’s Dr. Brenda Horner from FYidoctors in New Westminster, here today, together with her niece Shannon McLaren, who’s very interested in politics and in government. I would ask members to make them very welcome.

Thirdly, and I know that many people will be meeting with them as well, there are a whole lot of folks here today from the Canadian Diabetes Association — officials of the organization, people living with diabetes. I want to give a particular shout-out to a group that I just learned about called Young and T1 — meaning they’re young and type 1 diabetics — who are doing, also, an amazing job. You can find them on Facebook as well. Certainly, I know we will all be meeting with them. They have a very powerful message to us about access to care for all people living with diabetes. Welcome to the House today.

Hon. S. Anton: Those around me will know that I have been waiting eagerly to join the blissful land of grandparenthood. I am pleased to announce that that time has arrived.

[1340]

We are joined today by little Isabelle Morrison; her mother, our daughter Elizabeth Anton; and looked upon fondly from afar by dad and husband, Edward Morrison. May the House make them very welcome.

B. Ralston: I’d like the Legislature to recognize Catriona Adams. She’s here to witness the tabling of a petition for changes to the Name Act that she initiated. That petition would give a broader choice to those contemplating a change of last name after marriage. The present Name
[ Page 11392 ]
Act is outmoded and cumbersome, in her view and those signing the petition, and British Columbia has fallen far behind other provinces.

Please welcome Catriona Adams to the Legislature.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I have a couple of guests in the gallery today from the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Beverly Dicks is the ADM for provincial office of domestic violence and strategic priorities and Kathy Berggren-Clive is a director in the strategic priorities branch. They joined me for lunch today as a follow-up to the division’s successful provincial employees community services fund — PECSF — campaign.

The campaign is a fundraising effort, as everyone knows, through the public service to have employees join together to support local charities. This year Bev and her team challenged staff to go for 100 percent participation in the payroll deductions program. They pulled together a number of incentives to encourage people to participate.

I added the hosting of lunch in the Legislature to blatantly try to boost the outcomes. I’m not sure how much that added to the participation. However, they did reach their goal of 100 percent participation, and Kathy was the winner of the draw. I had the pleasure of having lunch with them today. Joining them as well is Debbie MacLean, who is a manager of divisional operations in PODV and strategic priorities. Debbie is a former ministerial assistant of mine.

I would ask the House to please make them very welcome.

L. Popham: It may disappoint some in B.C., but when football season rolls around, I cheer for the Roughriders. That’s because I was born in Regina, Saskatchewan.

Today I’ve got some visitors who have moved from Saskatoon to Saanich South: Vivian and Angelo Copolla. They have brought with them two guests: Anne Smart, a former NDP MLA from Saskatoon, and her husband, Larry Mullen. Please welcome them to the House.

L. Reimer: It’s my great pleasure to welcome to the House today two of my constituents, Manfred and Linda Zumm. They are here today with the Canadian Diabetes Association. Linda, who suffers from diabetes, has been an absolutely wonderful advocate for others who suffer from the same. Would the House please make them very welcome.

M. Dalton: In the House today, I have some friends from Maple Ridge, Ian and Khoua and Caelyn Sass. We had lunch together. Ian is on my board in my riding association. He’s also the president of the federal Liberal local association.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

R. Lee: In the gallery today, we have three visitors from the BCIT Student Association. As you know, BCIT is the largest institute, as well as the largest employer in my riding, Burnaby North.

I have had very good discussions with the students, Shubhi Singh and Heyden Vargas and also the staff, Sameer Ismail. We discussed issues dear to the hearts of BCIT students. Would the House please help me give our visitors a very warm welcome.

G. Kyllo: I’m joined today by Nel Peach, my girlfriend from Shuswap, who has joined us today and is here joining the Canadian Diabetes Association. I’d like the House to please make Nel feel very welcome.

G. Hogg: Joining us on the floor of the Legislature today is former MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale from 1991 to 1996, Ken Jones, resident of White Rock. He’s currently past president, secretary of membership chair, for the Association of Former MLAs of B.C. and vice-president of operations for QuakeKoso Canada.

[1345]

Ken is in Victoria. As he tells me, he has been managing policy resolutions for the Liberal Party of Canada, and the South Surrey–White Rock delegation was successful in moving a resolution to have medicare coverage for persons with autism to the No. 2 priority for the national policy convention in Winnipeg this May.

Please welcome Ken Jones.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s a pleasure today to introduce to the House a few students and their supervising authorities who are involved in co-op education in British Columbia, which I think we all know is extraordinarily successful in providing training for students and cultivating excellent employees for companies in their field.

Please join me in welcoming Maria Tepina and Ainsleigh Hill, two ACE co-op students of the year, along with Maria’s husband, Alexander, and the president of the Association for Cooperative Education, Claudia Sperling.

D. Ashton: I, too, would like to welcome the Canadian Diabetes Association — and also a gentleman that’s with them, Brian Simons, after a long, distinguished career in provincial government. He’s the gentleman that reads the snowpacks with uncanny ability and keeps our lakes and rivers within their boundaries, as they should.

You’ll also recognize the last name. His son is a world class triathlete based out of Penticton.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

JULIO MONTANER AND HIV/AIDS
RESEARCH AND TREATMENT

R. Sultan: It’s painful to recall the panic and confusion surrounding AIDS 26 years ago.
[ Page 11393 ]

We had returned to Vancouver to find our nephew languishing in the hospital, disowned by his parents because he was gay. My wife, a nurse, went to work despite my misgivings about the germs she might carry home. He died two weeks later. At that time, the work of Dr. Julio Montaner at St. Paul’s Hospital was not recognized, and his centre of excellence did not exist.

Now, Julio’s seek-and-treat strategy has transformed the Downtown Eastside, and the therapy has been adopted globally by the World Health Organization.

UNAIDS plans to conquer what has been described as the worst pandemic in human history using the centre’s treatment-as-prevention approach.

A few weeks ago I watched the Royal Society of Canada award the McLaughlin Medal to Julio for “important research of sustained excellence in medical science.” Whether they were influenced by the pope’s very obvious thumbs-up he gave to Julio at a press conference in Rome a couple of weeks earlier is not clear.

In any event, our campaign to wipe out HIV in British Columbia has been so successful, Julio is trying to replicate the experience in the treatment of viral hepatitis. You boomers out there should pay attention. Your infection rate is four to five times above average.

Curiously, some governments in Canada did not want to discuss HIV/AIDS or Julio. To my eye, public health policy driven by ideology has no place in this country.

DIABETES

J. Darcy: One in 11 people in British Columbia are currently living with diabetes. That’s 460,000 people. Those are the people who have already been diagnosed. Many others are living with diabetes and don’t yet know it. These are staggering statistics, and the number is expected to rise by 50 percent over the next ten years.

But beyond the numbers, there’s a human impact. Diabetes is a chronic, often debilitating and sometimes fatal disease in which the body either cannot produce insulin or cannot properly use the insulin it produces. Diabetes causes 30 percent of strokes, 40 percent of heart attacks, 50 percent of kidney failure requiring dialysis, 70 percent of all non-traumatic amputations, and it’s the leading cause of vision loss and blindness.

That is extremely serious for individuals and their families. It’s also very serious for B.C.’s health care system. According to the Canadian Diabetes Association, diabetes cost B.C. an estimated $1.6 billion last year.

[1350]

Twenty thousand British Columbians live with type 1 diabetes. The overwhelming majority of diabetics have type 2, most of them over 50.

But today in B.C. we are also seeing an epidemic of type 2 diabetes amongst youth, in particular aboriginal youth, youth from low-income families and young people of South Asian descent. The good news is that for many, diabetes can be prevented, and for others, it can be effectively treated and serious complications can be avoided.

We need greater access to team-based diabetic care and peer counselling for youth and people of all ages, and we have to ensure that access to life-saving, life-changing diabetes equipment and supplies and care — including access to foot exams and podiatrists, which play such a critical role in preventing amputations — are available to all.

As the Canadian Diabetes Association and our UBC medical students also have told us so eloquently, access to health care should not be based on the ability to pay.

COWBOY AND RANCHING HERITAGE

D. Barnett: In my riding of the Cariboo-Chilcotin, ranching is engrained in our social, economic and cultural fabric. More than two centuries ago, homesteaders arrived in this region and established the communities that thrive to this day.

These men and women were cowboys in a uniquely British Columbian way. They confronted many challenges, which they overcame through hard work, resourcefulness and grit. This cowboy spirit is still alive and well in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. It is exemplified by our dedicated ranchers, who wake up at the crack of dawn every day to tend to their cattle and put food on our plates.

As our cities continue to expand and develop, we must actively work to preserve British Columbia’s cowboy and ranching heritage. That is why I am so pleased that this week has been recognized as Cowboy Heritage Week in British Columbia. Fostering an appreciation of cowboy heritage will allow future generations of British Columbians to understand the significant contributions that ranchers have made to this province.

I’d like to acknowledge the hard work of volunteer organizations that help to promote cowboy culture and heritage, such as the B.C. Cowboy Heritage Society. The society organizes community events under the great hand of two people: Mark and Kathy McMillan of 100 Mile House. One is the annual 100 Mile House Cowboy Concert, and the other is the great Kamloops Cowboy Festival, which helped to generate interest in our shared history. The society also maintains the Cowboy Hall of Fame at the Museum of the Cariboo-Chilcotin in Williams Lake, which includes a fascinating look at the history of the region’s First Nations cowboys.

I invite you all to join with me in celebrating Cowboy Heritage Week and give thanks to our ranchers for their hard work, determination and enduring cowboy spirit.

SOCIAL WORKERS

D. Donaldson: I rise to pay tribute to all social workers in B.C., whether they work for the provincial govern-
[ Page 11394 ]
ment, delegated aboriginal agencies, other social service organizations or privately, as we mark National Social Worker Week. These are the people who take on, as the Representative for Children and Youth puts it, “the prudent-parent government role” when families break down and when children need assistance.

It is a tremendously challenging role that negotiating family relations presents to these talented and skilled individuals. Adding to the challenge in B.C. are often overwhelming workloads and staffing shortages. Front-line social workers sometimes have had to deal with mixed messages on issues like court orders and hotel stays.

Yet the social workers I’ve come to know welcome accountability, transparency and scrutiny, all in an effort to do the best job possible. They are frequently involved in very stressful and traumatic situations involving abuse and neglect, and they play a pivotal role as the prudent parent to ensure the safety of vulnerable children and in making decisions in the best interests of children and families.

In this, they are bound to follow legislation, such as the Child, Family and Community Services Act. But beyond that, social workers have to make what can be life-altering judgment decisions and must rely on their training, expertise, professional experience and support from fellow social workers.

It’s a tough job that attracts very special people. As one social worker put it:

“My job working with families can be dangerous, as I work in their homes and am sometimes faced with mental health and addictions issues, compounded by parents’ anger when their families are affected by MCFD decisions. I’ve been in situations that are difficult and sometimes frightening. Our deep empathy and care for our clients keeps this service going.”

[1355]

Deep empathy and care — that is the hallmark of dedicated social workers as they support children and families. Thank you to all social workers everywhere in B.C. Would the Legislature please join me in saluting these incredible individuals as we celebrate National Social Worker Week.

ROYAL CANADIAN MARINE SEARCH
AND RESCUE VOLUNTEERS IN RICHMOND

J. Yap: My community of Richmond-Steveston is blessed to be in close proximity to a waterway of great importance in our province, the Fraser River. This working river facilitates industry and is a key contributor to our diverse economy. It has important historical significance and a scenic beauty that people can enjoy on land and by boat.

While being on the water can be second nature to folks in Richmond-Steveston, no one ever expects to find themselves in an emergency situation. But it’s reassuring to know that the volunteer crews of the Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue station No. 10, Richmond, are there to provide their services 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Our hard-working local volunteers are among the 1,000 highly trained Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue members throughout B.C. who are willing and ready to risk their lives to help anyone in distress on the water.

In addition to participating in search and rescue activities, all units actively promote boating safety in their communities, and many of the stations, including station 10, Richmond, have also succeeded in raising funds to purchase and maintain their own dedicated search and rescue vessels.

It was my pleasure to visit station 10, Richmond, recently, not only to check out their operations and visit their new boat, but to thank members for their dedication and service and to celebrate a recent community gaming grant that will support their tireless work. A big thank you to station leader Aaron Harnden and treasurer Marcy Babins and notable active volunteers like Barry Hastings, Simon Pearse, Ron Robson, Ryan Woodward, Greg Miller and James Lind — just a few of the fantastic people working hard to keep others safe.

TRIBAL PARKS EVENT IN TOFINO

S. Fraser: I just attended a wonderful event hosted by the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation in Tofino, smack dab in the middle of one of two UNESCO Biosphere Reserves in all of British Columbia. The topic was tribal parks.

The purpose of the gathering was to strengthen one another and build relationships through the sharing of experience, food and vision; also, to co-author declarations about good governance, environmental security and responsible economics in the practice and spirit of reconciliation; and also to share ceremony for the enhancement of biocultural heritage that will benefit all of humanity. The gathering builds on various initiatives and recent legal developments showcasing such communities as the Heiltsuk of the Great Bear Rainforest.

Friday night was a gala affair, with First Nations from across the province and as far away as southern California. It was also a who’s who for the environmental groups and NGOs. Politically, it was a full pull. The Tla-o-qui-aht leadership was joined by Tofino mayor and Alberni-Clayoquot regional district chair Josie Osborne; our brand-new MP, Gord Johns; and yours truly.

Eli Enns did an amazing job of organization and hosting, and it was inspiring, always, to hear from respected Tla-o-qui-aht speakers such as Moses Martin and Joe Martin and from former Chief of the Xeni Gwet’in Nation, Marilyn Baptiste.

We were all treated to an evening performance by world-renowned singer-songwriter Ta’Kaiya Blaney. She’s an amazing young woman whose words of wisdom and song left me — and all of us, actually — inspired and optimistic about our collective futures.
[ Page 11395 ]

I would like to leave this House with some Nuu-chah-nulth wisdom from these tribal park initiatives: hishuk-ish ts’awalk. Everything is one; all things are connected. If we legislators can get that one right, our decisions will all be much better ones.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RECORD-KEEPING
COURT CASE

M. Karagianis: On May 28, 2015, the opposition tabled two documents from Tim Duncan, the former executive assistant to the Minister of Transportation and a former government caucus researcher. In his correspondence, Mr. Duncan said that George Gretes, the former ministerial assistant to the Minister of Transportation, a man appointed by the Premier, had destroyed government records in contravention of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

[1400]

On Friday, we learned that Mr. Gretes has been charged by the special prosecutor with wilfully misleading the province’s Information and Privacy Commissioner. In other words, Mr. Gretes deliberately destroyed government records and then, in the opinion of the special prosecutor, lied about it.

My question is to the Attorney General. Why would a political aide, appointed and trained by this government, believe it was acceptable to destroy records and wilfully mislead a legislative officer?

Hon. S. Anton: As the member said in her question, it has been referred to a special prosecutor. As the member knows, there are charges laid. It is now squarely before the courts, and that’s where it should be left.

Madame Speaker: Esquimalt–Royal Roads on a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: I appreciate that the minister doesn’t want to answer these questions, but they are very important.

In her report last fall, Commissioner Denham determined that the Premier’s deputy chief of staff had violated the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. She determined that the Premier’s former director of issues management had violated the act. She determined that the chief of staff to the Minister of Citizens’ Services had broken the province’s information and privacy laws. She determined that Mr. Gretes had both destroyed government records and lied to an official of the Legislature. On Friday, the special prosecutor agreed.

After Mr. Duncan made his explosive allegations, the B.C. Liberals went into overdrive to suggest that he was a disgruntled employee and that, in fact, he wasn’t telling the truth. Mr. Duncan has been vindicated time and time again in this issue. Will the Attorney General apologize to Mr. Duncan for her government’s attack on his character?

Hon. S. Anton: As the member knows, this is in the hands of the special prosecutor and now in the hands of the court. As I said a moment ago, that is where it must remain.

Madame Speaker: Esquimalt–Royal Roads on a final supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, these are very important questions. These are questions of integrity. These are questions about government’s efforts to destroy the reputation of its accusers.

Last fall we asked the Premier if she would have the decency to apologize to Mr. Duncan, and she refused. I do not understand how an apology is before the courts.

Again to the Attorney General. She has a different role. She’s supposed to rise above the political fray here. Will she do the right thing and today apologize to Mr. Duncan?

Hon. S. Anton: The court will hear evidence on the matters as described by the member opposite. The court will make its decision. That is where the matter must remain, not in this House.

D. Routley: This government has been quite willing to ensure that its appointees have the help of the very best legal minds in British Columbia. In fact, they have indemnified at least six employees for legal assistance in interviews with the other special prosecutor’s investigation. While I’m reminded of the $6 million in legal bills the government paid for two of its other former political aides, I want to focus on Mr. Gretes.

My question is to the Attorney General. Are taxpayers picking up Mr. Gretes’s legal bills?

Hon. S. Anton: As the member knows, and as I have said often in this House, the matter of indemnity is outside of the political process, which I think is exactly where we would all want it to be. It’s in the hands of senior civil servants. I cannot comment on an individual case. What I can say, though, is when there is a criminal charge, if there has been an indemnity granted and there’s a conviction, then the indemnity is paid back to government.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan on a supplemental.

[1405]

D. Routley: Well, perhaps the minister wasn’t in this House the last time B.C. Liberal political staffers went to court. That was Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk, who pled guilty,
[ Page 11396 ]
and taxpayers were stuck with a $6 million bill. Taxpayers deserve better.

My question is for the Attorney General. If Mr. Gretes is found guilty, will taxpayers again be stuck with the bill, or will we get our money back?

Hon. S. Anton: Whether or not an indemnity is granted is up to senior civil servants. As I said, it’s not a political question. If an indemnity is granted — again, speaking very much in the general because the specifics are not before me, nor are they before this House…. If there is a criminal conviction and there has been an indemnity, then the indemnity must be paid back.

EMERGENCY RESPONSE TRAINING
FOR AHOUSAHT FIRST NATION

S. Fraser: Five months ago the Leviathan II tragically sunk in the waters of Clayoquot Sound near Tofino. Members of the Ahousaht First Nation were the first on the scene, and they were responsible for the saving of many lives.

In the aftermath of that tragedy, the Premier came to Tofino and made a promise to the Ahousaht. She promised: “If they need more help, if they want more training, we will be there to help them do that. That’s part of the program that we’ve established with the minister.”

My question is for the minister responsible for emergency preparedness. Why, in response to concerns of abandonment raised this week by the Ahousaht, did the minister responsible duck the issue of the Premier’s pledges to the community and instead pass the buck to the federal government?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: First of all, I’d like to take a moment just to address the great deal of courage and the community spirit that we saw demonstrated by the people of Tofino and the people of Ahousat and, as well, to address the loss of life of those five British nationals and the one Australian during this disaster.

Through the coordination of the province, of this government, with the federal government, we will ensure that First Nations who were the first responders in the disaster have the tools and the resources available. But the member well knows that marine rescue and First Nations emergency preparedness are in the purview of the federal government. That said, emergencies know no boundaries. It’s the unity of effort that will certainly be shown and demonstrated by this government and others to ensure that First Nations have the tools that they need to properly respond to emergencies.

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

S. Fraser: The response from the minister begs the quote from Chief Greg Louie of the Ahousaht: “It’s very disappointing that top politicians of this province will make promises and commitments and not follow through.”

The Premier herself said more lives would have been lost if Ahousaht fishermen hadn’t been so quick to respond that night. She promised the people of Ahousat that the province would work closely with them. Five months later, no specific training, no equipment, no supports at all and zero communications. The minister responsible didn’t even bother to pick up the phone.

Now we have the minister telling the media that they can’t do anything because it’s a federal issue. In other words, the Premier chartered a flight to Tofino, made a false promise and used the heroics of the Ahousaht people all as a prop for her photo op. To the minister responsible: is that about right?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: This government, myself and the Premier have certainly been in communication with Tofino and the people of Ahousat to ensure that they are properly resourced to respond to emergencies.

I will mention to the member opposite, because he conveniently forgot, the $10 million that this government has provided for B.C. Search and Rescue — $10 million to help resource search and rescue volunteers who risk their lives every day to ensure that people who find themselves in emergencies or disasters are properly resourced.

[1410]

INCOME ASSISTANCE POLICY ON
WORKERS COMPENSATION DEATH BENEFITS

L. Krog: Brennan Smith just celebrated his fourth birthday. His mother was pregnant with him when, on October 13, 2011, his father tragically died on the job. His mother should be receiving a WorkSafe benefit from WorkSafe B.C. of $286.72 a month. She doesn’t. The B.C. Liberals claw back every cent because Brennan’s mother is on social assistance.

To the Minister of Social Development. This reprehensible policy is B.C. Liberal government–made. Is the minister going to change this policy, yes or no?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: As I’ve mentioned in the House before, it is very challenging for individuals on income assistance and persons with disabilities. We recognize that. That is why on this side of the House, in our government, we have a comprehensive social safety net in place to ensure that we are offering supports. We have to always remember that it is a taxpayer-funded program, and it is the program of last resort for individuals to come to.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo on a supplemental.
[ Page 11397 ]

L. Krog: That’s an incredible answer. After two years of prodding by the public, this hard-hearted government finally reneged on its policy of clawing back support payments from parents. In this situation, this child does not even have the benefit of a father alive to give love and nurture. Then, in addition, this government claws back the money that’s paid as a child benefit from WorkSafe B.C. because of the fact that his father died on the job.

Is that the policy this minister is prepared to defend in this House today? Is that the policy of the B.C. Liberals — to take money from children whose parents have been killed on the job? Is that the policy? Tell us today, yes or no, and is it going to be changed?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Our government wants to ensure that people have meaningful jobs, helping make meaningful contributions so that families can have access to the supports they need. Families having a child have access to additional supports through the increase in shelter and support rates through the provincial and federal tax credits. It was this government that also increased the monthly earning exemptions for families, and increased them from $500 to $800. We continue to make gains.

It was also the members opposite who had the opportunity to change this policy while they were in government. They chose not to.

PHARMACARE COVERAGE
FOR INSULIN PUMPS

J. Darcy: Stephanie Hendy is one of nearly 20,000 British Columbians with type 1 diabetes. For many years, Stephanie used insulin injections to regulate her blood sugar, but even with five injections a day, she couldn’t keep her blood sugar levels under control. After being hospitalized four times with hypoglycemic seizures, Stephanie’s endocrinologist told her she needed to start using an insulin pump.

Her medical specialist deemed this to be medically necessary, but because Stephanie is over the age of 25, the provincial PharmaCare program won’t pay for it. At $7,000 per pump, the cost is a barrier to equal access to health care. Ontario and Alberta have taken the lead on this issue, and they cover the cost of medically necessary insulin pumps.

My question is for the Health Minister. Will he follow the lead of other provinces and cover the cost for medically necessary insulin pumps?

[1415]

Hon. T. Lake: We have good ongoing dialogue with the Canadian Diabetes Association around policy for treatment of diabetes. We are committed to funding those folks that do have diabetes, both type 1 and type 2. In fact, we spent about $77 million on diabetes medication and supplies through PharmaCare, and that’s double what was spent ten years ago. Until 2014, the pumps were available only to those up to age 19. Under this government, we established that up to age 25. As people transition, they often don’t have the extended health care benefits and other abilities to resource those pumps.

We continue to look for ways and opportunities of increasing supports, but if I were to follow the lead of Ontario and Alberta, we wouldn’t have a balanced budget, when 42 percent of the budget goes to health.

The Canadian Diabetes Association and diabetics around the province understand the limitations….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. This House will come to order.

Hon. T. Lake: We know that the opposition thinks that there’s a great big money tree out at the back. We work very hard to have an efficient, effective health care system and to live within our means. When we have the opportunities to increase those benefits, we will do so.

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: Yes, we have made some progress, and I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who’s been instrumental in leading the campaign to get better coverage for diabetes.

The research on this issue is crystal-clear. Diabetes pumps can significantly reduce the risk of serious complications like blindness, kidney failure, heart attacks, strokes and amputations. Diabetes cost British Columbia $1.6 billion last year. Surely, the minister can see that over the long term, providing coverage for insulin pumps when they are medically required would result in net savings of millions of dollars each year.

The Canadian Diabetes Association and many people living with type 1 diabetes are in the chamber today. Will the minister give them good news and commit that this government will cover the costs of medically necessary insulin pumps for type 1 diabetes patients?

Hon. T. Lake: Investments in health care can only be made when there is enough revenue coming into the Crown to be able to finance. It’s easy for the member opposite, who doesn’t have to make a decision about the allocation of scarce resources, to say: “Pay more for this; pay more for that.” What the members opposite could do is get out of the way and let some economic development occur in this province so that we could afford to fund more health care.
[ Page 11398 ]

WATER QUALITY IN SPALLUMCHEEN AREA

G. Heyman: Spallumcheen residents have repeatedly asked for the soil and manure test reports that the Environment Ministry relied on when it allowed effluent spreading in the 2014 and 2015 crop seasons. Steele Springs waterworks board chair Brian Upper says ministry staff made a verbal promise to provide these reports, but they have still not been released.

I have asked the minister several times why she will not release this public health information to those directly impacted by nitrate contamination. She says the results are posted, but it turns out these are only the water test results, and just recently posted at that. Mr. Upper says that all of the information must be disclosed for independent analysis so that they can help prevent the continuing risk of nitrates contaminating the aquifer.

I will ask once again to the Environment Minister: why won’t she keep her ministry’s promise to Spallumcheen residents, Hullcar valley residents and the Splatsin First Nation so they can take action to protect their drinking water?

[1420]

Hon. M. Polak: There is only one element of information that has not been provided immediately, and that is the dairy’s own nutrient management plan. It is not our documentation.

We are pursuing the issue as to whether or not we can provide that information publicly. If we are allowed to, under freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy rules, we shall.

But insofar as the freedom-of-information request that was requested of the ministry, that request was completed and closed on December 12. The information was sent from the province’s information access office to the requester on December 11. The FOI release has been available publicly on government’s Open Information website for almost three months now.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Fairview on a supplemental.

G. Heyman: Finally, the Environment Minister acknowledges that the requested information — which I have asked for in this House, in estimates, and which the Steele Springs water board has asked for repeatedly — has not been released. The reason she gives is: because it’s information created by a qualified professional under contract to the very person who’s applying the effluent. That’s why they want the results, so it can go for independent analysis and they can know what’s happening to their water supply.

In a letter sent to the Environment Ministry, Western Water Associates engineer Bryer Manwell points out that the concentration of nitrate at Steele Springs has risen 30 percent above the guideline for Canadian drinking water quality and above the contaminated sites regulation upper cap — her ministry’s regulation — since the ministry compliance order was issued two years ago. She says: “As a professional engineer, I’m obliged to make inquiry why surface application of manure to land directly above a drinking water source that has been contaminated continues to be permitted at all.” That’s a very good question.

The Environment Minister and her ministry have allowed drinking water in the Hullcar aquifer to be contaminated above Canadian water quality guidelines. My question to the minister is: why is she continuing to allow the health of infants, seniors and others to be placed at risk?

Hon. M. Polak: There is only one item of information that has not been provided. It is not the ministry’s information. The member knows that we have legislation that governs the release of information, which is not only the freedom and access to that information but also the protection of privacy. We have an obligation to ensure that whatever information we release is appropriately done through the legislation.

Though that’s only one piece of information. All information with respect to monthly testing has been provided, has been posted on the web. That information goes to Interior Health whenever there is a concern. Interior Health, in turn, notifies the water district.

There have been samples taken from eight sites in the Hullcar valley. In all likelihood, we are told from those who have the expertise, there are multiple sites responsible, and this is not uncommon in areas where there has been intensive farming for more than 100 years.

DISABILITY BENEFITS AND
BUS PASS PROGRAM CHANGES

M. Mungall: Like the hundreds of thousands of people around British Columbia, the Mission Association for Community Living is concerned about this government’s bus pass clawback for people with disabilities. They are asking for the decision to be reversed. “The B.C. disability rate is among the lowest in the country, yet we live in one of the most expensive provinces.” They also noted: “To finally give people an increase, only to claw it back for something as essential as transportation, is mean-spirited and out of touch.”

Will the Minister of Social Development, if she’s not going to listen to the hundreds of thousands of other British Columbians who are voicing their concern on this issue, at least listen to the Mission Association for Community Living and reverse her decision, this government’s decision, to implement the bus pass clawback?

[1425]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Well, we can continue to canvass this subject again and again here in the House.

The investment is a $170 million investment to raise the rates and provide transportation to 100,000 people
[ Page 11399 ]
who receive disability assistance in this province. Our government recognized there was an inequity in the system, with 45,000 people not receiving supports for transportation. By making this change, people still have the transportation subsidy. They also have the money to pay for the subsidy. Now the system is fair.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: Well, the minister has been on this line of spin for about a month. In this spin line, she’s been accusing people with disabilities and their advocates…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

M. Mungall: …of misrepresenting the information, when in fact they are the very people….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, this House will come to order.

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Minister.

Please continue.

M. Mungall: The best people to deliver the facts on this issue are the very people who are going to be living the results of these changes — people with disabilities. They are the best people to communicate what’s going on.

In fact, if anybody has been misrepresenting what’s been going on, the minister has, with falsely representing the position of an advocate in this very question period. Following the exchange, B.C. ACORN had to publicly correct the minister, saying that their quote was taken out of context and not accurate. B.C. ACORN also said, “Libs tried to make an insultingly tiny rate increase look better,” and directly told the minister: “You know our members are furious.”

Again to the minister: stop with the spin. Just stop with it already. There are hundreds of thousands of people around this province who are concerned, who are angry and who want to see this government do the right thing. Will you do that and end the bus pass clawback? And stop giggling while you’re at it.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston knows it’s never appropriate to impugn improper motive.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: What’s being taken out of context here are the facts. There is an increase. There still remains a subsidized bus pass. People still have transportation. They have choice on how they try to use that transportation.

The communication here is the problem, and it needs to stop from the members opposite. They are causing anxiety and stress for people with disabilities around this province. Only the NDP would see a $170 million investment as a cut.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: George Abbott used to do that, and he was really funny. You’re no George Abbott.

STAFFING LEVELS FOR SHERIFFS

M. Farnworth: You know, the only people causing anxiety in this province are this government. All you have to do is to look to see what’s happened in this question period. This government clearly places a $230 million tax cut to the top 1 percent over a child receiving a $268 WorkSafe benefit. This government values a $230 million tax cut more than providing insulin pumps to people who are over 25. And this government values a $230 million tax cut to people over clawing back a bus pass, which is what they’ve been doing.

[1430]

There’s another example. My question is to the Attorney General. Does she value a $230 million tax cut more than ensuring that our courts have enough sheriffs to ensure that they don’t have to declare an emergency and force people to work because there are more than 100 fewer sheriffs today than there were ten years ago?

Hon. S. Anton: The sheriffs do a terrific job for us in British Columbia. They are extremely well regarded by myself as Attorney General, by our court services, and — I think the highest esteem of all — they are extremely well regarded by the courts — the judges who rely on them every single day for the safety of their courtrooms. They do a terrific job. They do a terrific job for all of us in British Columbia. In fact, we know that the security of our courts, having the rule of law in British Columbia, knowing that our courts are safe, knowing that are court system is solid…. Sheriffs are an integral part of that, and I thank them for it.

They are in discussions on some matters, and I think we should leave them to continue their discussions. But let me take this moment to say thank you to them and express my appreciation to them for the work that they do.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

B. Ralston: I rise to present a petition initiated by my constituent Catriona Adams. She seeks this Legislature to
[ Page 11400 ]
consider changes to the Name Act, including allowances for recently married persons — that they may combine both their surname at birth and married surname with a space in between or hyphen without the requirement of a legal change of name as stipulated in the Name Act.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Committee of Supply in Committee A — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture. In this chamber, beginning with continued second reading on Bill 17, to be followed at some point by committee stage on Bill 9.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — LOCAL ELECTIONS CAMPAIGN
FINANCING (ELECTION EXPENSES)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

(continued)

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to continue with my remarks to second reading of Bill 17, the Local Elections Campaign Financing (Election Expenses) Amendment Act.

The bill before us has come forward as a result of the recommendations of the Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits in its June 2015 report. It was introduced as an exposure bill last fall. With a number of changes, it’s coming forward to us now. Key features are addressing the challenges identified with needing to really rein in spending on our local elections, our municipal elections.

[1435]

While we have seen spending limits for our federal elections, for our provincial elections — and while many jurisdictions, provinces and municipalities across the country have spending limits in place for all three levels — B.C. is lagging behind in terms of bringing into force spending limits on the municipal level.

I just want to preface and lead us up to where we are now with Bill 17. These changes are overdue. While they address some of the needs that are identified in terms of really reining in not only election spending but the need to address contributions…. The importance of this topic, as reflected in the fact that we have spending limits provincially and federally, is that it’s important to address accountability to ensure that citizens have confidence in our municipal elections and to ensure that big spending, big money, corporate donations, big donations from organizations and from unions, don’t have a role to really guide the outcomes of elections.

The need for reform in our municipal elections…. Coming into force now, we’ll finally see that for the municipal elections in 2018, but we’ve actually missed a couple of previous elections. This also really plays into the need for reform in our municipal election spending and financing limits.

We know that there was the report that came forward in 2010. This was the Local Government Elections Task Force that had over 10,000 submissions and made 31 recommendations to improve local democracy.

It was promised, slated, to be in time for the 2011 elections. It was identified that there was a need to ensure that accountability and that there were restrictions put in place for 2011, but we missed that. That was a missed opportunity. It was not put in place for the 2011 elections.

Again, it was promised for the 2014 election, but we know very well that that was also missed and that we saw record and really out-of-control spending, certainly in Vancouver, where political parties spent in excess of $5 million.

When we look at the comparison of the elections, at the most recent election in Vancouver, in 2014, and compare it to municipal elections across the country in other big urban centres, we really see how much higher it is in Vancouver compared to the per-capita spending, for example, in Calgary, in Regina, in Winnipeg, or even Toronto and Montreal. The per-capita spending certainly doubles and triples and is in excess, in terms of the out-of-control election spending in Vancouver.

We have now before us Bill 17, the Local Elections Campaign Financing (Election Expenses) Amendment Act, which addresses half the equation. It brings in limits on campaign expenses for candidates, which is a positive step, certainly. In terms of the thousands of submissions that were made and that raised concerns through previous reports that the task force was undertaken to solicit, going across the province and having reports and submissions made from individuals and from organizations, certainly, that was one of the key recommendations. It’s obviously to ensure that there are campaign expense limits for candidates.

[1440]

However, the problem with Bill 17 is that it does not limit contributions, and this is the other side of the coin. On the one hand we have limits on expenses for candidates, but it does not address the need to limit contributions — contributions from individuals, from organizations, from corporate interests, from union interests, from organizational interests. This has been one of the pressing concerns and challenges brought forward by many individuals and organizations in terms of the need to reform and ensure that we have accountability, and that there is confidence in our municipal elections.

When we look at…. I’d like to contrast the position of the B.C. Liberals and their refusal — their lack of willingness — to take action on setting limit contributions, and contrast that with a quote from the now-Minister of Justice while she was on Vancouver city council. She sat on the subcommittee of electoral reform, and it sug-
[ Page 11401 ]
gested that city council should recommend to the Local Government Elections Task Force that it should “set limits on the annual amount of contributions that can be given by an individual or organization to an elector organization, campaign organizer or an individual seeking elected office.”

So we see that that was a recommendation that came forward at the time when the current Minister of Justice was sitting on Vancouver city council, and it does not add up with why Bill 17 does not place limits on contributions. In Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and Manitoba, they have contribution limits for individuals, and Quebec and Manitoba banned contributions from corporations and trade unions.

This is one of the main failings of Bill 17, that the special committee’s mandate was intentionally defined to not allow consideration of contribution limits — the main failing of the bill.

The task force did not recommend limiting contributions because, in part, it felt businesses and out-of-town property owners should be heard in local elections. The task force “is not recommending establishing general limits on contribution amounts or sources.”

Political contributions are a way for people to participate in the democratic process, and — according to the task force — they allow participation by those who may not be eligible to vote but are affected by local government decisions — for example, members of the community who are not Canadian citizens, community, environmental and other groups, out-of-town property owners and businesses. According to the task force, it’s important that a diversity of views be heard in local elections.

I think that it can be…. Certainly, it’s my characterization that that is exactly why we need to bring in, and we need to limit, contributions from individuals and organizations — to ensure that the local municipal electoral process is intact, it has integrity and is not subject to undue influence by either individuals or organizations living outside the municipal bounds.

We know, as well, that in terms of criticism to Bill 17…. We have a quote from Frances Bula of the Globe and Mail. One of the problems with Bill 17 is it “sets no limits on campaign donations, no bans on corporate or union donations, no requirement to disclose donations before the election and no requirement to report donations in years outside the election.”

Vancouver city councillor Andrea Reimer, in the Globe and Mail: “It will actually make the problem significantly worse. There’s a problem with the perception about the influence of corporate and union donations. If you lower expense limits, but there are no donation limits, a single donor can have much more influence.”

We saw that in the previous municipal election in Vancouver, where an individual donated nearly $1 million — it’s incredible — setting a record donation and bringing into question the ability of big business and big money to have an undue impact on the outcome of elections.

[1445]

The Times Colonist characterizes Bill 17 as…. “This Wild West approach to campaign donations fuels public cynicism and invites special interest groups with deep pockets to buy political influence. Voters decide elections, but a party without a fat bank account usually has little chance against free-spending rivals, which means big donors can decide the outcomes of elections.”

We know that in Alberta a donor can give no more than $5,000 to a candidate annually and that they must reside in Alberta. That is in contrast to what is before us in Bill 17. Unlike the rules which will stay in B.C., it allows citizens of other provinces or countries to donate to a local campaign. In contrast, as well, in Mississauga there is a cap of $750 on a donation to any one candidate. As well, the donor must reside in Ontario.

Certainly, Bill 17 is missing the mark in terms of ensuring that big money does not have an undue influence on our electoral outcomes here in British Columbia. We need to ensure that this major shortfall in Bill 17 is addressed. I’m hopeful that, through our discussions, the government will see the error of their ways and realize that certainly it does not exist. That is not an exemption that provincial or federal campaigns are subject to, and there is not a good reason to exempt contribution limits from Bill 17.

We should ensure that there are limits imposed on individuals, organizations, corporations and unions so that there is not undue influence in municipal elections, and we should bring that in line with the guidelines that are in place that govern our elections provincially and federally.

This is a big area that needs to be addressed. It’s a shortfall of Bill 17. The expectation is that this area should be re-examined. We should ensure that Bill 17, bringing in much-needed and delayed reform and campaign financing limits, includes not only limits on campaign expenses for candidates, but that campaign limits for contributions are also included.

D. Ashton: Just before I speak on the subject, I’d just like to recognize the member for Vancouver-Fairview. He attended a symposium on solar energy, and his expertise was greatly appreciated. It was a very good conference, so thank you for coming up.

I’m pleased to speak today on Bill 17 because I can speak from my experience in local government as a former councillor, a regional chair and mayor. I’ve always believed — and it was the case then as it is now — that elections aren’t decided by the amount of money spent by a candidate but are decided by the message the candidate puts forth and the candidate’s commitment to the citizens that he or she will represent in the future.

The Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, enacted in 2014, was created to enhance campaign financing
[ Page 11402 ]
rules and ensure greater accountability and transparency in local elections. The act separates the rules that regulate election advertising and campaign financing disclosure from the more procedural rules that apply generally to local election administration.

Under the current rules, local government elections are held every four years on the third Saturday in October. School board elections are also held in the same four-year cycle.

The Local Elections Campaign Financing Act has been amended to allow for the implementation of expense limits, as recommended by the joint B.C.-UBCM Local Government Elections Task Force. When the act was introduced in the spring of 2014, our government expressed its intention to bring in expense limits in time for the next government elections in 2018.

[1450]

Extensive consultation went into this bill to amend the act. In fact, consultation played a key role in all the major steps of this process. There have been many meetings and briefings with key stakeholders, organizations such as the Union of B.C. Municipalities, local government, area associations, the Local Government Management Association, the B.C. School Trustees Association, electoral organizations and third-party advertisers.

Under this bill, the expense limit period for candidates will be 28 days prior to election day. There will be a flat rate of $750 for third-party advertisers in the election areas with a population of less than 15,000.

Other changes are centred on the compliance and the enforcement. Spending by endorsed candidates and electoral organizations beyond a campaign financing arrangement is an offence only when it causes election expenses to be exceeded. Elections B.C. can extend the late filing deadline without penalty as long as it is necessary under exceptional circumstances. It also replaces offences for non-payment of monetary penalties without authority for Elections B.C. to file a certificate with the Supreme Court making the amount owed enforceable, as if it were a judgment of the court.

As I remarked earlier, a person’s financial situation should never be an impediment to seeking public office. Many of us know that in this House. For how we serve and those who we serve, it’s imperative that money doesn’t attain that position. I fully support this bill and its very constructive amendments.

V. Huntington: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 17, the Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act, 2016.

My remarks will be relatively brief. I would like to begin by thanking many of the members who have spoken earlier. Their remarks underline one of the fundamental issues so many of us have with this bill. We believe fervently that it’s only part 1 of a much larger and much more important issue in the conduct of politics in this province.

The Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits worked diligently within its terms of reference to examine the appropriate expense limits within which local candidates, electoral organizations and third-party sponsors should campaign. While the proposed expense limits appear reasonable, the inadequacies of the bill are disappointing and frustrating.

The failure to impose contribution limits or to ban corporate and union donations and the permitting of uncontrolled expenditures prior to the writ period itself are illustrative of one thing and one thing only — a government which has a continuing interest in manipulating the political process to its own ends, a government that has little interest in helping to restore the faith of the people in the democratic process, little interest in reforming a process that is propelled by cynicism and distrust rather than the belief that democracy is exercised when you elect an individual unencumbered by influence and favour.

For this government had opposed contribution levels at the local level and prohibited corporate and union donations…. It would have no further argument to resist doing so at the provincial level. That, it is absolutely unwilling to do. Why? Because it knows that big money begets power.

The election process in this province, the very root of democracy, has become hostage to money. We have all seen it. Everyone in this House knows it. The people know it. The process is hostage to the professional organizer, the spin doctor, the image-maker, the communication expert, the pollster, media, printers — all of which cost money.

The easiest way to play the game is to woo the big donor — the wealthy individuals, the corporations, the unions, the business organizations, the labour organizations, the developers and the industrialists. The big donors. Every single person knows that big money comes with strings. The donors know it, the politicians know it, and the electorate knows it.

Those strings aren’t necessarily obvious. The understanding may not be written down, but that understanding is always there. I scratch your back; you scratch mine. Few and far between is the donor or receiver who says aloud and firmly: “Thank you for participating in the democratic process. I expect nothing in return and can give you nothing except honesty and hard work.”

[1455]

Fundamental to our culture and to the democratic process is the concept of fairness. In politics, fairness means equality of opportunity and a level playing field. Without those baselines of fairness, democracy as we understand it is impossible. To achieve those essential fundamentals requires two things: expense limits and contribution limits.

This bill does only half the job. It is a missed opportunity to protect the values inherent in our election process.
[ Page 11403 ]
Limiting the money spent on a campaign is a good start, but when a single donor or company could underwrite a campaign, when pre-writ spending is unlimited, when disclosure is not even required pre-writ, we have a problem. Democracy has a problem. And it is shameful. The government knows it is unfair and inappropriate, and it could have fixed it.

B.C. is out of step with the rest of the country and, for whatever reason, has seen fit to Americanize our process. Unlimited money from unlimited sources leaves only one thing in the minds of the electorate: a knowledge that the system is subject to the influence of big money, a knowledge that the voter does not come first.

B.C. is an outport, the Wild West of electioneering, the purveyor of influence or, at a minimum, the protector of the perception of influence. This province is out of step with the people and with the times. The expense limits established in Bill 17 are good, and I support the committee’s work in that regard, but this bill should also be about setting contribution limits and restricting donations to individual voters, not organizations.

When the government refused to permit the committee to look at the impact political donations have on our democratic process, the committee lost an opportunity to correct a weakness in our electoral system. It is unfortunate. Bill 17 would have been stronger had it been complete.

G. Kyllo: Clearly, the intention of Bill 17, the Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act, is to create a level playing field for all candidates for local government across B.C. This bill will amend the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act to bring expense limits for the 2018 municipal elections into law.

Expense limits will apply to candidates running for mayor, councillor, electoral area director, Vancouver park board, Cultus Lake Park Board, Islands Trust and trustee, and school board trustee. Expense limits will also apply to third-party advertising sponsors.

Consultations played an important role in forming the local elections reform process. Consultation played a key role in all major steps in the process, including, in 2010, the Local Government Elections Task Force; in 2013, phase 1 legislation for local elections reform, the white paper; also in 2013, phase 2 expense limits for local elections reform discussion paper; and in 2015, the Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits.

In addition, there have been many meetings and briefings with key stakeholder organizations such as the Union of B.C. Municipalities, local government area associations, the Local Government Management Association, the B.C. School Trustees Association and elector organizations as well as third-party advertisers.

Public hearings were held in Surrey, Kamloops, Vancouver and Victoria. The committee heard evidence from individuals, candidates, elector organizations and other stakeholders. In total, there were 237 public hearing presentations, written submissions and on-line survey responses.

The public consultation revealed broad support from individuals and organizations for expense limit amounts that would reflect the principles of fairness, neutrality, transparency and accountability. This public input also affirmed the need for local elections expense limits and supported higher limits for larger communities and mayoral candidates.

Based on these consultations, this bill affirms that the expense limits period for candidates, both independent and endorsed, will be 28 days prior to election day. There will be a flat rate of $750 for third-party advertisers in election areas with fewer than 15,000 people. Spending by endorsed candidates and elector organizations beyond the campaign financing arrangement is an offence only when it causes expense limits to be exceeded.

[1500]

Elections B.C. can extend a late filing deadline without penalty for as long as may be necessary under exceptional circumstances. This bill will also replace offences for non-payment of monetary penalties, giving authority to Elections B.C. to file a certificate with the Supreme Court making the amount owed enforceable as if it were a judgment by a court.

By reaching out to British Columbians in the consultation process, our government wanted to ensure that our citizens and the election participants had a final opportunity to review specific proposals regarding expense limits. By only going as far as first reading during last fall’s legislative session, government, in effect, tabled the legislation as an exposure bill to permit further opportunities for public feedback, in addition to the public consultation that had already occurred on local government election expense limits. We intend these expense limits to be in effect in time for the 2018 local government elections.

S. Chandra Herbert: You know, when this discussion started going…. It goes back years and years and years — in fact, probably as long as I’ve been thinking about municipal politics, local politics, which, believe me or not, goes to a very young age. Vancouver has had this discussion of municipal finance reform for elections. B.C. has had this discussion. Canada has had this discussion. Citizens have said they want it to be about them. They believe in people power and democracy of the people, by the people, for the people. Not by the big money, for the people. Not by the people, paid for by big money. Not democracy by the corporation. Not democracy by big unions. No, they’ve said very much they want democracy by the people, of the people, for the people. Very simple.

Then we come to elections. What do constituents tell me most when they hear about elections, when they hear sometimes about government decisions? Recently, it’s a
[ Page 11404 ]
lot of discussion around developer decisions. It’s that they want to be sure that the decisions were made because they were the best decisions, that the representative, whether it be a member of city council, a park board, a school board, an MLA, a Member of Parliament, a minister, a Premier or a Prime Minister…. They want to be assured that that decision was made with the best information and for the right reason, not because somebody gave an extra-big donation, not because somebody sponsored an event, not because of one of those things. No, they want to be sure that it’s about the people, for the people.

Well, this legislation, which comes about…. I know that the government is patting itself on the back for it, hoping to get some credit out of it. It fails the test. This legislation does not ensure that somebody is elected by the people. This legislation ensures that people can continue, corporations could continue, to give massive donations to fund political parties municipally, to fund political individuals municipally.

I wanted this legislation to say: “No more. We follow Canada’s lead. We ban corporate and union donations. We ensure that it’s one person, one vote and one person, one donation.” But that’s not one person, $1 million donation. I say that because that, indeed, has happened in Vancouver, where one person has been able to, basically, bankroll over half of an election campaign for one municipal party — an entire municipal political party. This legislation does not stop that from happening. It says that there are expense limits. Basically, you can only spend this amount of money, but you can be given it by one person or one corporation. You can be funded by one — just one.

Now, most people would look at that and go: “That sounds a little smelly, a little fishy, to me. What do you owe that corporation? What do you owe that funder who’s given you the money so you can run to get elected?” Well, I know many people will protest: “No, I didn’t promise them anything.” And I’m sure that that is, in many cases, the truth. But that taint is always there because you can never say fully 100 percent: “No, they have no influence at all. They’ve never have given me a penny. They’ve never given me a dime. They’ve never even given me $1 million.” No, you can’t do that with this legislation, so it fails the test in terms of building trust in politics. It fails the test in terms of ensuring that it’s people power, not corporate big-money power.

Now, I know that down in the United States, some judges decided that corporations were people and that if you were to restrict their freedom of speech, so to speak, by giving millions or hundreds of millions of dollars to politicians, that somehow stopped them from having the freedom to speak.

[1505]

Well, I go back to a different style of thinking, I suppose, which is to say that corporations aren’t people. Simply put, they’re not. Now, I know some law treats them that way, but I don’t think we should. This legislation seems to continue to back up this government’s belief that we should treat corporations as people and, in fact, extra-special people, because they can donate extra-special amounts of money, at least compared to the average citizen.

When citizens say to me, “Well, gee, city council approved that development really quick. Do you think that they took money from this company and voted it through because of that extra-special donation?” I can say to them, “Well, I sure hope not.” I can say: “They seem like honourable people. I don’t think so.” I can say: “Really, that would be pretty bad if they did.” But I can’t say to them with a full faith that that never played a part for any councillor. I can’t say that about this government — certainly not.

This bill should’ve brought in a ban on corporate and union donations — full stop — for municipal campaigns. We should have that banned provincially as well. It should have ensured that we actually had pre-election spending rules. You know what, hon. Speaker? If you get up right until about when the writ drops, right before people declare they want to run for election, what could you do? You could spend pretty much as much money as you wanted.

Somebody could give you millions upon millions — a corporation, whoever. They could give you as much money as possible so you could work up your data bank of supporters. You could advertise forever. You could buy out all the ads in the paper and the TV, wherever you wanted, right up until that point when, all of a sudden, you kick into that election spending window. No, you couldn’t do anything about it.

That’s been changed as well, provincially, too. So right up until the writ period, basically spend as much as you want, funded by whomever you want — whatever big business, big-money interest. That’s not, I think, what leads to a healthy democracy. I’m much more of a fan of Quebec, Manitoba and Canada’s example, where they’ve said: “No, it’s about people.” They provide the funding. After all, they are the ones that we are supposed to represent.

An expense limit — that makes sense. You don’t want it to be too out of whack, but you need the donation limit as well. Otherwise, those that appeal to the super rich, and exclusively such, have a big weight in their favour in the sense that they can try and get influence. Those who want to buy influence may have an upper hand in terms of not delivering a people’s government but delivering a donors’ government, an insiders’ government, an extra-special-favours government. That’s not what I want in my communities, that’s not what I want in our province, and I don’t think that’s what the public who send us here want, most of all.

It’s not just New Democrats who raise this issue with me. No, I hear from Liberals. I hear from Green Party,
[ Page 11405 ]
Conservatives, so-called independents, people who don’t vote at all. They all unite around this one idea: that it should be about people’s government, not big donors’ government.

The other things that I think we’ve had missed here is…. For a long time, there have been people in Vancouver pushing for the idea of wards, arguing that either wards or some sort of mixed-member system, where you’d have municipal councillors elected to represent neighbourhoods — the same way that we elect MLAs, essentially…. They’re arguing for a slightly different system, with maybe proportional, where you’d have some from citywide, some municipally. That’s been one argument. There have been a few others, but they basically have come to me and argued that our city…. When you go through the ballot, you choose approximately 26 people, if you want to choose all the people. Now, not everybody does. But essentially, you have to go through, sometimes, 100 names to figure out who you want to vote for.

Constituents have made the argument to me that they should have the option of moving to a ward system within Vancouver, if that’s what the citizens vote for. But that would require some changes, as well, to the Vancouver Charter.

You know, we’ve also made the argument that if the government won’t impose a cap on donations and a cap, a ban, on corporate and union donations for the province, let Vancouver do it itself. Let Vancouver decide that it will do this for Vancouver, and not for the rest of the province, because we know that some municipalities and some rural districts don’t have the same issues. Many don’t have the same issues as we do in Vancouver. But no, this government, in what continues to be its style, ignores Vancouver completely. It doesn’t govern for Vancouver. It governs instead, in my argument, for donors and special supporters.

[1510]

Some will say: “Well, everybody could donate. What’s the problem? Everybody has the same ability to go after big-money donors to fund their campaigns. That’s equality.” Well, I turn back to a great quote which, to me, reflects a lot of this government’s approach to people. It’s Anatole France. “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg on the streets and to steal loaves of bread.”

What the argument here is, of course, is that we can create laws, and, disproportionately in some cases, they impact poor people the worst, the vulnerable the most. The rich person will say: “Well, of course. Why would anybody steal bread? Why would anybody sleep under a bridge? We shouldn’t allow that.” That’s speaking from their place of privilege. They’re not the one starving. They’re not the one without a home.

This government, through this legislation and their lack of approach to really deal with big-money influence, basically takes the view that: “We, the wealthy, set the laws. We create the rules for the road, and the rest of you can sleep under bridges. And yeah, we might harass you about that, too.”

You know, it’s not fair to create a system that privileges just the wealthy, that privileges just the big money. I know that people win in cases without large bankrolls, without large funding behind them. But I also know that that’s often a rare circumstance, that in many cases, those that win tend to have the bigger budgets, because they can do more of the work. That’s not always the case, and I believe very much that we can still win governments without having to rely on big-money donations. It’s harder, though. It’s much harder, because you go to one person or you go to 100.

For the government side, they go to one corporation, and that can equal out to how many bake sales, how many dinners, how many events, how many fundraisers you could ever put together. Well, all you have to do is have one dinner, and you make a million bucks, on the government side of things. Now that, to me, is not fair. It’s not what democracy should be about.

While I will be supporting bringing in campaign finance limits in terms of expenses, I plead…. I will keep working until one day we actually get to a place where we ban big money from our politics in British Columbia. We ban big money from our politics in our municipalities and communities, and we bring it back to what it should be, which is people power first — not donor power, not special interest power, but people.

They elect us. They vote for us or vote against us. But in the end, they’re the ones we’re supposed to represent. It’s those people who I’m thinking of most of all when I call for a ban on corporate and union donations in support of people power.

J. Thornthwaite: As a former chair of North Vancouver school district 44 — the board of education — I’m pleased to rise to support Bill 17, the Local Elections Campaign Financing (Election Expenses) Amendment Act.

The Local Elections Campaign Financing Act is being amended to allow for implementation of expense limits as recommended by the joint B.C.-UBCM Local Government Elections Task Force. When the LECFA was introduced in spring 2014, the government expressed its intention to bring in expense limits at a later date in time for the next local government elections. The intent is to amend the LECFA to implement expense limits for the 2018 local government elections in British Columbia.

Expense limits will apply to candidates running for mayor, councillor, electoral area director, Vancouver park board, Cultus Lake Park Board, Islands Trust area trustee and school board trustee. Expense limits will also apply to third-party advertising sponsors.

Consultation has played an important role in forming the local elections reform process and played a key role in all of the major steps of the process, including the 2010
[ Page 11406 ]
Local Government Elections Task Force, the 2013 phase one legislation for local elections reform white paper, the 2013 phase two expense limits for local elections reform discussion paper, the 2015 Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits and Bill 43 consultation.

[1515]

In addition, there have been many meetings and briefings with key stakeholder organizations such as the Union of B.C. Municipalities, local government area associations, the Local Government Management Association, the B.C. School Trustees Association, elector organizations and third-party advertisers.

We are now entering the final stages of a process that started a number of years ago with the creation of the Local Government Elections Task Force, a joint task force between UBCM and government. In formulating its recommendations on expense limits, the special committee undertook public and stakeholder consultations.

Public hearings were held in Surrey, Kamloops, Vancouver and Victoria, and the committee heard evidence from individuals, candidates, electoral organizations and other stakeholders. In total, there were 237 public hearing presentations, written submissions and on-line survey responses.

The public consultations provided evidence of broad support from individuals and organizations for expense limits — amounts that would reflect the principles of fairness, neutrality, transparency and accountability. Overall, public input affirmed the need for local election expense limits and supported higher limits for larger communities and mayoral candidates.

The committee had to examine the rules along a broad spectrum, ranging from small townships, regional districts, special purpose bodies and, of course, small and large cities.

Ultimately, this bill, Bill 17, will complete the process of electoral reform that originally began in 2009, and I’m pleased to support it.

A. Weaver: I rise to speak at second reading to Bill 17, Local Elections Campaign Financing (Election Expenses) Amendment Act, 2016.

This bill is being brought forward as the second in two bills with respect to local elections campaign financing and reform. This second bill is a result of…. It has been brought together based on recommendations from the Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits, a committee that extensively consulted with numerous stakeholders with respect to local elections campaign financing.

Now, as we all know, consultation is a very important component of building social licence for any bill. But consultation is more than listening. It’s about reacting to that which you’ve been told in a way that reflects what you’ve been told. While much of this bill has done that, there are some glaring omissions, which I’ll come to shortly. The omissions are with respect to the continued allowance of corporate and union donors, as well as the fact that there are no caps on the magnitude of individual donations. The reduction of the campaign period to 28 days thereby allows, essentially, free-for-all spending by any person, any corporation or any union for anyone prior to the campaign period.

With that said, there are, as in all bills, some key points that I support and some other key points that I have some troubles with. Let’s first start with the summary of aspects of this bill that I can support — aspects of this bill that were done extensively through consultation and research as to what’s happening in other jurisdictions.

First and foremost, while the recommendations from the committee are consistent with the recommendations that government stated it would do in the fall, we are being asked to trust government, because everything is put in regulations.

Now, this is becoming a bit of a pattern with this government. We have some enabling legislation which, essentially, kicks the can down the road so that regulations can be put in place that we’re not actually able to debate here.

We’re told in the draft legislation that was released in the fall and the accompanying press release — consistent with the recommendations from the Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits — that:

“For candidates in election areas with less than 10,000 people, the proposed expense limits establish a flat rate of $10,000 for mayoral candidates and $5,000 for all other locally elected offices.

“For election areas with more than 10,000 people, a per-capita formula determines expense limits.

[1520]

“Expense limits for candidates and electoral organizations would apply from January 1 of the election year to the election day — the third Saturday of October.”

I’ll come back to that.

“Proposed expense limits for third-party advertising sponsors would be 5 percent of the expense limit of a candidate in the local election area, with a cumulative, provincewide maximum of $150,000, applicable during a 28-day campaign period.”

For elections with more than 10,000 people, mayoral candidates would have an expense limit that’s graduated — a dollar per capita for the first 15,000, 55 cents per capita for a 15,000 to 150,000 population, 60 cents per capita for a population between 150,000 and 250,000 and 15 cents per capita thereafter.

For election areas with more than 10,000 people, candidates for all other locally elected offices would have an expense limit of 50 cents per capita for the first 15,000 population, 28 cents per capita for a 15,000 to 150,000 population, 30 cents per capita for a population between 150,000 and 250,000 and eight cents per capita thereafter — essentially, half the amount allowable for mayoral candidates.

Now, these numbers are justifiable — the committee that brought forward these recommendations did extensive research on what was going on in other jurisdictions — and will, in essence, eliminate, to some extent, the abil-
[ Page 11407 ]
ity of those who have access to the greatest amount of money to necessarily win an election by blanketing airwaves, etc., with their advertising and so forth.

Again, we are being asked to trust government that, in fact, this is what will happen through regulations. It’s not clear to me that this government continues to earn our trust in light of the fact and the preponderance of promises and other things that we’ve been told over the years — that we should trust them, that they will take care of. Trust them about LNG — still waiting. Trust them about this. Trust them about that. I wait to see these regulations and certainly hope that they roll out in accordance with the guidelines that have been given to us already.

There are a number of aspects — again, coming back to some of the things that I believe are steps forward — that are good steps forward. For example, there’s an elimination of a social media ban — on tweets, Internet communications, Facebook, etc. — on election day, provided it solely encourages people to vote. I think that’s a good change. It’s essentially recognizing modern-day forms of communication, and it’s timely that we introduce this here.

The fact that expense limits are being introduced, overall, is a good change. Again, we’re kicking it down to the regulations and hoping that at some point these regulations will address the concerns expressed by people through the consultations with the special committee on local election finance expense limits.

Let’s come back to the two big failings of this bill, the lost opportunities within this bill. It’s a continued lost opportunity extending from the previous version of the local election campaign financing bill that we discussed a while back here in the Legislature. It is the continued ability for unions and corporations to influence the outcomes of elections through essentially unmitigated campaign donation limits that can be as high as anybody wants.

Unions don’t vote. Corporations don’t vote. People vote. It is the people who vote to put people into this Legislature, who put people into local governments, who put people into local school boards, who put people in Ottawa in the federal government. Yet we are being asked here, once again, to approve a bill that allows unions and corporations to determine who is in local government.

Now, I know that the official opposition supports the notion of not allowing union and corporate donations, both provincially and in local government elections, but we continue to allow this to happen. What’s so troubling about this is you’re then left with the question of whose interests are being represented.

[1525]

My very favourite example of this is the incident that happened at Mount Polley. Now, when we look at Mount Polley, we recognize that there was a potential for a lot bigger problem than actually occurred. Still, it was certainly a big enough issue to cause local environmental concern, and we still don’t know if there are long-term ramifications from the pond tailings breach.

Part of the problem with the communication is this. When we look at the owner of that company that’s running Mount Polley, we recognize that they’re substantive donors to the B.C. Liberals. Then, on the other hand, when we look at the union that represents the workers who work at Mount Polley, the United Steelworkers, they’re substantial donors to the B.C. NDP. So the public, the people of B.C., can wonder whose interests are being represented. Is it their interests? Is it the interests of the workers at the mine? Is it the interests of the corporation at the mine?

I’m not suggesting that there was undue influence arising from this, but there’s a perception that is very, very difficult to move away from. When big donors to both sides of this House come from both sides of an issue, we have to question whose interests are being represented.

Now, in the case of local government, the same thing can happen. Let’s take an example of something that’s been in the news quite a lot of late, the Trans Mountain Pipeline proposal. We know that there are certain individuals, certain corporations, who would be more predisposed to see that go through, and there are others who might not.

You might find, for example, a corporation that wants this proposal to go through and decides to fund a bunch of candidates with a huge amount of money prior to 28 days before the election. You might find, for example, another corporation might decide that they don’t want this and fund the other candidates. I suspect that the other candidates would get far less than the first candidates. But then we have a battle of election with money influencing the political discourse, not in the interests of the people but in the interests of the stakeholders of a project, and this is wrong.

This is absolutely wrong and points to the real problem in our democracy in British Columbia: we have a government that no longer represents the people. We have a government that puts its corporate friends first and thinks about the people second — whether that be resident hunters, as I look at the minister over there, whether it be the people in Shawnigan Lake, as I look at the minister over there. Regardless of the issue, this is a government that’s putting vested corporate interests first, people second.

What it’s saying, through this missed opportunity, to our local elections, to school board elections, is that we are encouraging you to do the same.

Why is it that in B.C. we allow the B.C. Teachers Federation to donate to the campaigns of trustees? This should not be allowed, because school trustees are there to look out for the public good. They’re not there to impose the will of the BCTF. It should not be allowed, but it is allowed under this legislation. We should not allow an oil company to be able to influence school board elections through campaigning, but it is allowed under here. Why are we doing this?
[ Page 11408 ]

Our democracy is broken, and this government is missing out an opportunity to fix it. One of the things you’ll see in the order papers is that I proposed an amendment. This amendment is to actually address one of the recommendations of the local elections committee, which says as follows. On page 33 of this document, under the “Elections proceedings period,” it states this:

“The committee received notice from government late in the process of its work of a proposed change to the local elections campaign period from 46 days to 28 days. Committee members expressed concern that the 2014 expenditure data included all spending from January 1 until election day and therefore the committee’s recommendations were based on an analysis of a longer campaign period. One concern is that candidates may make purchases of election materials such as flyers or advertising materials and use these materials prior to a 28-day period, and not have this captured as an expense.

[1530]

“Committee members agreed that in order for expense limits to be effective, they must apply to all campaign spending. They concluded that the local expense limits recommended by the committee for electoral organizations and candidates should apply from January 1 of the election year to election day.”

I heard from members opposite that they consulted. Indeed they did, but coming back to my first point, consultation is not just sitting and listening. It’s about reacting to what you heard in a manner that’s consistent to what you heard and that puts all together the various issues that are raised before you.

This is a very specific recommendation from a committee — very specific — yet it is ignored. I just do not understand why it is ignored. Why would government ignore this? Why would it ignore its own committee that it has majority vote on? Why would it do that? I don’t know. I’m certainly hoping we’ll get more information on this as we move forward.

In summary, while it’s long overdue for us to reform our electoral financing expenses in British Columbia and while there are aspects of this bill that of course I can support, this is a lost opportunity.

It continues to allow corporations and unions to donate. I do recognize the member for Delta South has introduced a rather innovative amendment at committee stage.

Two, it doesn’t preclude somebody from funding an entire campaign for an individual. You could have, say, the city of Vancouver — one group funded almost entirely by one individual. That still could happen.

Three, it allows people to avoid campaign spending limits because of the short 28-day campaign period time that was introduced, despite the recommendation of the committee.

Four, this bill is asking us, once more, to trust the government. “Trust us that we will introduce regulations, because we know what’s best for you.” We don’t see the information here in the bill. It’s kicked down the road for some time in the future.

Frankly, I no longer trust this government. British Columbians no longer trust this government. I would have preferred to see these numbers actually in the legislation so that we know what we’re voting for, instead of giving them carte blanche to continue to do what they’re doing, to put their corporate interests ahead of the interests of British Columbians.

M. Dalton: I’m pleased today to speak on Bill 17, the Local Elections Campaign Financing (Election Expense) Amendment Act. I’ll be going through my notes. I was just really quite astounded by the amount of consultation with so many different organizations — I’ll be going through this — and the incorporation of so many of the recommendations. I’m pleased to be able to speak on this.

The government is amending the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act to allow for the implementation of expense limits. These limits were recommended by the joint B.C.-UBCM Local Government Elections Task Force. By introducing this legislation now, the new expense limits will be in place in time for the next local government elections in British Columbia, which are scheduled in 2018.

Expense limits will apply to candidates running for mayor, councillor, electoral area director and school board trustee. Expense limits will also apply to candidates running for the Vancouver park board, for Cultus Lake Park Board, for Islands Trust area trustee. Additionally, expense limits will also apply to third-party advertising sponsors. I think part of that is to even address some of the comments that were just made by the member.

We’ve seen support for expense limits from the public, and consultation played an important — I’d say essential — role in the process. Expense limits are important to accessibility and fairness. We want to make sure that the proposed changes are reasonable and workable in different-sized communities. It’s not a one-size-fits-all.

[1535]

Also, we don’t want the expense limits to deter any candidate from running. As we think about elections down south of the border and how billions of dollars during the election process are spent, it really does, for so many of the positions, limit those who can run for office down there. I’m thankful, myself, even as a public school teacher before getting elected, being able to run for office. In British Columbia and across Canada, we do have the opportunity, people from all walks of life, to be able to run for office.

This is one thing we want to continue to see at the provincial level, but here we are addressing the municipal level. We don’t want just who has the most money winning; we want to give opportunity for all.

Also, we don’t want to see the expense limits deter, as I mentioned, any candidate from running. The public consultation process was thorough and played a major role in all steps of this process. As part of that process, we had the government elections task force in 2010. This was a joint provincial-UBCM Local Government Elections Task Force that recommended changes in five key areas to modernize local government campaign finance rules.
[ Page 11409 ]

In 2013, we had phase 1 legislation for local elections reform — a white paper. Phase 2: expense limits for local elections reform and a discussion paper. Last year we had the Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits’ report. It was an all-party special committee on local elections expense limits, which was convened in October 2014. The committee recommended expense limit amounts for local elections candidates and third-party advertisers. This committee undertook public and stakeholder consultations on expense limits. Their final report was published in June 2015. Finally, we introduced Bill 43 last fall to hold further consultation on the bill.

When making changes like this, it’s important that we consult with the various stakeholders that will be affected by this legislation. That we’ve done. The important organizations that we consulted with were the Union of B.C. Municipalities, local government area associations, Local Government Management Association, B.C. School Trustees Association, elector organizations and third-party advertisers.

We introduced this bill in the fall session for the first reading to ensure British Columbians had a final opportunity to review the specific proposals regarding expense limits. At that point, the bill was tabled as an exposure bill to give the opportunity for further public feedback. This is in addition to public consultations that had already occurred.

As for the public consultations, public hearings were held in Surrey, Kamloops, Vancouver and Victoria. In total, there were 237 public hearing presentations, written submissions and on-line survey responses. The feedback from the consultations showed that there was broad support for individuals and organizations for expense limit amounts that would reflect fairness, neutrality, transparency and accountability.

Overall, public input affirmed the need for local elections expense limits and supported higher limits for larger communities and mayoral candidates. The changes in this legislation take into consideration the differences in running a small town versus a city. The expense limits are different for mayors, councillors and third-party advertisers.

It’s generally accepted that it costs more to run for mayor, so it makes sense that we allow a higher expense limit for them. Expense limits are different based upon the community’s population. It’s more difficult to reach all the citizens in a town the size of Maple Ridge or Mission, for example, than it would be in a much smaller community across the province.

I want to take the time right now to outline what these limits will be.

[1540]

For towns with a population of less than 10,000 people, the limit for people running for mayor is set at a flat rate of $10,000. For councillors, the limit is set at a flat rate of $5,000. For third-party advertisers, the limit is set at a flat rate of $750.

For towns with a population between 10,000 and 15,000, the expense limit for mayors is $1 per capita. The expense limit for councillors is 50 cents per capita. For third-party advertisers, the limit is set at a flat rate of $750.

For towns with a population between 15,000 and 150,000, which is both the communities that I represent — Maple Ridge has 80,000 people, and Mission is over 38,000 — for communities such as this, for mayors the limit is 55 cents per capita. So that means, for example, in Maple Ridge, that would be $45,000, based on a population of 80,000, and half of that for Mission. For councillors, the limit is 28 cents per capita, so about $23,000 if you’re running for council in Maple Ridge and about $11,500 for council in Mission.

For third-party advertisers of towns of 15,000 people and over, the spending limit is set at 5 percent of the mayor’s expense limit — or $5,000 of the councillors’ expense limits — for school trustees. What does that mean? It means that, again, for a community such as Maple Ridge, with 80,000 people, you’re looking at a little over $2,000 for third-party advertisers.

For towns with a population of 150,000 to 250,000 people, the expense limit for mayors is 60 cents per capita. The expense limit for councillors is 30 cents per capita.

Finally, for cities of over a quarter of a million people — there are three in the province: Vancouver, Surrey and Victoria — the expense limit for mayors is set at 15 cents per capita and the expense limit for councillors is at 8 cents per capita. The expense limits, period, for all candidates will be 28 days prior to election day for both independent and endorsed candidates.

It’s good to have these limits so that everyone has the opportunity to run for elected office. Everyone expects the democratic process to be fair, neutral, transparent and accountable. These expense limits accomplish that.

S. Simpson: I’m pleased to take my place to join the debate on Bill 17, the local elections campaign financing expense limits act.

Essentially, what this piece of legislation does is put limits on campaign expenses for candidates at the local level. The amounts of the expense limits — there’s some reference to those — are all to come by regulation at a later time. Sometimes with these things…. We’ll just have to see what the regulatory regime looks like. The devil is in the details with regulations, and we’ll have to see what those regulations look like and how, in fact, those expense limits are reflected.

Essentially, the notion of putting in place expense limits is a good thing. It’s something that this side has spoken to on numerous occasions, something that we believe is necessary to be put in place at the local level. It is an exercise at the federal level, at the provincial level, and it certainly should be put in place at the local level. But the challenge with Bill 17 is that it truly is half a loaf, if you
[ Page 11410 ]
really want to look at it, because while it speaks to the expense side, it does not speak to contributions in any way, shape or form.

The previous speaker talked about the level of consultation that went on around this piece of legislation, about the amount of consultation that went on, and there has been a lot of talk about this for many, many years. There was a push that…. We had hoped that these things would have been put in place before the last local election. That didn’t occur, but it’s here now.

In all that consultation, we know that the government side made a conscious decision to exclude the contributions discussion. The special committee, in their report in June of 2015, made the following statement, and it’s because of decisions the government made about the mandate of that committee.

[1545]

What the committee said is:

“Many participants in the public consultation process raised other issues outside the mandate of this committee, including contribution limits and potential conflicts of interest — some advocating a ban on corporate and union donations — the institution of a ward system; disclosure requirements; and the role of Elections B.C. However, the committee recognized that these other local elections issues are beyond its mandate.”

The previous member was talking about the levels and the breadth of consultation. Consultation is a good thing, but it really becomes effective if you actually allow those voices to be heard in the report. But when the government shuts the mandate, narrows the mandate and doesn’t allow contribution discussions and other matters to be discussed, all of a sudden, you have the half a loaf. You have a report that’s incomplete, and you have a piece of legislation that doesn’t deal with all of the critical issues around how money plays a role in local elections.

Expense limits are important. They’re important because they do help to balance the playing field. What we know, and it should be true at every level of government, is that to the greatest degree possible, you want elections to be about ideas. You want elections to be about people being able to deliver their message about what they believe, what their values are, what their experience and their expertise is when they’re seeking elected office. You want to make sure that people have enough money, that they have the ability to expend a reasonable amount of money in order to deliver that message and allow voters to hear that.

What you don’t want is so much money that it becomes overwhelming. That is an issue. In my city, in Vancouver, in the last municipal election, between the two major parties, Vision Vancouver and the Non-Partisan Association…. They spent somewhere between $6 million to $7 million between them on the election in Vancouver. That’s an overwhelming amount of money. It’s way more money than should be allowed to be spent in Vancouver or in any other jurisdiction in a local election.

It does a couple of things. One is that it certainly separates both those political organizations from everybody else in terms of their voice, because it’s an at-large system, and it makes it almost impossible for independents to have any possibility of being heard at all. And $6 million or $7 million in a local election — incredible amounts of money.

You do want to take that money out, you do want to make it about ideas, and you do want expense limits that in fact ensure that people have the money, that political organizations or individual candidates have enough ability to spend to be heard. But contributions are equally critical in levelling that playing field and having balance.

It’s particularly important, in many ways, in local elections. You often hear critiques about how the development industry supports these candidates, and they’re just about helping their friends in the development community, or the local public sector workers support these candidates, and it’s all about them supporting the people who are their employees.

Both of these and other issues raise a question in the minds of voters about whose interests are being dealt with here. That’s a legitimate question, and that becomes a question when you allow contributions to be basically wide open.

It creates for people the belief that things are unfair, that they are intrinsically unfair and that the unfairness is in fact structured into the system.

That’s one of the reasons that, on this side, we have consistently said that it’s time to end that and that the best way to do that is to adopt the model that has been adopted by the federal government — to end corporate and union donations, to say that individuals will be the only people who will be allowed to make a contribution and that there will be limits on how much those contributions are.

If we do that, then we take away all of that question about whether anybody is buying influence. Whether it’s real or perceived, it is not healthy for our democracy to have people believe that.

[1550]

We have said, as we say for this place and provincially, we should end union and corporate donations entirely and move forward with a system where individuals, in fact, finance political parties and finance candidates.

You have a situation here, with Bill 17, where the government chose to ignore that issue of contributions and chose to allow the situation that continues today to be able to move on. Now, not only have we heard it in this place, but we’ve heard from many local elected representatives that they also believe that a limit on contributions and a limit or an elimination of union and corporate donations makes sense.

They are supportive of that — and they are people who are beneficiaries of union and corporate donations — saying it’s not good for our democracy and we should bring it to an end. But this legislation, Bill 17, ignored them and ignored that. So when there’s all the talk about
[ Page 11411 ]
all of the consultation that went on, you have to understand that consultation means something if people are heard and if it’s reflected, if their comments are reflected, in the final result.

When you take a big piece of the conversation and don’t allow it to occur because you remove it from the mandate of the committee that was hearing from people, then you create a problem. That’s exactly what’s happened here around this piece of legislation.

We know that there’s been a lot of discussion in this place. My colleague the member for Saanich North and the Islands has introduced a number of pieces of legislation around election reform here, reforms that would do a variety of things, including dealing with this issue of contributions and contribution limits at the provincial level.

Now, the government has resisted that and has clearly had no interest in that model, certainly no interest that we’ve seen. I guess that it makes a little bit of sense to me that the government might be reluctant to talk about eliminating union and corporate donations at the local level.

They might feel a little bit hypocritical. The hypocrisy might be a bit much for them, to say: “We’re going to limit contributions at the local level, when we put no limits on ourselves.” I understand the hypocrisy of that, and maybe that’s what the government was thinking when it chose not to put contribution limits in place.

As we move forward, we need to make some decisions about this. This is an issue that will be left unresolved. This piece of legislation clearly will pass. It will put some expense limits in place, and those will be good. But as has been pointed out, it’s essentially the 28-day period. It does nothing around expenditures prior to that and where that money can come from. We’ve got a bit of the Wild West in periods outside of the 28 days. That’s a problem too.

If the government side is really interested in levelling that playing field at the local level and making this about individuals and ideas, then it will put contribution limits in place. One of the challenges, when you put expense limits in place…. This issue was raised by a councillor in Vancouver, who said part of the problem with this piece of legislation is it will say you can only spend X amount of dollars, but there’s no limit on from whom or an amount that you can receive in contributions.

You could have situations where one or two funders essentially bankroll a campaign, and there’s nothing good about that. There’s nothing good about having one or two funders bankroll a campaign. That will raise all kinds of questions that really should never be on the table. One way to deal with that, of course, is to say that only individuals can make donations and there’s a clear cap on the amount that they can contribute, whatever that amount might be.

[1555]

The problem with this is that it says something entirely different and would, in fact, allow that to happen. That becomes a problem, and it certainly becomes a problem in bigger jurisdictions where large, large cheques can be written. We know large cheques are written.

Vision and the NPA didn’t get their bank accounts all through $20 donations. That certainly didn’t happen. It came from very large cheques from a variety of organizations on both sides.

The folks in Vancouver, I believe, on both sides of that issue — and I think the Justice Minister was a supporter of this when she was a city councillor, but her view apparently has changed — are saying: “Put contribution limits in place.” On both the NPA and the Vision side, even though they are beneficiaries, they are saying: “Contribution limits need to be put in place.” That’s something that we should consider.

I would certainly hope that the government would think about this. We’ve got a couple of weeks to get this piece of legislation done. We’re going to go off for a couple of weeks’ break. We’re going to come back and deal with this in committee. We will have some discussion about these issues, undoubtedly, in committee. The minister has an opportunity to give it a thought, to introduce an amendment to, in fact, put those contribution limits in place and move forward. I would be very supportive of that.

If the government is choosing not to do that, then as a Vancouver member of the Legislature…. Considering Vancouver is, at this point, the largest and has arguably one of the most sophisticated and mature political systems of local government with some capacity, because of its size, to really make decisions for itself — and there are only a handful of jurisdictions that could claim this — I would ask that the Vancouver Charter be amended — and the city of Vancouver be allowed, under the Vancouver Charter, since Vancouver exists and operates under a unique piece of legislation — to allow Vancouver city council to make these decisions for themselves.

Let them make the decision about whether they are going to limit contributions, whether they are going to restrict union and corporate donations, whether they are going to make these decisions for themselves. They can have the debate. They can adopt the bylaws to, in fact, do that. And they can be politically accountable for their own decisions. I know the Vancouver council would be happy to be given the authority to do that.

If the province doesn’t want to do it and wants to put in place Bill 17, I would say let’s allow the city of Vancouver, which exists under its own charter, to make these decisions for itself and to step up and do what it thinks is right — to have the consultation it needs to have around the specific questions and then be able to move forward on them. It doesn’t have to change ensuring that Vancouver has to respect the limits of Bill 17, but allow the city of Vancouver to build on that by being able to take further steps that the council, I suspect, would unanimously support, which is a limit on contributions and on union and corporate donations.
[ Page 11412 ]

If the government doesn’t want to do this across the province, for reasons that I don’t understand, then at least allow it to happen in Vancouver, where the council would like to have the authority to do that.

You have a piece of legislation that is going to take one step down that road, is going to deal with the expense limits. We will wait to see what the regulatory regime looks like, but it will put in place expense limits. That’s a good thing for the 28 days that they’re in place. But it doesn’t deal with the other big piece of this question, and that is the failure of Bill 17. That’s the failure of a piece of legislation that was supposed to correct a problem that is pretty widely recognized and pretty widely acknowledged by just about everybody, except the folks on the government side.

[1600]

I would hope that the minister will give some reconsideration over the couple of weeks that we’re not here, may decide that these changes actually have some value and are worthwhile, and will bring back amendments at the committee stage that we could all support, and we could move forward and all feel good about voting for this bill.

D. Barnett: The Local Elections Campaign Financing Act is being amended to allow for implementation of expense limits, as recommended by the joint B.C.-UBCM Local Government Elections Task Force. When the act was introduced in spring 2014, we announced our intention to bring in expense limits at a later date in time for the next local government elections. The intention is to amend the act to implement expense limits for the 2018 local government elections across B.C.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Expense limits will apply to candidates running for mayor, councillor, electoral area director, Vancouver park board, Cultus Lake park board, Islands Trust area trustee and school board trustee. Expense limits will also apply to third-party advertising sponsors.

Bill 17 was given first reading during the fall 2015 legislative session. This is because our government wanted to ensure that our province’s voters and candidates had a final opportunity to review specific proposals regarding expense limits. By only going as far as first reading during last fall’s session, our government, in effect, tabled the legislation as an exposure bill to permit further opportunities for public feedback in addition to the public consultation that had already occurred on local government election expense limits.

Through consultation, Bill 17 contains the following changes: the expense limits period for candidates, both independent and endorsed, will be 28 days prior to election day; and there is a flat rate of $750 for third-party advertisers in election areas within a population of less than 15,000.

There are also the following additional changes in the bill: spending by endorsed candidates and elector organizations beyond a campaign financing arrangement is an offence only when it causes expense limits to be exceeded; Elections B.C. can extend a late-filing deadline without penalty for as long as may be necessary under exceptional circumstances; and offences for non-payment of monetary penalties will be replaced by authority given to Elections B.C. to file a certificate with the Supreme Court, making the amount owed enforceable as if it were a judgment of the court.

In formulating its recommendations on expense limits, the special committee undertook public and stakeholder consultation. Public hearings were held in Surrey, Kamloops, Victoria and Vancouver. The committee heard evidence from individuals, candidates, elector organizations and other stakeholders. In total, there were 237 public hearing presentations, written submissions and online survey responses.

The public consultation showed broad support from individuals and organizations for expense limit amounts that would reflect the principles of fairness, neutrality, transparency and accountability. The public input made clear the need for local election expense limits and higher limits for larger communities and mayoral candidates.

I have complete confidence that these expense limits will be law in time for the 2018 local government elections. Prior to becoming the MLA for Cariboo-Chilcotin, I served as mayor of 100 Mile House, and based on my own experience, I know that these amendments are in the best interests of every British Columbian.

G. Heyman: I wish I could find more positive things to say about this bill. While it’s true there are some steps that were responsive to submissions that were made, some issues that were addressed….

[1605]

Expense limits certainly are a welcome step. They’re something that I think more and more British Columbians and Canadians want to see. Certainly, people in Canada have increasingly looked south of the border and seen the kind of uncontrolled madness that we get from uncontrolled spending and don’t really want that to take hold in the culture of local elections or any other elections in our country, in our province or in our municipalities.

Even there, there’s a flaw. We have the expense limits in place for the 28 days prior to the close of election day but nothing prior to that. That, in fact, mirrors the changes that the government has made to provincial election expenses. We have limits for a 28-day period, and we have the Wild West for any period of time prior to that.

When you couple that with the other glaring flaw in this bill — which is no limits on contributions, as well as no limit on who can contribute — I’m not sure this bill is going to actually achieve the desired result. Certainly, in the 28-day period, we’ll see some limitation, but I think
[ Page 11413 ]
it is a very, very significant flaw to leave the period prior to the 28-day period wide open.

I don’t think it’s the kind of spending control that British Columbians who made submissions had in mind. I’m sure it wasn’t what many of the members of the committee would have preferred. It’s a glaring deficiency. There’s no other way to put it. It is a glaring deficiency.

We should not have in place a system for local elections — or, for that matter, provincial elections — where everything can be back-end-loaded, in terms of significant expenditure to influence public opinion. If the goal is to have limits, then let’s have limits that are meaningful. That includes limits that extend some period back from any election period, whether it’s the provincial writ period or a 28-day period prior to municipal elections.

It is good that there are consistent rules for the 28-day period. I know that municipalities and the Union of B.C. Municipalities had in fact advocated for that to be in place, that there be consistency between the municipal elections and the provincial ones. Unfortunately, we have two forms of consistency now. We have a bill on local elections campaign financing that mirrors the worst aspect of the changes that were made to provincial financing.

Let me move on from that. I could say that several times to make my point more strongly, and I may return to it because it is, in fact, fraught with danger. It’s particularly fraught with danger in municipalities — particularly, large municipalities like Vancouver and the surrounding municipalities, like Surrey and the others in Metro Vancouver —where you could see a lot of significant money influence an election campaign for some period of time through spending that takes place prior to the 28-day marker before election day.

When you couple that with the failure to introduce any limit on contribution, you get the rather scary prospect that a small number of individuals — or even one individual with a lot of money, as we saw in funding of the Non-Partisan Association, in Vancouver — can step in and make a huge difference and really tilt the playing field here. Therefore, I would say that it is important to limit contributions. There are limits in other jurisdictions. They have an effect.

It is one thing to say that the democratic process is enhanced by having individuals make contributions, by buying into the process, by supporting candidates of their choice. But it isn’t, I think, an enhancement of democracy to allow a small handful of people to make a disproportionate difference or a very significant difference.

[1610]

I want to turn now to the whole issue of union and corporate donations. As you know, many people have called for an end to union and corporate donations, provincially as well as municipally. We see that they’ve been largely eliminated in the federal sphere. It hasn’t brought democracy crashing to its knees. It hasn’t stopped people from being heard. What it has done is to go a long way toward taking big money out of federal politics.

We on this side of the House believe the same thing should happen in provincial elections, and certainly, we think they should happen in municipal elections. We’re joined in that view by representatives and many people in Vancouver, the area I represent in this Legislature. Of course, Vancouver is prohibited from making those changes on their own because the provincial government won’t allow Vancouver to make such a change. Apparently, now it won’t allow any municipality to make such a change. Given the number of submissions that were made that called for this, it’s beyond me why deaf ears were turned to those entreaties.

I think most citizens look with a very jaundiced eye toward the funding of politicians and parties by unions and corporations. It’s not necessarily a mistrust of the unions and corporations, but it’s an understanding that both unions and corporations have at their disposal large amounts of money with which to support parties and candidates. Of course, when one side ratchets up the amount of their contributions, the other side will do the same. It becomes a spiral.

When you couple that with the ability of very, very wealthy single individuals to influence elections by single-handedly funding parties, candidates, advertising campaigns without limit — except for the 28-day period prior to the election — you have a recipe for disenfranchisement. You have a recipe for undue influence. You have a recipe for increasing the cynicism of the voting public. Of course, the result of that cynicism is fewer and fewer people turning out to vote.

I think we would all agree that that is not a good thing. We want more people to vote. We want people to have faith in the democratic process. We want people to look at the process of democracy in our country, in our province and in municipalities and have faith in it. We want them to think that their voices can be heard and that they’re not automatically excluded because they only have at their disposal $2 or $5 or $10 or $20, or even $100 or $200, with which they can contribute — which would just simply pale in comparison to hundreds of thousands that can be donated by organizations or, as in the case recently in Vancouver, close to, if not over, $1 million from a single individual.

I think the government side has to answer for why they are not addressing this issue, for why they are not listening to the voices of British Columbians, people who vote in municipal elections and local government elections, and doing something about what many people now see as a simply unacceptable process, whether it’s the lack of limits on contributions for individuals, whether it’s the lack of limits on expenditure — except in a very narrow time band, running up to the election — or whether it is the continued influence of corporations and unions.

It’s hard to look on…. Now, granted, there were no
[ Page 11414 ]
limits whatsoever municipally. But I have to comment on this mirroring, municipally, of the new regime, provincially, where you have a limit all right, a limit for 28 days, but carte blanche to spend whatever you can raise in all the days leading up to that period. It’s really a step backward provincially, and it’s not a big enough step forward municipally.

British Columbians expect better, they deserve better, and these changes, frankly, won’t help with the public mistrust of government. It won’t help with the public mistrust of the political process. It won’t help with voter cynicism. It won’t help make elections more democratic. It just won’t help. A tiny bit. A tiny bit in the expense limit in the 28 days. But so, so much more could have been done. So much more should have been done.

[1615]

We know in Vancouver that people are aware of supercharged fundraising and supercharged donations from unions, corporations and very rich individuals. They feel besieged. They don’t feel like they are operating in a democratic process characterized by open discussion, by the ability of everyone to have their voice heard. They believe that they’re operating within an electoral process that is highly susceptible to manipulation.

That’s been recognized by the current government of the city of Vancouver. In fact, it was recognized by people who now sit in this House on the other side and support this legislation — in direct contradiction to positions that were taken when they were in municipal government. The current Justice Minister, when she was on Vancouver city council, supported the ban on such donations. Yet here she simply votes against amendments that would have helped level the playing field and increase engagement.

Setting limits on the amount that individuals can donate is not a new idea. We have it federally. It works. It’s not perfect, but it brings some sense among citizens that elections aren’t susceptible to purchase by the highest bidder. We don’t see that in this bill. We don’t see this in a bill that follows consultations that were supposed to modernize municipal elections and local government. We could have seen it. We could have seen much more than we see in this bill. In some ways, in many ways, this bill is simply the minimum.

Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and Manitoba have contribution limits. Quebec and Manitoba, as well as the federal government, ban contributions from corporations and trade unions. Why aren’t we doing this here?

As my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings has said, for the largest city in the province, which operates under its own charter and has clearly expressed a desire to ban corporate and union donations…. Surely, at a minimum, the government could give that power to the city of Vancouver instead of cramming the city of Vancouver into a mould which it doesn’t want and has asked to be let out of and which this government simply says no to.

This bill is better than nothing, but that’s not saying a lot. It is still beyond me and it’s beyond my colleagues why this government has done so little. I don’t want to impute motive, but it’s a question worth asking. When a city like Vancouver asks for a ban on corporate and union donations, when many individuals come forward and speak to a committee and call for such a ban, why would the government ignore this? Why would action not be taken? Whose interests are being represented with the decision not to move forward on either campaign contribution limits and expense limits prior to a 28-day period or on a banning of corporate and union donations?

Those are questions that should be asked. I certainly am asking them. I’m not happy that this bill, which could have gone so much further, is not addressing this issue.

My colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, over the course of many years here, has put forward far more democratic and workable solutions to the entire issue of democracy in both local and provincial government elections. I would much rather be voting on and speaking to a package that reflected those which included ensuring that big money could not subvert democracy by unlimited spending in long periods of time prior to a 28-day period municipally and a writ period provincially.

[1620]

I would be much happier speaking to amendments that ban union and corporate donations as well as put meaningful limits on the amount of individual contributions that can be made. That’s simply not here. As I said, a small step forward, but it’s a long, long road, and we’re not very far down it.

H. Bains: It is a pleasure and honour to stand and speak on this bill. I think the bill before us, Bill 17, Local Elections Campaign Financing (Election Expenses) Amendment Act, 2016, was an opportunity that the government had to fix the issue that has been identified for so long by so many people.

In a nutshell, what is being said out there is that the elections in our democracy should be decided by voters. Now, there’s so much in that statement. The voters need to be apprised of different positions taken by different candidates. Yes, that takes money. The voters need to be motivated to see what positions different candidates are taking. To run the campaigns, it takes quite a bit of resources — no doubt.

I think the question that was being raised out there, especially municipally, is whether the voters have the final say in determining the outcome of those elections. When you look at the turnout rate for municipal governments…. At such a low rate, I think it begs the question: why is it that when you do the comparison…? Provincially, in a given year, you may get 50, 60, maybe 70 percent, depending on the area, the region, different parts of the province, but municipally, it’s around 30 percent. Why is that?
[ Page 11415 ]

I think, here, there was an opportunity for this government to fix that, at least go towards fixing it. They took maybe half a step to do that under Bill 17. I think that’s unfortunate. If we really want to have people engaged in our electoral system, then we should address the concerns that they raise. Why is there such a cynicism about our electoral system, about our politics, about politicians?

There are a lot of different reasons. We can speculate, but I think one of the things that is always raised is: who funds these campaigns? In this bill, the government squandered away an opportunity to at least deal with that issue.

They set limits during 28 days. I’ll talk more about that, about those limits — how that does affect and what kinds of changes that change represents. I think that’s what we need to talk about.

In the 28 days, there are limits on how much candidates can spend. But a year leading up to — from January 1 to the election day — is what was desired by even the committee and many people out there. The government didn’t even allow to have that area touched, between January 1 and the beginning of the 28 days, the election. It’s a free-for-all — again a free-for-all.

[1625]

Those with deep pockets, those people with deep money, big money — unions, corporations, individuals, money with deep pockets — certainly, they can contribute as much as they wish. There’s no limit of contribution.

I think it leaves a huge gap in trying to fix this problem. I think the cynicism will continue — that’s my prediction — which is unfortunate. The area that needed to be fixed isn’t being fixed here.

Many other jurisdictions that other speakers before me have mentioned have limits on union, corporations’ contributions. They have limits on individual contributions.

I can talk about Surrey — the second-largest city right now in the province, and soon to be the largest — and the amount of money that is being spent during those elections in Surrey. It’s those with big money that continue to win. It’s those with big money that continue to influence the outcome. You leave the perception of whether those elections are being bought with big money. As a result, people’s cynicism about our electoral system will continue, and that’s not a good thing for democracy.

I know the members on the other side stood up, one after the other, and supported Bill 17. There are parts that I could support. But I think, in all honesty, it leaves me with a number of questions. On one hand, I want to support some of those changes, but on the other hand, I’m questioning: by doing that, what kind of message am I sending out?

What kind of message is being sent out to all those people who thought that there would be a real change and that we would finally give the voters the right to truly determine the outcome of those elections? My conscience will not allow me to stand here and say that we have done that under Bill 17. We haven’t. That’s the unfortunate part.

Now, there are some steps being taken, as I said. During those 28 days, there will be a limit on spending. I did little, quick calculations. They could be a bit off, but with the population of Surrey, you’re looking at that the mayor could spend $200,000 plus — a mayoral candidate. Each councillor candidate can spend about half of that. Those are the limits. But how much money can be contributed by their supporters is wide open. No limits. The sky’s the limit.

So the big developers, not the small ones, not the individual voters but big unions, big corporations can truly affect the outcome of those elections. That will continue to add to the cynicism that our citizens have about politicians, about our politics, about our electoral system.

Why is it that this government actually takes one step forward but two steps backward? They did that with provincial electoral changes and spending when they opened up the period, up to the writ-drop day. It’s opened up now. It’s all open. You can spend as much as you want.

[1630]

There used to be a limit — 60 days, I believe it was, immediately prior to the writ drop. There was a limit. It was about the same as what you would spend during the election period. But they opened that up. Why? There’s only one explanation. They think they have people with big money, and they do. Make one phone call, a $100,000 cheque will be dropped by, no questions asked. Having a little fundraiser out there? You can have $1 million collected, no problem.

Then all the ordinary people, who are having a hard time having ends meet…. Those are the people who are voters, who should be determining the outcome of the election. But by making those changes, they’re taking that right of theirs away from them. Why would you do that? Because they think that system works for them.

Overall, in the long term, the legacy you’re leaving behind is not a proud one. It’s pulled the democracy backward. That’s not a good thing moving forward. Hence, the turnout rates will continue to be lower — 30 percent for municipal elections. I mean, 30 percent of people are deciding who should be their mayor. They will be making decisions about their councillors. The council, together, will be making decisions about what kind of city is being developed and how it is being planned. The decisions are being made at that council table for the future of our communities, of our cities.

I’ll give you an example in Surrey. We’re a growing community. We have an opportunity to do it right. There’s so much growth, and you can plan it right if you have the right politicians and the right type of leadership, with the vision, with foresight, who could foresee, ten, 15, 50, 100 years down the road, what our city will look like. Our children and their children and their children — what would they say, when they look at our city,
[ Page 11416 ]
at how those decisions were made back at that time and what we have left behind for them? Will they be proud?

I think that Surrey, if you look at it right now, has divided communities, the way it is designed. You have different communities gathering in different areas. I mean, there isn’t a lot wrong with that, but in an ideal city, when you’re building a new city, it should be all different communities living together — the children going to school together, playing in their local fields and parks together, learning and sharing their values from each other. That’s the ideal city that you can create and ideal communities you can create. That requires leadership. But if the outcome of elections is going to be determined by big money, then you could easily say that that may not be the case, that the voters’ intention truly isn’t reflected in the outcome of those elections.

[1635]

The majority of voters cannot fund the candidate of their choice compared to big money coming from big corporations or individuals with deep pockets. That is a serious problem. That’s why when the special committee came down with the recommendations, the members from this side raised many good concerns.

First of all, the special committee’s mandate was intentionally defined to not allow consideration of contribution limits. Why would that be? Again, it’s because B.C. Liberals think this will benefit them and will enhance their electoral chances.

Is it all about politics? We’re all politicians — no doubt. The political system brought us here. We practise under the same political system. But I think we need to follow some ethics. It means that you can have politics for 5 percent, 10 percent. I don’t know; you pick the numbers. My numbers are very low. For 5 percent of your time, you can play politics and make political decisions perhaps. But 90 percent, 95 percent of the time it should be policy-driven — the policies that are good for all people of the province.

If you have big money behind you that has a real influence in sending you down here, then you think you owe something to them. It’s natural. That’s why I think this bill is flawed big-time in those areas that I identified.

Our member for Coquitlam-Maillardville raised those concerns when she was on that committee. She said: “For more than four years, the Liberals’ tinkering with local election rules has failed to tackle the elephant in the room: the corrosive effect of big money on our democracy.” She identified that very ably, and I say thank you to that member for raising that issue. Was anybody listening? Obviously not, when you look at Bill 17.

Another member — I can name her now, Jenny Kwan — was on that committee. She said this: “We heard concerns from many groups during consultations that these donations, including in recent Vancouver elections where individual donors were contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars, are undermining the fairness of local elections.” Very true.

The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville also brought this issue. She said: “Interestingly, when the now B.C. Liberal Justice Minister was a Vancouver city councillor, she supported this ban.” We’re talking about the ban of unions and big corporations. She sits on their executive council right now. You would think she would have some influence. You would think she would be able to convince her colleagues, but apparently not, for whatever reason. You can only speculate. She saw those million-dollar donations, as my colleagues have said here.

How does that affect…? What kind of message does that leave? You say one thing when you’re on a city council, part of the government, and then you come here. You take the message from here back to your constituency and say: “Look, the decisions that I was making and the positions that I took back there didn’t mean anything. Now I’m a changed person. Victoria changed me. The Premier had come to my ear and said: ‘You don’t take those positions anymore. I’ll tell you what positions you want to take.’”

Sure enough, that’s exactly what she did. Now she’s supporting this bill where donations by unions and corporations are allowed unlimited. Unlimited donations. Individuals, unlimited donations. What happened to her position? You wonder.

[1640]

My colleague from Vancouver said, “A million dollars for being seen,” I guess — donations. This is what she actually said — our current Minister of Justice. She sat on a subcommittee on electoral reform when she was with the Vancouver city council and suggested that city council should recommend to the Local Government Elections Task Force that it should “set limits on the annual amount of contributions that can be given by an individual or organization to an elector organization, campaign organizer or an individual seeking office.” Very clear position. Very clear.

But I guess when the Premier got hold of her when she came to Victoria…. “No, no, no, no, you’re not going to take that position. I’ll tell you what position you’re going to take.” Now she’s saying: “I was wrong then, but I’m right now. The Premier told me so. The Premier told me so — when I was wrong, when I’m right.”

When you have those kinds of positions being taken back and forth — one position one day and another position some other day — most decisions, then, are being made politically. Those decisions are politically driven, not policy-driven that would benefit the citizens of this province or help clean up the electoral system, which we all wanted to do.

They failed miserably in Bill 17 to deal with that. Here’s what some of the other people had to say. Frances Bula from the Globe and Mail said this: “It sets no limit on campaign donations, no bans on corporate or union donations, no requirement to disclose donations before the election and no requirement to report donations in the
[ Page 11417 ]
years outside the election year.” That’s a serious issue. It’s a serious problem that they failed to address.

They had this opportunity. They could have left a legacy behind, and the Premier could have said — five, six, ten years down the road: “At least I was able to do that thing right. I was able to fix — or at least take steps towards eliminating — the cynicism that voters have towards our electoral system, about politicians, about politics.” Perhaps — I’m only speculating —it would have increased the turnout during our election. More people would be participating in our electoral system. They had that opportunity. They failed.

Here’s Vancouver councillor Andrea Reimer. She said: “It will actually make the problem significantly worse. There is a problem with the perception about the influence of corporate and union donations. If you lower expense limits, but there are no donation limits, a single donor can have much more influence.”

Very true. A single donor can fund your campaign. Can fund your campaign. I think, in those situations, you owe a lot to that person, and your decisions will be influenced by that scenario — that situation. You will be looking over your shoulder. “What would that donor say if I make this decision? What’s in the best interest of that donor?” So it’s a serious problem.

Dermod Travis, executive director for IntegrityBC said this in the Globe and Mail: “It is unfortunate the other half of the equation is not being tackled at the same time, which would be donations.” That’s the problem.

No limit on donations? Why would you not do that? Just look at the other jurisdictions. They have dealt with this issue. Federally, they have dealt with this issue. Other provincial governments have dealt with this issue.

[1645]

I guess that side of this House saw the big dollar signs, big donations, and said: “Well, we can’t just part from those big dollars. We may not have good policies to convince our voters to put us back in power, but maybe we can rely on those big dollars. Maybe with help from those big dollars, we’ll win the election again.” What a way to win elections — not by policies, not by what your values are and how you are going to make life better for British Columbians, not today but the coming generations.

But no. They will be looking at…. I guess they looked at their friend and their cousin across the line and said: “Maybe — maybe — we should learn a lesson from him.” Mr. Speaker, you don’t want to learn too much from the American system when it comes to public donations to pay for our elections. You don’t want to, because there, it’s all about money during the elections. Whoever can generate big donations has a huge influence on how they do electorally.

Interjection.

H. Bains: The Minister of Advanced Education, with all the degrees that he carries, I think should have been able to…. Of all of the people on the other side, he has the intellect — the capacity at least, I would say, with all the degrees behind him — that he could be saying to his colleagues that Bill 17 doesn’t do a thing that we are trying to fix.

I don’t know whether he read this bill. If he did, he should be able to recognize the deficiencies in the bill and convince his colleagues that this is not the right thing to do. We have an opportunity to fix it. We’re squandering away that opportunity.

I guess he, too, saw those big dollar signs and donations and decided: “Leave it alone.” Why give the real voters out there an opportunity to influence the real outcome of elections? Why would you do that when you could buy your elections with big dollars? Why wouldn’t you do that?

I think those are some serious issues and flaws in this bill. And I think my colleague said this: it will not achieve the desired results. When you are putting together resources and so much energy in crafting the bill, identifying the problems, bringing it here, having a debate over it, and then you leave half of the equation out, are you really doing your job? I don’t think you’ve done it in this bill.

Here is Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver — sustainable Vancouver. I think the Minister of Advanced Education should pay attention to this at least. It says: “The proposed reforms do nothing to restrain the corrupting influence of big money in municipal politics.” What do you say about that?

They went on to say: “Some key changes will actually hurt grassroots campaigning and free speech.” I ask those members on the other side: what do you say about that? “Please do not allow Vancouver city council to make its own rules for election campaign finance. Expense limits are not enough. Caps are also needed on campaign contributions.”

Then the Times Colonist said this. “This Wild West approach to campaign donations fuels public cynicism and invites special interest groups with deep pockets to buy political influence. Voters decide elections, but a party without a fat bank account usually has little chance against free-spending rivals, which means big donors can decide the outcome of elections.”

That’s not what you want in our electoral system. You wanted to change that. You had an opportunity. You failed to fix the problem, and you squandered away that opportunity.

[1650]

That’s not how you run governments. That’s not a proud legacy that you want to leave behind. You want it to stand 15, 20 years down the road when you’re not here, to say: “That bill that I supported, that we helped craft as a government, is bearing fruit. Our democracy is a better democracy today than it was at the time.”
[ Page 11418 ]

M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to take my place in the debate on Bill 17, the local government campaign financing election act. I’ve listened with interest to comments made by members on both sides of the House, both in terms of the official speeches that have been made but also in the occasional heckle that has been hurled back and forth across the floor. I want to address a couple of those points, as well, because I think they’re enlightening and important in terms of this debate.

This is an important bill in the sense that it starts to try and bring some sort of regulation or regulatory framework to local government campaign financing in a province that has some of the least accountable legislation compared to some other provinces and certainly compared to the rules under which we operate in this chamber in a provincial election or compared to a federal election. This is an issue that has been around for a long time.

It’s important because I think all of us recognize and have seen, south of the border, the way in which the political process has been literally hijacked by the sheer amount of money that goes into presidential elections. I think all of us are watching the process south of the border with just absolute fascination and abhorrence at how much of a circus it has become, in large measure because of the literally unfettered way in which money has become the key tool in elections — in rulings in their Supreme Court that literally have done away with the ability to control expenses and donations — and the rise of the super PACs and literally concentrating more and more power in the hands of a few.

Now, I am not suggesting that that is the situation here in British Columbia, but I’m using it as an example to show what has happened with this unrestrained access to money in elections and what it can contribute to.

Here at home, though, we have seen a significant growth in the cost of election campaigns that far outstrips the day-to-day increase in costs that people have seen over, let’s say, the last 35 years, for example. We know that Vision spent $3.4 million. The NPA spent $2.4 million. That’s an increase of more than 180 percent since 2005.

Let me put that into perspective. This addresses a comment that I heard my colleague from Vancouver-Quilchena make, which was: “People should be elected on their merit.” Do you know what? He’s absolutely right.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Actually, I will come to that. I will actually come to that right now, because this makes my point.

In 1983, I ran for council in the city of Port Coquitlam. I spent less than $500. I didn’t place one single newspaper ad.

Hon. P. Fassbender: That was a choice.

M. Farnworth: The member says: “That was a choice.” But it was a choice on two things. One, I didn’t have a lot of money. I was an independent candidate. Two, I did what I thought political candidates were supposed to do, rather naively, which was to go out and knock on doors. I knocked on doors during that campaign from when the filing with the clerk took place. I knocked on doors. I knocked in the sunshine, in the rain — every day up until the election day.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: That’s the next provincial election, hon. Member.

[1655]

I knocked on, literally, I thought, half the doors in Port Coquitlam and talked to people. As it turned out, to the surprise of some people, I got elected. I say that again, in the sense that I remember two individuals. They came up to me, and they said, “You know, we really admire what you’re doing, and you spoke really well at the all-candidates meeting. But there’s no way people our age” — which was my age now — “are going to vote for you. You’re too young, you’re too inexperienced, and no one knows who you are.”

I said: “How many votes do you think I’m going to get?” They said: “You’ll get about 50.” I’m thinking: “Oh, okay.” My brother had got me a whole bunch of signs, and I put them up. I go: “Well, I’ve put at least 200 signs on private property, so I figured I’ve got at least two votes a house.” So I thought, at the very least, I’d get 400 votes. But as it turned out, I got a lot more than that, enough to come second. It was a remarkable achievement.

But the point I’m making in illustrating that is it was on merit, which it should be, not on the basis of how much money one has to get your name out there. The other is the sheer cost. That $1 that I spent in 1983 today is only worth $2.88. In other words, inflation is three times what it was in 1983, yet campaign inflation since 2005 alone has gone up 180 percent. You have to ask yourself why. Why? Why have costs gone up? Why is 180 percent more money being spent today than it was in 2005? Because we can. That’s the simple answer.

There is no limit on how much money civic parties can raise. There is no limit on how much can be spent. Until recently, you really didn’t even have to account for how you spent it, so it’s no wonder that campaign costs have risen to such exorbitant amounts. It’s no wonder that fundraising wants more and more money. The more you do that, the greater is the risk to our system of local elections in terms of campaign finances and public perception on how the outcome of an election is being determined. That’s not right.

An effort was made prior to this legislation. It was a committee. It was an all-party committee. I thought they did an excellent job. They did an excellent job in coming
[ Page 11419 ]
back with a report that was unanimous and was thoughtful and had a whole series of recommendations. I think for all of us, certainly on this side of the House, it was an opportunity to go: “You know what? We can do something right, and we can put in place a piece of legislation.”

There was a request, for example, by the city of Vancouver. They wanted an amendment, but the committee was working, so it didn’t go ahead. That was to prohibit union and corporate donations. Of course, my colleague the Minister of Health made a comment about union donations a little bit ago.

You know what? The easy way to deal with donations from both the corporate and the union sector is to ban them outright. That’s something that this side of the House has asked for. It’s something the city of Vancouver asked for — the power to do that. They operate separately under the charter. It’s unfortunately not here. That’s a shame.

This could have made a piece of legislation that takes some tentative initial steps that we will be supporting. It could have made it a much stronger piece of legislation. What it would have meant was that political parties and candidates would have to have been, I think, much more engaged with individual voters in the raising of funds, in literally going on the doorstep and saying, “Here’s why I believe that you should vote for me. Here’s why I believe you should vote for the team that I may be running with,” if I’m running as part of a slate.

[1700]

Now, the fact that it’s not there just means a continuation of what we’ve seen in the past. It will mean the same thing at the next election as we heard at the last municipal election about the sheer increase in the volume of money that is being spent. It has to come from somewhere.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I would have responded if I could have heard the heckle a little louder. That’s okay.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Ah. It was a statement, not an invitation to respond. That’s fine.

The point is that we keep making the same mistake over and over again. We know what the solution is, and it could have been in this legislation. Unfortunately, it is not in this legislation.

The other issue that this legislation fails to address and could have addressed…. In fact, the committee wanted to address it. That was around expense limits and contribution limits. They wanted to start expense limits and contribution limits.

Expense limits were to start in January and would have gone right up to the election. Instead, this legislation makes it clear that those expense limits will only apply to the 28 days of the campaign. Now, there’s nothing wrong with the 28-day limits. That’s a good thing. But just think how much better it would have been if it had been backdated to the first.

The problem at the local government level is the same as it is at the provincial level now that we have a fixed election date, and that is the campaign period is so much longer. As a result, more and more money is spent over a longer time. If the only time that you’re having to, in essence, have an expense limit is during the 28 days, then that leaves an awfully long window for the well-funded, both on an individual basis and on a political party basis, to outspend, literally, everybody else.

Again, I don’t think that is healthy. Why I say that…. We only have to look now. In the old days, prior to the fixed election date, the campaign came upon you either because the government ran out of time as it came to the end of its five-year mandate and the election was going to go on or the government said, “You know what? I think it’s time to go to the polls. We’re going to go to the polls,” and they called a snap election. The reality was it was all hands on deck, a very intense period of six weeks in which the election campaign took place.

Really, that was the extent of the campaign costs. Any political party and any government was loathe to waste its campaign resources on a run-up to an election campaign, with wasted advertising, if the election was not called. As a result, two things happened: (1) the cost of a campaign was significantly lower and (2) the public was spared a constant bombardment of political advertising. Other jurisdictions have managed to deal with that.

We see the effect of that at the provincial level. For example, one only has to watch television right now. More government advertising, all of a sudden, in the last few months, has appeared on all manner of issues, from the Lottery Corporation….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The member, my colleague across the way, calls it good information. Well, I suppose from the perspective of the government and their campaign strategy, it may well be, in their minds, good information. But the reality is the Lottery Corporation spending money, the government spending all its money…. This is taxpayers’ money on government-funded advertising that has nothing to do, in reality, with the actual work that’s being done.

Interjection.

[1705]

M. Farnworth: Ah. The member says it’s informing people of programs. Well, it’s funny that it only ends up informing people of programs the year of the run-up to the election and that it’s not from the time before that.
[ Page 11420 ]
As the member well knows, the government advertising budget has a habit of going up in the run-up to an election.

Now, that’s the provincial example of why expense limits and contribution limits are important. You are seeing the same thing at the local level, and that’s why it’s unfortunate that the recommendation of the committee was not put in place. The only reason I can think of is because, in essence, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If it’s good enough to put in at the local level, why is it not good enough to put in at the provincial level? That’s the only reason I can think of as to why the government would not put in place those changes.

The other issue, again, is around contribution limits. There’s something just not right about saying: “You can basically donate as much as you want.” I think most reasonable people think there should be a limit on what you can donate. I think most reasonable people are concerned about the idea, or the perception, that people who write large cheques, no matter how well meaning…. The perception is there that that means something, that that gets a favour.

That is not something that we want to have in our system of government. Hence, on this side of the House, we have said that we would like to ban union and corporate donations at the provincial level and at the local level.

The interesting thing is that, in most cases, we’re not talking about most of the province. In most communities in this province, elections are fought on much smaller budgets than they are in the Lower Mainland. Even in the Lower Mainland, it’s still…. The big city, the big issue, is Vancouver. It has been recognized by elected representatives in Vancouver for quite some time. In fact, it’s not a partisan issue. It’s not a partisan issue at all. In fact, it has been addressed on a unanimous basis at the city of Vancouver for quite some time now.

Even our Attorney General has said that there should be expense and contribution limits. She supported a motion when she was on the city council in Vancouver calling for that. That’s why it’s disappointing that…. I’m sure that at cabinet she argued vociferously for this to be included in the legislation. It’s unfortunate that her point of view was either ignored or rejected. As an MLA for the city of Vancouver, someone who sat on the council and was supporting this very positive change and now comes here to represent the constituency of Vancouver-Fraserview…. That her colleagues around the cabinet table and her caucus colleagues did not make that change is, I think, unfortunate.

Having said that, we’re dealing with the legislation as it is. As I said, it is not perfect. There are some positive changes in here that we will be supporting. I hope that the minister, at committee stage, may, in fact, be open to some amendments. I know, certainly from his days as mayor in Langley, that…. The role of an elected official and a leader in the community is to listen to differing points of view and to go: “You know what? That’s a good point. Maybe we can make a change.” I know that when he was on the board at Metro, he had a reputation for that — for being able to work with a differing of opinions to create bylaws and policies at the regional level that worked for the entire area.

I’ve just about finished my remarks and will take my seat if there are other people who are going to address this particular issue. There is a lot to talk about at committee stage.

[1710]

It’s a bill that’s not perfect, but it does have some important changes. We will be supporting this particular piece of legislation. With that, I thank you for listening to my remarks.

S. Hammell: I won’t take a long time. I have heard the debate from our side, but I would like to just make a few points. I won’t be too long.

In speaking to Bill 17, local elections campaign financing, it is a bill that makes some changes, and some very, very welcome changes, from my point of view. But, unfortunately, it does not complete the process.

The welcome changes are limiting expenses. I think there is a consensus in the House that limiting expenses at the municipal level, like we do federally and provincially, is a big step forward and a good step forward. Then to further align those limits to the 28 days prior to the close of the election and prior to election day is also a good step forward.

It does provide a level spending limit. It provides a level ground for everyone to play on — that is, providing, of course, that the limit doesn’t become astronomical, because I think the intention is, at some level, to make politics available to the average person. After all, we do represent people in their aspirations, and we do know that a healthy democracy is a democracy that has an engaged community in the politics.

All of us are very familiar with spending limits. As I’ve said before, we have limits at the provincial level. We have spending limits at the federal election, though when you get a long, long, long election period, those spending limits become a little difficult. We all know, and we know as politicians who are participating in the election process, what those limits are. I think to a large extent that the public understands that there are limits, particularly at the federal level. They sense that there are rules. They are pleased that there are rules, and they know that those rules govern and make the system fair.

The reason I stand up is I do think that we cannot underestimate the need for people to have rules and to have confidence in our political system. As speakers have said before me, we can see the consequence of the public losing confidence in the system as we watch the primaries in the States play out in front of our faces.

When people believe they’re being treated as chum-chums or just a bit piece in a parlor game and that they
[ Page 11421 ]
have no control of the politics of their community because their voice cannot be heard over big money, they get annoyed. In fact, I would say, as we watch down in the States, that as people become more alienated, they become angrier and angrier, because they feel they are losing power over their own circumstances and that the politicians are not listening to their voices. They’re more interested in how big money plays out in the play.

People recognize when big money does not represent their interest. Time after time, people can see that in our system, when we limit the amount of money that can be spent, it is good news. Good news to them.

[1715]

The unfortunate part of this bill is that we didn’t go the full length. I don’t sit in judgment. I think it would have been better had we also set a ban on limiting campaign donations.

I think that some of the donations that are made by special interests in campaigns are obscene. They are so big that average people can’t compete. They’re not even in the same room. They can’t begin to imagine making a contribution of that significance to a campaign.

It does lead everyone who sees that type of donation to question what is in that person’s interest or in that corporation’s interest. You don’t just do it out of altruistic motives. There is a reason that you are putting that kind of contribution behind a particular campaign.

There has been a quote. I think it’s been quoted many times, but I do think it’s worth saying one more time: “This kind of Wild West approach to campaign donations fuels public cynicism and invites special interests with deep pockets to buy political influence. Voters decide elections, but a party without a fat bank account usually has little chance against free-spending rivals.” Those aren’t my words; I’m just quoting an editorial.

That does mean and imply that big donors can decide the outcome of elections. That is not the most healthy of circumstances for our democracy. The last federal election proves that when you limit expenses and you limit contributions, those who are running have to reach a broad base of supporters to raise the money they need. There is not the opportunity from a few donors to buy the election. Instead, many small donations come from many donors. That, if you think…. A few large donations versus many small donations — we all win.

Having to reach out beyond just a few donors to a large group of people to buy into your campaign or the campaign that you’re running is only good for our democracy. The unfortunate thing is that this opportunity was not grasped. Strengthening our democracy through the rules and regulations that are played out around our electoral process is, I think, in this circumstance, a missed opportunity.

I do think that if that leap had been taken, the House here would then have had to think back and sort of do a comparison. We have a federal electoral regime that limits contributions and limits expenses. Then it takes that extra leap of limiting corporations and limiting unions. What happens federally is that individuals have to support and make donations on their own behalf to a political party. It sort of creates a symmetry: you limit expenses, and you limit donations.

If we did that municipally, in the House, I imagine the next question that would be raised is: why do we not do that provincially? I do think that is where we should go in the future. I certainly know that having both of those pieces is not in this particular bill in front of us, but I think we have missed an opportunity to be bold and to make that new step.

[1720]

Most of us in this House understand the political process. Most of us have had some experience at the municipal level as well as the provincial level, and we do know the power of money in our electoral process.

I think this bill has some excellent components to it. I also think there are some missed opportunities, particularly around the limiting of contributions that would have, in the end, strengthened not only the process but would have given people a greater sense of confidence that their voice is as strong and as powerful as any voice in the political system, and they can compete with any money that is available.

I take my seat, having contributed to the debate, and I wait to hear the closure from the minister.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I rise to reserve my right on a point of personal privilege.

Deputy Speaker: Okay. Thank you, Minister.

Debate Continued

L. Krog: I just wanted to rise to say a few words about Bill 17.

I think it’s always good to compliment the government when some progress has been made, and indeed, some progress has been made here today with the debate around this bill and its very introduction.

But I’m reminded of something somebody said about Mackenzie King. Why do a thing by halves when you can do it by quarters?

Interjection.

L. Krog: The Minister of Health suggests it was his dog. Being a veterinarian by profession, I can’t doubt for a moment the accuracy of that statement, of course. Either that, or it was somebody he was having a seance with, but who knows? That’s immaterial to the debate here.
[ Page 11422 ]

It is progress. But the reality is that what is really required is something that will clearly demonstrate that government and politicians and people who participate in the electoral process are serious about full disclosure.

In a modern world of everything being sent into the ether, where communication is instant, where Facebook is available, where things get input and are readily available to be sent someplace else and reviewed and recorded, the government could have taken a bold step here. Instead of setting out the reporting requirements that the bill does and the spending limits and those kinds of things, why not an on-line system? It may arguably be more red tape — and I’ll say something about that in a minute — but why not an on-line system where campaign contributions are disclosed immediately upon receipt?

If the member for Skeena makes a donation to a municipal campaign to one of the mayoral candidates, by the end of the day, you can go on that candidate’s website and see exactly what has been donated that day.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: You have great faith in computer systems.

L. Krog: The Minister of Advanced Education says I have great faith in computer systems and technology. I do want to say, in fairness, that I wasn’t suggesting we employ the companies the B.C. Liberals have to date. I was hoping for somewhat greater expertise. But I use that as a simple example because what’s really of concern is where the money comes from.

Finding out about where the money came from sometime after the election really isn’t of much use, because if it has been successfully applied, arguably, then all you’ve really got the opportunity to do is to observe very carefully whether or not that particular elected official is more or less responsive to some of his or her heavier donors.

I think what people really want to know is who is paying for campaigns and where the money’s coming from. And the basic thing at the front end — which is not in the bill — is a ban on corporate and union donations. We don’t have it provincially. Jean Chrétien — and it’s rare I speak so highly of a Liberal — did the right thing at the federal level.

Interjection.

L. Krog: The Minister of Advanced Education says for me to come to my senses. I’m feeling in a particularly charitable mood today. I’ve already complimented the minister responsible for the bill once. I’ve said something nice about Jean Chrétien. I might as well go for the trifecta and figure out something else nice to say in the next few minutes. I’ll work hard on that proposition for a little while. Maybe I can say something about Mackenzie King’s dog. I rather like dogs.

[1725]

Having said that, I come back to the point. It is the concept that organizations or businesses have some undue influence in the process that troubles people, and that is where this bill is entirely deficient — just, indeed, as our own provincial Election Act is deficient.

In an era where the mistrust of politicians is so strong in what historically was regarded as the leading democracy…. I say this with great respect and conscious of the fact that we may be addressing him as President Trump within a year. When a man like Donald Trump appears to be headed to becoming the nominee for the presidency of the United States for the Republican Party, that tells you how bad things have become when it comes to trusting politicians.

I think a figure I saw in a magazine article the other day said that we’ve gone from a 75 percent trust rate in government in the United States 30 to 40 years ago to something like 15 percent. When we reach that stage in a leading democracy, it’s pretty bad.

How do you prevent that from being perhaps the story in Canada? What it means is when you bring a local elections campaign financing expense limits act, you do so in a way that is seen as generally effective. The reality is — and I know the members will want to hear me and listen very carefully when I say this — it’s much like wage and price controls. Realistically, they’re pretty hard to implement. Trying to control somebody’s income is a pretty hard thing to do. So you attack it from the other end if you think it’s producing unfairness and inequality in society. You tax it.

In politics, if you want to prevent the image of big money talking, then ban corporate and union donations for starters, then talk about full disclosure in a timely way that allows people to know who’s financing whose campaign prior to election date, not after. I’ll give an example, a tangible example from my own community.

The gentleman’s name was Ralph Taylor. He was a major developer. This was back in the ’90s. It think it was the election where Joy Leach became mayor. Mr. Taylor, basically, was frustrated with the city of Nanaimo and the planning department. He wasn’t getting his way. Basically, he financed a slate of candidates to run for council. The good news was that Mr. Taylor wasn’t very discreet about disclosing that, and he wasn’t very discreet about talking about it. Every one of those candidates who ran for council on that slate — including some, what I would call, quite respectable candidates, the kind of people who, in a community of Nanaimo in its day and of that size, would likely have been elected — were all defeated because people had the sense that money had talked.

Now, the last time somebody used that phrase heavily in this chamber, of course, it was Gordon Gibson Sr. when he said money had talked, but that was a different story, the first real corruption that was made obvious in this chamber around the Forests Minister way back when — 1956. I’m sure the member was around and
[ Page 11423 ]
probably in short pants at the time when that happened. In any event….

Interjection.

L. Krog: Looks can be deceiving.

That aside for a moment….

Interjection.

L. Krog: Heading for the trifecta. The minister waits with bated breath.

If you’re really going to make it work, then those things need to be in place. If they’re not in place, then it seems to me we’re not really moving forward. We are doing steps that simply aren’t going to be effective. It’s rather like a leaking roof. At some point, you can continue to patch each little leak as it happens, instead of accepting the fact that you need a whole new roof, which is probably the best thing to do. The reality is that what we’re really doing here is a patchwork job.

Now, others will use different analogies and say: “No, it’s brick by brick. We’re building something much better and important that will be truly useful.” I would argue that when it comes to building trust in politics and local politics, what we’re doing here is not that useful. It’s progress. It’s going to get my support. Maybe that’s the trifecta that the minister is waiting for. I think not. I’ll try and be even kinder. It’s a step forward. But when you know or sense what the real solutions are, then surely, we should just get there.

[1730]

Now, I understand in politics that caution is a great principle, and politics is the art of the possible and all of those things. But in this case, you could have set an example at the municipal level that I think would have been well received by municipal politicians.

Indeed, I want to quote — and I’m sure she’s been quoted already today — a Vancouver councillor, Andrea Reimer, in the Globe and Mail, October 23, 2015. “It will actually make the problem significantly worse. There is a problem with a perception about the influence of corporate and union donations. If you lower expense limits but there are no donation limits, a single donor can have much more influence.” Why would you institute a system that potentially allows that to happen?

[R. Lee in the chair.]

The other thing is, for practical purposes — and I’m not going to be kind when I say this — it’s going to be pretty hard, particularly at low-level municipal politics. By that I mean where you’ve got somebody running a pretty small campaign without a lot of technical assistance. They’re not going to be able to afford lawyers or accountants to do a lot of the paperwork — all of those things. Particularly at lower-level campaigns, complying with this may present a significant discouragement to otherwise good candidates stepping forward.

Now, I know the B.C. Liberals pride themselves on red-tape reduction, and I’m sure that they don’t think red tape applies only to the business community. It can also apply to the political community. What we have here, I would argue, is what may be perceived by many people who would otherwise seek public office as the introduction of red tape that is a positive discouragement instead of an incentive.

It has become increasingly apparent that even seeking public office at the community-based level — school board, regional district, small-town councils — can get pretty vicious and nasty. The minister, I know, who takes his portfolio seriously — there’s the trifecta — is aware of issues around the province involving councils.

That is no great surprise, given the significant turnover of municipal politicians in the last municipal elections, where a sort of “toss the fellows and gals out” — I won’t use the term that is most commonly used — was a prevailing sentiment in many communities. You saw some good and experienced people go down to defeat and others with no experience and, I would argue, little ability get elected in some communities. It created a great deal of problems. But that gets back to the issue of trust.

If I’m now faced with significant paperwork around my candidacy, if I am seeing this as part-time work as opposed to being a councillor in the city of Vancouver, where it’s seen as a full-time job, if I am seeking a council seat, committing myself to four years in a smaller community, knowing that it’s part-time work, knowing that it’s certainly not for the remuneration and now looking at a bill that is becoming more complex — and, I would argue, on one level, becoming fuller with red tape — are you going to, as I said earlier, discourage the good people in communities to step forward for public office? That is my concern around this bill.

In fact, that is one of the things we may well do, as opposed to doing other things that would achieve the same effect — and I’m sure that this is the aim of the government — which is to enhance trust in the public process, enhance trust in the electoral process and enhance trust in those people who put their names forward because you know who’s supporting them, how much they’re being supported with, what their campaigns cost and whether they’re going to be or likely to be responsive to the groups or individuals that support them.

If you have a system banning corporate and union donations, it’s a little simpler. It’s about the individuals. How much influence did they expect when they made a significant campaign donation? Contribution limits are surely something that we need — even in this piecemeal legislation, a step forward. Placing limits on expenses but not the contributions leads to the problem that Councillor Reimer from Vancouver so ably pointed out.

[1735]

Again, if this is to be a step forward, if this is to be progress, then why not do it that way? What would be the harm? What is it about physicians? The Minister of Advanced Education can tell me the basic oath — you know, do no harm.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Primum non nocere.

L. Krog: There you go. He even got the Latin. I am impressed. All that good education wasn’t wasted on him.

Interjections.

L. Krog: Methinks some members in the chamber thought I was mocking the minister. I am hurt by that suggestion.

Would there be any harm? What would be the harm in banning corporate and union donations? What would be the harm in setting limits on contributions and even not worrying about expenses? If you know there are limits on contributions, then you end up with a situation like you have in the United States in the Democratic race. I talk about that because it’s so newsworthy, and everyone’s eyes are riveted on it.

Bernie Sanders, I think, raised something like $42 million last month, and they are virtually all small contributions. Nobody thinks Bernie Sanders is enthralled to anybody. The accusation against Hillary Clinton is that she is in the pockets of Wall Street and the big banks, etc. Whether that’s fair or not doesn’t matter. Whether it’s true or not doesn’t matter. It is easy to come to the belief and, certainly, to perceive that on one hand, one may be, one might not be or probably isn’t….

If you limit contributions, if you ban corporate and union donations, then all of that mistrust is gone. It’s alleviated. It’s easier to administer. It’s not going to require some poor person in anybody’s campaign designated to be responsible for it from toting up whether the expense limit is about to be reached. “Are we $5 below? Are we $10 above? Have we got to quit now?”

It becomes — and I come back to it — a mess of red tape, arguably. This is the very government, gosh, who saw it as so important to eliminate red tape that we even had this Red Tape Reduction Day in British Columbia. Why, on one hand, are we happy to eliminate red tape that may involve worker safety, but we’re very happy to impose red tape where it involves making it more difficult to elect people to public office at the very time it’s becoming harder and harder? The members opposite certainly know this. It’s harder and harder to find qualified and able people who are ready to step forward and face the rigours of public life at whatever level we’re talking about.

It’s a good attempt. It’s going to get support. It’s better than what we had.

Interjections.

L. Krog: It’s always delightful for me to know that the members opposite are actually listening. It touches my heart in ways that I cannot begin to describe. I’m feeling warm and fuzzy all over at the concept that the B.C. Liberals are listening to the New Democrats.

However, it’s the difference between walking the talk and talking the walk. One gets the sense that they may well purport to be listening, but they never seem to follow the good advice they get from our side of the chamber.

Having said that, the UBCM will be a little bit happier. I’m always pleased to see the good folks at the UBCM…. They face their constituents and voters day in, day out in the small communities and the large communities across this province. I am pleased to see this move forward.

I would just suggest that the B.C. Liberals could have actually been big and bold on this one. What is it? Go big or go home. In this case, they decided to be small and stay small. That’s too bad.

[1740]

When you have an opportunity to do something that would be seen as a bold reform — particularly one where there is no downside, I would argue, to local politicians, where there is no group that would suffer as a result, where there could be no harm done — this would have been one of those wonderful opportunities for the government to be bolder.

If they had done that, then I might have shortened my speech, which would please many members over there, I’m sure. I would have been tempted to go beyond the limit I placed on myself of three compliments to the government side today. Surely, that would have been something that would have pleased their ears, as they listen to what the opposition has to say.

It’s going to get support, but you know what? It’s just too bad, when you have an opportunity to do something that is fairly simple, that doesn’t actually cost the provincial government any money…. You could have done a better job.

It strikes me today — and particularly arising out of question period, when you have so many tin ears over there — that perhaps this is just another example of the government’s chronic tin ear. They never can never seem to hear….

Interjections.

L. Krog: Oh, my tin pot. Well, I was going to say I don’t know whether he’s attacking my automobile or the campaign promise of a chicken in every pot. I don’t think we’re quite ready to go there.

I certainly would appreciate some boldness in the legislation. When they had an opportunity to do so, they’ve chosen not to. It’s too bad, but that’s what we’ve come to expect from the B.C. Liberals. I guess we’ll take what we can get on this side of the House, vote and support this very, very modest step forward.
[ Page 11425 ]

I look forward to the minister’s closing remarks, when he actually has time to do so or gets that opportunity. I know he’s anxious to respond to everything that has been said. I can sense that in this chamber. I look forward to seeing whether he has actually cut through a lot of the chaff I’ve been tossing out today and looks for a few of the kernels and considers them for future legislative opportunities to, in fact, be the bold, progressive, large-minded minister and government that I believe even the Liberals are capable of, on occasion.

With that, I’ll take my seat. I look forward to what the minister has to say.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the Minster of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and Minister Responsible for TransLink for the closing remarks.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I do rise, and I cannot miss the opportunity, following the member for Nanaimo. I do want to say that I sat here and I listened, and a couple of things came to my mind.

Number one, he giveth, and then he taketh away. Unfortunately, it is…. What he may have lacked, some people might say, in substance, he definitely makes up in hyperbole. He is able to weave words around so that you think you’re going to get a positive response, and then it transitions. I think, as I said the other day when I responded to comments that he made in this House, that indeed, he found a way to take it in a completely opposite direction.

That said, I have listened to all the comments from members opposite, and I’ve listened to the issues that have been raised, which are not substantive to the bill as it stands in this House but issues that I know they have been speaking about for quite a period of time.

I will say this. Having come from local government — and it was referred to previously by a member opposite, the time that I was honoured to be part of UBCM — and having heard all of the debate, over many years, about issues about local government expense limits and legislation around local government elections, we have brought this bill to the House reflecting a lot of discussion, a lot of input, a lot of differences of opinion.

I’m always reminded, when we talk about electors not being able to make up their own minds or the inference that donations will actually influence the voters….

[1745]

I know, clearly, the people — I knocked on virtually every door in my community when I was running for local election — were very engaged and were delighted that candidates would come to their door and talk to them. They never once asked about donations to the campaign or how my campaign was being financed. What they did ask about was: what were the policy areas that I felt were important, and what was the vision for the community that I was seeking elected office for?

I absolutely believe that voters, when they walk into an election polling station, walk in with a very clear picture of who they’re going to vote for. I believe that the voters are smart enough to know that they vote for people that they believe in.

Whether or not those people actually fulfil the aspirations that the voters might have for them, that’s why we have election periods. That’s why after a person is voted in, the next time an election comes around, the public will speak to whether or not they’ve delivered on the promises they made. None of them, in my opinion, think about how many signs they had up, how many ads they ran prior to the last election. They will judge them on their performance as a representative who vies for the responsibility to serve the needs of the community.

As I conclude the debate on this bill before it goes to committee, I do want to say this. A lot of people spent a lot of time over quite a few years talking about this issue, debating it back and forth, having vigorous debates about donation limits and expense limits and all of those things, and I think that was healthy. That was a healthy part of the democracy we live in. I’m confident that, after all the work that was done, all the counsel we received, the changes that are reflected in the bill that is before the House are ones that honour the people who did participate.

It wasn’t just elected officials. It was a cross-section of people from the community who also made donations — or make donations. We heard from a broad cross-section over those years to the place where I think we have something that is before this House. I’m delighted to hear from the members opposite that they think it is a step in the right direction. I believe that any step that will ensure more transparency, more accountability, is something that is it good for our democratic process.

I’m reminded of one quote that I think about quite often, when Winston Churchill was quoted, and he was asked: “What is the problem with democracy?” He said: “Well, the issue is that it’s democracy, but it’s the best system we have.” I respect that concept. I respect that process.

I believe that we have brought something to the House that will be debated in committee stage, but then we’ll finally come to a place where the members opposite will be able to come to a yes in this House, which I think is appropriate for this piece of legislation and the hard work of the legislative committee, UBCM and all of the people who have contributed.

With that said, I’m looking forward to the committee phase of the bill, and with that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I now move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 11426 ]

Bill 17, Local Elections Campaign Financing (Election Expenses) Amendment Act, 2016, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call committee stage of Bill 9, intituled the Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2016.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 9 — MOTOR DEALER
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 9; R. Lee in the chair.

The committee met at 5:50 p.m.

On section 1.

Hon. M. Morris: I’d like to introduce the folks that are here to support me in this bill today. On my right here is Toby Louie, the executive director of corporate policy and planning; Ian Christman, registrar of motor vehicles; and Dave Gelzinis, senior policy and legislation analyst.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

M. Farnworth: I understand this is the minister’s first bill in the House. Good. It shouldn’t be too bad then.

Section 3 amends the registration required for a motor dealer. It recognizes modern realities that sales take place…. And it adds a new subsection, (1.1), to recognize dealers who use the Internet for the sale of cars in their inventory.

Can the minister tell us: to date, how many problems has this lack of recognition caused car dealers and car buyers? Has it resulted in consumers who’ve completed transactions over the Internet being denied protections under the act? Just what is the scope of the problem that this section is going to be dealing with?

Hon. M. Morris: This is mainly a clarity issue. The legislation was a little bit vague prior to this change here. It provides clarity to provide the dealerships with that ability.

M. Farnworth: I understand in terms of clarity, but in terms of issues related to that lack of clarity…. How big has the problem been to date? Looking at it in the context of…. Much of this legislation has been around for a very long time. We’ve seen, in the last decade and certainly in the last five years, the significant growth in Internet retail and Internet sales.

People go on line and, in essence, you build your own vehicle, and then it gets shopped around. Of course, that would apply not just here in B.C. but…. They say, for example: “Oh, that model car you’re looking at is actually available in Alberta, and we can bring it in for you.”

Are there problems that we’ve identified that this clarity is seeking to correct, and if so, how big has that problem been?

Hon. M. Morris: There haven’t been any problems presented to us as a result of this. It’s just providing that clarity so we don’t have problems in the future.

[1755]

M. Farnworth: So, in essence, this change in this section is coming about in recognition of the change in technology that consumers use to access the ability to purchase a new vehicle.

Hon. M. Morris: Yes, it’s the modernization of the act, so that’s exactly what it will do.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

On section 5.

M. Farnworth: This section provides for regulations to be made under part 4, in terms of consumer contracts of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. The regulations that this section anticipates being drafted would be enforced by the VSA.

Can the minister tell us what regulations the minister foresees being drafted under this amended section and how those amendments will be drafted? What will be the process by which they come to cabinet? By that, I don’t mean the technical legislative process but rather the process in terms of developing the regulations the minister would be bringing forward.

Hon. M. Morris: That basically delegates the authority, under part 4, to the regulator so that they can accommodate the on-line sales.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

M. Farnworth: We’ll get through this bill, I think, at a fairly decent pace but not quite so quickly.

One of the issues, then, about the change in the legislation involving the VSA is in terms of levels of consumer awareness. What are the plans to increase consumer awareness around these changes? How does the ministry intend to communicate them? What’s the plan going to be like to get these changes out?

In terms of the modernization, I think this is important, and it is important that consumers are aware of the
[ Page 11427 ]
changes. If you could outline how that will work and the VSA’s role in that, that would be great.

Hon. M. Morris: The Vehicle Sales Authority is already undertaking a lot of these programs here. They’ve got Walt the Curber. They’ve partnered with media, and they’re going to continue to roll that out so that the public is very much aware of all the changes and the benefits that accrue to them.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

M. Farnworth: Section 7 requires that a motor dealer employ salespersons who are licensed.

[1800]

Up to now, would the Vehicle Sales Authority, the VSA, hold the motor dealer responsible for actions taken by a non-licensed salesperson that departed from the MDA and Consumer Protection Act? In short, would the motor dealer be liable prior to this change?

Hon. M. Morris: The dealers will not be liable for unlicensed salespeople in their employ.

M. Farnworth: Prior to this section coming into effect, dealers were not liable. After this section comes into effect, dealers are liable.

Hon. M. Morris: Yes.

M. Farnworth: The question that arises from that, then, is: can the minister give any indication as to how often that was an issue? Where a question of, okay, the dealer is not liable, but the reality is, compared to once this legislation comes into place….

Let me put it another way. When this legislation passes and this section had been in place, what was the size of the problem that existed that this legislation would have addressed?

Hon. M. Morris: There are weekly problems with the issue right across the province here — 20 to 30 incidents per week across the province.

M. Farnworth: That’s a pretty significant number. That’s why this is an important section. The next one that follows relates to that. I’ve got some more questions around that, but I’ll address them on the next section.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

M. Farnworth: This section provides for the registrar to publish information about licensing. It establishes, under part 1, a new section. The information that can be published includes approvals; renewals; rejections; revocations; suspensions; actions taken out of the expanded administrative enforcement regime, including compliance orders, property-freezing orders, administrative penalties, court orders; commission of an offence — as set out in this act. Specific contraventions can be treated as an offence.

That’s a fairly important section of the act. It has a significant amount of potential power within it — particularly, in the ability to inform consumers about this section. My question to the minister is as follows. Does the minister foresee the registrar publishing this information in real time or in an annual report or both?

Hon. M. Morris: That is already done. The reports go out seven days after the decisions are made on that. There are also quarterly reports that go out.

This legislation is going to provide clarity. Right now there has been a lot of reliance on common law and some of the other statutes there. It’s going to provide a lot more clarity to how this is reported out. It also mirrors the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act.

[1805]

M. Farnworth: Then, if there are issues that arise once this legislation is passed, what I am hearing the minister saying is that in terms of real time, it will be published seven days after — in essence, weekly, or a week after the issue arises — and then quarterly and in the annual report. I think those are all positive.

It’s pretty clear that that can, potentially, be an effective deterrence, and I would hope that that is a key part of the legislation or one of the goals of the ministry.

Having said that, what is the plan in terms of disseminating the information, so that not only are dealers aware of the change and the impact it will have — I mean, when you’re getting, as you said, 20 to 30 issues a week, that’s a significant number; one would hope that that drops off pretty quickly — but also that consumers know that these changes are there and that there’s a place that they can go to get that information?

It would strike me that if you’ve got 20 to 30 cases on hand right now, that many cases indicates that the consumer and the public aren’t particularly aware of issues that are arising, or certainly not in such a way that they’re able to say: “Hang on a sec. There’s a problem here.” The problem is, obviously, still continuing, and that’s why this legislation is here — to address that.

Hon. M. Morris: The Vehicle Sales Authority has a website where that’s published, and there’s a consumer fact sheet on the website as well. There’s a bulletin provided to all the dealers, and that bulletin is also provided to media outlets.
[ Page 11428 ]

M. Farnworth: Is that bulletin currently happening, or will it be, now, as a result of these changes?

Hon. M. Morris: It’s currently happening, and it will continue to happen.

M. Farnworth: Just as a follow-up question: is there a specific budget allocated to that within the ministry, and if so, how much is it?

Hon. M. Morris: Yeah, it’s part of the VSA, and there’s no set budget for it. It’s just part of their operating costs.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

M. Farnworth: Section 10 creates two new sections that provide for and relate to the transference of oversight of the customer compensation fund to the VSA —the compensation fund being transferred to the authority from where it’s held currently.

The ministries would describe this as a reduction of red tape. Currently, the Vehicle Sales Authority notifies the ministry about a payment from the fund, which then cuts the cheque. These steps will now be eliminated.

The administrative agreement that transferred enforcement of the act to the registrar also envisioned transferring oversight of the compensation fund to the registrar. That agreement was implemented in 2004.

Why has it taken 12 years for that to happen?

[1810]

Hon. M. Morris: The Vehicle Sales Authority has been busy since that particular time. They’ve gone through a process of educating their salespeople, of licensing their salespeople.

The administration of the fund. We wanted to make sure that there was proper oversight in the administration of that fund. Now we just have to…. The fund needs the legal authority to transfer over to the VSA now.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister’s answer, but it kind of reminds me of — having sat on that side of the House once before — the kind of answer you would give when there really doesn’t seem to be an adequate explanation.

I’ll just try one more time. I understand what the minister is saying — that there are issues that need to be dealt with. But part of this is brought forward in terms of modernizing, and part of it is brought forward in terms of reduction of red tape.

But the reality is that the ability was there from 2004, and it’s taken 12 years. I mean, 12 years is a lot. Let’s put it this way. You can go from K to 12 in 12 years. You’ll learn an awful lot. Somehow, I’m just a bit surprised that it would take 12 years to educate and get people….

If the minister could do two things, I’d appreciate that. Maybe a bit more clarity on why it’s taken 12 years. Also, just so people who I know are riveted to the TV watching this debate have a better understanding — and even for colleagues in this House: how does the fund work, in general? That would be quite helpful.

Hon. M. Morris: It takes a while to ensure that everything is running smoothly and that everybody’s up to speed on all their responsibilities. It’s taken a while. We wanted to ensure that this process was working right.

[1815]

With respect to the fund itself, the claimant will go to the board. The board will adjudicate it. If the payment is supported by the adjudication, the requisition goes into government for the cheque. The cheque goes back to the Vehicle Sales Authority, who then will give it to the claimant. It’s going to eliminate some of that process there.

M. Farnworth: What kinds of claims would be covered? What sorts of situations would be eligible to access the fund?

Hon. M. Morris: The losses that are eligible for compensation: losses during the purchase or lease of a new or used vehicle, or losses resulting from the purchase of an extended warranty or service plan and the losses due to the sale of a vehicle on consignment.

M. Farnworth: Just for clarification, how is it deemed that those losses would occur — what kinds of events? I take it either the warranty was not honoured or didn’t fix the problem, and it kept coming back. Some examples, please.

Hon. M. Morris: The first one is that if a dealer goes out of business and the buyer has already put a deposit on a vehicle, then he gets that deposit back.

The other circumstance is where the dealer has failed to submit the premiums under the warranty program. The warranty would be in question there, so they’d be reimbursed for that. The other one is where the dealer has sold a vehicle, and he’s disappeared. They’d try and track him down, but in the interim, they would compensate the purchaser for that vehicle.

M. Farnworth: Does that happen very often?

Hon. M. Morris: There are five or six on the go at any one time. There are 20 to 30 claims per year. Currently there are three warranty claims going on, and there’s one lien issue going on.

M. Farnworth: How much money is in the fund, and where does the money for the fund come from?
[ Page 11429 ]

Hon. M. Morris: Currently there is just under $1 million in the fund. The contributions are $300 annually from the dealers in the province.

[1820]

M. Farnworth: How much is usually paid out on an annual basis? What has it been over the last several years?

Hon. M. Morris: So far this year, there has been $67,449 paid out. Last year there was $135,576 paid out.

M. Farnworth: So the amount in the fund is more than enough to offset the average annual claims that have been made to date.

Hon. M. Morris: That’s correct.

M. Farnworth: Does the fund…? Is it an invested fund, or does it just sit in the bank? Does it earn investment income?

Hon. M. Morris: I guess I’ve been a little bit quick on the trigger here for you.

Right now it’s a trust account administered under the Financial Administration Act.

M. Farnworth: There’s no active investing or anything. It’s just held in trust and whatever interest is paid, is paid. That would be a fair statement?

Hon. M. Morris: That’s correct. Yes.

M. Farnworth: In section 10, section 14.2 provides for this transfer of the fund’s authority to the registrar. It can be revoked upon the recommendation of the minister.

Can the minister expand on what potential circumstances the registrar would lose authority over the fund?

Hon. M. Morris: That would be if the authority chooses not to administer the act anymore. Then we would take it back.

M. Farnworth: That would be, basically, the main reason that the minister would see that the revocation would have taken place. But if there was anything untoward…. I’m not suggesting for a moment that there is, but if there was, that authority would also allow the minister to revoke.

Hon. M. Morris: Yes, that’s correct.

M. Farnworth: Now, in the fund, the amount for award is capped at $20,000, even when the loss can be greater than $20,000. How much has the award cap changed since the fund was created over a decade ago? Is there any consideration being made to adjust the cap?

Hon. M. Morris: The cap has always been $20,000. The history shows that the claims have never exceeded that $20,000. There have been a few exceptions, but once they’ve looked at it, the amount payable was under the $20,000 cap. The average over the last three or four years has been around $5,000 or $6,000 per year per claim.

M. Farnworth: Noting the hour, I would move that the committee rise and report pretty good progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:25 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Plecas in the chair.

The committee met at 2:41 p.m.

On Vote 15: ministry operations, $64,948,000.

The Chair: I recognize the minister.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you, hon. Chair. It’s a pleasure to see you in the seat and also a pleasure to see my hon. critic across the way.

The Chair: Minister, do you have an opening statement?

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes, I do.
[ Page 11430 ]

First, if you’ll allow me to introduce the staff that are with me today. We have Derek Sturko, deputy minister, to my right; and behind me, James Mack, assistant deputy minister, agriculture science and policy division. We have Arif Lalani, assistant deputy minister, business development branch; and Michael Lord, acting ADM, CSNR, EFO. I guess we have lots of acronyms in this industry.

As per usual, additional staff will come and go as we work our way through estimates. I thank the member opposite for advising us of the order of the questions. It helps us to better have the staff here for her.

Just briefly, we are in a situation right now with agriculture that we have about 55,000 people directly in agriculture. We continue to see record growth in agrifood throughout British Columbia — $12.3 billion last year in agrifood receipts. The agrifood receipts include agriculture as well as aquaculture. That was a record year, a 5.9 percent increase over the previous year.

The previous year was also a record year over the year before. We haven’t, of course, had the results yet for the last fiscal year. We hope to get those soon, and I’m hopeful that they will show another record year going forward.

We have many people involved with agriculture around B.C. — about 20,000 farm families who work on the land and make sure that we have the food produced here in British Columbia. We continue to support them through ministry activities, programs like the Buy Local program, which I’m sure we’ll be talking about today. We have Investment Agriculture funds that we provide to them. Again, I’m sure we’ll be talking about that as well.

We have over 300 staff that provide services to farmers and ranchers and producers and fishers all around in British Columbia — very proud of them. They do a great job, day in and day out, for our agricultural community. And we continue to see records, not only in a gross sense, as far as overall, $12.3 billion, but also in parts of agriculture.

[1445]

You just need to look at the top commodities from the last reported fiscal year. You see that dairy is the No. 1 contributor to that $12.3 billion. Farmed salmon is the No. 2 contributor to that $12.3 billion, and at No. 3, rounding out the top three, are chickens.

We continue to see a great expansion of many parts of our agrifood sector. I just mentioned three, but over 200 on the land, everything from those that I’ve mentioned…. Number 10 is eggs, I believe, all the way down to 200, including fruits, of course — apples, cherries, blueberries — and other vegetables and commodities all over our province.

We have over 100 in the water, things all the way from…. Of course, the salmon that I mentioned, both wild and farmed. We have geoduck. We have clams. We have all kinds of creatures and vegetation that people harvest and eat — consume here locally, in British Columbia, throughout Canada and also over to markets overseas.

Speaking of overseas markets, we had another record year in exports last year, almost $3 billion in exports. And $2 billion of that was to the United States — still our No. 1 one trading partner. But they don’t occupy 50 percent of our trade anymore. They’re at two-thirds right now, with one-third of that going to other markets. The last reported numbers show China at No. 2, after the United States — $264 million to China and $199 million to Japan.

We have to continue to work with our federal partners to promote B.C. agriculture throughout the world. We saw the results of that with deals signed for free access to China for our cherries the year before. We’re currently working with our federal government counterparts and the blueberry industry to see open access to China for our blueberries. We estimate that to be about $65 million — maybe not this summer, but it’ll grow this summer, and then, hopefully, the summer after this will achieve that $65 million target for blueberries.

The industry is doing fairly well. Obviously, the exchange rate with the United States gives us a little bit of a competitive advantage versus the dollar being at par, but the exchange rate also provides some challenges to agriculture, if they’re dealing in American prices for the purchase of their feed or their fertilizer or their equipment. But when you look at the benefits and the challenges with that exchange rate differential, what I’m hearing from the industry is that, overall, it is a benefit to agriculture.

But you can’t describe the record year of $12.3 billion because of the exchange rate. That record year was in large part because of the production capacity expansion of the agrifood sector and the expansion into markets, not only locally through our Buy Local program but also across our country and across the world — thanks to a lot of the work on the part of ministry staff, not only our ministry but Ministry of Health and Ministry of International Trade, that worked collaboratively to encourage people to buy local products here and encourage people from around the world to purchase our products.

Just to finish off with an introductory word, I had the privilege of representing our government in China last year on a trade mission. I took home many things, of course, but the one thing that I took home that was key to me was their desire for healthy products, for clean products. They have issues in China and other Far Eastern countries. They know the Canada brand. They’re starting to learn about the B.C. brand, thanks to good work of the Ministry of International Trade — specifically, Minister Teresa Wat and the trade missions that she does — and the work of our trade representatives over there.

When you talk to them, it really is about good land, clean water, clean air, all coming into making good, wholesome products that they want to buy. Not everybody could afford it over there, obviously, but there is a larger and larger middle class — 300 million people in the middle class, not including India and any of the other countries. That market is definitely something that we
[ Page 11431 ]
have to continue to encourage our producers here to tap into, to be export-ready. We are working very closely with them to help them become export-ready.

[1450]

All in all, I would say that while there are always challenges in every ministry — and I’m sure the loyal opposition will provide some guidance as to what those challenges might be this afternoon and tomorrow — I’d say overall the ministry is doing fairly well. I look forward to another strong outcome in the next fiscal year.

Thank you for that, Mr. Chair — for indulging me with a few words. I’d be happy to answer any questions.

L. Popham: It’s great to be here for Agriculture estimates 2016. I thank the minister for his opening remarks. I am going to get right to the questions because I always think I have a lot of time, and then it runs out very quickly.

My first question to the minister is around…. Actually, it refers to his opening statements about what other countries might value about our province as having high-quality agricultural goods and the capacity that we have to do that for certain reasons which may be lacking in other parts of the world — clean water and good land.

Can the minister tell me, as far as…? I understand that he’s been playing quite a big role, and I’m sure an important role, in marketing our products around the world, and he’s very keen on marketing them locally in our province. But I’m concerned that we are having a focus on marketing and not so much on having the resources we need within the ministry to make sure that our production levels and the information that we store on disease in crops are there.

So my first questions are going to be around extension officers or field service officers. The minister has heard me speak endlessly about this, how important I think they are. Can the minister tell me how many people we have in the ministry working in what was called field service or extension services in the past? I’m not sure what we’re calling it right now, but I’m sure he gets my drift.

Hon. N. Letnick: I’ll read into the record for the hon. member. We have 14 regional agrologist positions, plus two regional managers. All 16 are PAgs. For specialists, we have 11 industry specialist positions, nine of which are PAgs, and seven business development specialists. This would include business, First Nations, agroforestry. All are PAgs — 18 in total there. This makes a total of 34.

We also have five youth development emerging opportunities and AgriService B.C. positions and two management position specialists, in addition to the 34.

L. Popham: Could the minister explain to me the responsibilities of each of those titles?

[1455]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Of those 34-plus positions that I mentioned, the ministry has employees that provide strategic services and specialized information to local producers, agricultural associations and stakeholders. These are regional agrologists, industry specialists and AgriService B.C.

Local governments are also provided work across the province, including more than agrologists or specialists in offices throughout B.C. We have personnel of the ministry who deliver work as regional agrologists, business specialists, industry specialists, supported by food safety specialists, resource management specialists and strengthening farming program specialists.

They’re located throughout B.C., including in my hometown of Kelowna, Vernon, right here in Victoria, Courtenay, Duncan, Abbotsford, Invermere, Creston, Kamloops, Williams Lake, Prince George, Smithers, Dawson Creek and Fort St. John.

Also, we recently launched AgriService B.C., which includes a toll-free phone and email service, regional websites and an AgriService resource guide to connect farmers and agrifood businesses with the people and information they need to help them succeed. So if someone has a question and they don’t know the source of the answer, they can contact AgriService B.C. toll-free or go to gov.bc.ca/agriservicebc, and we’d be happy to assist them.

L. Popham: I’m not sure I was clear in my last question. I actually wanted to go through the original list the minister gave me. He originally started with 14 agrologists, and then he went down the list of positions. I was wondering if we could start with the 14 agrologists, and the minister could tell me what those folks do. Then we could go to the next group that he mentioned.

Hon. N. Letnick: The 14 regional agrologists. Their primary work is with regional clients — for example, local government, regional producer groups, industry specialists. They work closely with sector-based clients — federal and provincial commodity associations and agencies, for example — to identify and trigger economic growth opportunities.

L. Popham: Okay, so the 14 agrologists that work at the Ministry of Agriculture have a role to play when dealing with local government. What did these folks actually do? What’s their job description?

[1500]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member for continuing with this line of questioning. The 14 regional agrologists are regionally based. They are throughout the province. They work with local governments. They also work with the local agricultural community. They’re the first persons that you might contact if you need some advice — if you’re trying to work through a plan and you
[ Page 11432 ]
want to know how to get access to resources from the ministry, for example.

I guess a good analogy would be like they’re the primary care physicians; they’re not specialists. They are there to help in their local area, and where needed, they then call in the resources that they require.

L. Popham: In the minister’s original list, he said that we had two, and I think they were specialists. Could the minister review what that was?

Hon. N. Letnick: The two regional managers are there to coordinate the work of the 14 regional agrologists.

L. Popham: Then we moved on to the number 16.

Interjection.

L. Popham: Okay. So we moved on to the number 11.

Hon. N. Letnick: The 11 specialists could be right across the value chain — for example, a beef specialist, a berry specialist, a dairy specialist. We have a poultry specialist, an aquaculture specialist, a wild fish specialist, food processing specialists — in total, 11 of them.

L. Popham: Then the minister mentioned two…. I think it was in business development.

[1505]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite. There are seven business development specialists, two of which are more based at home here. They usually are the ones that take the phone calls, the emails, from people who are contacting us through AgriService B.C. and then farm — no pun intended — out to the right bodies.

The other ones are trying to work with different groups to increase development opportunities in agriculture. For example, right now we have a business development specialist that’s working with First Nations in the Okanagan — in particular, the Okanagan Nation — to see how they can increase the amount of agriculture that’s produced on their agricultural land. First Nations contacted us and asked for some help, so these business development specialists have been working with them to provide them with that assistance.

L. Popham: Are any of the business development specialists based outside of B.C.?

Hon. N. Letnick: No, there are none.

L. Popham: I’m looking at these numbers. I’m thinking that the 11 specialists do the job that we would maybe have considered as extension officers in the past. Is that correct?

[1510]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite. If you look at what the typical definition of an extension officer is or is commonly perceived as, we can say that about 27 of the 34 could fall within that definition.

However, I would like to add to that the 27 are enabled by the resources that we have at our lab in Abbotsford, our specialists who are located in the province in different parts — for instance, our bee specialist who, hopefully, makes it here in time by the ferry — and others. Of course, there’s a cooperation partnership with different industry groups. They have their own specialists, as well, that we work very closely with.

L. Popham: Does the minister think that 27 extension officers, field service — whatever we want to call them — are sufficient for the size of the agriculture industry in British Columbia?

Hon. N. Letnick: I appreciate the member’s question.

[1515]

As I travel the province, talking to farmers and ranchers — not as much talking to those in aquaculture on this — it’s clear that the industry really has changed from the time where you had a generalist PAg who would go there and help a particular farmer with a particular issue and have all the knowledge necessary to help in those situations.

Agriculture, as the member knows, has advanced and continues to advance quite a bit, where technology actually is becoming more and more pervasive throughout agriculture — whether it’s carousels of robots milking cows, where we have that coming to B.C., where we have grading that’s done by automation. We have sorting. We have all kinds of different tools throughout our province that are there to assist in growing our food and packaging it and keeping it safe for our consumers.

The way our model works now is that because of all the different challenges and opportunities for someone in that role, we use them — their capacity in terms of a generalist — to help where they can. But they are supported quite extensively by a suite of experts to help on any particular issue and, of course, by industry experts in different commodity sectors that are working in collaboration with our ministry staff.

So the short answer is yes. I think the model is right versus the old model. I think you can…. You know, it’s analogous to the way cars are today. It’s not like 25 years ago — in our day, Mr. Chair — where if you had a little tune-up problem, you go open the hood and tweak the carburetor, maybe, a little bit and close the hood and off you go. Today you need a series of experts working together to provide those modern cars with the needs that they have.

I believe that our system, the way it’s set up now, with our PAgs regionally distributed who can help where they can but also have the coordination and collaboration and expertise from our ministry staff who are not present in
[ Page 11433 ]
those local locations…. With the assistance of and involvement of our industry groups, I think we actually have the right mix for today’s modern agriculture.

L. Popham: Well, that’s an ironic answer, given that the Premier thinks that farmers still use rotary phones. But in some ways, I’m going to agree with her because I do know that in some ways, agriculture has moved to a place where technology has taken over.

If you look in dairy barns, you can see that they are very high-tech and quite amazing operations, but there’s still a need for boots on the ground in agriculture. There’s still a need to be able to call somebody up and get them to come to your farm and walk you through a situation, mostly, I believe, in crop planning, disease management and crop decline. And this isn’t just for small-scale farmers. There are industries that are quite big in our province that are seeing things like crop decline that don’t have a dedicated person inside the ministry to be able to transfer information back and forth and to keep our ministry updated.

The example I’m going to talk about right now is the cranberry industry. I think the minister has toured as much as I have around cranberry farms and will know that there is something going on in the cranberry industry that is hard to figure out. And because we don’t have an industry specialist dedicated to the cranberry industry within the ministry, we really are stuck right now, and I think we’re scrambling a little bit. Does the minister agree with that? Does he see that there could be a need or a place to have more industry specialists brought into the ministry?

You know, touring around the province, the minister speaks to many of the same people I do, and it’s hard for me to believe that he hasn’t gotten the same message that I’ve gotten around extension services and field services. People in agriculture, big and small, are still craving this to come back into the ministry.

The ministry is often referred to as a skeleton ministry, because if you look at only 34 people that are dedicated, in the minister’s eyes, to, I guess, the educational side and support side of agriculture…. If you look at that number compared to other areas in North America, which take extension services and field services very, very seriously, including our next-door neighbour, Alberta, we are at the lowest level that I’ve seen as far as supports.

[1520]

When you look at something like the cranberry industry, does the minister agree that having a dedicated person inside the ministry to work with that commodity group would be important?

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, thank you to the member opposite.

I think it’s important to identify that we have more than 34 people working on behalf of British Columbians to assist farmers and ranchers, including the cranberry industry, out there. There are about 350 plus staff in the ministry. These 34 have the resources of experts in climate change and soil management. They have experts in water and experts on air that work collaboratively to help support them and, of course, answer questions as they come in.

[1525]

But also, even our BRM people, our business risk management people, if they see opportunities to assist farmers and ranchers out there, work together.

I personally like the format of breaking down these silos — again, no pun intended; it seems agriculture is all over the place when it comes to words — and having a collaborative nature, especially as we get more and more advanced in technology when it comes to agrifoods. It’s necessary to have those experts available to the generalist to provide good answers.

We have over 200 commodities on the land and 100 commodities in the water. If the member opposite — I’m sure she’s not advocating for this — is saying we should have 300 extension officers each dealing with one commodity, then I think there would be a lot of people sitting around looking for something to do. I prefer this model, where you have that core group, supported by over 300 other staff, working together.

On the specific issue of the cranberries, yes, I have toured some farms over the last three years and had a meeting this summer or just a few months ago. We do have a dedicated unit, in the lab in Abbotsford, on plant health. They are working with our berry specialist, who is dedicated to berries, including cranberries. They have been working since 2014 to try to identify the specific reason why some acres are dying off.

There are a lot of hypotheses out there. No theory, however, has proved to be the de facto correct answer, to the best of my knowledge, yet. That includes resources that the ministry and the industry are also receiving from other experts in post-secondary education looking at this issue.

We take it very seriously. We’ll continue to apply resources to it, and I hope that the experts will soon find a reason and mitigations to avoid this becoming a very serious problem.

L. Popham: How many types of berries is the berry specialist responsible for, and is it just one person?

[P. Pimm in the chair.]

Hon. N. Letnick: Hon. Chair, a pleasure to see you in the seat, as always.

Thank you to the member opposite for the question. We have one berry specialist, who is responsible for all berries. However, having said that, the focus usually is on the main four berry groups with industry associa-
[ Page 11434 ]
tions — in particular, blueberries, cranberries, raspberries and strawberries.

L. Popham: So there’s one berry specialist for B.C.?

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes, there is.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me: does this berry specialist have a travel budget?

[1530]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. There is no travel budget per person, per se. There is one for the branch as a whole.

L. Popham: What’s the travel budget for the branch as a whole?

Hon. N. Letnick: For that branch, $114,000.

L. Popham: Okay. So we have one berry specialist, and I assume that we’ve got…. I think I already know that we’ve got a leafy vegetable/certified organic specialist. Maybe the minister can confirm that.

I disagree with the minister completely about the structure of the ministry. I completely disagree. I don’t think I’m the only one. I think that industry specialists, agrologists, are all critically important to the health of agriculture.

I think the minister, in some ways, is under the impression that industry is going to take care of that themselves. Industry is going to take care of their own research, their own disease management. As we see industries come and go and change in agriculture, maybe more quickly than we’ve seen before, I think we do need to have a way of having just a general knowledge base that’s updated constantly within the ministry.

I think that’s our responsibility as a province, especially if we’re going out and we’re going to be doing trade missions, as the minister has said that he’s been going on — the one trade mission that the minister has gone on. It’s very, very important to have a sound base in the ministry. As we’re marketing our things overseas and the quality of that changes, it puts the whole province in jeopardy. If you look at something like the cranberry industry, the minister said that we have some lab dedication to that. We have part of a berry specialist dedicated to that, and we’ve been trying to solve the problem and help the industry since 2014.

I know that it’s hard to figure things out in agriculture when it comes to disease and crop decline. It is hard. But not to have somebody dedicated full time to that, when you look at the amount that cranberries add to our provincial budget…. It’s a larger part of the Agriculture Ministry, I think. It’s one that has been working very well for us. We are in an area of the world that works for cranberries. From my perspective….

I’m not going to keep going on and on. I was actually going to go through every one of the 200 commodities that we have growing in the province, and I was going to ask the minister to tell me exactly how much time and space they have in that ministry. The point was going to be made, but I’ve probably already made it. It’s not enough.

[1535]

The last question I’m going to ask about resources within the ministry, as far as field service extension services: how much of the provincial Agriculture budget, in total, do we have dedicated to this?

[1540]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you for the patience of the member opposite. First, before I give her the numbers that she’s asked for, I just want to re-emphasize that the government — like everyone, I would assume, in British Columbia — values the berry industry.

Whether it’s blueberries, cranberries, raspberries or strawberries, we all love our B.C. berries. Amongst the other berries that we have in the province, blueberries are the largest berry crop by acreage in B.C., with 28,000 acres and 800 growers. Cranberries are second, with 7,000 acres and 80 growers. Raspberries are grown on about 2,400 acres by 95 growers. The strawberry industry has 52 growers doing small-scale fresh market production.

It’s true that in 2014 the harvested crop dropped below 2013’s production, to 83 million pounds, due to some winter damage and the disease issues we’ve been discussing. The initial estimate, however, for the 2015 crop suggests a rebound up to close to 100 million pounds.

That’s good news for the industry. It doesn’t mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that the problem is solved. Of course, we have our berry specialists and our whole team working to support the industry in finding a solution. As I mentioned before, we have some academics from different universities that are also working to help Ocean Spray and all the farmers resolve this problem for the long term.

One additional piece: the four berry groups were successful — that’s the four main ones — in obtaining a $2.8 million Growing Forward 2 grant over the next five years for horticultural research, including supporting berry variety development. That’s, again, good news — the Growing Forward 2 dollars.

For our viewers that aren’t familiar with that, that’s a program between the federal government and the provincial government, usually 60-40. I think, if I remember correctly, about $400 million over five years was the impact to British Columbia — somewhere around $375 million to $400 million. That estimate will change with time, depending on what happens with our BM side of things, which changes from year to year, of course. We continue to work collaboratively with our federal government in providing those resources.
[ Page 11435 ]

Specifically, on how much the dollars are, we have $5.4 million in sector development. We have $6.7 million in lab, $6.2 million in food safety and $11.6 million in innovation to support all of that. That’s a total of just under $30 million, which is about 45 percent of the $64.9 million ministry operation budget.

L. Popham: Thanks for those numbers. I appreciate that. Could the minister tell me how much of that $30 million is going to support the hazelnut industry currently?

[1545]

Hon. N. Letnick: Our tree fruit specialist would be the one responsible for assisting the hazelnut industry. We don’t have numbers broken down by commodity groups as to specifically how much we are helping each commodity group. Therefore, I can’t tell you specifically how much financial resources are dedicated by the tree fruit specialist towards assisting.

In addition, of course, are the lists of allied experts that we have that I already mentioned before — in the interest of time, I won’t repeat them — that go to help the tree fruit specialist with their work.

L. Popham: Does the tree fruit specialist have a travel budget?

Hon. N. Letnick: It falls within the same answer as before within the sector development branch.

[1550]

L. Popham: What are the actual policies or rules around travelling when you’re a specialist? Are they allowed to go anywhere they want, any time they’re called out to field visits? I’m thinking hazelnuts. I think the minister — I mean, this is budget estimates — should be able to break down how much time per commodity or type of tree fruit that a tree fruit specialist is spending time on. That’s how you would plan appropriate extension services or support, I would think, when you’re planning within a ministry.

I can say — well, I’m going to guess; I could be wrong; I’d love to be proven wrong — that the amount of time or financial support towards the hazelnut industry is actually hardly any. That might be why the minister is having trouble finding it. It’s my understanding that the hazelnut industry has suffered a massive decline due to disease. Can the minister tell me if he understands the situation in the hazelnut industry?

[1555]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite. We do have, as I have said before, over 200 land-based commodities and 100 water-based. It would be, I think, very prohibitive, as I said before, to have a travel budget identified for each particular person that works in the ministry, working on behalf of these 300 different commodity groups. Quite frankly, I would want to ask my team here to keep track of it on a per-commodity basis. I’d rather use that money for front-line services, and I’m sure the member opposite would agree.

On the particular question of how travel is administered in the province for our specialists, if they’re staying within the province within the same day where most of the travel occurs, that’s at the discretion of the manager. If they have to go overnight within the province, then that’s at the discretion of the ADM. If they’re leaving the province, usually for a conference or something of that nature, then that would be the deputy minister that would sign off on that particular travel request.

On the second question…. I believe there are only two questions. If I missed one, please let me know. If I understood — the challenges with the hazelnut industry. Yes, I am aware of the challenges with the blight and the hazelnut industry.

[1600]

It is something that the government, through the Growing Forward 2 program, helped to finance — an industry development plan which was completed last year. I did meet with representatives from the hazelnut industry over that plan. If the member would like to know what we are doing now from that plan, we’re working with CFIA to allow for the importation of trees from the United States, which we hope, because of the lesser cost, will help the industry replant in the future.

L. Popham: I am aware of the plan that was produced. That was basically to reinvigorate the hazelnut industry. I believe that they’ve asked for $250,000 per year for five years, $1.2 million, to basically take an industry that is quite an amazing industry and has much potential, especially now as we face climate change–caused things, like drought and anything else. They’re a crop that has a high-protein content, they take very low inputs, and they’re drought-tolerant. They’re basically a crop that we should be going after right now.

In the Fraser Valley, there are hundreds of acres that are still left standing — they haven’t been torn out yet — that have died from the hazelnut blight. There is a nursery in the Fraser Valley that has worked very closely with our friends across the border to develop and to grow these trees that are resistant to the blight — eastern-filbert-blight-disease-resistant trees.

In agriculture, you can’t have a super long lag in time before you make some decisions on reinvigorating a crop. It takes a while to plant. It takes a while to have the trees start producing. It also takes a while to bring back any infrastructure that supports that industry.

The hazelnut industry…. We saw two companies that were able to process some of the hazelnuts we grew when things were going well — those have now left. We send most of the hazelnuts that we have left to be processed
[ Page 11436 ]
over in the United States. That doesn’t make sense. It’s like anything else in agriculture that you let slip and you don’t give the attention that it needs. You lose the infrastructure, and then you lose the business opportunities. I think that’s where we are with hazelnuts.

The hazelnut consumption around the world is going up. It’s a crop that’s high in demand. I don’t think $250,000 a year for five years is a huge investment to bring back part of our industry that we need. It’s not just the Fraser Valley where we can grow hazelnuts. We can grow them on Vancouver Island. Because of climate change, any areas where our climate is getting more mild in British Columbia, we can start to look at those types of trees there.

I think we’re missing an opportunity. I’d like to know: does the minister see any commitment from the Ministry of Agriculture to support the hazelnut industry financially over the next four years?

[1605]

Hon. N. Letnick: The priority for our ministry for this year is to continue working with our federal partners to remove the regulation that would prohibit blight-resistant trees from coming from the United States. If that can happen, then the hazelnut industry will have another alternative to select from when they’re looking at planting their orchards.

If I may correct myself. Before, when I said the expert was our tree fruit expert, it actually is our berry expert that needs to be acknowledged.

L. Popham: Why would the berry expert be the hazelnut expert? Just out of curiosity.

[1610]

Hon. N. Letnick: We’re here thinking whether or not there’s an assigned space decision as to how this is allocated. Really, it’s a matter of taking the expertise of the person involved and, as a management decision, putting these industries together. That’s why berries and nuts are served by one industry specialist.

[1615]

L. Popham: I’ve got two questions. I’m just going to ask them both at the same time.

I might be incorrect, but I thought the quarantine around the import of hazelnut trees had been lifted last year. Maybe that’s wrong, but I’d like to know.

Also, we have a nursery business in the Fraser Valley called Nature Tech that is producing eastern filbert blight–resistant trees. I’m just wondering: is there some support being given to that nursery as well as trying to support other nurseries from outside of B.C. that would be bringing trees in?

[1620]

Hon. N. Letnick: To the best of our knowledge, as of today, the quarantine has not been lifted. Our chief veterinarian continues to work with CFIA on that, and we hope to have some positive outcomes on that issue.

On the question as to if there’s support for nurseries outside of British Columbia, to the best of my knowledge, no. There is, however, indirect support for the Fraser Valley nursery and all nurseries in B.C. There is research through the Canada-B.C. agriculture innovation fund. That was funded to the tune of $25,000. The dollars went to the University of the Fraser Valley. It has resulted in two certified virus-free hazelnut varieties, and as I understand, there are some nurseries who are starting to grow these particular varieties.

L. Popham: Thank you for that information. I probably didn’t explain it very well. The minister is working with the CFIA to make sure that we can bring in disease-resistant trees. It means that we are supporting producers outside of the province who are producing disease-resistant trees to come into our province so that perhaps there may be a cheaper supply for our growers to get. But we do have somebody who is developing them and growing them right in the Fraser Valley.

I guess my question was: are we doing everything we can to support that business through the ministry? This is something that is very valuable to us if we are going to be replanting our stocks, and one of the reasons is because they’ve developed them right in the environment where they’re going to live. The expertise from this nursery alone is substantial. Are the hazelnut growers included in the minister’s advisory committee — these specific hazelnut growers that are running and working on this disease-resistant plant?

[1625]

Hon. N. Letnick: To answer the second question first — is there anybody specifically from hazelnuts on the minister’s agrifood advisory committee? — no, there is not. It is not a sector-by-sector committee — otherwise, MAAC would be 300-people big — so no, there’s no one specifically there. If there was someone from the hazelnut industry on MAAC, they’d be there to work on behalf of all agriculture, not specifically their industry.

The second one is: why are we looking to remove the barriers to importation of American plants? Maybe I misunderstood the question, but I will answer the question I thought I heard. It’s a matter of choice, providing, with the hazelnut industry, choice.

[S. Hamilton in the chair.]

In particular, the work that’s being done at the University of the Fraser Valley shows a lot of promise in taking the Oregon-bred plants, putting them into the B.C. environment, seeing which particular plant species has the
[ Page 11437 ]
best opportunities for helping the hazelnut industry rebuild in British Columbia. As I said before, it is work that I believe will help the hazelnut industry have a good selection of choices to make in the future as they continue trying to rebuild their planting stock.

L. Popham: I certainly wasn’t against having the trees come in from across the border at all. I’m just saying let’s not ignore what’s going on in the Fraser Valley, which is some very, very critical work that we’ve seen. I would hate to see that opportunity be neglected.

Perhaps the minister is choosing people for his advisory committee that want to speak for all of agriculture, to make sure agriculture is stronger in the province. I’m sure we’ll go over that mandate later on. The hazelnut growers are certainly people in an industry that would be part of the equation on making agriculture stronger.

I’m going to ask a couple more questions. Then we’re going to move to the ALC. This is an interesting question that sort of relates to the importance of field services and extension officers.

[1630]

I spent the weekend in Kamloops at the B.C. wild sheep conference. The minister and I both know that the wild sheep are facing quite a serious disease threat. That’s threatening our herds in B.C. and, in fact, across North America.

That’s not news to us. I know that the minister has been doing some work and the ministry has been doing some work to try and mitigate that problem. We can probably both agree that one of the main lines of defence is separating wild sheep and domestic sheep and, also, educating domestic sheep growers around the problem.

The domestic B.C. Sheep Federation was at this convention as well. It surprised me, in some ways, but not in others, that they reported out that their growers were not aware of this disease. This is the domestic sheep federation, which means that the information that we have about this disease is not getting put out through the domestic sheep industry.

That, to me, is a prime example of why field services and extension services dedicated to commodity groups are critically important. At this point, if all domestic sheep growers don’t know about that disease, then I’m pointing to the ministry as part of the problem. This should be a priority for the ministry: giving this information out. I know that the industry has asked for money around fencing, but just the educational side of this problem is one of the big tools we have in our toolbox right now.

Can the minister comment on that? How and why could the domestic sheep growers not know about this disease, at this point? I’m going to ask that in relation to the budget, because I know that the Chair is probably going to point that out any second. It’s part of the education within the ministry and the institutional knowledge that the ministry holds.

[1635]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. N. Letnick: Well, thank you, hon. Chair, and welcome to the big chair. I appreciate you being there, having control over the meeting. And thank you to the member opposite for the question on sheep.

We’ve been focusing on areas of the province where there’s a potential for interaction. That’s really been the focus. I’ve actually met with the Wild Sheep representatives on more than one, I think — probably two or three — occasions over the last couple of years. I’ve directed staff to work with the B.C. Sheep Federation, the B.C. Wildlife Federation and the Wild Sheep Society of B.C. to work on where there are potential interactions between our wild and domestic populations, not only on the sheep issue but also in wolves and cattle, amongst other things that they’re consulting on right now.

Where the risk is the highest…. We believe that most of the producers are aware of the issue, but we also have plans to increase awareness in other parts of the province as well.

K. Conroy: I want to ask a question about the program within the Ministry of Agriculture under the business risk management branch. It’s about the agriculture wildlife program within that branch. I wonder if the minister can tell me how many of these branches there are in the province. Are they located within the Ministry of Agriculture?

Hon. N. Letnick: I just need to clarify a little bit. When you asked, hon. Member, how many of these branches do we have in the province, could you articulate that a little differently? I’m not understanding the question when you say “these branches.”

[1640]

K. Conroy: Maybe “branch” is the wrong word. How many of the agriculture wildlife programs that are underneath the business risk management branch…? How many of those programs are there in the province?

Hon. N. Letnick: I’ll take a stab at the question and see if I actually answered it. The agriculture wildlife program is provincewide. It’s not just in the Kootenays. When you ask how many of these we have, we have one. We also have other BRM programs: AgriStability, AgriRecovery and AgriInsurance, if that’s what you’re getting at. If I haven’t answered the question yet, I look forward to hearing it again.

K. Conroy: Are all of the agriculture wildlife programs administered within the Ministry of Agriculture?

Hon. N. Letnick: The lightbulb went on. I think I know what the hon. member is looking for. The answer
[ Page 11438 ]
is that, in the Kootenays, it’s administered by the KLA, under contract with the province, and in the rest of the province, it’s administered directly by the ministry. Is that what you were looking for?

K. Conroy: That’s what I’m looking for. And it’s in the East Kootenays that it’s based — that it’s administered by the east Kootenay Livestock Association. Is that correct?

And the minister is right. Why is every other program administered within house in the ministry, and the only one that isn’t is the program in the Kootenays?

[1645]

Hon. N. Letnick: We’re checking on the scope — whether it’s all of the Kootenays or just the East Kootenays. We’ll find out for you and let you know.

Quite frankly, in the area, we understood from the local ranchers that we weren’t meeting their expectations on the delivery of the program. We did an RFP locally, in the area, because there were a lot of people there with expertise, and the KLA won the RFP.

K. Conroy: Maybe the minister wasn’t the minister then, but it was my understanding that it was very well run up until 2014. There was a claim that was denied, and it created some issues with the folks out in that area. There was consternation that rose all the way up to the deputy minister level, as well as the local MLA.

The program was taken out of the in-house — out of the ministry — out of the Cranbrook office and was transferred to Kamloops and was run out of Kamloops. My understanding is that it was run very well out of the Kamloops office. There were never any complaints. The in-house staff that were running it did an excellent job.

For some reason, it was then put back out for tender on Buy B.C. just recently. When you looked at the bid, there was only one group that could actually get the bid. It went from being in-house to the Kootenay Livestock Association, and I’m wondering why the ministry would do this, when it was being run very well within house, and it was actually saving money to be run in-house. I’m wondering what the issues were that it would be taken from being run in-house to going to a contracted agency.

[1650]

Hon. N. Letnick: I got the answer for the hon. member. It’s all the Kootenays, not just the East Kootenays, so put a checkmark in that box that that one is done.

The program was initially developed with the assistance of the KLA. They ran it for some time. We brought it in-house like the rest of the province, when we rolled it out.

There were some issues, some claims, as the hon. member has said, that were not supported. Compromise was found between staff and the applicants in the Kootenays. Then, as I said before, the feedback we received from ranchers in the area was that the way the system was set up, with the government running it, didn’t meet the expectations the ranchers had, based on their experience before, when it was locally run.

We did the RFP. It went out to anybody who wanted to bid on it, and the KLA won the bid.

K. Conroy: I’m going to ask for this in writing. I don’t want the minister to answer this now, but I’d like to know the number of grants that have gone to the East Kootenays and the number of grants that have gone to the West Kootenays, if we could get that in writing.

I also wondered how much is budgeted for the Kootenays for this program. How much of that is budgeted for administration, and how much of the money actually goes to direct services to the ranchers? I’d like that answer now, please.

The Chair: The committee will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:53 p.m. to 5:04 p.m.

[S. Hamilton in the chair.]

Hon. N. Letnick: Glad to be back. The contract with the KLA for administration of the program is $60,000 a year. We will endeavour to get the member’s question answered as to how much money is actually going to the ranchers for the program, but that would be totally separate from the $60,000 a year to administer the program.

[1705]

K. Conroy: I’ll ask two questions so that we can speed things along, I hope. Who is the administrator in Cranbrook? Have there been any other issues in any of the other programs across the province that would make the minister decide to take it out of house — like go outside of the ministry with this program?

Hon. N. Letnick: We’re always open to improve service delivery, whether that’s through government programs or private sector programs. We look throughout our suite of opportunities to do that. I have not received any correspondence that I can recall from other parts of the province that had issues with this program, other than what I have already disclosed to the member from the Kootenays.

The administrator for the contract is Byron Jonson, and he’s with our BRM program. It’s provided by the KLA, and the contract administrator in government is Byron Jonson, if that answers your question. The look on your face tells me it doesn’t.

K. Conroy: It doesn’t, no. What I was asking was: who is administering the program for KLA?

[1710]

Hon. N. Letnick: In the Kootenay region, the Kootenay Livestock Association is responsible to provide the program. They are on contract with the government to meet the expectations of the RFP. Faye Street is currently the administrator of the program.

L. Popham: We’re going to switch to the Agricultural Land Commission now. I’m going to be joined by my colleague from Delta South. I’d just like to begin.

There have been quite a few changes with the Agricultural Land Commission over the last little while, so I think I’d first like to ask questions about the appointment of the chair and if the minister could tell me about the process in the appointment of the chair.

Hon. N. Letnick: At this point, I’d like to introduce Colin Fry, director of policy and planning for the Agricultural Land Commission, who is with us as well and will be assisting us in these very important questions.

This particular question, I think, is not a Colin Fry question. It’s a minister question.

Interjection.

Hon. N. Letnick: It is. The hon. member agrees with me.

In this, the former chair, Mr. Bullock…. His term of office was coming near an end. I think he served one month less than five years in total, one of the longest-serving chairs of the Agricultural Land Commission.

With the changes that are moving forward with the regulations, with the need to also find a CEO for the commission and also with the accountability principles that we were looking to adopt, I felt it was important that instead of waiting until the next six months end, and then start looking for a new chair to run with the ball, so to speak, that the old chair would have developed with me….

[1715]

I thought it would be wiser to actually get a new chair in place and work with a new chair on what those accountability principles should look like — hiring of a new CEO that would report to the board, with the chair being the chairman of the Agricultural Land Commission board and working with the new regs. With that in mind, I heard about Mr. Frank Leonard’s expertise in local government and also his knowledge of the land commission, especially with a large part of his area being in the land reserve.

I asked him to apply through the BRDO process. He then put his name forward. He was checked through the standard BRDO process and passed through that. Then after an interview with him, I made a recommendation to cabinet that he be approved as the incoming chair of the land commission, which he accepted, and cabinet also agreed with my recommendation.

I had a good working relationship with the former chair, Mr. Bullock, and I continue to have a good working relationship with the new chair, Mr. Leonard.

L. Popham: Is that the process that’s normally used with an independent tribunal, the process of hiring a chair?

Hon. N. Letnick: In the case of someone applying through the BRDO process — BRDO doing the vetting and making sure that they are qualified and then making a recommendation to the minister, and the minister doing the interview, making a recommendation to cabinet — that would be the normal process. The little difference, I think — one I think everyone recognizes — is that it might have started a few months later than it actually did, maybe just two or three months later.

Because of the reasons I’ve already stated, regarding the need to…. I believe it’s important for the chair to hire his or her CEO, which is what occurred, as opposed to the old chair to hire a CEO and then leave and provide the CEO to the new chair. I’ve used the analogy before of the general manager in a hockey team, for example, hiring their coach. Also, the accountability principles…. I wanted to work with whoever was going to be coming in as the chair — and also the new regulations corresponding to the ALC Act.

I thought it was in the best interest of agriculture and British Columbia to bring in the new chair a few months early, rather than to wait until another two or three months before starting the process.

L. Popham: Is there usually that much involvement from the minister and cabinet when choosing a chair for an independent tribunal?

Hon. N. Letnick: I have limited knowledge of all of the boards that deal with government, of course, other than the land commission and the B.C. Farm Industry Review Board, which I have responsibility for.

[1720]

I would say, given my experience, that this is a typical approach, where BRDO does the vetting. It does the work of then providing the successful applicants or applicant to the minister. The minister then does an interview and makes a recommendation to cabinet. It’s an OIC appointment, so yes, it is a decision of cabinet, at the end of the day.

L. Popham: So is it the same process that took place with the new CEO as well?

Hon. N. Letnick: There are some similarities but a little different. Instead of the BRDO process, in this case, for the CEO of the land commission, it’s a Public Service Agency–run process.
[ Page 11440 ]

Once the Public Service Agency has done its advertising and provided the screening, the names go through a committee. The committee is made up of the Public Service Agency rep, who chairs the committee. Also sitting on the committee is the deputy minister and the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission. Once they come up with their recommendation, it’s provided to the minister, who then provides the recommendation to cabinet, because it’s also an OIC appointment.

L. Popham: Thanks for explaining that.

I’ve always been concerned that perhaps the Agricultural Land Commission is losing its independence from government. It is an independent tribunal, but the minister himself asked the chair to apply through BRDO, so it was basically the minister who was encouraging a particular person to apply. And the deputy minister and the chair, who would have been chosen by the minister, ultimately, sit on the board to hire the CEO. I’m just wondering: is this normal for an independent tribunal to go through this same process? Is the ALC losing its independence?

Hon. N. Letnick: The government is extremely committed to the independence of the land commission. It’s done that in so many ways.

The process of hiring a CEO was, again, done through the Public Service Agency — putting advertising, looking for applicants, screening those applicants, providing a recommendation to the committee made up of the deputy minister, the ALC chair and the Public Service Agency rep.

I did not sit on that committee. They made their recommendation to me. I then interviewed…. I don’t know if “interview” is the right word. I met with the applicant to have a conversation to make sure that I was comfortable with how she — in this case, it was Kim Grout — would go out there and do what’s in the best interest of British Columbians and the Agricultural Land Commission.

[1725]

I was comforted by her responses to my questions. After looking at her resume and my discussions with her, I was able to support the recommendation from the independent land commission chair, the deputy minister and the Public Service Agency. I did that. I provided that recommendation to my colleagues in cabinet, and they chose to support my recommendation. The OIC was written, and she got the position.

The land commission makes their decisions, as the member knows, independent of the minister. Actually, if I remember the policy correctly that the land commission has on its website, it’s independent of all political influence, not only in terms of specific applications but also in terms of timing of those applications.

It’d behoove any MLA, I believe…. To try to influence a decision of the independent land commission, either in terms of what the outcome might be on an application or in advancing a particular application’s timeline ahead of others — I take that very seriously and always have. I’m quite certain that all members of the House do the same thing.

In addition, since I’ve had the privilege of being on this side of the table as minister, with my colleague on the other side…. It’s coming on to pretty close to three years now we’ve had this relationship.

I can tell you that in those three years, we’ve more than doubled the base budget of the independent Agricultural Land Commission, from, I believe, just over $1.9 million base budget three years ago, 2012-2013, to $4.5 million in the last budget. Thanks to our Finance Minister and to the land commission chair and others who were advocating for more resources.

Not only are they independent, but now they’re going to have even more resources to continue doing their work independent of government.

L. Popham: So the minister is quite confident that the Agricultural Land Commission is acting independent from government currently?

Hon. N. Letnick: I am totally confident that the Agricultural Land Commission is continuing its practice of making decisions on applications independent of any influence by the minister, by government.

In particular, the accountability principles that we have now provide for some benchmarks, some targets, that the commission needs to achieve. But those are administrative benchmarks, administrative targets, as a whole — for example, providing applicants with decisions within 60 business days 90 percent of the time. I think that’s a good thing. I’ve heard from people in communities around B.C. that they wanted to see timely responses to their applications.

Also, if an application is complete, they need to know that. If it’s not, it’s even more important they need to know so that they can fulfil the application properly. The commission is required to do that within five business days now. That’s their target. Once they’ve made a decision, the commission is also required to provide applicants with the results of that decision within five business days.

The last piece to that particular suite of targets is that if they do not provide the applicant with a decision within 90 business days of the application being submitted and being a complete application, then the government is required to refund the dollars corresponding to the application.

That, I believe, is within the purview of the government, working with the ALC to come up with these targets, which in no way impedes the ALC from making its decision on a case-by-case basis independent of government influence or of any MLA’s influence, as per the policy on the land commission’s website.
[ Page 11441 ]

L. Popham: I asked if he believed that the Agricultural Land Commission was independent of government, as it should be. The minister began his answer by saying the decisions that the commission are making, he believes, are independent. That’s not what I asked.

Is the Agricultural Land Commission acting independent, arm’s-length from government currently, with the new way that it’s running?

[1730]

[D. McRae in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. N. Letnick: Hon. Chair, thank you. Welcome to the chair. Nice to see you there, sir.

Yes, I believe that the Agricultural Land Commission continues to make its decisions and operate independently of government. However, just the fact that the Agricultural Land Commission representative is here shows you and all of us that they still are accountable to taxpayers. They’re here to answer questions based on estimates. Therefore, there is some accountability on the part of government when it comes to dealing with how the commission spends taxpayer dollars.

Yes, they’re there to make their operational decisions independent of government. They’re there to make their decisions on applications independent from government. But at the end of day, they are also — just like we all are in this room — accountable to the taxpayers. Therefore, I’m pleased to say that we’ve worked out those accountability principles and that the commission agrees with the ministry and with the government, and moving forward, there are some benchmarks that they need to achieve to meet those accountability principles.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me if there are any other administrative tribunals that have been given ministerial orders related to performance? I can’t find any.

Hon. N. Letnick: To the best of my knowledge, the accountability principles have been adopted with all Crowns so far, and we are working with all tribunal agencies to get them adopted as well. The Agricultural Land Commission is the first.

[1735]

L. Popham: That’s what I thought. There isn’t any other independent tribunal that is overseen by government that way, in my view.

Are there any other tribunals that have a money-back guarantee as part of their performance measure?

Hon. N. Letnick: The short answer is: not that I’m aware of. But I have to again re-emphasize that we heard a lot of feedback from people around the province considering the timeliness of decisions from the land commission — feedback in terms of sometimes it would take months, some even said years, before they would have a decision from the land commission. Now, that could have been resources. It could have been that the applications were incomplete. It could have been a number of factors.

We were looking at improving the level of service to clients, applicants, and in some parts, providing non–farm use decisions so that they can perhaps have a little extra income on their land while they’re farming. It was important to provide them with timely answers to their questions, whether it’s a timely answer yes or a timely answer no, so that they can make decisions based on the answers from the commission.

Our goal with the money-back guarantee is that it will encourage timely and complete applications. It’ll also encourage proper processing and timely responses by the commission. Now, that goes hand in hand with the extra dollars that we’ve provided to the commission.

In the last budget, we’re up to $4.5 million per year. That’s a $1.1 million increase in the budget from the year before. Part of those dollars are to help the commission achieve those targets that they’ve agreed to. In particular, that’s five working days to provide notice on complete application; 60 working days to provide a decision; 90 working days to provide decisions, subject to penalty of refund — or incentive, not refund; and five working days to provide a decision.

So $1.1 million was to help with that. It was also to help the commission to engage more compliance and enforcement officers. I’m sure the member opposite would agree that’s a good investment. It was also to help with the 18 panelists that we now have throughout the province representing their regional areas. That, again, is something that the member opposite was talking about with extension services. It’s kind of funny how things work out, right?

Here we are in a situation, hon. Chair, where the commission now has extra resources — more than double the resources they had as a base budget when I had the privilege of taking over from you, I believe, three years ago. Time does go quickly, doesn’t it? It has been a privilege working after you, following in your footsteps. It is at a point now where we have 23 percent in our ag budget since that time and more than double the amount of money in the land commission budget.

L. Popham: The performance measures and the money-back guarantee, which is very unusual and I don’t think normally come into play by a cabinet appointment on an independent tribunal…. The minister wants the applications to be processed in a more timely way, and better quality, is what I’m hearing.

[1740]

Does the minister think that the work of the Agricultural Land Commission was shoddy before this perform-
[ Page 11442 ]
ance measure was brought in? What was the indicator that these applications were taking too long and not that the work that was involved in processing these applications was what it was? How did the minister measure this? How does the minister decide that what was being done in the past was not good enough and he had to bring in performance measures, a money-back guarantee, which doesn’t, to me, sound like a proper way for a commission to be running.

It seems to me, the minister’s direction on this, is that we’re creating an application machine. All of these performance measures have nothing to do with the mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission. The mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission is to protect agricultural land and to encourage farming.

Having a money-back guarantee on an application to exclude land out of the agricultural land reserve, to me, doesn’t make a lot of sense. Maybe the minister can explain a little more where he’s coming from.

[1745]

Hon. N. Letnick: I think I can even go back as far as 2010, when the former chair, Mr. Bullock, had gone around the province and looked for feedback regarding the land commission. Also, I remember correctly, at a UBCM, he met with all MLAs that wanted to meet with him.

One of things in his report that was very clear was that the ALC required more resources to do their job — resources to do their job in a variety of ways. One of those ways that I’ve heard, as I go around the province as well, is in the timeliness of decisions — independent of government, of course. When we agreed to provide more dollars to the Agricultural Land Commission, we wanted to make sure, as government, that those dollars come with improved service to clients in many ways. One of those ways was in the timeliness of those decisions.

I have every confidence, given the new technology that the ALC is now incorporating — the new mapping that they have, the on-line portals and other assistance that the ALC will get from the extra dollars that they will have — that once a completed application is provided to the commissioners for their decision, along with the assistance of a full-time CEO now, they should have very little trouble meeting the stated goal of 60 working days, 60 business days, to meet the vast majority of the applications. Should there be an instance where they are unable to provide their decision within 90 business days, yes, there is a money-back incentive. But again, I don’t think that will be triggered very often.

Also, I might add that it is possible for the land commission — again, the independent land commission — to create a pause on an application through that 90-business-day window if it requires some more information. It could put a pause on the counter and then come back to the application, and then the clock would start ticking again.

I understand the consternation by the member opposite on this. I’m just saying to her that these extra dollars have been requested for some time. We have more than doubled the budget in the base budget for the land commission now. We have a full-time CEO. We have panels in the local area that know their local area. We have on-line tools to help them. We have mapping of the province to help the commission.

I firmly believe that completed applications, the vast majority of them — over, I would guess, 90 to 95 percent of them — would be completed within that 60-business-day window. The exception, rather than the rule, will be anybody that needs 90 business days to be accomplished.

L. Popham: The minister feels that 95 percent of applications are processed quickly enough and that if they aren’t processed enough, the new system would have a pause that the commission could put on to make their decision. But the minister feels it’s important that he needs to have a performance measure put on to the commission with a money-back guarantee. It sounds to me like that’s not going to actually happen that often. I’m not sure why the minister would have to do that.

I am concerned that the minister has funded the commission to a new level, but in doing so, with these performance measures, what he’s said is: “I’m going to give you some more money, but I’m going to control everything you do.” That’s basically what’s happened.

[1750]

The mandate of the commission is to protect the agricultural land reserve and to encourage farming. The new mandate seems to be: “We’re going to fund it properly, but now we’re going to control it.” That doesn’t sound to me like there’s anything to do with protecting farmland.

Does the minister have a baseline that he was working from that he would have made the decision around this money-back guarantee or any of the other performance measures that he’s put onto the commission?

I see, in a newspaper article, our new chair is quoted as saying: “I met people in their 80s who had been waiting two years for a decision.” Where is that information? Is this a story he’s heard on the road, or do we have actual statistics that we’re working from when we’re changing the whole way that the commission works? It is now under control of the minister, with his performance evaluation he’s going to do on the commission.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for, obviously, another interesting estimates, a good discussion.

I believe government has actually continued to support the independence of the land commission. Indeed, by providing the funds and the work that we’ve done with the land commission on these accountability principles — and I mean the work with the land commission, the new chair and staff — we have actually continued to promote the independence of the commission.
[ Page 11443 ]

The accountability principles are still there to make sure that we provide value to taxpayers. I think everyone would agree that that’s an important principle. So I would dispute the member’s assertion that we have actually not done what I’ve said we’ve done, which is continue to support the commission and their independence.

But let’s be clear. The goals of the commission are to help farmers grow their business and earn a better living; support farming families, who continue to produce food on our fertile land; ensure that the commission has the modern tools necessary to continue making independent land decisions with the best interests of agriculture in mind. It also, of course, has the legislation. Very clearly, section 6 of the act says what it’s supposed to do.

If you look at the applications that the commission received in the last fiscal year from April 1, 2014, to March 31, 2015, throughout the province, it received 18 applications for exclusion; 18 applications for inclusion — just as many applications to put land in the ALR as take lands out of the ALR; 84 applications for non-farm use — so the land stays in the ALR, but some part of the land would be used for something else; 73 applications for subdivision; and 37 applications for fill, place fill and remove soil.

[1755]

What we’re saying is all these applications that have been provided to the commission for them to make a decision, independent of government, should be done within 60 business days. That’s the goal that the commission has set for itself. That’s the goal that we agree with the commission can be delivered. If they don’t achieve the goal of 90 business days on these applications, independent of government, subject to a pause if they need a pause, then yes, those people that have paid their money to get applications in a reasonable amount of time would get their application back.

It doesn’t mean the commission stops the application. The commission continues to provide the work that they need to do and take the time that they need to do it in to provide the applicant with the right judgment, as per the independent commission’s decision, but they wouldn’t have to pay the application fee. At that point, they would get their money back.

L. Popham: I’m still very confused on how that helps farming in the province. It has nothing to do with farming. If an application takes longer — someone wants to subdivide off a piece of farmland or develop it, exclude it, and the application takes longer — that person gets their application processed for free? I don’t understand that. How does that help farming in the province?

I’m going to move on to fees, because we’re going to run out of time. I would like to know how the minister came up with the fee structure for the province. In zone 2, it’s cheaper to have an application for exclusion or development than it is in zone 1. I’d like to understand the minister’s thinking around that.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for her question. Part of the work that was done by the former Chair and also continued after that was to look at the fee issue. Consultations that occurred at a very high level — granted, specific numbers weren’t thrown out, but at a very high level as to what the fees should look like — the feedback that was received was that the fees should be somewhere close to cost recovery.

The challenge is that, when the ministry actually did the calculations on cost recovery, it turned out to be north of $3,000 an application. As you just heard me describe, the applications in that fiscal year…. There aren’t that many applications when you look at it, really. It’s a big province, and there are a number of applications, but at a per-application basis, we were looking at over $3,000.

When you’re talking $600 currently, to go from $600 to $3,000 or more to get cost recovery, quite honestly, I thought that was quite a bit of a jump, and so did other people that I spoke with. We had to find the right number, and the right number isn’t scientific. It’s more of a judgment call as to how much more we can see going from the 2002 levels — I believe the $600 were — to 2016 levels. That’s where we came into maybe half for people who wanted to apply.

Just to repeat, we’re talking about people who apply to include their land in the ALR, as well as exclude. Just as many inclusions occurred as exclusions. Property owners, including farmers, of course, who want to do something else on their farm were the majority. So 84 were non-farm use. So a farmer who wanted maybe to have a machine shop on their land or something else — a tax business or whatever; a non-farm use on their property — would apply to the commission. Or perhaps it’s…. Something that’s real current is agritourism. A non-farm use in agritourism would apply to the commission for permission for their commercial agritourism.

Those are 84 applicants that were looking for opportunities to continue using their land for agriculture but wanted to do a non-farm use to improve their income. When we’re looking at those numbers, again, $3,000 for someone who wants to do it, we thought, was too high.

Why the difference between zone 1 and zone 2? Well, it goes back to the same discussion we had some time ago about the ability for people to afford more or less in zone 1 or zone 2. Over, I believe, 80 percent of the farm receipts come from zone 1, with about 10 percent of the land base. The vast majority of the land base is in zone 2, with very little in terms of farm receipts.

[1800]

We thought and I thought and my recommendation to government was that we provide people who had the least amount of income from their agricultural products another, smaller fee increase than the ones in zone 1. That’s how we came up with the $600 to $900 in zone 2.

Yes, it’s a significant increase — 50 percent, of course — but compared to the $3,000 figure, I would say it’s
[ Page 11444 ]
modest. Also, in zone 1, we go from $600 to the $1,500, which is, of course, more than zone 2, but significantly less — 50 percent less — than the full cost recovery estimate by the ministry.

L. Popham: Can the minister break down the numbers of applications and exclusions for non-farm use by zone, please?

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes, and I will. Do you want me to send it to you? Or are you going to write it down? What would you like?

L. Popham: The numbers that the minister has given me I would like him to tell me right now. Basically, I would like to know the non-farm-use applications. I would like to know the breakdown of zones.

Hon. N. Letnick: Non-farm-use applications. The number of applications decided by component type in the Interior, non-farm use — for April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015, there were nine. On the Island, there were nine. In the Kootenays, there were 12. In the north, there were 17. In the Okanagan, there were 14, and south coast, 23, for a total of 84. That’s it.

The Chair: Before the member takes her question, I’d just like to refer the members to the Speaker’s memorandum on the use of electronic devices during parliamentary proceedings. When I say “members,” I refer to both members asking questions and ministers responding to questions. According to the Speaker, memorandum item No. 4 — I’ll read it as verbatim: “Unless otherwise permitted, electronic devices must not be used by a member who is in possession of the floor.”

The Chair interprets that to be both ministers answering and members asking questions. If people have concerns or questions in regard to this policy, I ask them to please take it up with the Speaker at their earliest convenience, but the electronic devices will not be used during the question period or references to the question period, or the answer period.

L. Popham: Is my computer allowed to be open when I’m asking a question?

The Chair: You cannot refer to your electronic device, according to the Speaker, during the proceedings. So yes, it can be open, but you cannot refer to it.

L. Popham: My question is around the fees. We have two different types of farmers in the province. We have got serious farmers making a lot of money in zone 1. Then we’ve got kind of — I don’t know — non-serious hobby farmers that aren’t making that much farming. They need to have another business on their ALR farmland in order to make a living, and when they apply for things in zone 2, they can’t really afford it. So the minister has dropped the fee for application. But people are just making so much money in zone 1 that we just jacked the fees right up.

So we have two different types of farmers in the province. Is the minister trying to say that in zone 2, the applications are by farmers? Or does he believe that they’re not by farmers? Who are the farmers that are applying for these non-farm uses? Are they actually farmers? Does the minister know?

Hon. N. Letnick: We don’t have any statistics here as to who’s applying, whether they’re farmers or non-farmers.

L. Popham: I think the minister made my point. The minister has no statistics. We don’t know who’s applying. We don’t know who’s applying for these. We don’t know if it’s farming. We don’t know if it’s helping farming.

The minister says he has consulted on the level of fees. When was that consultation done and with whom?

[1805]

The committee recessed from 6:09 p.m. to 6:12 p.m.

[D. McRae in the chair.]

The Chair: At this stage, I’d like to call the committee back to order.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thanks for bringing us back to order.

The consultation first started in this round by the former chair in 2010. As I described before, he went around the province. He also talked to MLAs and — if I remember correctly, like I said — at UBCM and other places. Generally, the word back was the ALC needed more resources.

In 2011, the government produced enabling legislation to provide opportunity to charge fees. In 2012, we looked at a number of scenarios that were analyzed by the commission, which they provided to the government. That was followed up by a web-based survey in July to August of 2012.

Specifically, the member asked who was involved with that. B.C. Ag Council was surveyed. The B.C. Real Estate Association, Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and a sample of regional districts were also involved in the survey.

The Chair: Member.

I’ll just make a note this is going be the last question and answer of this day.

L. Popham: Okay. This will be my final question. But unfortunately, we’re not finished with the Agricultural Land Commission, so we’ll have to hold over until tomorrow.
[ Page 11445 ]

I’m going to continue my last question on the fees. The minister has stated that he probably doesn’t know if the applicants in zone 1 or zone 2 are actual farmers. Or is it linked?

I’m going to ask a bunch of questions. Hopefully, the minister can get them. I’m not sitting down. I’m not going to give up the floor.

[1815]

Does the minister look at B.C. farm assessment to see what level of income the farmers are making in zone 1 or zone 2 to understand whether they’re farmers or they’re business people or they’re realtors? How do we know that these are actual farmers when we decide what sort of fees they need to pay for an application?

Zone 1 and zone 2. The minister has decided we have two zones in the province, but it has nothing to do with agricultural potential. This is agrifood dollars — or receipts, as the minister says. We know that in zone 1 we have our dairy operations — or most of them — our poultry operations. They are condensed in the Fraser Valley. We know that that spikes up the agrifood receipts, but that is not the reality for the majority of farmers in zone 1. We have a lot of smaller farmers.

How do we equate that? We have zone 2 that potentially might not be making as much as the highest receipts in zone 1. I don’t know how the minister came to this. I toured with the consultation. Nobody ever mentioned that the fee structure should be two different zones as well. In my view, the minister has created two zones of people in the province. We don’t know what people can afford. We don’t know, when these applications come in, how much farm receipts they’re…. Unless we’re going to look at them individually.

How does the minister believe that this is better for farming? This has nothing to do with farming. This is about application processing, and that’s it. Does the minister agree?

Hon. N. Letnick: I believe this is the last answer for today. I look forward to continuing our discussions tomorrow. I actually really enjoy estimates. I think it’s a great opportunity to really dive into issues, much more than question period is, and I appreciate the member’s questions on the other side.

On this, I’ll just paraphrase what I said before. Going from $600 to $3,000, which is roughly the cost recovery, was beyond my ability to support. That was one of the options, but I did not accept that as the option. Agriculture is very dear to all MLAs. I would say almost everybody in the province wants to continue to see agricultural growth. To put on fees of from $600 to $3,000 was too much.

What’s the right amount? As I said before, it’s not science. It’s more of a judgment call. I believe that 50 percent of cost recovery by applicants who are looking for non-farm use or for inclusions or exclusions — or whatever it is that they apply to the independent commission on…. I thought that overall, for a large part of the farming community, the landowners who are in zone 1, they could afford, given their higher cash receipts overall, the 50 percent, with government putting in the other 50 percent.

In zone 2, I thought it wiser just to stick to a cost increase from $600 to $900. I’m obviously open to criticism by anyone, including the member opposite, for that judgment call. I respect her difference of opinion on it, but that’s the call that I made.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:20 p.m.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

Copyright © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada