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, May 2, 2016

Morning Sitting

Volume 38, Number 4

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

MONDAY, MAY 2, 2016

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

B.C. HYDRO — MANAGED FOR WHO?

A. Dix: It’s wonderful to be here this beautiful Monday morning to talk about B.C. Hydro, to talk about what it has contributed over decades to our province and the important role in a monopoly electricity system, even a monopoly system of any kind, of effective regulation.

[1005]

[R. Lee in the chair.]

As members will know, B.C. Hydro is one of the most important companies in British Columbia. It has succeeded over decades — really, up to recent times — in ensuring low electricity rates for British Columbians and for building the province. This has occurred under governments of successive Social Credit and NDP stripes since W.A.C. Bennett established B.C. Hydro in debates in this very Legislature in the 1960s.

One of the significant changes that was made in the 1980s — the adjustments to that system, the idea of a monopoly hydroelectric development and a monopoly electricity company in British Columbia — was the idea of effective regulation. That idea was introduced in this Legislature as well by the son of the founder of B.C. Hydro, Bill Bennett. That Bill Bennett, if I may use that term, in this Legislature, brought in the B.C. Utilities Commission.

It’s an important idea. When you’re a monopoly — no matter how public-interested the monopoly — it is absolutely required, to ensure that the public interest is maintained, to have some independent regulatory mechanism to assess the performance of that monopoly.

So Bill Bennett brought in the B.C. Utilities Commission. It was very interesting, because at the time there was a proposal for a dam that’s very much before the province right now — the Site C dam. B.C. Hydro, in that case, attempted to justify that dam by arguing that electricity consumption, electricity demand, was going to triple in the 20 years after the early 1980s, from 28,000 gigawatt hours to 92,000 gigawatt hours.

This shows the effectiveness of regulation, because in fact what the B.C. Utilities Commission showed in that time, when they reviewed the dam, was to look at what B.C. Hydro said about the increase in electricity demand and what happened and say that B.C. Hydro was incorrect, and to act in the public interest to say they shouldn’t proceed. Very interesting decision made at that point.

B.C. Hydro said it would triple — a 300 percent increase. Members, do you know how much — in the following 20 years, when B.C. Hydro said it would triple — the electricity demand increased in British Columbia in a period of relatively high economic growth? Well, it actually didn’t increase by 300 percent. It increased by 30 percent. The BCUC saved B.C. Hydro, the ratepayer and the taxpayer literally billions of dollars, present value, by making that decision.

Fast forward to today. We’re facing, as everyone knows, large electricity rate increases that are affecting the competitiveness of the B.C. economy. They’re costing jobs. Why are we facing such rate increases? We’re facing rate increases because we purchased a whole bunch of electricity that we didn’t need. We have a very significant surplus of electricity, and Hydro’s demand forecasts, in fact, have proven to be substantially wrong. So we’re losing money on electricity we purchased as a result of decisions made in the noughts — in 2005, ’06, ’07, ’08, ’09 and ’10.

We bought electricity. We bought it at a high price, and we can’t sell it. Now, what happened then? We could, of course, have been saved those bad decisions. It’s possible for governments of all stripes to make bad decisions. We could have been saved those bad decisions had those decisions been reviewed by the B.C. Utilities Commission, but they were not. In fact, they were not.

The result is very significant rate increases, not just now but rate increases that have been pushed forward by other decisions also made in the cabinet room exempting B.C. Hydro from the B.C. Utilities Commission review, such as the exponential growth of deferral accounts.

What we’ve seen are decisions that were avoided in the past, decisions that led to relatively low electricity prices in British Columbia. We’ve seen that process of decision-making that involved a regulator, forced B.C. Hydro to come before that regulator and justify its case — a regulatory system put in place by a former Social Credit Premier of British Columbia, systematically, in these times, avoided for reasons that we can’t discuss in detail during this non-partisan time but involved cabinet decisions, in a general sense, whether you agree with them or not.

Further, we’ve had decisions that treat, believe it or not…. Hon. Speaker, you would understand this and people who understand businesses and non-profit organizations…. We actually have decisions ordered to the BCUC now that treat revenue that we’re going to get in 2022, 2023 and 2024 as revenue coming in this year.

[1010]

The government, of course, understood that any regulator would have rejected that approach. They say so, in
[ Page 12546 ]
fact, in their preparations for those decisions. So what did they do? Again exempted themselves from Utilities Commission review.

What lesson can we learn from this — from the failures of the present and the successes of the past? That it makes sense, if you have a monopoly corporation like B.C. Hydro…. It is respected in general and has been respected for decades and has served B.C. for decades. That corporation, that Crown corporation, only works effectively when it follows the rules; when it is supported by effective regulation; when the government, rather than overturning that regulation, chooses to respect that regulatory process.

It’s that combination of the effectiveness of a Crown corporation with the effectiveness of regulation and the involvement of the public that protects the public from the very dramatic rate increases that are damaging them and the B.C. economy today. If I may make an appeal today, I think the lessons of history — not from NDP governments or Liberal governments or Social Credit governments but from all governments — is that the respect for the regulatory process at B.C. Hydro leads to better solutions.

If we’ve gone through, in the last number of years, some of the worst decisions made in the present context — whether they be the northwest transmission line, whether they be the decisions around deferral accounts, whether they be the decisions to overpurchase power in the short term when we didn’t need it — those decisions could have been avoided had the regulatory system that is, in fact, enshrined in law in British Columbia been followed properly. It is that system that we have to continue to respect and support.

D. Ashton: I appreciate the opportunity to stand up and respond to the member opposite. Unlike the member opposite, who seems to purvey a force of negativity quite often about a very great company, I believe that B.C. Hydro acts entirely in the best interests of its ratepayers.

I’m not the only person who disagrees with the member. Forbes magazine says that B.C. Hydro is one of the best employers in Canada. B.C. Business Magazine says that B.C. Hydro has the fourth most admired brands in British Columbia and the most influential brand in British Columbia.

B.C. Hydro services about four million customers, 95 percent of our province’s population, in an area more than twice the size of Washington state and Oregon state combined. B.C. Hydro’s network includes over 300 substations, 325,000 individual transformers, one million utility poles and 77,000 kilometres of transmission and distribution lines, which would wrap around this entire earth twice.

It provides reliable, affordable and clean electricity — 98.3 percent clean, to be exact — to this vast market. It’s a very challenging task, quite often, but B.C. Hydro is up to the task.

Thanks to the much-needed investments in our system, which was allowed to deteriorate badly during the opposition’s governing party in the early 1990s, we have made a substantial difference. Almost no investment came from the opposition side when they were in government except for something that transpired overseas.

British Columbia is now investing $2.4 billion a year — I’ll say B.C. Hydro, not British Columbia — in a much-needed strengthening of our system. Hydro to date has delivered over 500 generation substation and transmission projects at an average of 1.8 percent under budget. That is an inconvenient fact, but it’s a fact. It’s a fact, I think, that needs to have a pat on the back. They’re difficult projects, and they have come forward with them.

Hydro’s IT projects, which the member is fondly referencing, have been under budget by a combined total of $46.3 billion for the last five years. B.C. Hydro has continued to work on major capital projects like Site C, John Hart and substations in growing cities like Surrey and Kamloops, just to name a few.

The member is also very fond of talking about deferral accounts and the dividend payment to government, but in his partisan interpretation, I personally believe he’s quite off the mark. Deferral accounts are not uncommon in utility management and are much like a mortgage. They are means of paying off capital costs over time, much like many of us in this House have probably had to do when we have purchased a house or purchased a piece of property.

[1015]

As for the dividend, it is rich for the member opposite to chastise this government on a continual basis when it was his own party that created the dividend formula in the 1990s. In fact, the member’s dear friend Minister Moe Sihota, at the time, said that he was very proud of initiating that type of reform. On this side of the House, we recognize it is not sustainable practice over the long term, which is why we are reducing the dividend, starting in 2018, to bring it back to zero over a few years.

In using tools like the deferral account, Hydro has made much-needed investments in keeping rates consistent and affordable through a ten-year plan. And B.C. continues to have the third-lowest residential rates in all of North America. In fact, adjusted for inflation, ratepayers today are paying approximately the same rates as they did in the late ’70s. The member wasn’t paying his own hydro bills back then, I suppose, but it may be something that is quite easy to forget. Perhaps he just might consider how much costs have increased overall in many other factors of this economy since 1976.

The member may also forget the incredible dedication that the members of B.C. Hydro had during that terrific wind storm that we had in 2015, where over 700,000 customers lost power. Those individuals were out there restoring power to 99 percent of the homes within 72 hours, and everybody was up and running with power again in five days.
[ Page 12547 ]

To put this in perspective, when 400,000 Toronto Hydro customers lost their power in the ice storm, it took the crews almost 11 days. The situations may have been a bit different, but there’s an incredibly dedicated force of individuals that work for B.C. Hydro, and it’s those individuals that we would like to recognize. That’s why B.C. Hydro has such an incredible reputation around this world.

Hon. Speaker, I see I’m getting very close to the end, and I would just like to say thank you very much for the opportunity to respond to the member.

A. Dix: It’s always good to respond to such a partisan response. I was attempting to give a thoughtful reflection on the role of the BCUC, and then the member made all kinds of strange assertions.

He said that things were going well at B.C. Hydro, when Moody’s has declared that as a direct result of Liberal policies, they have the weakest financial position of any utility in Canada. He praises deferral accounts and pretends they’re borrowed against something, when in fact the rate-smoothing account simply creates revenue out of nothing, through debt, and pretends it’s income so that the government can claim it as part of a balanced budget.

He says that IT projects are on budget. Their five-year plan, seven years later, is half finished and $92 million over budget, and the minister himself had to apologize for it. I don’t know whether the member didn’t hear the minister’s thoughtful apology about the failures of IT policies at B.C. Hydro or not, or whether he’s just ignoring that for the moment.

He claims that transmission lines have been effectively planned and that they’re on budget. Just to give you an example of how that happens, because it seems to come out of the ether in some ways. The Interior–Lower Mainland line, for example, budgeted at $600 million, cost $741 million, but the government restated the budget, closer to its end, to $725 million to claim that it was only $16 million over budget. The northwest transmission line, famously over budget. The Dawson Creek transmission line, famously over budget. Yet the government here is claiming that what is actually happening is not happening, for its partisan reasons.

The fact of the matter is every single time this government has exempted itself from BCUC review, it’s the ratepayers who have paid the price through the mistakes made by government. They think they know better. They think they don’t even have to justify their decisions, but it’s not them, ultimately, who have to pay. It’s every small business in B.C. It’s every industrial business in B.C. It’s the jobs lost as a direct result of these policies and higher energy costs and how they affect costs in our province in a competitive world. And of course, it’s customers throughout the hydro system who have to pay the price every single day.

That’s why my non-partisan appeal to the government to respect the B.C. Utilities Commission, to avoid these incompetent failures in the future by respecting the regulatory process in the present, has particular importance. And it’s why, in the context of this debate — and especially in terms of the partisan response from the government to this discussion — it’s important to bring the record into focus. It was this government, not any other, that has used deferral accounts to hide the truth of the financial position of B.C. Hydro.

[1020]

But they can’t do it very much longer. The bills will have to come to be paid, and you can’t claim revenue in the present against nothing and pretend that it exists in fact.

Deputy Speaker: I would like to remind all hon. members that this hour is non-partisan time. Thank you.

ANNIVERSARY OF EXPO 86

J. Martin: Thank you so much. What a coincidence. I’m very happy today to be able to rise and just take us on a little trip down memory lane.

It was 30 years ago today — the opening day of Expo 86. The world’s fair ran from May 2 to October 13, and it was one of the first major opportunities for Vancouver and British Columbia to “Welcome the world.” Expo 86 coincided with the Vancouver centennial and had the theme of: “Transportation and communication: world in motion, world in touch.”

This was only the second time that Canada would host a world’s fair; the first being, of course, Expo 67 in Montreal during Canada’s centennial.

Any of us that were around and were at Expo will all have our memories — the sights, the sounds, the food, the non-stop entertainment. For me, a lot of it was all about the music.

I just made a little list of the shows that I was fortunate enough to catch, the big acts that came to Expo: the Everly Brothers, Liberace, Mitzi Gaynor, Joe Jackson, k.d. lang, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Jimmy Cliff, Donovan, the Ventures, Joan Baez, rockin’ Ronnie Hawkins, George Thorogood, Bruce Cockburn, Roy Orbison, and for anyone who was fortunate enough to actually be there, they will never forget the Rock vs. Opera performance of Dollie de Luxe.

We invited the world to come to British Columbia to showcase our city, to showcase our province, our country, and it paid off. Expo 86 set a tourism record with 16.2 million visits in 1986. More importantly, it laid the groundwork for B.C. to become a global tourist destination.

Some of the infrastructure legacies from Expo are still present today — from the SkyTrain to the convention centre at Canada Place to Science World and other monuments that dot the city, and even some updated liquor laws.
[ Page 12548 ]

So thinking about all of these legacies and the economic spinoff from Expo 86 — not to mention the great time that everybody had, who was there — it is no surprise that, apparently, not everyone thought it was a good idea. At the time, Expo was quite controversial. A number of public officials and community leaders said it would be a waste of time and expressed doubt that anyone would even show up. Or that British Columbians were even capable of hosting a world’s fair.

One of those skeptics was the mayor of Vancouver at the time, Mike Harcourt, who said he was a critic and skeptical of Expo, and that he was unable to support Expo. Well, it’s a good thing that we had people with vision who were running the province at the time — leaders knew how to get to yes.

The site of Expo 86 on False Creek was a former CPR rail yard, and at the time was an ugly, industrial, toxic wasteland. After the fair, the land was eventually developed and helped spark the urban revitalization of the area.

The seawall has expanded to make one continuous oceanfront promenade from the downtown harbour to Science World in False Creek. What would Yaletown be today without that revitalization? What would False Creek look like without Expo 86?

SkyTrain, probably, is one of the most significant and enduring legacies from Expo 86. Not only does it provide affordable public transit for tens of thousands of people daily, it has created urban neighbourhoods surrounding stations along the line. SkyTrain has changed the skyline with developments that it has spurred. Residents have easy access to transit, and as the line continues to expand, more and more people will have easy access to SkyTrain. The concentrated density around the SkyTrain stations has provided people housing options without the transportation costs.

With the completion of the Evergreen line close on the horizon, SkyTrain is about to become the world’s longest, fully automated rapid transit line. Without Expo 86, the government of the day would not have had the political capital to build SkyTrain as quickly as they did.

It’s incredibly disappointing to know that the people who didn’t support Expo 86 also don’t support the projects that came along with it and the economic spinoff they created. Think about how many jobs building and running the SkyTrain has alone created.

B.C. Place was built in 1983, and it’s a lasting legacy that continues to draw huge crowds to the events hosted there.

[1025]

With more than 60,000 seats, B.C. Place was nearly twice the size of Vancouver’s then-largest stadium, Empire Stadium. It enabled the city to host many more large events, such as concerts, sporting events, the women’s world cup and, of course, the 2010 Winter Olympics’ opening and closing ceremonies. These are all events that would have been ill-suited for the 1954-built Empire Stadium.

On top of that, the revitalization of B.C. Place means we have a world-class facility to host events that bring people to Vancouver and contribute to the local economy.

Expo 86 put Vancouver and British Columbia on the map. There’s no doubt now that Vancouver and B.C. are popular destinations, not only for tourists but also for businesses that want to invest in British Columbia and work in our beautiful province.

This did not happen easily. Nothing worth doing ever does. It took the courage, the tenacity, the hard work and the perseverance of the government of the day and the people of British Columbia to get to yes.

We welcomed the world to British Columbia. They came, and they stayed. This is a great day to think back to all the wonderful memories that Expo 86 has provided for British Columbians.

Thank you so much for this opportunity, hon. Speaker.

M. Elmore: I’ve very pleased to rise and speak to the motion on Expo 86. Thinking back today 30 years — wow — marking the first day to kick off Expo 86.

Expo 86 was planned and held to commemorate 100 years for Vancouver — Vancouver’s centennial. As we mark the 30th anniversary, we heard some remarks from the member taking a step down memory lane about 30 years ago with the opening of Expo 86.

When I reflect on my experiences…. I was in high school and appreciating Expo 86. Not only are we celebrating the 30th anniversary for Expo, but it also happens to be that that is the year I graduated from high school, so it’s also my 30th. Events and, really, the excitement at the time attending Expo 86 as a high school student with my friends and family was really an incredible time.

We heard that, initially, it was to be called Transpo 86. But with the expansion of the theme “communication” added to “transportation,” it became known as Expo 86. I remember travelling on the monorail, the SkyTrain that was marked by the development. The gondolas, as well, and water taxis — really taking the theme of air, land and water to heart.

When we look at some of the projects, the legacy…. We’ve heard that were enjoyed today by Vancouverites and British Columbians, not only the SkyTrain but the Expo Centre, Science World, B.C. Place Stadium, Canada Place, Plaza of Nations. It really was, certainly, a signature. These are some of the legacies that we appreciate today from Expo 86.

The member also mentioned some of the controversy, some of the challenges and issues, that accompanied Expo 86. One of them was the challenge of really welcoming the world. The response of a number of hotels in the Downtown Eastside that undertook renovations…. We saw the unfortunate experience of evictions. During that time, over 600 long-term residents in the Downtown Eastside were evicted to make way for tourists coming in — highlighted by the story of Olaf Solheim, an 84-year-
[ Page 12549 ]
old retired logger evicted from his residence where he lived for 41 years. He died weeks later. He was cited by…. Vancouver’s medical health officer attributed his death to his eviction. That was one of the challenges.

As well, we know that there was a lot invested — $1.5 billion — in a time of recession and austerity. The other, I think, lesson for us to learn in terms of the legacies as we celebrate Expo 86…. One of the lessons, as well, is in terms of the treatment of First Nations. It was marked by an absence of meaningful First Nations participation. While there was a First Nations pavilion planned, it was put on the back burner and eventually forgotten.

[1030]

When we look at not only recognizing and celebrating the great legacies that we have for Expo 86, we also have to be mindful of the lessons learned not only in terms of meaningful engagement of First Nations but moving forward and ensuring that Vancouver is a city that’s inclusive for all, that is affordable for families, that families can have opportunities in terms of the issue of affordable housing. These are challenges that remain for us now — to ensure that, when we look back and celebrate Expo 86….

Here in 2016, going forward, when we know that Vancouverites and British Columbians have the expectation not only in terms of celebrating inclusion and diversity in our province but also opportunities…. Addressing affordability still remains one of the key challenges — housing affordability. It’s Vancouver being a city recognized not only as one of the most livable cities in the world — and thanking Expo 86 for that — but also the challenge of Vancouver being one of the most unaffordable cities.

So this is a challenge that remains — to move forward and to celebrate the legacy and learn the lessons from Expo 86.

J. Martin: I would like to take a few moments to speak further about the economic spinoffs of hosting an event such as Expo 86. In addition to opening the world’s eyes to Vancouver and British Columbia…. People liked what they saw, and they keep coming back. Tourism numbers are increasing as more and more people want to visit our beautiful province.

Canada Place was built in 1985. Known as Canada Pavilion during the fair, it is one of the most recognizable legacy buildings from Expo 86. Afterwards, it was transformed into a convention centre and a cruise ship terminal. The area surrounding Canada Place is now filled with plazas, parks, hotels and office towers. The Cruise Ship Terminal continues to welcome more ships and more tourists into the city every year.

Of course, Vancouver welcomed the world with another of the world’s largest events — the 2010 Winter Olympics. With the Olympics we had the legacy of the Canada Line, another project that many people did not support at the time. These large events create the political capital to invest in infrastructure projects that continue to benefit British Columbians today. Another project that was given the green light thanks to hosting the world’s fair was the Coquihalla Highway, another project that many people did not support.

We can all agree that Expo 86 helped shape Vancouver into the city it is today, and it elevated British Columbia’s reputation around the world. Without the hard work and the vision of the Hon. Grace McCarthy and Premier Bill Bennett, we would not have had Expo 86 and all of the legacies that come with it.

It is so important to remember that had we listened to the voices of no in 1986 and given Expo 86 a pass, British Columbia would be a lot poorer for it today. That’s why it’s important we must continue to get to yes on big projects such as Site C, such as LNG, and move British Columbia forward, growing the economy, creating jobs and continuing to make British Columbia the absolute best place to live in the world.

BUS PASSES OFFER FREEDOM

M. Mungall: It’s my pleasure to rise today to talk about the importance that bus passes have in our community. Many people with disabilities rely on their bus passes to get around. In fact, they say it gives them freedom. I’m able to talk about that today because I have been touring around the province, as well as hearing from a lot of people via social media — whether it’s Twitter, Facebook or people emailing my office, giving me a phone call as well.

Going out and talking to people face to face is incredibly valuable. I have been doing that around the province and, specifically, talking to people with disabilities at bus stops about why their bus pass is so incredibly valuable to them. What I hear over and over and over again, whether I’m talking face to face to people, as I said, or through various mediums, is that bus passes give people freedom. It gives them the opportunity to be included and involved in their community — to get to a volunteer position or to get to work a part-time job. That bus pass is what enables them to do that.

[1035]

A lot of the things that people who are fully able take for granted on a day-to-day basis — being able to go for a walk in the park, go to movies, and so on…. People with disabilities require that bus pass to be able to get to that location to do that, to be involved in their community, to be seen, to be able to talk to strangers and new people, to enjoy all that being out and about has to offer. It’s that bus pass that gives them the opportunity to do that.

For those who are not able to get a bus pass here in B.C., what they have been able to access is called an alternative transportation subsidy. Unfortunately, right now that subsidy is only available in communities that have a transit system. It’s not available in rural communities, like half of my riding, in Creston. If we expanded that as
[ Page 12550 ]
a province, I think we would hear a lot more about accessibility for people with disabilities being able to be included in their communities.

That is not what has happened this year. The provincial government’s budget this year, on one hand, lifted rates for people with disabilities, which was well overdue after nine years. But at the same time, it took with the other hand and is increasing those bus pass fees by $52 a month.

As I’m talking to people around the province, this is what they have to tell me. They now have a choice, and it’s by no means the choice that they’ve been told they have from this government. Their choice is actually: do they keep the full $77, forgo their bus pass, stay at home and be able to afford the increased costs associated with food, associated with hydro? We all know that hydro rates have been going up under this government — 28 percent. We know that rents often go up, and they’re having to pay increased rent.

They now have an extra $77 a month that would help them to cover those costs. These are people who are living in poverty already, so every penny counts for them. Would they be able to cover those costs? That’s the question they’re asking themselves. Or should they continue to be involved in their communities and give up $52 of that $77 each month for their bus pass?

Right now they don’t pay that $52 a month. They pay a mere $45 a year, and that’s fair. It’s fair for people with disabilities, who have many barriers in their life, to reduce barriers to accessibility and inclusion in their communities by ensuring that bus passes are at a very low cost.

In the United Kingdom, for example, people with disabilities get a free bus pass. They get a free bus pass because that society values the importance of inclusion of people with disabilities in their communities.

Right now people with disabilities are faced with this choice, as I mentioned, and everywhere I go, this seems to be the case. I was talking to Cass Kennedy in Kamloops. She stopped me as she was transferring between her two buses to tell me that she’s really concerned. Does she keep her bus pass? She needs that bus pass to be able to get to her doctor’s appointments, to be able to go see her family and friends. Or does she give that bus pass up because she has a specialized diet, and she has that extra food cost?

I’ve been hearing that very story all over this province. I heard it in Coquitlam, and I heard it in Vernon and in Maple Ridge as well. This is very disconcerting, to hear that people who are living at the lowest income brackets in our province are being faced with this type of choice, of being included in their communities or having to pay those extra costs for basics, like food, rent and utilities. That’s the real choice that they are facing. Time and again, it’s frustrating to see that this government isn’t hearing that.

I’m hoping that today, with this exchange, they will hear that message. Thousands and thousands of people with disabilities are coming forward to share their personal stories of struggle, hoping that government will hear that and reverse this decision to increase bus pass fees that are going to put them into a difficult place of making very, very hard choices.

[1040]

We need to reverse this bus pass clawback. We need to reverse any type of clawback that is going to be associated with this rate increase. If we are truly committed to ensuring that every person with a disability in our province is able to access transportation, we need to start hearing from them what kind of transportation they need and what kind of subsidies and supports they need to be able to do that.

I know that in my riding, as I mentioned, half of my riding is not able to access transportation subsidies. Well, let’s expand the existing subsidies to those rural areas so that they can get out and be involved in the community.

L. Larson: I am pleased to respond to the member for Nelson-Creston on this important issue to all people in British Columbia living with a disability and receiving disability assistance.

British Columbia is a very large province and has a mostly rural and remote landscape. In many areas of my riding, there is no public transport system available for anyone, with or without a disability. Prior to the announcement by the minister of $77 being added to those eligible for disability assistance, only those living in areas where public transportation was available received a bus pass, valued at approximately $50.

The new legislation now allows all people receiving disability benefits to make their own choice of how they pay for transportation, depending on what their individual transportation needs are and regardless of where they live in the province of British Columbia. In my area, they may choose to pay for a friend’s fuel to take them to an appointment or get a taxi, if available.

Until this legislation, 45,000 people living outside of public transit availability received no transportation allowance at all. We are making every effort to make the lives of all British Columbians living with a disability better. Transportation needs and availability are different based on where you live. Now choices can be made by each individual.

This is only one of the many pieces of legislation that benefit all people, including in the riding of Nelson-Creston, receiving disability assistance. Budget 2016 provides an additional $170 million to raise assistance rates for people with disabilities in B.C. The subsidized annual bus pass program continues, and there is no change to the application or renewal process. This increase provides fairness in the system and more choice for people on disability assistance.

Now everyone on disability assistance will receive the same level of assistance no matter where they live.
[ Page 12551 ]
On September 1, all 100,000 people receiving disability assistance will receive an increase of up to $77 in their monthly rate, depending on the choice they make.

Those who have been receiving a subsidized bus pass and want to keep it will get an increase of $25. We will continue to provide an annual bus pass for those seniors who are eligible and persons with a disability who want one. The process will not change.

People receiving the special transportation subsidy worth $66 per month will still receive that support, plus an additional $11 per month. The 45,000 people who have not received any transportation support in the past will receive an increase of the full $77 in their monthly rates. While our government understands that people hope to see a larger increase in rates, these changes do ensure everyone receiving disability assistance will benefit.

Our government set a vision for B.C. to become the most progressive place for people with disabilities in Canada. To achieve this vision, we released Accessibility 2024 in June 2014, a ten-year action plan to increase accessibility and decrease barriers for people with disabilities.

Close to 100,000 British Columbians are designated persons with disabilities and receive disability assistance from the provincial government. This number has doubled since 2001. This year the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation will provide more than $1 billion in disability assistance for 2016-17, a 289 percent increase from 2001-2002.

[1045]

We will also provide $879 million in base funding to Community Living B.C., which supports more than 18,000 individuals with developmental disabilities. In 2013, Community Living B.C. launched a three-year community action employment plan to increase the number of people with developmental disabilities who are working. After two years, it has grown from 2,200 to 3,600 people.

Transportation assistance is essential for people with disabilities. The subsidized annual bus pass program continues, and there is no change to the application or renewal process. This increase provides fairness in the system across British Columbia and more choice for people on disability assistance.

M. Mungall: First, let me say that I’ve been hearing very loudly from my constituents about this bus pass clawback. Specifically, the people-with-disabilities community have met with me. They’ve written letters. I’m going to quote from their letter and their view of this new bus pass fee. They’re well aware that the application process hasn’t changed and that the bus pass is still available. What they’re talking about is the new fee, and that’s what I was talking about.

Here’s a quote from their letters of what they wrote me and what they think of this new fee: “Two thumbs down.” They were very, very clear on what they thought.

I hear what members opposite are saying when we talk about 45,000 people who haven’t had any transportation subsidy at all. We know that those numbers are there. How this government chose to address that is wrong. They failed to recognize the realities that people with disabilities have and the financial pressures that exist in their life and the increased financial pressures that this government has put on them. They’ve absolutely failed. As people with disabilities speak out to share those realities, this government has dug in and has shut them down over and over and over again. That is wrong.

Deputy Speaker: Member, private members’ statements should be non-partisan.

M. Mungall: Pardon me, hon. Speaker. I will bring it back.

The member opposite talked about Accessibility 2024, and I’m glad that she did because I would like to talk about it as well. Accessibility 2024 says this about transportation — that government will “continue to work with communities to support discussions on transit options for persons with disabilities.” To me, and to people across this province, that was a distinct commitment to expand B.C. Transit to more rural communities, to give the option of the bus pass.

More importantly, Accessibility 2024 was one of the largest consultations with people with disabilities that this government ever undertook, and I applaud them for that. They heard from thousands of people on what they needed for a more accessible community, for a more accessible province, and to reach that goal of the most accessible jurisdiction in Canada.

But no one talked about increasing bus pass fees in that process. They talked about increasing transit options to rural areas. That type of consultation, that type of discussion, is available for this government to undertake to have a better understanding of what the transportation needs are for people with disabilities in rural areas. We know that we could expand those transportation options so that everybody in this province is able to be included in their community, and I implore this government to do that.

ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

D. Bing: On behalf of my constituents in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, I rise today to speak about Asian Heritage Month. May is Asian Heritage Month, a time to celebrate the long and rich history of British Columbians of Asian descent. It also provides us with an opportunity to reflect on and celebrate the achievements and contributions of Canadians of Asian heritage to the growth, prosperity, diversity and multicultural richness of Canada.

B.C. is Canada’s most ethnic province, and we have more than one million British Columbians who identify their ethnic origin as Asian. They represent a wide range
[ Page 12552 ]
of languages, ethnicities and religious traditions. This month is an opportunity to celebrate the many contributions of British Columbians of Asian descent. It is an opportunity to hear their many stories and how they weave together with B.C.’s unique cultural mosaic.

[1050]

Many Asian Canadians arrived here as early pioneers and settlers. They helped build our province, and they still have strong cultural ties between our province and the countries that their parents, grandparents and other ancestors came from. These cultural ties have helped foster and strengthen B.C.’s international trade and investment with Asian nations.

They continue to play an important role in the economic, social, cultural and political life of British Columbia. B.C. recognizes that a person’s ancestry and place of origin are fundamental characteristics of our society, and we promote cross-cultural understanding and respect.

The three leading source countries for immigration into British Columbia are China, India and the Philippines. In 2014, these countries accounted for 48 percent of all permanent residents landing in B.C. The Asia-Pacific region comprises 64 percent of all immigrants coming to B.C. The people that come to B.C. from these regions provide huge contributions to our province. They start businesses, create jobs and are actively involved in their communities.

Unfortunately, throughout our history, there have been some difficult and dark times for people of Asian descent. We have been working at making amends by partnering with the various communities and offering apologies in this House.

On May 23, 2008, the B.C. Legislature unanimously passed a motion for the events of May 23, 1914, when 376 passengers of the Komagata Maru stationed off of Vancouver harbour were denied entry into Canada. These immigrants from India — who were Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus — were denied their chance at building a life in Canada.

On May 7, 2012, the House unanimously passed a motion introduced by the MLA for North Vancouver–Lonsdale to apologize to the Japanese community for the actions taken under the War Measures Act during the Second World War. Under the act, Japanese Canadians in B.C. had their property seized and were placed in internment camps.

Finally, on May 15, 2014, the House unanimously passed the apology motion for historical wrongs against British Columbia’s Chinese-Canadian community. It was an honour to take my place and speak on that motion.

While these historical acts are a black mark on B.C.’s history, I see the apologies as a very positive step for our society, because it is important that we still learn from these moments in our past.

My own community of Maple Ridge used to have the third-largest Japanese community outside of the urban areas of Vancouver and the fishing community of Steveston. In 1941, the Japanese population was estimated to be 1,409 people in Maple Ridge, almost one-quarter of the population.

Maple Ridge had four separate and distinct Japanese communities: Hammond, Haney, Whonnock and Ruskin. Interestingly, the local Japanese language school in Haney used books that had been developed for use by Japanese language schools in California rather than textbooks issued by the Japanese Ministry of Education that the other Japanese schools in B.C. used.

The California texts were adopted in 1926, because the Gold school was not only to teach Japanese but also to produce good Canadian citizens. The principal of the school enthusiastically followed this philosophy in 1933. He noted that the setting in these textbooks would be North American rather than Japanese. He would supplement these textbooks with articles he had written himself about Canadian heroes.

B.C. also recognizes cultural diversity through multiculturalism week and the B.C. Multicultural Awards. These awards honour organizations, businesses and individuals all across our province who are working to promote multiculturalism, eliminate racism and support inclusion.

In my own community of Maple Ridge, some local organizations are receiving a grant to promote multicultural activities. This includes the Family Education and Support Centre, which holds multi-faith dialogues providing a forum for open discussion, and the Maple Ridge Festival of Light Society, which hosts a lantern festival each year.

Throughout Asian Heritage Month, let’s all take this opportunity to celebrate and recognize the contributions of people of Asian descent who have done so much to make Canada the culturally diverse, compassionate and prosperous nation that we know today.

J. Shin: I am happy to rise this morning on behalf of Burnaby-Lougheed in response to the private member’s statement. I would like to thank the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows for his tribute to Asian Heritage Month.

[1055]

For many of us British Columbians, working our chopsticks, bobbing along to bhangra, drinking bubble tea and watching the latest Korean soap operas are our usual ways of life. It turns out that in 2001, Canada made the month of May Asian Heritage Month for us to indulge in doing more of exactly that but also to celebrate the long and rich history of Asian Canadians dating back to the 1700s and to honour their incredible contributions to our country ever since.

In British Columbia, the Vancouver Asian Heritage Month Society has developed a broad and inclusive definition of Asian, from Sri Lankans to Singaporeans, pro-
[ Page 12553 ]
moting the public understanding of Asian arts, culture and history and also creating synergy and collaboration in our communities.

The society’s eighth annual explorASIAN Festival kicked off this year on April 16 and will conclude with a recognition gala on June 11 — with an array of workshops, lectures, exhibits, concerts and so much more in between throughout the month of May all across greater Vancouver. I invite all members to take in their share of fun.

Such events wouldn’t come without the hard work of many caring supporters in our communities who opened up their wallets, donated their expertise and offered their time so generously. I join all the members in this House in applauding everyone involved for what is unfolding to be definitely another year of incredibly successful festivities.

Diversity, which we are all so proud to call our own and which defines what being a Canadian is, is apparent in our communities. In our streets, in the workplaces, at the parks, we see people of all walks of life. After all, we are a province of 1.2 million visible minorities that make up a quarter of our population, with another 42,000 newcomers joining us every year from around the globe, choosing British Columbia to call home and bringing with them their investments and their talents.

That’s why I believe it’s important for us to take this time to note again that despite our widely celebrated diversity today, minority representation in the political and leadership arena is still far from where it should be and where it can be. The fact cannot be more apparent in our current makeup of the government ministries, agencies, appointed boards and even in this chamber.

Let us remember that it wasn’t centuries ago but just one or two generations ago, in my parents’ and grandparents’ time, that we saw legislation that we wouldn’t believe existed in Canada — ones that excluded minorities from voting, ones that imposed and increased a restrictive head tax on Chinese immigrants, rules like the prohibition of minority businesses from hiring white women, rules like the right of a theatre owner to refuse to allow black persons to sit in the orchestra seats or like the right of restaurants to refuse to serve coloured people, rules like the elderly “Oriental persons” to be denied access to the provincial homes for the aged.

It really was the generations of faceless, nameless unsung heroes — some of whom are living legacies in this very chamber that I have the privilege of calling my colleagues, like the members for Burnaby-Edmonds and Surrey-Newton — who fought for and changed the landscape.

It also took political will, will like the commitment of the New Democrats, to engage and empower communities for minority representation that came to fruit with the first black woman MLA, Rosemary Brown; first Indo-Canadian MLA, Moe Sihota; first MLA of Chinese descent, Jenny Kwan; first openly gay MLA, Tim Stevenson; first MLA of Filipino descent, member for Vancouver-Kensington; and, of course, myself, as one of Korean heritage.

Every time I rise in the House, it is in remembrance of and in gratitude for all the work and sacrifice paid forward by generations that made reality today for someone like me, as a young Asian immigrant woman, to have a seat in this chamber when such wasn’t thinkable even just a few decades ago.

Beyond the fanfare of the festivities that surround us in May, the month of Asian heritage, I look to the House to continue the good fight for the kind of mosaic landscape in this chamber that represents all people of British Columbia.

D. Bing: My thanks to the member opposite.

There is no doubt that the large number of British Columbians of Asian descent gives our province a distinct advantage in terms of trading with Asia. I want to take this time to talk about the benefits of our trading relations with our Asian partners. B.C. has the advantage of being Canada’s Pacific Gateway, and we work hard at building relationships with our Asian trading partners. We want to make sure that B.C. companies have access to the highly competitive international markets and expand their businesses.

[1100]

B.C. goes on trade missions to build partnerships and open new markets for B.C. companies. They secure B.C.’s entry into priority markets and provide the momentum required to leverage partnerships and international investments and to expand potential trade deals. This supports economic growth and job creation throughout this province. The trade mission focuses on key priority markets for B.C. That includes China, Korea, Japan and India.

This year during Asian Heritage Month, our Premier will be leading a trade mission to Korea, the Philippines and Japan. This will strengthen our ties with those countries and open new markets in the Philippines. B.C. currently has 11 trade and investment offices around the world. These offices are based in Japan, Korea, India, east China, north China, south China and Hong Kong. As well, we have offices in Europe and the United States.

Our trade and investment offices have played a key role in facilitating foreign direct investment and expanding trade ties in key markets. They have influenced more than $2 billion in trade deals and foreign direct investment.

Our new trade strategy is moving to diversify our trade in Asian markets to grow our economy. We’ll be opening additional trade and investment offices in southeast Asia, in Indonesia and in the Philippines. This region is growing, with many trade and investment opportunities available for B.C. companies. As well, with the ratification of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Asia-Pacific region will be open to even more investment.
[ Page 12554 ]

B.C. has a more diversified trade portfolio than any other province in Canada, and part of that is a credit to the work done by our trade and investment representatives. British Columbians are truly lucky to live in such a diverse province.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’d like to call Motion 13.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 13 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 13 — POLITICAL REFORMS

G. Holman: As opposition spokesperson for democratic reform and as MLA for Saanich North and the Islands, I’m very proud to join my colleagues to speak to this motion:

[Be it resolved that this House call on the government to implement reforms to take big money out of politics.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

This motion is part of a package of voting, election finance and governance reforms proposed by the official opposition over a number of years. We’ve also put forward similar reforms at the local government level, which my colleague from Coquitlam will be addressing. These reforms are essential if we want to restore confidence in the provincial political process, which has seen voting participation decline to the point that 40 to 50 percent of citizens in B.C. don’t even bother to exercise their democratic franchise.

Much of the necessary legislation is already in place at the federal level and in most of the larger provinces. Sadly, B.C. is regarded as a laggard on election finance reforms. The Liberal government has refused to take big money out of politics.

When the opposition raised this important matter in the Legislature last week, the Premier and many of the Liberal MLAs seemed to think it was a big joke. The Liberals appear to be quite happy about the current rules. Of course they are, with most of their donations coming from corporations and wealthy individuals. In 2015, the Liberals took in over $8 million from corporations and from wealthy donors. Corporations accounted for about two-thirds of Liberal donations.

The Liberals don’t seem to care that this level of influence of big money on the political process is not fair, or that independent organizations such as IntegrityBC and others have drawn a straight line from corporate donors to government contracts and to lax enforcement of laws protecting the environment and workers — at least the laws this government has not stripped away under the guise of removing red tape.

Members of the opposition have proposed a number of democratic reforms numerous times to make elections and election finances fairer and establish more effective and accountable governance. Our private members’ bills on such matters are never even debated, never mind brought to a vote.

[1105]

The contempt of this government for fairness and accountability and, ultimately, for most of its citizens is painfully obvious. In fact, this Liberal government has made the problem of big money in provincial politics even worse by removing long-standing spending limits on political parties in the 60 days prior to the campaign period.

As a result of this recent change, political spending by parties and candidates right before the formal election campaign begins is unlimited. This creates a Wild West situation that we observe south of the border with great consternation.

The latest revelations about the several hundred thousand dollars that the Premier has received from the B.C Liberal Party over the past five years heightens the public perception that this government is for sale. My colleague from Point Grey will be exploring this matter in more detail, but suffice it to say that when you can literally buy access to the Premier for up to $20,000 a visit…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

G. Holman: …big money is too close to the head of government in this province. As elected officials….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member for Saanich North and the Islands, listen to me. Please just stick to the motion.

G. Holman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As elected officials, we should understand why this raises justifiable concerns about influence peddling. The Premier states that we don’t need to get big money out of politics or eliminate party contributions to her salary…

Deputy Speaker: Member, just take your seat, please.

G. Holman: …as long as she and her government are acting ethically.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, take your seat. Take your seat.
[ Page 12555 ]

Point of Order

Hon. P. Fassbender: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that the member withdraw those comments. Those are purely political. They have nothing to do with government business, and I think it is out of order.

Deputy Speaker: The member will withdraw those comments.

G. Holman: I will withdraw those comments, Mr. Speaker, and will continue on.

Debate Continued

G. Holman: My colleague will be exploring this issue in more detail, but again, as elected officials, we should understand why this situation creates justifiable concerns.

The Premier states that we don’t need to get big money out of politics as long as government is acting ethically. Really, this from a Premier who oversaw the ethnic outreach and Health firing scandals and who sees no problem with selling personal visits for $20,000. Many of these donations….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member. The member will keep remarks relevant to the motion, please.

G. Holman: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the motion. I will withdraw that comment.

In any case, these donations come from powerful corporations and business leaders in B.C. who have much to gain or lose from decisions made by the Premier. We need to end these payments now.

Getting big money out of politics is a non-partisan issue. Recent polling by Insights West clearly indicates that most British Columbians want immediate reforms. According to the poll, sponsored by the Dogwood Initiative, 86 percent of British Columbians support a ban on corporate and union political donations before the next election…

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Please take your seat. Member, please take your seat.

G. Holman: …including 81 percent of those who voted Liberal in the last election.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you have had your time. Thank you.

J. Thornthwaite: It’s a pleasure to rise in the House today to take my place in the debate on political contributions. We’ve already heard about the role of democracy and about the choices of political fundraising, but today I’d like to talk about the stringent rules we already have in place for political contributions and about how we have suggested changes that can improve the way the system works.

When someone makes a political contribution in British Columbia, that contribution must be made to a financial agent, who ensures that any contribution or donation is deposited into an account at a savings institution. Money can be given to a political party, a candidate, a leadership or nomination contestant, or a constituency association. Financial agents keep comprehensive records of the value and source of every contribution.

British Columbia also has strict rules regarding who can contribute. Charitable organizations, unregistered political parties, unregistered constituency associations and any party or association registered under the Canadian Elections Act are not allowed to make political contributions. This includes contributions of goods and services and applies to organizations whose objectives involve the relief of poverty, the protection of health, the advancement of education or religion or other purposes benefiting the community.

B.C. does allow anonymous contributions, but they are limited to $50 and can only be donated when a party or candidate has made a general solicitation for funds.

[1110]

These current rules are in place to ensure that taxpayers aren’t funding parties or paying for elections. Good policy is determined by best practices and by consultations with stakeholders and taxpayers, not by who donated and how much they gave.

Banning corporate and union donations doesn’t level the playing field. It opens the doors to political parties relying on taxpayer-funded subsidies. Likewise, banning these donations will not affect third-party advertising, leaving no restrictions on the resources that unions, organizations and interest groups can put towards marketing and promotions that support their party of choice. Instead, the current model allows parties and candidates to raise money by telling their own story, by offering their own ideas and by allowing individuals to decide if they want to contribute or not.

One thing we do favour is more real-time financial reporting instead of annual reports. We have limits on how much parties can spend on election campaigns and full disclosure rules for how much people donate. But if we make contribution data available more readily, it would make this entire process more transparent.

In March, our Premier announced the intention to introduce real-time changes to the disclosure of political contributions. And on April 1, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General asked our province’s chief electoral office to look into the requirements for more frequent contributing of reporting, including what costs could be incurred, what legislative changes would be involved and
[ Page 12556 ]
whether or not there are precedents in other jurisdictions that should be considered.

Our suggestions include implementing reporting on a quarterly or monthly basis instead of the current annual timeline. This is something B.C. has never done before, and we believe that by allowing the taxpayers to see when donations are made to political parties, we can bolster the public sense of confidence that those parties are doing the right thing for them.

S. Robinson: I am pleased to rise in this House and participate in this debate to call on the government to implement reforms to take big money out of politics. I’m pleased to respond to the member opposite, mostly because, in her remark, she commented on the rules that exist. But everyone calls it the Wild West out here. Some, it would seem, think of it as: “We have good rules in place. We have real structure in place.” Everybody else — in fact 86 percent of British Columbians — believe that it’s the Wild West, that anything goes.

I prefer to represent my constituents as a member here in this chamber. I represent the people of Coquitlam-Maillardville, and I’ve been hearing that they are sick and tired of big money in politics — in all levels of politics. We know that the federal government has taken that out. You no longer can accept union and corporate donations. They have made the right choice.

I want to speak for a moment about local government. I come from local government, I have been the spokesperson on this side of the House for local government, and I have been the Deputy Chair of the special committee on local election finance reform. So I believe I’m in a unique position, having heard from British Columbians, having served on local government, having listened to my constituents in Coquitlam-Maillardville and listened to what they have to say about big money in politics.

Even at the local level — let’s not even talk about the provincial; let’s talk about the local level — there are certainly many, many people who have cried out in disgust and despair about the power that big money has at local elections.

We’ve witnessed, certainly, big corporate donations — for example, in Sechelt, where a single developer gave the standing mayor a $20,000 donation for his campaign. Now, in a small community of under 10,000 people, that was a significant donation, and there was an outcry in that community. They were disgusted by it. This was a developer. The local government would be making decisions about whether or not he could build a condo in that community, and people were afraid and angry that this was permitted.

Let’s talk about Vancouver. In Vancouver, we saw an NPA contribution made by Rob Macdonald. He contributed the infamous $960,000 in an election campaign in 2011. People were outraged. A million dollars? You know what? You could buy an election with a million dollars. That is unacceptable. Let’s say it was private. Let’s say he wrote a cheque. That would still be unacceptable. People know intuitively that being able to write that kind of a cheque is inappropriate. It’s unfair, and it’s an imbalance of power.

[1115]

When we talk about big money and we hear from members on the other side who defend the existing rules and think that it’s okay, I’m actually quite shocked. I’m quite shocked that we’re not really paying attention to what we’re hearing from British Columbians.

When 86 percent of British Columbians say that they want big money out of elections, they are talking about both provincial and local elections. They are not talking about which side of the House. They don’t care whether it’s that side of the House or this side of the House or the independent member. They really don’t care. They are saying to us, to all members of this House, that it’s time to get big money out of politics. They don’t care what your political stripe is. They don’t care if you’re Green party, B.C. Liberal, Conservative Party; they want it out. I think it’s our duty, as members of this House, to listen to those voices and to act.

It is with that that I am pleased to take my position here in this House asking government to do that — to listen to British Columbians, to take big money out of local and provincial politics. It’s the right thing to do. I do know that the independent member and other members of this House have brought forward private members’ bills asking for just that. They have gone nowhere.

I have made amendments in various pieces of legislation asking government to consider putting a limit on donations or banning union and corporate donations, and in the case of Vancouver, at least allowing the city of Vancouver the opportunity to do that, should they so wish. Each and every time, it doesn’t go anywhere.

So I do think it’s incumbent upon all of us to represent British Columbians, to listen to their voices. Hon. Speaker, 86 percent are saying: “We do not want big money in politics.” It’s time to end it now.

D. Plecas: It is my pleasure to speak to this motion this morning. In fact, the member’s motion has given me an excellent opportunity to remind this House of the importance of our democratic system and the rules and safeguards that go with that system.

We all have the honour of serving the people of British Columbia within the traditions of this Legislative Assembly. The House around us is steeped in tradition, and the debates we engage in have rules that govern what we do here — and hundreds of years older than any of us here.

One merely has to take a cursory glance around this chamber — at the mace that sits before us, the arrangements of our desks — to get a taste of the many years of parliamentary history that remains with us to this day. We are truly blessed to live in a time and place where we have strong democratic institutions that govern our society.
[ Page 12557 ]

Sometimes, though, I believe we forget the importance of these institutions and principles that underlie them. The essence of any democracy is the idea that political power is exercised by and on behalf of the people. And at the core of this idea are principles which grant basic freedoms that all of us, by virtue of being citizens of this country, enjoy.

The freedom of speech is perhaps the most important of these principles. In our pluralistic democracy, freedom of speech promotes the free flow of ideas and a diversity of opinion. Both of these are critical features of the political process.

Vigorous debate over conflicting views and opinions is an important part of this political system. Making important decisions has impact on the lives of people we serve, and while hearing opinions of only one person, or one opinion at all, would be irresponsible, if not outright dangerous, I am pleased to say that our political system already has a number of excellent safeguards in place which protect our freedoms and ensure our democratic institutions remain strong, equitable and inclusive.

Our open and pluralistic society with a wide range of opinions, free elections with a number of stringent rules on political campaign spending, as well as a dynamic press holding those in power accountable are all important checks and balances within the system.

[1120]

Though we are fortunate to live under a system such as this, we must also be cognizant that we do not simply come into this overnight. These freedoms and institutions were built over hundreds of years through relentless effort, compromise and, at times, conflict.

As we go about our business in this chamber and walk along these great halls, I ask that all members continue to reflect on the system we are fortunate enough to play an important part of. Looking forward, I have every confidence that we, as members in this House, will continue the proud tradition of the countless parliamentarians before us and act as effective representatives of the people and the province we are so privileged to serve.

C. James: I rise to support the motion: “Be it resolved that this House call on the government to implement reforms to take big money out of politics.”

While I appreciate the comments from the previous member who talked about the traditions of this Legislature, I cannot believe that taking big money out of politics would be seen as a tradition in this Legislature.

There are other traditions in this Legislature, like not allowing different groups and organizations to vote in previous years. There are many traditions that have changed for good reason in this Legislature — the treatment of First Nations and aboriginal people in our province, women, people of Asian descent. There are all kinds of things that have changed in this Legislature, and I would hope that getting big money out of politics will be a current change that should happen in B.C.’s Legislature.

I was very proud to bring this motion forward and this legislation forward in 2005. That’s not the first time or the only time we brought this legislation forward. We, in fact, have brought this legislation forward five different times in this Legislature since I’ve been an MLA in 2005. Five times this has been turned down by the B.C. Liberals.

This is not a radical idea. This is not something that has been dreamed up and has come forward all of a sudden. In fact, other governments across this country have moved on exactly this direction.

We’ve seen governments of all different political stripes that have moved to ban union and corporate donations, who have moved to get big money out of politics. In fact, the federal Conservatives moved in that direction. We’ve seen New Democrats in Manitoba move years ago in that direction. Ontario Liberals are beginning that discussion right now.

Who is the outlier? The outlier is the B.C. Liberals. They are saying no to banning union and corporate donations. They’re saying no to pre-election spending limits. They’re saying no to municipal spending limits. I think the public are asking themselves, as we are, why. Why would the government continue to say no to taking big money out of politics, particularly when it’s so supported by the public in British Columbia?

There was a poll done by Insights West, a provincewide survey, that showed that 86 percent of British Columbians support a ban on union and corporate donations. That included voters who vote for all different political parties — who vote for B.C. Liberals, who vote for New Democrats. As has been previously said, this is not an issue that is a partisan issue.

When it comes to the public, the public understands the importance of looking at getting rid of big money in politics. But when it comes to this Legislature, unfortunately, it is only the B.C. Liberals who’ve continued to say no.

We’re the last large province left that doesn’t have some kind of restriction on donations. So the public supports it. The opposition supports it, including the independent members. Why wouldn’t the B.C. Liberals support it? Well, it has to be self-interest. There’s no other reason for the public to take a look and wonder why the other side wouldn’t support banning union and corporate donations. It’s no surprise.

What does it create out there? We all talk in this Legislature…. I’ve heard members on all sides say how important it is to engage the public in democracy. When the public is cynical about big money influencing decisions, about the fact that who pays is the one who gets the decision that they want, here is an opportunity to engage the public. Here is an opportunity to give them a chance to be able to get involved in politics by being involved in the discussion, not just being able to come to the table because you have money.

[1125]

Surely, that’s the kind of direction that we should all be looking for. We should be looking for more opportunities. I heard the previous member talking about engaging the public in democracy. Well, we have a whole package of reforms that we’d be happy for the government to take and implement — involving people in committees; taking decisions out for public debate; engaging all of the legislative standing committees, not just the ones that the government decide are suitable for their agenda — giving the public a chance to be really involved.

Instead, what the B.C. Liberals decide is if you have lots of money, you’re welcome to be involved and welcome to be engaged. Well, that is not what democracy is about. Democracy is about making sure that everyone has access. Democracy is about making sure that everyone has an opportunity to be at the table.

D. McRae: I’d like to thank the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands for raising this morning’s debate on the following motion: “Be it resolved that this House call on the government to implement reforms to take big money out of politics.”

Before I begin my formal remarks, I’m just going to do some musing, if I may, in regards to this conversation that we’ve had in this chamber. As members in this chamber know, I’ve been a resident of my community for my entire life. Quite often I walk my dog in my community. In fact, I use the same route almost all the time. And we’ve lived in our house for a long time as well.

As we do our little wander, one of the places I do happen to walk by, and it’s a beautiful neighbourhood, is where the B.C. NDP have their office in my community. They’ve had that office in my community for pretty much my entire adult life. I always wondered: does everybody get to have that luxury? And I don’t know. I’m not going to ask the members opposite right now.

Sometimes, though, the office seems to expand and shrink as time goes on. In fact, occasionally — say it’s the 1990s — there’s a door between various places in that building. All of a sudden, it gets much larger, and the constituency office seems to be in the front half and then the office for the B.C. NDP is in the back. Maybe that’s just coincidence. I think the federal NDP, by some quirk of fate when it was empty, was able to sit in there as well.

I wonder these things. I wonder: how does one pay? When I listen to members opposite, it sounds like it’s a one-sided concern. I just did a quick little Internet search, and I noticed that the BCGEU, between 2005-13, gave the opposition $1.4 million. B.C. Federation of Labour — $1.3 million. CUPE — $1.2 million. Steelworkers were able to contribute $1 million. I find that one the most interesting because I happened to actually see every single one of their emails during the last election campaign, and it was impressively partisan.

They basically put their political stripes right on the email, and I was always so impressed that they able to make their leader look so darn good and, perhaps, other party’s leaders look much less good — but incredibly partisan, and it was a shock. Only $1 million over eight years, which is still more significant than the Hospital Employees Union, which gave $800,000 over eight years, or the United Food and Commercial Workers, which achieved over $500,000.

I don’t want people listening to this debate to think contributions come to only one party, because the opposition gets substantial amounts of resources from a very small group of organizations in the province as well. They are talking about, perhaps, leaving them and perhaps getting moneys other ways. Although in my community…. I also sort of postulate in my head: what would it be like without their fundraising ability at the union level? I think it would be a rather interesting fight to have.

That being said, the success of our democracy has relied on flexibility and the ability of our democratic system to evolve over time to best serve the people. However, reform on any scale must be carefully considered because any change — large or small — can have significant consequences.

Since 2002, there have been no less than 17 statutes passed by this House relating to our election laws. These statutes cover a broad range of issues and include the following. They talk about the process of voter enumeration, expense limits by registered political parties and candidates, an increase to the current number of electoral districts. I’m proud to say that as the population grows, we’ll see three more members in this chamber. And when I say we, it will not be me; it will be some of you.

Changes to our current electoral boundaries. I am sad when I do bring this up. The Comox Valley — because it’s such a lovely place to live — has a significant population growth. We are losing part of our current electoral district. It is moving southwards to the Alberni district. That being said, I’m sure the MLA following me will still serve the residents of what we call the Comox Valley.

We’ve also had issues relating to the process of updating the provincial voters list and a host of the ever-exciting miscellaneous statutes. Now, all these changes contained in these statutes are designed to promote democracy and make it work just a little bit better.

[1130]

In the Canadian context, B.C. stands out amongst all the provinces with respect to re-examining our system. In fact, in 2003, it was this government that introduced the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, which had 161 members. One man and one woman were randomly selected from each of B.C.’s electoral districts, including two aboriginal members and the chair. The members were selected by a civic lottery that ensured there was gender balance and fair representation by age group.

The citizens’ assembly held public hearings across the province and received over 1,600 written submissions. These consultations culminated in a report that
[ Page 12559 ]
proposed replacing the system’s existing first-past-the-post system with a single transferable vote. That proposal went to a provincial referendum in conjunction with the 2005 election but did not succeed in passing the required threshold.

The second referendum was subsequently held in 2009. I’m sure you remember it, hon. Speaker. That resulted in over 60 percent voting against the proposed changes. We’ve definitely put this forward to the people.

In British Columbia, democracy is alive and well, and I’m proud to represent the Comox Valley.

D. Routley: It’s clear from the presentation of the member for Comox Valley that this side of the House can expect him to vote in support of the motion, since he’s made such a strong case that influence by donation should be something that we resist. So I assume the member for Comox Valley is in agreement with the motion and will be supporting it.

I’d also like to not only address how the member made the argument for this motion but also suggest that the motion makes the argument itself. In fact, if you look at the evidence that’s in front of us from public polling, we see that 86 percent of British Columbians support banning union and corporate donations. If it weren’t that these donations were affecting public policy decisions, we would surely do that. We would surely listen to what appears to be 86 percent of the voices of British Columbians and ban union and corporate donations, get big money out of politics.

That’s what we would do if those donations were not influencing politics. That’s what we see right now. I’d like to read a couple of quotes from various articles in the recent past that illustrate exactly how this view is being perceived by media and reflected by media.

The Globe and Mail wrote an editorial that said the Premier of B.C. “cannot think of a single reason why she shouldn’t have accepted $277,000…from her party…. But we can think of one: it’s unethical.” That’s the perception reflected by the Globe and Mail.

Then we look to the National Post. Brian Hutchison is the columnist. He says: “Be they sins of commission or disingenuous omission, everything around these dubious fundraising efforts and mysterious salary ‘top-ups’ stinks.” So here we have another reaction from a major media outlet in Canada reflecting on just what’s happening in British Columbia right now.

From the Times Colonist: “Let’s admit the truth. B.C.’s Wild West approach to political donations has created a climate of corruption.” That’s from the main daily paper of this community, the capital of British Columbia.

It’s pretty clear, and there are several more that I could read. Perhaps the view of a former B.C. Liberal MLA, a former Solicitor General, Kash Heed, who says: “It absolutely floors me that they’re taking such a dismissive attitude on this controversy.”

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Clearly, people from all political stripes and all corners of the province are calling for a ban on union and corporate donations. If we look at why the current government is resistant to take this action, we only need to look at where the money’s coming from.

The B.C. Liberal Party, the governing party, took in $10.4 million in the last two years from corporate donors and another $6.8 million from individuals, who gave an average of $1,362 each. This is from that Globe and Mail editorial I quoted earlier. In 2015 alone, the party took in $5.3 million from corporations and $3.4 million in individual donations of more than $250. A few individual donors gave as much as $25,000, $35,000 or even $60,000, but the party received a relatively small sum in individual donations of less than $250 — $535,000.

[1135]

Contrast this to the opposition — our party, the B.C. NDP. We took in $3.1 million in donations in 2015. A total of $2.5 million came from individual donations, including $1.4 million in donations of less than $250. We take in 60 percent of our revenue in small donations under $250 from individuals.

It is clear that people feel — I hear them in my community — that democracy is for sale. They feel that there’s a contempt for democracy reflected by this influence of money in B.C. politics.

IntegrityBC also pointed out that in the first election primaries and campaign of President Obama, he spent three-quarters of a billion dollars. Per capita and per vote, the B.C. Liberals have outspent that mark. So when people say that politicians should value democracy, I don’t think they mean: “Put a price on it.” When people say we as politicians should value the views of the people, they don’t say: “Put a price on it.”

D. Barnett: I am pleased to rise in response to the motion brought forward this morning. I would like to use my time today to discuss the functions of Elections B.C. and the rules that have been established by this office regarding political contributions and election expense limits.

Elections B.C. is an independent and non-partisan office of the Legislature. It is responsible for administering electoral processes in B.C. in accordance with the Election Act, the Recall and Initiative Act, the Referendum Act and the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act.

Elections B.C. sets out clear rules surrounding the giving and receiving of political contributions. The office defines a political contribution as money, goods or services given to a political party, a candidate, a leadership contestant, a nomination contestant or a constituency association. Political contributions in our province must be made to a financial agent, who ensures that all money is deposited into an account in a savings institution.
[ Page 12560 ]

Money that a candidate provides to their own campaign is treated like any other political contribution and must be recorded as such. Charitable organizations, federal political parties or electoral district associations registered under the Canada Elections Act and unregistered political parties cannot make political contributions in British Columbia. Anonymous contributions cannot be made unless the contribution is made in response to a general solicitation for funds, and these contributions cannot be over $50.

Financial agents record the value of each contribution, the date the contribution was made, the full name and address of the contributor and the class of the contributor. All records must be provided from the financial agent to the political party, who must then disclose this information to Elections B.C. Disclosure statements are then made available to the public through the Elections B.C. office and website.

Elections B.C. also sets out strict spending limits for political parties and candidates during an election. A registered political party must not spend more than $4.4 million during the campaign period of a general election or $70,000 during the campaign period of a by-election. An individual candidate must not spend more than $70,000 during the campaign period of both a general election and a by-election. It should also be noted that a registered constituency association cannot incur election expenses on its own behalf, so it must do so on behalf of a candidate.

There are serious penalties that can be imposed on candidates and political parties whose election expenses exceed their respective limits. Candidates and parties will incur significant financial penalty if they exceed this. In addition, a candidate who exceeds the limit and is elected as a member of the Legislative Assembly will cease to hold office. A political party who exceeds the limit will have their registration suspended by the Chief Electoral Officer for a period of six months.

[1140]

I am thankful for the work that Elections B.C. does to serve democracy in British Columbia by ensuring that the electoral process remains fair and impartial. Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to speak on this motion today.

R. Austin: I’m delighted to follow on the comments from the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, who gave us a very interesting recitation as to what the role of Elections B.C. is. But I think she’s forgetting one important thing, which is this: the role of Elections B.C. is to be the referee. We in this Legislature set the rules and pass the legislation that sets the standard as to how our democracy takes place. This motion speaks to the very heart of our democracy.

Yes, we all believe in this House that one person, one vote is the right thing to do. It’s fundamental to our democracy. But what’s the purpose of having one person, one vote if after the votes are counted, you then have a system where in between election days those who have large amounts of money can donate thousands of dollars? Corporations which are not supposed to be part of that one person, one vote can buy influence or purchase access? Or unions, as another institution, as the member for Comox Valley pointed out.

What is the purpose of us having a system where for one day in every four years we have this notion of democracy, and then the rest of the time we are influenced as politicians by those who have an edge — by money, by institutional access? What this motion speaks to is simply this: we need to, right now, remove that extra influence by taking big money out of B.C. politics.

This is not some sort of weird notion. We are the last province to start to address this issue. Every other province in Canada has realized that in order to not just have a democracy that people feel is worthy of them, we need to be seen to be doing the right thing. People who go to vote need to feel that their vote counts as much as the next person’s. Currently it doesn’t.

I’m going to give an example. In little Kitimat, B.C., a town of 10,000 people, there was a gentleman who ran for city council. I think he spent just over $500 in his campaign — 500 bucks to run his campaign. Guess what. He came top of the polls. Now, he did not spend the most amount of money in that riding by any stretch of the imagination. He won because he spoke to the issues that people cared about. That is what democracy is about — not about how much money you have.

We have all kinds of limits in this House which we have set, and they’ve been spoken to by the other members on the other side of the House. We limit the length of our elections. We limit the total number of dollars that each campaign can spend, both in each of the constituencies as well as collectively by each party. So we have certain limits. Why then, when we’ve brought in those rules to make sure that we can create fairness in our democracy, do we allow in this day, in 2016, the ability of wealthy individuals or corporate bosses or union bosses to then go and pile in tens of thousands of dollars?

They’re not doing this because they feel: “Oh, well, I’ve got some spare money I’d like to get rid of.” Nobody does that. The perception amongst the people of British Columbia, when they see these kinds of stories that have been in the media recently, is simple. They can put two and two together.

No one sits beside the Premier or beside the Leader of the Opposition — okay? — and puts tens of thousands of dollars into the party’s pockets because they don’t want to have influence. Of course they want to have influence. That’s why you’d spend more to sit next to the Premier or spend a little bit less to sit further down the table. It is simple, and people understand that.

We in this House need to figure out that this is the right thing to do for the people of British Columbia who, as
[ Page 12561 ]
has been pointed out time and time again, have been demanding that we take big money out of politics.

Lastly, I’d just like to mention the difference between us and the United States. One of the great things that we pride ourselves on in this country versus our cousins to the south of us is that their politics are completely infused with money.

[1145]

A few years ago I attended the PNWER economic northwest regional meetings. I sat down with a bunch of American politicians from all over the northwest. You know what they actually said? It would be so nice if, in their country, they could follow some of the leads that have taken place in Canada to limit the kind of money that we have in politics.

Here in British Columbia, we need to go that extra step. We need to recognize that in order for the average citizen to realize that their vote matters as much as everybody else’s, and that there isn’t extra influence, we need to take this big money out of politics.

L. Throness: I want to make a few important points in joining the debate this morning.

First, I learned the hard way that money doesn’t win elections. In 2012, I ran in a by-election. We spent thousands of dollars — we disclosed it all — but we lost the by-election. The Conservatives, federally, learned this lesson last fall. There has never been a better-funded losing campaign in Canadian history, and we could give many other anecdotes and even academic studies that say the same thing.

Second, there is no big money in B.C. elections, unlike, for example, our neighbours to the south. In B.C., we have strict spending limits, which make it pointless to raise a lot more than one is allowed to spend. That is a natural check on fundraising.

Third, in an age when people don’t easily join political parties, and there is deep — and I would say mostly unwarranted — cynicism about public figures, it’s hard to raise $70,000 in small donations to run a local campaign, let alone several million dollars to run a provincial campaign. All provincial parties, therefore, including the NDP — let’s be honest — depend on a mix of larger and smaller donations.

However, I’ve always thought that one of the great strengths of the Reform Party of Canada, that was inherited by the federal Conservatives, was their appeal to the little guy. Their base of thousands of small donors across Canada was a great strength. I think that we in the B.C. Liberal party need to continue to emulate that kind of example of a wide and broad appeal to the grassroots voter. Our policies always need to appeal to ordinary people, who are motivated by them to give. I will always encourage that emphasis.

Fourth, the alternative to cancelling larger donations is to have the government fund political parties, and I don’t believe in that, because it separates parties from voters. They’re no longer forced to have policies that appeal to voters. They can ignore the voters, because they’re not financed by them, and that hurts democracy. Our government’s success in fundraising comes from our policies that speak to people, that win support from all sectors of society, but the NDP wants to go the opposite way.

In a policy development workshop called Imagine Our Future, back in 2010, the public financing of political parties was discussed, alongside the banning of union and corporate donations. However, in their 2013 campaign platform calling for the ban, the NDP somehow forgot to include the other half — the part about a taxpayer-funded NDP. Their platform was not straightforward with voters, and that’s not very democratic. Only this spring, in a private member’s bill, has their not-so-secret agenda become clearer.

Here’s why the New Democratic Party wants public funding. Their policies are so radical, so ideological, they no longer appeal to working people. Even unions are no longer dependable sources of revenue, so the NDP needs a more reliable cash cow to feed the growth of radical policies like the Leap Manifesto — parts of which the NDP leader said he agrees with, and individual NDP members have tweeted out their wholesale support for it. Who could be a more generous donor to the NDP than the government itself? That’s called milking the taxpayer, and that is where the really big money is.

To close, I want to read a story from Paddy Sherman’s biography about W.A.C. Bennett. It goes like this. A businessman approached a minister to ask for a licence.

“The visitor asked if he could get a plain answer to a blunt question and was told he could. Then he said: “Is it true that I have to pay $50,000 to the party to get this licence? If it’s true, I will pay it, but I would like to know if I must.” The minister grimly told him he would get what he was legally entitled to and not one iota more — and there was no question of a payoff.

“The businessman then told him he had been approached just before by a new member of the party and told that for $50,000 he would get a guaranteed licence. Bennett was told of the member, and in short order, he disappeared from the party.”

This is the tradition we have inherited — the proud, free enterprise tradition of honest government. That’s one reason why our economy is doing so well.

[1150]

I can tell you, I have seen donors to the B.C. Liberal Party who have been sadly disappointed by decisions our government has taken — and that’s okay. The public interest, not the private interest, must govern all of our decisions, and that is our rock-solid commitment to the people of British Columbia.

D. Eby: It is delightful to hear about the history — where somebody comes seeking $50,000 from a political party and they are promptly refused. In fact, they’re dismissed by the Premier for seeking that $50,000. It must have been a different time.

The reasons for banning big money from politics, I think, are obvious to the vast majority of British
[ Page 12562 ]
Columbians. In fact, the poll says 86 percent of us get why this needs to happen, even if 14 percent don’t.

It’s so commonsense that Canada federally, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Manitoba and Alberta…. Thank you to an NDP government which has not, by the way, sought a cent of public funding to do their work, despite the ridiculous allegations by the member from Chilliwack — completely bizarre. In any event, the member from Chilliwack will have a lot of money to run ads making false allegations about secret agendas — we’ve seen it before — because this government refuses to ban big money from politics.

A loose grasp on the facts is exactly the problem here. The facts are that Ontario has also committed to banning big money from politics. Why did they do that? It’s because they were losing the confidence of the public. Let me tell you what terrible things were happening in Ontario. Cabinet ministers were given fundraising quotas, donations they had to fill. They were selling. They were selling access….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

D. Eby: They were selling access: large donations at private parties to access cabinet ministers and the Premier — unbelievable conduct. When they were exposed, what did they do? Well, they banned big money from politics.

Now, I try to imagine a system where, if you have $25,000, you can sit beside the most powerful official in the province of British Columbia; or if you have $20,000, you can go to a private dinner party with the most powerful official in British Columbia; or if you have $10,000, you can go into the back room of a reception hall and have access to the most powerful official in British Columbia. How does that benefit the public? How is that in the public interest?

You know, when the headlines of the papers…. When the editorials are filled with concern about the influence of money in politics, what does the government do? What do they do? They removed one of the standards regulating pre-election spending. They allowed higher amounts of money to be spent.

I hear from the member from Chilliwack that the NDP is going in the wrong direction. This government is actually removing controls. Five motions were passed by the city of Vancouver saying: “Please, government of British Columbia, help us get the big money out of our municipal politics.” What does this government do? Nothing. No change to the limits on donations in the city of Vancouver. They’re ignoring the pleas of the city of Vancouver to get the big money out of politics.

I don’t think I can go without mentioning what’s happening here, that the Attorney General here took the largest private donation in the history of British Columbia, to my knowledge, $960,000 in a municipal election campaign, and it is her cabinet refusing to ban those kinds of donations in the city of Vancouver, where she was running for mayor.

Madame Speaker: Member, I would caution you.

D. Eby: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I’ll take your advice.

Now, there is a crisis in confidence across North America in the influence of big money on politics. You see it in Trump supporters. You see it in Sanders supporters. You see it in the papers here in British Columbia.

[1155]

I laughed out loud at the idea that there is no big money in B.C. politics. I laughed out loud, because that idea is absurd. Any individual with access to the Elections B.C. database can look through and see the huge money that is coming into B.C. politics — huge money.

The public is right to be concerned. We accept their concern. We have put forward a private member’s bill that is clear and would ban big money in politics.

D. Eby moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Point of Order

Hon. J. Rustad: I wish to raise a point of order regarding the debate this morning. During private members’ statements and a private member’s motion, two of the private members’ statements were highly partisan and, in my view, completely disrespectful of the well-established practices for debate of private motions in this House.

The member for Saanich North and the Islands, having moved Motion 13, was called to order several times over what can only be described as offensive language. I therefore ask you to provide this House clarification as to the rules surrounding private members’ time.

With that, I move adjournment of the House.

Madame Speaker: I will make a comment before I call that motion. It is possible — it is possible — Members, to disagree without resorting to personal attack. Conduct of members in this chamber this morning was unparliamentary in the extreme. I trust this afternoon will go better.

Hon. J. Rustad moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

Copyright © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada