Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this House, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 5 and, in Committee A, debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Education.

[1:35 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — CONSTITUTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

(continued)

R. Kahlon: I rise again to finish my remarks in this House to support the Constitution Amendment Act. I spoke at great length yesterday. I think I only have a little bit of time left. I thank the member from Kamloops for being here again to listen to my remarks. He was here yesterday as well. He didn’t heckle….

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: Okay. It’s not because he cares. He’s next.

These changes, if passed, would reduce the number of seats required for recognized political party status from four to two. The change would bring a fixed election date to October, from May, and strengthen the institutional stability of government in the event, for example, of a natural disaster.

Just yesterday, as I was listening to some of the remarks, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena raised some queries and some questions regarding the consultation. So I went away and did some digging, and I thought I would address those.

One of the questions that was asked was: “Well, why on Saturday? Why not Wednesday? Why not Thursday, or whatever?” That portion was actually consulted on with Elections B.C., and Elections B.C. advised them that…. The stats that Election B.C. has show that advance voter turnout for the 2017 general election was 170 percent higher on Saturdays than on weekdays in 81 of the 87 electoral districts. That’s quite a large number.

Overall advance voter turnout across the electoral districts was on average 51 percent higher on Saturdays than on weekdays. So we believe that changing the election day to a Saturday will increase voter turnout, which will strengthen our democratic process, and engage more citizens in B.C. in our electoral process.

There also will be less safety issues using schools as polling stations on Saturdays. As many people know, when the elementary schools are open and people are going to vote, kids are coming in and out. Parents are coming in and out and picking them up. There are some safety concerns around that. Considering that the election day is the day when people vote the most, I think it’s the prudent thing to do to ensure the safety of young people going to school.

The second piece which was raised by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena — I think it was an okay question to ask — was around the Jewish community and whether they were consulted in doing this, considering it is a religious holiday. I’ve also found out that the Orthodox Rabbinical Council of B.C., the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism and the Canadian Council for Reform Judaism were just a few of the organizations that were consulted.

Essentially, things were slightly changed according to the recommendations that came back, and an extra day during the week was provided to ensure that they had the same amount of days to vote. So that issue was a concern, and the member for Vancouver-Quilchena had raised it. We’ve consulted with the Saturday Sabbatarians as well.

We heard from some religious groups. We accommodated the religious groups by ensuring that there are plenty of opportunities to vote on other days. Currently the Election Act allows six advance voting days, including two Saturdays. We made the change to only having the election day on Saturdays to accommodate. So we didn’t have two days on Saturday. We only have the election day on Saturday. We eliminated one of the advance votings on Saturday to accommodate various groups and to ensure that their beliefs were respected.

With that, I’m, again, honoured to speak on behalf of and to support this act and change. I want to thank the Attorney General for the good work he’s done to put this forward. It’s one of the things I heard in my community of North Delta. People wanted to ensure that this system, this building and this structure represent all voices and that all voices are represented. I believe this is an important step, along with the other steps that the Attorney General has taken, to address those things — changes to the lobbyist reform act and financial changes as well.

With that, I will end my remarks. I thank everyone for listening.

P. Milobar: It’s my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 5 today in this House. I’m going to try to stay focused in on the bill and, hopefully, won’t wander too far off the path here.

[1:40 p.m.]

There are some aspects of the bill that I would like to touch on — namely, the changing of the number of a party from four to two, the fixed election date, around Saturday voting, as well, and the advance voting days. On balance, I don’t think anyone in this House is opposed to modernizing and always looking at ways to make sure that people can get out and vote, can be engaged in the democratic process — and to make sure that legislation is reflecting the realities and the situations that we sometimes find ourselves in.

There’s no real big issue with that as a starting point and a premise. In fact, we had, in our short-lived few weeks as government after the last general election, offered party status to the Green Party. It’s unfortunate they did not want to read the bill and not vote for it, but nonetheless, we are here today essentially trying to look at some of these same situations.

The big difference, though, was the bill that we had presented would have recognized the Greens as a party of three and not of two. With all of the changes that we see potentially coming forward with us, as a province, around electoral reform, the move from four to two is a little more problematic than four to three. In fact, even the four to three….

Given the uncertainty that we have in this House, given the unprecedented makeup that we have currently in the House, one has to question if the government and the Green Party and their deal around campaign finance and making sure that taxpayers are funding political parties with tax dollars…. If they’re able to have that conceivably expire — although I think we’re all somewhat questioning whether or not that will ever actually be removed from legislation as the clock gets closer to the year that it’s supposed to expire on.

But if they’re able to have clauses like that built into a piece of legislation, one has to wonder why there was not a clause, in this case, to recognize the Greens as a party with a termination clause, awaiting to see what would happen with the proportional representation by-election and referendum, to see what exactly we would be dealing with in terms of a form of government, moving forward. Because once you instill something in, it’s much harder to remove that from practice and operation.

Personally, I do not begrudge the Green Party being recognized as a party during this session and the duration of this government. I think that does make sense, but I do question why, other than for purely self-serving political reasons, you would not want to have a review of that built into a system, given all of the other changes that we’re looking at within our electoral reform system.

One then has to jump to the natural question: is the reason that the Green Party did not want three but wants two because they’re not confident that they’ll have all three members stay within their party for the duration of this term? They want to make sure that they hang on to a party.

It’s not unusual to see people cross the floor in this House, and it happens federally as well. It happens in legislatures all across this land. It’s part of our democratic process, and it can happen. So one does have to, though, question: have there already been some rumblings of potential fracturing of the coalition? And they want to make sure, by ensuring a number of two instead of a number of three, that they could remain on as a party.

The other reason to…. I question whether or not the government had given full thought to the number two versus three. It does make it much simpler. I know there are some very long-serving members on the side opposite that were probably, sorry to say, expecting cabinet positions, and with it come a lot more remuneration and responsibilities. With this move to two, it could very easily see some of those members that were expecting to attach a cabinet position looking and saying: “Well, if we create our own party, we would then be treated as a leader and as a Whip and a few other duties and see that same bump in remuneration.”

I would look forward to the day that you see a Nanaimo–Sunshine Coast party, for example, in this House, because that’s what going from four to two opens the door for.

I think that any time we want to look at changes to our democratic process and our procedures and our policies in this House, you have to do it very carefully.

[1:45 p.m.]

Again, if there’s a willingness to put an expiration date on taxpayer subsidies for votes into a bill, I don’t understand why something as fundamental as changing the number around what constitutes a party in this House, especially in light of a proportional representation referendum coming, would not have some sort of clause in it as well that would say that we recognize that this is a very unique situation. We have a minority government situation. We have a situation where the public did not actually elect the current sitting government.

We have no dispute that they are duly constituted as the government, but they did not win the majority of seats in the election, as a standard government would. They are held together as a coalition with the Green Party — again, well within the rules of parliamentary procedure. No one is disputing that in the least, but let’s face it; they were not elected by the public in a majority situation. They were appointed to be government. That’s always the concerning point when you have this type of fundamental change being proposed, when you have a non-duly, majority elected government in place.

In terms of the dates…. This is perhaps more troubling than the move from four to two, and I’m not quite understanding that side of it. But moving the date to an October date…. Again, October. Let’s not get caught up in spring or fall. I’m not hearing a lot of people on this side of the House saying that there’s a problem around the October date. We, in fact, have municipal elections now starting in 2018 in October instead of November. I don’t think that October is really the salient point of concern for this side of the House.

What is interesting, though, again, in an appointed minority government situation — as I say, not elected as government but appointed as the government — we have a government willing, instead of taking an extra six months off of their term, feeling that they somehow have the authority and the right, a mandate from the public — which I think I’ve already established was not a voted mandate but an appointed mandate, procedurally — to suddenly extend it by another six months. So instead of having it in October of 2020, we’re seeing a reach to try to hang on to power for that extra six months.

Now, the members opposite will make many comments about how we were clinging to power in the early days after the May election. We weren’t clinging to power. We were simply following parliamentary procedures, testing the House and seeing…. We fully accept the results of that vote, and we moved on. There was an orderly transition of government, so there was no clinging. This, however, is nothing more than a flat-out cling for an extra six months, to change the parliamentary rules to get yourself the extra six months as a government, to try to make sure that you could hang on to government for that extra six months.

Again, why does moving it back six months make more sense in this situation, this current makeup, where we have a minority appointed government? Well, I think it’s fair to the taxpayers of this province, if they’re going to see these changes happen, that they get closure and a firm vote on what the makeup of the parliament looks like. But also, it would push the election back to 2020, which, when you look at the municipal election calendar, actually makes a lot of sense.

Now, I coached hockey and lacrosse and helped out in other sports and played many sports in my life. The one thing I would always tell the athletes that I was working with was: “Always worry about focusing and controlling what you can control in your own game and your own sport, and don’t worry about what’s going on in the other areas of things that you can’t control.”

I raise that because what we can control, as the province of British Columbia, as the government of British Columbia, as the Legislature for British Columbia, is municipal election dates, and we can control provincial election dates. We don’t have a lot of say on what happens federally, but by rolling it back to 2020, we can guarantee that there’s always a two-year break in between municipal elections and provincial elections. By making it 2021, you’re always going to be sabotaging the upcoming municipal election, because the next municipal election would be in 2022. Therefore, you are actually making sure that voter fatigue in a form of government that already has very low voter turnout is a very real problem.

[1:50 p.m.]

That is another reason why 2020, for the good of democracy in this province — again, dates that we can control in this Legislature — makes a lot more sense. It gives a little more stability to local governments around their elections. It gives more stability to the public around provincial elections, and it provides everyone a very clear road map forward. Frankly, it says that a government is confident enough of the job they’re doing that they will actually be elected and not appointed in a general election and that they’re willing to test that with the public at 3½ years and not try to reach and stretch and extend to 4½ years.

It’s those types of actions that wind up making people very cynical about some of the decisions that do come out of this House — when they see blatant things such as that nature of moving timelines in terms of the extra six months instead of six months less.

Now, in terms of Saturdays and advance voting days. Advance voting days and extra advance voting days are, I think, a wonderful idea, and I think everyone agrees with that. I would point out that we have been hearing facts and figures around advance voting days and the great voter turnouts that you see on a Saturday and that that’s going to correlate to a general election. I would note that we’re now proposing to remove one of those advance voting days.

In fact, even though we’ve seen record levels on advance voting days, we’ve seen the same voter turnout that we’ve always had. It just seems that people are finding it to fit into their schedule when it’s convenient for them if they can advance vote. I think that’s wonderful, but although we’ve seen a large increase in advance voting numbers, both municipally and provincially, we have not seen the correlation to a higher voter turnout at the end of the general election.

Why this is concerning is…. Again, fully support more advance voting days. But we’re removing an advance day on a Saturday to put a general election day in on a Saturday. Now, why Saturday is a little bit concerning to me is that the data for voting on a Saturday is actually very clear when you look at elections. There is no provincial and no federal election ever on a Saturday in this country. Not one jurisdiction does it. They’re all weekdays. The only time that we go and vote on a Saturday is for municipal elections. Municipal elections, if you’re running in a municipal setting, average about 33 percent voter turnout. Municipal elections, if you’re running in an unincorporated rural area, get out at 22 percent.

I would point out that there are, historically, almost ten times as many people running in municipal campaigns than run provincially. There were almost 3,400 or 3,500 people in the last municipal campaign. There were about 370 or so in this last provincial campaign, which means that you have ten times the people going out and encouraging their friends and their families and their supporters to “please get out and vote” and “please get out and support me,” and we see half the voter turnout than you do on a provincial election.

So no, I don’t think moving to a Saturday for the general election day is a good idea. History in this province has very clearly demonstrated that we have a form of government…. You get very low, not very high, voter turnout whatsoever, and to me, that’s the data that you need to look at. That’s the same voter. We always talk about one taxpayer. Well, that one taxpayer is also the one voter. So for those reasons, I have some problems with the bill.

I do wish that the two parties had actually put a little more concern into the general electorate in terms of their ability to vote, their willingness to want to engage in the democratic process. The concern about what our parliament and our Legislature may look like, moving forward, after the results of a proportional representation referendum, which could fundamentally change how this House operates forever.

We need to take all of those into consideration. So to not have clauses built in so that after the next general election, there’s not an expectation that this is the new law and, for sure, it’s two members in a party…. Could you imagine if there are several smaller parties that get elected if proportional representation was to come to fruition…?

Could you imagine the cost to the taxpayer to run this exact same House with who knows how many different Leaders of the Official Opposition? Could you imagine how long something like question period would take if you had six parties in this House, all demanding their same equal time because we have six parties of two in this House?

[1:55 p.m.]

Operationally it becomes very problematic to try to deal with. Again, no problem at all offering party status to the Green Party with a number of three. I would prefer to see it with an expiration clause, just as we have seen in the legislation where we’re trying to line political parties’ pockets with taxpayers’ dollars. There is supposed to be an expiration clause, so one has to wonder: will that clause ever actually be enacted?

That’s the overall problem, I think. Instead of this being one large piece of legislation that the public could really sink their teeth into on the whole scale, we’ve seen bits and pieces introduced. We’ve seen the finance reform bill come in, with the surprise hidden gem of millions of taxpayers’ dollars going to make sure that the NDP have their debts paid off. Then we see this piece of legislation. And oh, by the way, there’s this other piece of legislation off to the side around proportional representation election.

One would think…. We’ve heard for — well, I’ll say it before you say it — 16 years, right? That’s the term, 16 years? For 16 years, we have heard from the members opposite…. For 16 years, we’ve heard lovely buzzwords about open and transparent and democratic and not democratic.

Here is the perfect opportunity to be open and transparent and democratic. And yet, with a willingness to study everything right now that might have any type of economic benefit to this province, we’re seeing the government put that completely on hold and make sure that there is a study layered by a study layered by a study. I believe it was actually the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head during the election that said: “Their plan is to have a plan for a plan.” And it seems to be coming true.

Why we don’t see these three pieces of legislation having been bundled together to have a proper discussion with the public around what their democratic future of this province would look like, instead of piecemeal, one piece of legislation after the next? That — to the average person who doesn’t necessarily pay that close attention to what goes on in this House….

I know that’s shocking, because I’m sure our ratings have spiked heavily this week. But for the average person that’s worried about getting around and making sure that they’re getting to and from work and their kids to and from activities, they’re not paying that close attention, because they’ve put a lot of trust into us.

For them to not have the benefit and the courtesy, frankly, of the government to make sure that all of these new changes are being presented as one package — because that’s what they really are; they all deal with our fundamental democratic rights as a society — does not seem open and transparent to me. It does not seem very democratic to me. And it does make one always question…. The words are very nice, but the actions are what really count.

Now, yesterday the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head went into some quite elaborate calculations around how many members from each party had how many votes and that’s how many people they represented. I believe we were at about 18½ thousand, the NDP were about 19½ thousand, the Green Party was 105,000. Unfortunately, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head kept saying: “So that’s how many people we represent each in this House.” Well, I have news. First off, there was not 100 percent voter turnout, and obviously, not everyone, because of age, can vote.

So no. Members of this House all represent a great more than the 19,000, probably closer to 105,000 that the Greens do. But I want to go on the record and be very clear here. I don’t represent 19,000 people that voted for the B.C. Liberal Party. I’m in this House representing everyone from Kamloops–North Thompson, whether they voted for me — which is their democratic right not to do — or not.

When they come into my office and ask for help, I make sure they get the help that they need from the government. And for the most part, the government is very good at making sure that those files are looked at and people’s issues and concerns are being dealt with in a very non-partisan way to make sure people get the supports and the help that they need in their daily lives.

I just wanted to really emphasize that point, because it struck me as a little odd yesterday that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head would choose to characterize that the only people that get represented in this House by the Green Party are the people that voted for the Greens, regardless of where they live in the province.

I don’t think that the member from the Green Party that’s sitting here right now believes that. I think he does his level best, as we all do, to make sure that our constituents are looked after, after an election is over, regardless of their political stripe, to make sure that their needs are met by the government and the help that they need coming their way is happening.

[2:00 p.m.]

I just wanted to really touch on that because, to me, if that’s the logic that we’re using to somehow come up from four to two, to come up with a later election date, six months of extra power time grab…. If that’s what we’re using to try to rationalize the numbers and the logic around voting on a Saturday, when no one else in the country does….

I’ve said this on a couple of other bills. It’s interesting. When there’s a province doing something that we want to, as government, justify our actions on, we seem to cling to what that province is doing and say: “Well, we should be doing it like Alberta” or “We should be doing it like Ontario” or “We should be doing it like Quebec,” even though they get $11 billion in transfer payments. A lot is from B.C., actually, of that $11 billion.

However, in this case, when there is not one province that actually votes on a Saturday, we suddenly go silent on trying to emulate what other provinces are doing. Suddenly, we can do it better and different than those other provinces. That’s always a little problematic when that seems to happen. We grasp for the example that best suits the narrative, when you’re in government, to try to cram through some legislation that does not serve the public the best that it actually could.

I would have preferred that these bills all get presented at the same time. We could have had the public take a good look and understand the inner workings and the complexities of what each of these decisions means. As a stand-alone decision, each one doesn’t seem that dramatic. When you look at the whole package, though, it’s very large and very different in terms of what we will see moving forward on this.

No one has ever said democracy was an inexpensive form of government, so I’m not as worried that we will now see another Leader of the Opposition receiving those types of remunerations. That’s totally fine, and I understand that, especially when it’s three parties in the situation we do have.

But I think the taxpayer has the right to try to wrap their head around what happens if we do have six, seven, eight parties of two in this House. What does that cost structure look like to the taxpayer? Again, one voter and only one taxpayer, and they’re the same person. I know sometimes we lose sight of that, but they’re the same person that is going to be impacted by this.

Ultimately, when you’re not looking after the pennies, the dollars start to add up in a big hurry. There is a very real financial cost to even this piece of legislation long term and the implications of that. I guess, at its core, I’m a little disappointed, given the $1 million secretariat that we have — again, taxpayers’ dollars — that there wasn’t a little more thought put in.

I don’t know. Maybe a little bit of, for lack a better term, goodwill by even the Green Party to say: “You know what? There are three of us. We don’t need two. Let’s just go to three in this legislation. Let’s not push it. This is a minority appointed government situation. We want to make sure that we get this right. We want people to be comfortable with it. And you know what? Since we have a sunset clause on dipping into the taxpayers’ pockets to pay off our party’s debts, maybe we’ll have a sunset clause on the number of people for a party, as well, just to be fair to the public and make sure that people get a little more comfortable with this system and make sure that the system is actually working as intended.”

If there’s one thing that is for certain with government, it’s that the law of unintended consequences seems to kick in almost every time — something happens — when there’s a rush to try to make something come forward. These three packages, because they’ve been brought in separately, do seem to be trying to either rush or wind up with people not paying enough attention so that things can get slid through. The very thing that, for 16 years, we heard from members opposite they did not like to see done is, in fact, happening.

I thank you for the time. I see my time is almost up. I will give this a little more consideration and look forward to the vote today, to see what will happen with Bill 5.

A. Olsen: It is very interesting to be in this place, hearing the conspiracy theories, the rewrite of history and the reduction of our citizens to simple taxpayers. I respect the contribution that every citizen makes to our society, in both casting the ballot and participating in our democracy. But I would never reduce the citizens to simply just taxpayers, as we continue to hear over and over and over in this place.

I’m pleased to be speaking today in support of the Constitution Amendment Act. This bill makes important changes that I feel are necessary and overdue to strengthen and update that very democracy which we all hold so dearly.

[2:05 p.m.]

First, I’d like to say I welcome the change of the fixed election date from May to October. This is an important and long-overdue change that all members of this House should be able to get behind.

The B.C. Greens campaigned on changing the fixed election date to October in order to separate it from the February budget process. Separating the election date from the budget will result in significant changes in how our province is run — important changes. It will end the practice of government creating these pre-election budgets where financial goodies are trotted out and handed out to segments of the population in order to secure votes, since the May election date is only a few months after the February budget. It will also stop the budget debate from sounding more like campaign stump speeches than reasoned debate on the provincial books.

I hope that this will enable more substantive engagement from all members of this House on future budgets and more nuanced and honest conversation about what aspects of the budget members support, what they don’t support and why. Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of having the February budget closely followed by a May election is that the budget cannot be passed before the election and that the Auditor General’s audit of the public books doesn’t come out before July. So it just ends up turning into theatre. The budget often gets substantially edited or even rewritten after the election, and it often bears little relation to what was promised in February. This, I believe, misleads British Columbians, or it leaves them vulnerable to being misled.

It also creates a situation where the new government, after an election, is under significant pressure to reconvene parliament and pass a new budget. I believe that we felt that this summer, the pressure that that creates. The government is also under pressure, in their budget update, to make significant changes and fulfil campaign promises. Of course, we know that in the transition of government, it takes time. The new ministers take time to fully understand their portfolio and to understand what might be behind the walls as you tear the drywall off and find out that there might be some dry rot and some things that need to be fixed. But this is without the time that’s needed to do the policy work and the consultations necessary to marshal the evidence.

I find it quite interesting that we keep hearing about the consultations like it’s a dirty word. The fact of the matter is that we do need to be connecting with the various stakeholders. In fact, when the government is not connecting with the stakeholders, then we hear about how they didn’t connect with the stakeholders. So I think that it’s important that we do commit to connecting with the citizens of our province and the stakeholders to ensure that the work that we’re doing in this place is informed and it’s based on evidence, and that’s the commitment that the government makes.

The way it is now, it wastes resources and the time and energy of the Finance Minister and the public service. Most importantly, it undermines the public trust in government, as British Columbians have rightly become deeply distrustful of this whole process as the budget is being put forward and then substantially rewritten after the election. Moving the election date to October will eliminate these problems, and it will create a less partisan budgeting process in the future.

In my view, most decisions in politics are difficult, and it requires tough trade-offs and the weighing of benefits and drawbacks of any policy change. I’m certain that anybody who has been a minister in this House, whether current or former, can attest to the difficulty of the decisions that are in front of them.

This change, though, is an exception. I think that this change should have been made years ago, and it will create a less partisan budgeting process, improve public transparency and eliminate wasted time, energy and resources in government. Most importantly, it is a step government can take to improve public confidence and trust in government.

[2:10 p.m.]

I would also like to touch briefly on the second change this bill makes, extending official party status to any group of MLAs elected under a party banner, whether it be two or 22. Of course, today this change affects me and my colleagues in the B.C. Greens caucus, the MLAs from Cowichan Valley and Oak Bay–Gordon Head. We’re, of course, thrilled that our caucus will be represented under one party banner, and the little banner that’s going to be right under my name here that says “Independent” will be changed to the party that I ran under, the Green Party, and the values that we ran under.

But this principle of this change goes far beyond us and far beyond the Green Party. It’s the right that any group of MLAs who campaign together under a party banner and who are united by a set of values and shared platform commitments should be officially represented in our Legislature as an official caucus, a united caucus.

This is a principle of fair recognition of all parties who participate in our democracy and elect voices to sit together and work together in the Legislature with all of our colleagues in this place. It’s important that we remember that these and other changes that we pass in the House today affect not only us but all future members of the House as well.

In sum, I’d like to restate my support for this bill. It takes important steps to update and modernize our democracy. Extending party status to parties with two seats or more in this House and changing the fixed election date are commonsense and overdue changes that I hope members on all sides of this House will join me in supporting. HÍSWḴE SIÁM.

Hon. S. Simpson: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to join in the debate on Bill 5. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson was talking about how some of these issues will affect potential turnout and the scope of some of these issues. I would suggest that as the changes that have been proposed by a number of pieces of legislation brought forward by this government, we are likely to see those significant increases in turnout if they occur. We all hope there will be greater numbers in turnout.

I think we’ll see that, should the referendum on proportional representation be successful and we move to a new system of proportional representation, because I think there are many people in this province who don’t believe their vote is valued. They cast a ballot for their party of choice, and that’s not reflected in the results.

Instead, we have a Legislature here, regardless of which side, where power is given to one side or the other side, usually with significantly less than a majority of the votes cast in the province. With the exception of the anomaly, really, of 16 years ago in 2001, we haven’t elected a government in this House that’s had more than 50 percent of the vote. That’s the reality, and I think that people get frustrated, and they wonder whether their vote counts.

If we move to that system, should the voters of British Columbia choose to make that change, what we will see here in British Columbia is a system where the composition of this Legislature reflects the choices of the voters of this province in terms of the percentages that each of the respective parties in that election is able to garner. I think that is probably going to do more to drive turnout than whether we have an election on a Tuesday or a Saturday, quite honestly.

But I do want to just walk through the changes that are contemplated in Bill 5. The first is the change of the date to the fall. I think that the reason…. We’ve been talking about this change for years in this House. It’s been back and forth. Members on both sides have talked at different times about this change. Always the fundamental that has been underlying that change is the issue of the timing of the budget.

We’ve seen budgets that are, of course, introduced in the spring. They take an extensive period of time to complete, and without exception, when we’re in an election year, we are adjourning this place before a budget is resolved into an election, when the numbers have not been confirmed by public accounts. There is always at least perception about whether those budgets are accurate, because they haven’t had that independent evaluation done that we get out of public accounts.

[2:15 p.m.]

This change to the fall, in fact, removes that. A government then does come into an election, campaigning on its record, including its financial record and including its most recent budget and all of the things that are included in that.

It has been pointed out that that budget will presumably have been passed prior to the election so that the new government coming in, in October is not under the pressures to scramble to complete a budget process in order to allow the government to continue to function, operate and have the dollars to continue to operate. That, I think, becomes a very important thing. That in itself is more than ample reason to move the election into October and to allow us to vote at that time.

I heard one of the members earlier. I’ve heard a couple of members on the other side go back and forth about whether this should be the fall of 2020 or the fall of 2021. Well, we’ll have a difference of opinion on that. But I would note, for all members here, that the reality of this — and this is certainly a reality here, where we have a minority parliament — is that we could have an election at any time, and it is about a government being able to hold the confidence of this House and the majority of members of this House.

We could have an election at any time, and I am confident that we will have an election in the fall of 2021, when that date is planned, because I am confident that this government will hold the confidence of a majority of members of this House. But at the end of the day, we all know that you can put any election date you choose into legislation, but unless the majority of the people sitting here are prepared to vote on matters of confidence, in favour of a government, we will be having an election at the time when a government can no longer garner that confidence. That will be the issue moving forward, I’m sure, and I’m sure that we’ll have a number of confidence votes over the next four years in order to test that issue.

The question was raised about elections on Saturdays. We know we all have experience with elections on Saturdays because our local elections have been held on Saturdays for a significant amount of time. Elections B.C. has certainly deemed, in discussions, that Saturdays tend to be good days, in many ways, around a vote. They have seen that in advanced polling. They certainly don’t seem to have an issue with that.

I watched the last election. I watched the actions, and I thought that, really, the positive work of Elections B.C…. I think the thing that probably most resonates with me about increasing turnout is understanding that elections aren’t about one day. We have the day that we call election day, but our success in elections and in getting turnout, I think, is in having significant advanced voting days, significant numbers, and creating as many opportunities as we can create for people to exercise their franchise, to create as many opportunities in the days and weeks heading up to election day, after the writ has been dropped, for people to cast their ballot. That’s what’s going to go the farthest, I think, in creating greater turnout. It will be creating those opportunities where people get to go and vote — and that we don’t put artificial impediments in their way.

The notion that you have one day that is election day, and it is the be-all and end-all, whether it’s on a Saturday or Tuesday, is that kind of error. I think we do much better when we have six or seven days, at least, that people get a chance to go vote and, as we know, the opportunity, of course, on the other days to go to your returning officer if you need to and cast a ballot as well. I think that becomes a much more significant issue in terms of turnout. Whether it’s a Saturday or a Tuesday, that’s really much less of an issue.

The good thing, I think, about Saturdays, though, a couple of things that are positives…. One is that we all know — I certainly know in my constituency, and I’m going to presume it’s true for most of us — we rely pretty heavily on schools as voting places, as voting stations, polling stations.

[2:20 p.m.]

I’ve got to believe that the notion that you’re using schools on a day when kids aren’t in school becomes not only an easier and more convenient situation for the school boards and the people who have to operate the schools…. Arguably, it is a safer situation in the schools, as well, to not have the kids there when the voting is going on. So I think there are lots of arguments to be made for Saturdays.

We get up at throne speech time, and we talk about, especially throne speeches right after elections…. We all come to this place. We thank the people who helped to get us elected, and we thank the volunteers who work hard for all of us in our constituencies to help bring us to this place and give us the privilege of being in this place.

It’s quite possible that in terms of that team of volunteers, which we all need every election to help get us elected, come election day, their availability may be better on a Saturday than on a weekday, in many cases, simply because the majority of people are employed Monday to Friday or in school or whatever. So it may enhance the ability to get volunteers out. As we reduce the amount of money in elections, we’ll find that we’ll all be depending more significantly on volunteers, as well, and that’s a good thing. I don’t think that the Saturday creates any particular issue there.

I want to talk to the issue of reducing the number of members for party status. The debate here seems to be…. I hear members on the other side saying: “Well, it’s okay. I guess we can go down to three so that the Green Party can be an official party, but maybe we should review it after this election or put a sunset clause on it. Why should it go down to two?”

Well, I think, as we heard our friend…. The member from the Green Party, Saanich North and the Islands, in his comments, talked about this. I think he’s correct when he said that this isn’t…. Let me just step back. Absolutely, the beneficiaries of this change here will be our three colleagues who are members of the Green Party. But this isn’t about them. This is about how this place works, and this is about the democratic process. It’s about whether people who come to this place and are elected in this place under a party banner should have the right to fly that banner and to have the supports that come with being an official party.

I believe that the vast majority of us in this place, regardless of whether we are B.C. Liberals or NDPers or Greens, would not have been elected to this place if we were not under the banner that we ran under. We ran in constituencies where, certainly, our personal reputations and maybe our contributions and our work have contributed to the votes we get. But we are in a province where party politics is a significant aspect of our political life.

We are in a province where many people determine their vote based on their political party of choice. They look at those parties, they look at their platforms, and they look at their values. They say: “I’m going to vote for the member of party X here because they most closely reflect my interests or my family’s interests, and they’re who I think represents me best.”

Part of the reason that happens is because there is a level of party discipline here, politically, that we don’t see with our friends in the United States. There is a level here where, on most issues, you can determine how people are going to vote based on their party affiliation. That’s the reality of what we see. It’s not entirely the case, but in most instances, it absolutely is.

What that does is it provides people with some confidence that…. If I choose to vote for the NDP because I like what the NDP says in their platform, then I’m relatively confident that the person that I send to the Legislature….

Interjection.

Hon. S. Simpson: I’ll let you finish over there.

If you do that, then people are relatively confident that they know they are voting for a candidate who, in fact, represents the party. And that’s what we see.

Interjection.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Simpson: The member on the other side is prattling on about something about parties that I can’t quite hear. What I would say to the member on the other side…. This is the party on the other side…. Let’s talk about this for a minute.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: The minister has the floor.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, wait for….

Hon. S. Simpson: This is a member who stood up and voted for a throne speech that betrayed his party. This is a party that has demonstrated time and time again that they have no values. They don’t believe in anything. In fact, all they believe in is power. This is a party, on the other side, that after the election was desperate, hanging on by their fingernails to power. They tried to manipulate this Legislature. They misrepresented what they believed. They threw their presumed values out the window to embrace the NDP and Green platforms in a throne speech, and now they have the audacity to talk about principles. That side of the House and principles haven’t been in the same room for 16 years.

Getting back to the issue of two members versus three members. The issue that we see here and the question was: why go to two instead of three? Well, I want to tell you why I think two is important. I want to take us back to 2001. In 2001, the current opposition won a massive victory — 77 to two. There were two New Democrats and 77 members of the B.C. Liberal Party elected. The Premier of the day, the government of the day, chose not to recognize those two members of the NDP. That was their prerogative as government, though pretty much the consensus in the province from…. Many people, including many people who supported that government of the day, said they should be recognized.

The reason that they should be recognized is because this place works best when you have parties, when you have different views and when you ensure that to the greatest degree possible, based on their level of seats and representation, they have the resources to be able to effectively either make that case as government or make that case as opposition. But there was a mean-spiritedness in 2001, and that was the decision: to refuse those two members party status.

In this legislation, this is more a recognition than anything else that that should never happen again. If two members get elected here, coming to this place under a political banner, supporting a set of values, principles or a platform, there should be an acknowledgment that they were sent here to advance those views and to advance those positions. And part of that recognition is to acknowledge their status as a party.

How we support them is a matter that…. LAMC and the structures of this place decide how those supports are put in place. The question for us is the question of whether we think that the democratic process is better served by recognizing parties and people who come here under common cause and common banners. This legislation says yes, we should. This legislation says that’s what we should do, and it says we can do that with two members, not three. That’s why I think it becomes important that we’ve made the decision to do this and to move to two members.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

This piece of legislation, combined with legislation that will change electoral finance, combined with legislation that, should the people of British Columbia choose in a referendum to support it, will change to proportional representation and change how we elect people in this province…. As one of the members on the opposition said, and he was quite right, it will change politics in this province forever. I’ve been in this place long enough to know that some change is a good thing and that that change will have value. I know that if those changes all come forward, we will look at politics in a very different way moving forward.

[2:30 p.m.]

There will be growing pains, and there will be questions about whether this system works as perfectly as it could. Not so much, always. There will be those questions. But we will have created a system where money doesn’t determine politics, where people’s values and principles are recognized when they come to this place. It will determine that we elect people and we elect a legislature that, in fact, looks like the votes in the place. That’s what we’ll get.

We’ll no longer have politics here where it’s just simply about a party that desperately hung onto power for 16 years, that in the last few years was vacuous in terms of its policy and its beliefs. In fact, at the end, the only thing that was important was trying to manipulate the Lieutenant-Governor and trying to manipulate the Legislature in order to hang onto power.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Hon. S. Simpson: Now, I know that the member on the other side misses his cabinet office. He’ll get over it. He’ll do well as an opposition member.

We need to change, and this legislation will effect that change. This legislation and the combined other pieces will effect that change. When that change comes, if the voters decide next fall to choose to move to a system of proportional representation, we will all and should all be very proud that we will have changed for the better the democratic processes in this province. That will be a legacy we should all be able to take away.

D. Barnett: I am pleased to rise on behalf of my constituents of the Cariboo-Chilcotin on the subject of Bill 5, the Constitution Amendment Act.

The purpose of this piece of legislation is twofold. In the first instance, it intends to move the provincial election date to the third Saturday in October from the current fixed election in May. Currently British Columbia has a fixed election date on the second Tuesday in May.

As a matter of fact, in 2001, it was the B.C. Liberal Party that brought in fixed election dates in British Columbia. We led the nation in being the first province in Confederation to do so. Since then, many other provinces and the federal government have followed suit. We adopted fixed election dates because it was perceived that under the old system, a government could call a snap election at its own convenience. So we changed that. Ever since then, holding a fixed election on the second Tuesday in May has served the people of British Columbia well — in 2005, 2009, 2013 and 2017.

The question is: why do we have to change things? I understand the reasoning behind this is the budget cycle. In British Columbia, the provincial budget is delivered each February to coincide with the end of the fiscal year ending on March 31. Most provinces and the federal government adhere to this budget cycle.

Some are concerned that holding the election in May is too close to the budget introduction, that it occurs before the Auditor General has a chance to examine budget forecasts. This is a rather weak argument. This is a government that delivered five consecutive balanced budgets in a row. A Liberal government did that.

We are not talking about the fudge-it budget of 1996 that the former NDP brought in. That was a deliberate attempt to mislead the public of British Columbia in order to win an election. Back in 1996, the NDP government promised a two-year surplus of $201 million that turned into a two-year $703 million deficit. And it worked. The NDP and then-Premier Glen Clark called a snap election that very same day and won the election under false pretences. That’s why the B.C. Liberals brought in fixed election dates in the first place.

[2:35 p.m.]

Now, once again, the NDP is conspiring with the Greens to change the election date to the third Saturday in October. This will have the effect of extending the current government’s presumed mandate by 23 weeks, or nearly six months. What is the benefit to the average voter in British Columbia? Nothing.

I am astonished by the fact that the legislative agenda of this session is dedicated to preserving the NDP and Green Party government coalition. Why are we not focused on growing the economy or trying to make life better or affordable for the average British Columbian? People in my riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin are rather angry.

This bill follows the sudden surprise of campaign financing. This was a surprise announcement by the Premier that taxpayers now would be on the hook for subsidized political parties whether you voted for them or not. Originally, all three parties had agreed to support legislation that would limit corporate and union donations to political parties and place an annual cap on the amount an individual could donate. But the Premier took that one step further and announced that political parties will be receiving almost $28 million in subsidies courtesy of the taxpayer. That means the NDP and the Green Party are going to get a taxpayer subsidy of $28 million over the next four years. Nobody voted for that.

The bill also creates a permanent taxpayer subsidy for 50 percent of election campaign expenses, such as advertising, the rental of campaign offices, staff salaries and the printing of campaign signs. That would amount to an extra $11 million, based on what was spent in the last election. I don’t agree with this. I don’t support it, and neither do most of my constituents. And I don’t think it’s fair to voters. If someone makes a choice and casts their ballot for a particular party, why should they be expected to make a financial contribution to each and every other party they don’t support? No one voted for this in the last election.

The next piece of the puzzle comes in the form of so-called electoral reform. When it comes to electoral reform, why not let the people decide? In my opinion, no government should be allowed to change the rules to favour their own re-election, but that is exactly what the NDP and Green Party are attempting to do by introducing their Electoral Reform Referendum Act.

The NDP and the Green Party signed a pact last May to put themselves into power. Part of that agreement outlined plans to hold a referendum on electoral reform. There is nothing wrong with exploring ways to improve our democracy. The B.C. Liberals held two referendums, in 2005 and 2009. But the process was handed over to the public through the 161-member B.C. Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. It was the citizens’ assembly’s task to determine what kind of improvements to make and how the referendum question would be proposed.

Fast-forward to 2017, and the NDP and the Greens say the government will ultimately determine the outcome after they hold non-binding public consultations on a new system of proportional representation. They are in such a rush to do it, the government is breaking its promise to hold the referendum in conjunction with municipal elections and is instead conducting a mail-in ballot next fall.

In 2005 and 2009, the government remained neutral and provided public funds to groups who wanted to support one side or the other. This time around, the leaders of the NDP and the Green Party are going to use government resources to actively campaign on behalf of their plan. To improve their chances of success, the NDP and the Green Party have dropped the threshold to a 50-percent-plus-one majority vote.

[2:40 p.m.]

With densely populated areas like Metro Vancouver, it makes it mathematically impossible for the Interior and the north to have an equal voice. Under the NDP-Green version of proportional representation, rural parts of the province will lose half our seats in this House. They don’t care. None of their seats came from the rural parts of the province.

I say political parties should stay out of the process and let the people decide, but that’s not what the NDP and the Green Party are attempting to engineer. Not only do they want to rig the outcome of the next election, but they want the taxpayers to pay for it too.

This leads me to the second part of this piece of legislation. They want to grant party status to the Green Party in the Legislature. This would entitle the Greens to enjoy more privileges here in Victoria. The B.C. Liberals are not opposed, but the NDP wants to change the constitution to a threshold of just two seats in the Legislature to qualify for official party status. But there are currently three members of the Green Party. I have to wonder what the reason is behind this. Is the NDP expecting a member of the Green Party to cross the floor and join their caucus? Would this prevent the collapse of the so-called confidence and supply agreement between the Green Party and the NDP?

It just seems to me that this coalition government is more concerned with preserving their own arrangement than having any concern for the average British Columbian.

S. Furstenau: I’m pleased to be speaking in support of the Constitution Amendment Act. The bill is short and only makes a few changes to existing legislation, but they are significant. The bill modernizes our democracy through two changes: expanding party status to smaller parties in the Legislature and changing the fixed election date from May to October.

Democracy thrives when there is a multitude of diverse voices participating in all levels of politics. Government is at its strongest when diverse voices representing a variety of backgrounds, experiences and points of view are heard on all sides of the House. Our democratic institutions are at their strongest when these voices are empowered to participate in their full capacity.

By expanding official party status to parties with two or more elected members, this bill moves the dial forward on the issue and establishes the capacity for more parties to add their voices to B.C.’s democratic landscape. It recognizes that if MLAs are elected under a single-party banner, running on a shared set of policies and values, they constitute a party, no matter how large or small their seat count.

I’m deeply proud that the voters of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, Saanich North and the Islands and Cowichan Valley elected the first B.C. Green caucus in our province’s history — indeed, in Canada’s history, in North America’s history, and the first Green caucus elected under first-past-the-post in the world. I’m delighted that this amendment will mean that we will have official party status and be represented under one unified banner, rather than having to sit as three independents.

The change is not just symbolic. It also has important effects that enable MLAs to participate more fully in the Legislature as a unified caucus. In enables all caucuses to have regular questions in question period in order to better hold the government to account. It provides for an ability to respond to minister’s statements and more time to respond to bills.

When politics becomes an entrenched system of large, monolithic parties, it becomes too adversarial and brittle. It becomes less able to adapt and respond to rapid changes in our province and to the evolving needs of our citizens. A system that formally recognizes only large parties squeezes out strong voices from diverse backgrounds and perpetuates our tired, old two-party system.

Consider the quagmire that we see south of the border, where partisanship taken to the extreme means that one party sees its sole purpose as being obstructionist to the government’s agenda.

[2:45 p.m.]

At the Commonwealth Parliamentary Congress that I attended last week, MLAs from across Canada lamented the rise of partisanship in their legislatures and the toxic effects that partisanship is having on governance. Moving away from an entrenched two-party system helps us to have more voices, more perspectives and, hopefully, less partisanship in our parliaments.

We should keep in mind that the changes in this bill and in all rules we make in this House apply not only to the members who sit here today, but to all future members who will join this House.

I’d like to take a moment to respond to the comments made earlier today by the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, who suggested — and I’ve heard them a couple of times — that Greens may be in danger of losing a caucus member. I’ll point out that the only party that has seen any members leaving in this parliamentary session has been his.

Also, let’s be clear. This is a government. The three of us sit in opposition. This is not a coalition. If it were a coalition, there wouldn’t be the possibility of crossing the floor. If we’re going to start hurling all sorts of interesting accusations around, at least have our facts straight when we’re going to do it.

I’d like to put it on the record that Kermit the Frog didn’t have it right. It is actually very easy being green.

And since electoral reform — not actually in this bill — keeps coming up in the debates today, let me just say one thing. By joining nearly every other OECD country and bringing in proportional representation, we continue in British Columbia on the journey of suffrage, where votes count and every vote would count under proportional representation. The system we have today leaves people feeling disenfranchised, feeling that if they’re voting in a particular way in a riding that they know will go to a certain party, their vote doesn’t count. This leads to lower voter turnout and increased cynicism, which is very unhealthy for democracy.

The second significant change this bill makes is changing the fixed election date from May to October. This is entirely logical. Changing the election date was a B.C. Green campaign promise, and I’m thrilled to see it realized.

Why does changing the election date matter? For a number of reasons. First, it separates the budget from the election campaign. As it has stood now, in an election year, the party in power is able to use the February budget as a campaign tactic. But by changing the fixed election date to October, we will separate the budgeting process from the campaign by a number of months, ensuring that politically expedient budgets are not cynically introduced simply to score points prior to an election. It’s also important for transparency and for informed decision-making.

The current date means that voters head to the polls without getting the end-of-year financial results of the previous budget, which are usually completed in July. This means that British Columbians have to vote without adequate information to make their decisions. Changing the election date will fix this.

Having the election date in October leaves time for the February budget to be debated and passed at year-end and public accounts to be passed in July, which provides greater transparency and greater accountability. Voters will be able to make informed choices based on audited public accounts and full budgets, and this is critical.

Changing the election date will also end the practice of wasting time, energy and money on a budget before the election, which simply goes unpassed, and on a budget update after the election. I hope that we will see widespread support for this commonsense change in this debate. It’s simply the right thing to do.

I’d like to conclude by saying that this bill takes important steps to modernize our democracy, increase the strength of diverse voices in this House and improve transparency and accountability of government by decoupling the budget process from the campaign period and election. These are important amendments that will change this House for the better and make it a more vibrant and more honest one. I’m very pleased to be supporting it today.

S. Gibson: It’s a pleasure for me to be here today and to speak to Bill 5, the Constitution Amendment Act. I appreciate this opportunity on behalf of our colleagues on this side of the House.

[2:50 p.m.]

It’s an interesting piece of legislation for a number of reasons. I’ll enumerate those here today. It’s notable for the actual proposals within the bill, and I’ll address those a bit more specifically in a moment.

The bill proposes to move our fixed election date to the fall. Our former B.C. Liberal government was very proud to bring in fixed election dates — historical in many ways. It’s something we just take for granted, but of course, our government brought that in. It’s standard practice in virtually every other jurisdiction in Canada, the Commonwealth and Europe.

As members of the House well know, our elections have traditionally been held in the spring, and this is provided for in the current legislation. This proposal, rather, recommends shifting our elections to the third Saturday in October. On one hand, moving election day to a Saturday may be more convenient for voters and could very well improve turnout. This would be a desirable outcome. But there are some other issues we could address as well.

On the other hand, it’s hard to fully believe that the government has introduced this bill with objective intentions, when moving the province’s next fixed election date to October 2021 would give the NDP-Green coalition nearly an extra six months of governing and possibly the chance to pass one more budget in the election lead-up.

If this bill had in fact been written with objective reflection and in good faith, I think they would have adjusted it otherwise. We have seen the government concede rather than expand six months of government. To be truly altruistic, this bill should propose the next election date to be the fall of 2020 rather than the fall of 2021. I have no issue with that and would support it. But due to the obvious self-interest contained within this bill, I’m somewhat cautious.

I’d be happy to have a discussion in this House about the advantages and disadvantages of moving the province’s election date. But it’s difficult to objectively do so and to fully appreciate and believe in the discussion when, in this case, the government hasn’t even tried to disguise what I would characterize, perhaps, as self-interest in the process. So it’s a bit of a disappointment.

I come from a university background, and I appreciate the value of what I’d characterize as neutral discussions around this part of the political process — a difference between theory and practice — and making fair recommendations on how we can improve it. No political system is perfect, and we live in a province that’s changing at a rapid place. I think for all of us that have arrived here, even recently, we realize…. I heard the discussions and remarks a moment ago here from the member across the floor that I think we sometimes struggle with understanding how we make the system more accountable. It’s not perfect, but we’re certainly working to make it better.

It’s a system I’m extremely proud of, having been here over four years, and it’s important to continually analyze the system of government and make sure it’s continuing to work for our citizens. It’s something I believe in, and I believe both sides of the House would share that view. So it’s a little disheartening to see the politics, perhaps, found in this bill.

If this part of the bill was truly focused on strengthening our institutions of government, it wouldn’t be proposing moving back the election date, which I think would make a clear advantage to the tenuous — and I say tenuous, sir — relationship between the NDP government and the Green alliance. I would find it hard to believe this perk is just a coincidence or mistake, especially given the legacy represented here. But over ten years of an NDP government in the ’90s, the NDP only returned to the public twice, calling two elections over the whole decade.

This bill also proposes to lower the threshold of party status. While currently parties must have four members in the Legislature to earn this recognition, this bill proposes lowering that to just two members. Evidently, this legislation would have immediate effects on our three Green Party members, but it’s reasonable to expect it may apply to other parties, of course, in the future.

In June, our former government proposed a similar move, introducing legislation that would change the requirement for party status from four to three, a move that would also have recognized the three Green Party MLAs as an official party in the Legislature.

[2:55 p.m.]

But instead of supporting this bill, our three colleagues across the aisle refused to even read it — just voted it down, despite the fact this bill would clearly have benefited them and was put forward in the spirit of cross-partisan cooperation, which I think is something that we encourage here even today.

Now we see the new government introducing similar legislation, but lowering the party status from three down to two. If passed, this will mean British Columbia has one of the lowest thresholds for party status in Canada, matched by Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, while the first part of this legislation I discussed seeks to extend the mandate, and by extension, the disproportionate influence of their junior partners.

This section was put forward strictly as a condition, I believe, of the power-sharing agreement. That means that, while this bill is presented, offering improvements to the way we do government, really, I think it’s more of a self-serving motivation here, frankly.

I think this government sits on its hands with regard to legislation that would make a real difference, calling for more and more consultation on issues where consultation has been done. When it comes to helping the coalition remain in power, this bill definitely fills the bill. Where are the bills on ride-sharing? What about discussions on transportation improvements and the future of Site C?

The government is reluctant to take a solid position on many of these issues, which are of interest to the public. Instead, we have a publicly funded, political secretariat and bills for public education funding, fall elections and electoral reform. Amazingly, when it comes to some of these substantial decisions, they have real implications for our democracy. I think a level of cynicism could be present, frankly, as we hear more about this, and it doesn’t necessarily have positive implications for our democracy.

To some extent, I would say it trivializes our system of government when government can hide behind consultations for political motives and then make fundamental changes to the way we govern with little or no consultation. This worries me. I think it’s potentially a slippery slope.

I want to thank this House for the opportunity to speak to this, and thank the government for putting forward this initiative. We hope that we can have an opportunity to contribute to a more constructive dialogue as we proceed here in this House.

J. Rustad: It’s a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 5. I wanted to get a few comments….

Interjection.

J. Rustad: The member for Nanaimo says it’s good legislation.

Well, I want to talk a little bit about this piece of legislation. I want to talk about it particularly from the perspective of what the members opposite have been asking for, for quite some time. When I think about it…. In particular, the notion of moving the election date to the fall has been around and debated for a long time. So I accept the premise.

I mean, there was a fudge-it budget in 1996, and everybody understands that’s what happened. If the election had been in the fall, then the fallacy of the ’96 budget would have been revealed and that would have potentially changed it so that a party with 38 percent of the support wouldn’t have ended up governing for five years. I think that’s actually not a bad idea to have this conversation about moving the date to the fall.

But here’s the thing I find most interesting about this. In 2017, there was a bill, M209, that was moved forward by the members opposite that called for the election to be held by, I believe, the first Tuesday in October. That’s fine. Notice the date, though. That’s a Tuesday, not a Saturday. There’s no other jurisdiction in Canada that holds a provincial or federal election on a Saturday. I wonder why. When you think about it, election dates are about the working business of the province.

Saturday, for some people, for certain religions, is the Sabbath. It’s a day of rest. Weekends are days that people like to go away and spend with family. Maybe they go out hunting. Maybe they go fishing. Maybe they go camping. Maybe they go doing other activities because that’s what the weekend is. It’s time to be able to spend with family.

Moving the election date into that Saturday, particularly for a major election as a provincial election, means that for those people, they no longer can participate on those days. Yes, there are other days to vote, but the bottom line is: this is a general election. This is the date for it. It should be available for the majority of people of this province to be able to participate on that election day. Moving it to a Saturday does not actually allow that.

[3:00 p.m.]

What I find interesting…. That bill in 2017, moved by the members opposite, called for the first Tuesday. Also, Bill M204 in 2015 called for the first Tuesday in October. Bill M205 in 2011 called for the second Tuesday in October — Tuesday. Where did this sudden epiphany come from, from members opposite, that moved three bills at least, if not more, calling for a Tuesday? Suddenly they want it on a Saturday? I don’t understand, and it hasn’t been explained well by the members opposite, so I look forward to committee stage, to having this discussion around what exactly they mean by that.

There is one other interesting thing to look at in their bills that they moved. These private members’ bills all called for the election to be in the fourth calendar year following a general election — the fourth calendar year.

What they’re proposing to do here is to put this into the fifth calendar year following an election — suddenly, another epiphany. Could it be a desperate grasp to try to hold on to power for an extra six months before they face the electorate in this province to ask for a true mandate? Could that be what is really driving this as a mandate? Say it isn’t so.

I find it interesting. And you know what? Why don’t we look at this and say: why don’t we use the bills that you have introduced before, these private members’ bills? Why don’t we make it that in the fourth year? That would put it in the fall of 2020, the very thing that our members have been arguing for through the course of this particular debate. Then you could uphold the integrity of private members’ bills that you actually put forward, that you argued for, for years and years, rather than showing to the public that you really are just trying to grab for extra time to potentially be in government.

Makes sense? It’s your own private members’ bills that make that so, so why not move that forward? This place is a wonderful place because it does allow you to look back at arguments that have been made so passionately by members that have an opportunity now to be thinking about those words that they have said.

There’s another thing I want to quickly touch on, as well, which is…. When you look at the bill, it talks about the two-member status. You know what? I’m am in full support that the three members from the Green Party should be considered an official party status. They achieved 15 percent, 16 percent of the vote. I don’t think there should be any challenge to that, even though the member from North Cowichan is obviously talking about moving over, which is why they want to go to two, but that’s fine. We’ll see.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: Sorry. Cowichan Valley. Thank you for that, to the leader of the Green Party, to clarify the move from the member of the party over to the NDP.

However, speaking of that, there’s another bill on the floor that’s coming up, which is going to talk about proportional representation. We’re going to have a chance to be able to debate on that. Why are we talking about the number of members and not about the percentage of vote? If a party receives a certain percentage of vote, they should be considered a party status, whether it’s one member, two members, three members, four members. It doesn’t matter. I’m thinking that could be something that we look at in terms of how you define a party.

There’s a reason why I’m suggesting that, and I’m glad that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head is considering this as a compelling argument. The reason why I’m suggesting this is because if you ended up in a situation where, say, two members from the NDP decide they’re not going to run again, and they’re going to go form a party…. That’s what could happen. You could end up seeing…. Maybe it’s two members from a different party that decide to do that. The point is you could end up having a number of parties that could get created through this process.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: It could be, very easily, from the Liberal Party as well. But the point is that you might end up with a situation that is unintended consequences, but if you do it based on a percentage vote, then you’re in a situation where that type of situation wouldn’t happen. And perhaps it’s four members or more, or a party that receives a certain percentage of vote. In any case, I look forward to moving that in this.

For these reasons that I mentioned, clearly, this bill, in my mind, has not been well-thought-out. It doesn’t actually follow the integrity of private members’ bills that have been brought forward by the members of the NDP in the past. It doesn’t meet the standards that I believe should be met, which is that this government shouldn’t be asking for additional time, because it is a minority government, in this case. It should actually be showing what it’s doing and then going to the people at the earlier date of the fall of 2020.

[3:05 p.m.]

For these reasons, I can’t support this bill in this current form. Having said that, I am fully in support of making some modifications to this bill to see an election that would come in the fall of 2020, rather than 2021, so that it meets the standards that the NDP had asked for, for many, many years, and also to explore this option of the percentage of vote that a particular party gets to be able to form party status as being one of the conditions to be able to actually become a party in this Legislature.

Like I say, for those reasons, I’ll be voting against it. But I hope to be able to make some reasoned amendments to this bill, to allow it to be able to garner full support from all members of this House.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Kelowna–Lake Country. [Applause.]

N. Letnick: Thank you to the members for that warm welcome. I am going to be the last speaker for the opposition, just to advise the minister. My speech is rather short. So perhaps the minister can take that into account, because I believe the minister will be speaking after me — a word to the wise.

We’re talking about Bill 5, fixed election dates. My colleagues have definitely discussed many aspects of the bill — in particular, the aspect of the bill to move the election date to give the government party six extra months of governing, over a 4½-year mandate, should they last that long. Of course, the speculation is: who knows how long it will last? But by passing this bill the way it is, that’s exactly what would happen. So obviously, that’s a big issue.

There are other parts of the bill that I do agree with. But in particular, I don’t support the bill, as presented, because I believe reducing official party status from four to two, being the lowest possible number greater than a single individual, will not serve the interests of the people of British Columbia.

I believe we’re all elected as independents or as members of a political party, and we should be acknowledged in this Legislature as such. So those that are voted in as a member of a political party should actually be acknowledged that way, and I agree with the Green Party that they should be acknowledged as members of the Green Party. Indeed, even an individual who was elected under a party banner should be recognized in B.C. as representing a political party and not as an independent member, for they clearly are not independent from the party apparatus that helped them get elected.

My concern, which I believe is shared by a majority of my constituents, is not with the number of members required to be recognized as an official party in this important institution, but with the rights and benefits that accrue to an individual, or a small collection of individuals, afforded them under the law in British Columbia.

Rights and benefits such as increased costs to taxpayers for higher MLA salaries over that of other MLAs for no greater work; the potential cost to taxpayers for setting up opposition offices in Vancouver; and the guarantee of at least one pair of questions multiplied by every official opposition party of two, if this passes, every day, during a short 30-minute question period, potentially disproportionate with the relative size to the official opposition of the province.

Let me say that again: the guarantee of at least one pair of questions multiplied by every official opposition party of two people, every day, during the short 30-minute question period, potentially disproportionate with the relative size to the official opposition of the province.

Indeed, this bill, along with a series of other bills currently introduced by the government, has only one purpose and one alone, and that is to improve the NDP’s chances at staying in power over subsequent elections by attempting to fracture their opposition and simultaneously make it easier for more of their traditional political base to get out and vote. Sun Tzu, the author of The Art of War, would be proud of the NDP.

I have been listening to the government’s arguments in support of reducing the number from four to two, and I find them unconvincing. The only reason that makes sense to me, given the clear attempt by the NDP to turn our fragile democracy into a game of political chess, is that either they wish to attract a Green member to the NDP ranks, leaving the Greens still with party status, under the proposed bill, or to encourage the members of the opposition, now or in the future, to form their own parties, thereby strengthening the NDP’s hand — or both.

[3:10 p.m.]

Therefore, I will, at the appropriate time, be advancing an amendment to Bill 5 to change the number required to form political party status in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia from two to three. Let us see if the NDP truly want to give the Green Party members the resources they believe they need or if what we are witnessing here is a blatant attempt by the NDP to pull the wool over the eyes of British Columbians in an effort to turn their minority into a majority.

Hon. M. Mungall: I rise to speak to Bill 5. I would like to start my comments with expressing my incredible support for what this bill is actually doing. As somebody who has studied our democratic processes since I was 19 — so that’s about 20 years now — somebody who’s participated in them…. I’ve been interested in our democratic processes since as long as I can remember.

I often tell the story of when I was six years old and the 1984 election. My parents were very proud of who they were voting for at the time. I won’t mention it because it was not this political party that I’m a part of now. I took it upon myself to go door to door to see if my neighbours were voting the same way my parents were. I had no idea that I was, effectively, campaigning for that local candidate. My passion for our democracy has existed for a long time, and I’ve been actively learning about it.

One of the things I think is really important in terms of how this House functions is addressed here, in the very first section of this bill, and that’s changing what constitutes a formal political party, a caucus, in this place — from the existing four members to two or more members. The reason why I think it’s important that we finally do that is that any two people that are aligned in terms of their membership in a political party will be working together. That’s just what’s going to happen. Therefore, I think we need to be formally recognizing that very fact.

If there’s two people here, they’re going to be working together. That’s what they communicated to the people, their voters, when they ran and they said: “I’m with the B.C. First Party.” “Hey, me too”— in another riding — “I’m with the B.C. First Party.” They come to this place, and they were both elected to this place. Obviously, they’re going to be working together. So it’s very important that we recognize that in a formal way.

I’m glad that finally, after years and years of advocacy on this particular issue by people throughout British Columbia who watch our democratic process, we are moving to that transparent, formal recognition. Two people, two members of the same political party who are elected to this place will have official party status, and it will be recognized formally and transparently that they will be working together.

I also think it’s important that we recognize that voting day should be done when the public has access to the actual formal information about our budgetary process and, therefore, how government has actually spent money. I will admit that when I’m on the doorstep every election, between elections, the No. 1 issue that people bring up may not be line item 62 in Public Accounts. But that they have that opportunity to do that is very important.

With that, noting the agenda for the day, I will end my comments. I think this is a very good piece of legislation. I thank the minister responsible for bringing it forward. I look forward to voting in favour of it.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes the debate.

Hon. D. Eby: I’ve had the opportunity to hear a number of the member’s comments in relation to this legislation. I very much appreciate their feedback on it. This is an important piece of legislation and one part of many, in terms of our shared effort to modernize our democracy here in British Columbia.

[3:15 p.m.]

I think that the Saturday voting day will be a very important initiative around trying to improve voter turnout. I was glad to hear some members raising concern around certain groups that have religious observances on Saturday. That is why it was so important that we reached out to those groups and provided an additional number of advance voting days for them, so they have just as many voting opportunities under this bill as they did before the Saturday voting day. I wanted to particularly address that, because it was raised by a few different members.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 5.

Motion approved on division.

Hon. D. Eby: I call second reading of Bill 9, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act.

BILL 9 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
(MINOR CORRECTIONS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be now read a second time. This bill makes minor corrections in housekeeping amendments to various statutes. They’re all straightforward, non-controversial corrections and all minor in nature. The contents of the bill, when read, reflect that.

The office of legislative counsel gathers minor corrections as part of the routine statute revision process. The result of that work is what we have in this bill. The office of legislative counsel takes pride in the work they do and serves this House very well. The changes in the bill are presented before the Legislature so that this Legislature can approve all changes to statutes no matter how small or minor they may appear.

In other words, there’s a very important principle here that people cannot go in and change statutes. They have to have the approval of the Legislature before any changes may be made. The changes need to be done with the authority of this House to ensure B.C. statutes are orderly and correct.

Deputy Speaker: One moment, please. Attorney, there’s a motion that you need to make.

BILL 5 — CONSTITUTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

(continued)

Hon. D. Eby: For Bill 5, I neglected to move this motion. I move that Bill 5 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 5, Constitution Amendment Act, 2017, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 9 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
(MINOR CORRECTIONS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

(continued)

M. Morris: I will be the only speaker on this side of the House for this bill, given that the official opposition is in favour of this act and the salutary goals that it sets out to achieve.

When one considers the many statutes that are brought into force over decades, it’s inevitable that grammatical and other minor errors occur. Societal norms also change, requiring small changes to references to gender and corporate entities. I think all members would agree that as elected officials, we’re very well served by our professional legislative drafters, like the minister referenced. They’re highly informed on all these matters of legal importance, and they pay great attention to detail.

So our hats go off to these folks that spend all their time looking at these issues. Despite that, slip-ups do occur and the laudable intent of Bill 9 is to clean up some of these minor mishaps. Indeed, a miscellaneous statutes bill is not the only vehicle available to keep our statutes in good order.

I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is actually a law in place called the Statute Revision Act. This act empowers the chief legislative counsel, after a consultation with government, to undertake detailed revisions to any statute that by virtue of being amended multiple times has become impossible to easily navigate or understand.

In my previous life, I often faced statutes that were like that. They were increasingly difficult to work with from an enforcement perspective. The resulting refresh statute is in place before a select standing committee of the Legislature for final approval. I must emphasize that the contents of this statute remain exactly the same, but stakeholders and the general public are now able to more easily navigate and appreciate its intent, to navigate its many, many sections.

[3:20 p.m.]

A few years ago, when government on this side of the House supported such a revision of the Insurance Act…. This is a huge act, which over many years was amended many, many times and became incredibly dense and complex. It’s an act which, by its definition, is often referred to by industry professionals and the general public. The resulting refresh statute was greatly welcomed and appreciated by those groups. It’s yet another excellent tool available to elected officials to provide citizens with workable, concise and accurate laws affecting their lives. We are in support of this bill.

A. Weaver: I see that the Attorney General was very excited and wanted to close debate on this very important bill that corrects quite a number of small, minor issues over quite a number of statutes that have occurred over many, many years.

I take my place to speak, obviously, in favour, but I’d like to cover this in a little detail. I think it’s important that we get to the bottom of some of these changes to see how things are playing out. And I must admit these are not trivial changes in some cases.

As the hon. member for Prince George–Mackenzie was able to point out, this, of course, is…. Other tools of doing this…. We have an incredible legislative counsel working with the Attorney General’s office to keep our bills and statutes updated. But as I was reading through this and as I was going through the various bills, checking why a comma was changed, and so forth, it became clear to me that it’s not as easy as one might think to see why the changes occur.

For example, if we start with the very first change in this bill, under Administrative Tribunal Statutes Amendment Act, 2015: “1 Section 70 (b) of the Administrative Tribunals Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, S.B.C. 2015, c. 10, as it amends section 12 (2) (d) of the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 131, is amended by striking out ‘purposes’ and substituting ‘purpose.’” So rather than having purposes, there’s only one purpose.

But this is where it gets confusing. I went to section 10.3, where it said the following. In section 10, for the purposes of section 10.3, we’re directed to the Farm Practices Act. It says “stop a person whom the inspector….” I would have thought that the legislative drafters would have caught that it’s not “whom the inspector,” it’s “who the inspector….” That is grammatically incorrect. I’m not sure that, in fact, the Farm Practices Protection Act was changed in this. But I will point out that later in this, we do have a change in this act where the word “whom” is changed to “who.”

Just bear with me for a second. It’s a very complex and long bill here. Look in the Animal Health Act, No. 2 of the changes. It said: “Section 23 (1) (a) of the Animal Health Act, S.B.C. 2014, c. 16, is amended by striking out ‘whom’ and substituting ‘who’.” I agree with that — grammatically correct, very important to do.

But what I cannot believe was missed in this bill — and frankly, shame on government for missing this — in the change on section 1, it refers specifically to section 12.2(d) of the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act, which says: “stop a person whom the inspector reasonably believes is the person responsible for an animal or an animal product or byproduct.” Shocking, reckless indifference to grammar.

I jest, as I’m sure you might imagine.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Vancouver–West End isn’t sure whether I’m jesting or not.

There will be more of these to come. But it is kind of ironic. As I was actually going through these, I did notice in the first reference, the “whom” wasn’t corrected to “who,” where in the very next thing, the “whom” was corrected to “who,” which is kind of interesting. But it gets complex.

[3:25 p.m.]

When you go to the farm act again, it says: “For the purpose of section 10 (3), respecting engagement or retention of specialists and consultants by the board….” The problem I’ve got here is that it then refers to section 10, which was repealed. So it seems to me, in that we’re correcting something that refers to another act — from “purposes” to “purpose” — which refers to another section that was repealed. So I’m confused. I’m sure that I’ll probe this in thorough detail during committee stage of this bill as we try to get to the bottom of this critical missing section. I could just be in error.

There are many, many such changes here, most of which I’m sure have compelling reasons to actually support…. For example, the third one says…. In the Assessment Act, we’re striking out “sea going” and substituting “sea-going.” Now, that’s important because “sea going” could mean the sea is going, but “sea-going” implies sea-going. There’s a very important difference there, and I’m glad that this is picked out.

Also, in (4), it’s “under the Canada Pension Plan.” But should you not know that the Canada Pension Plan needs to be highlighted…. We’re changing that to highlight Canada Pension Plan in italics, which is an important change for those who recognize that this needs to be brought forward and illustrated as significantly different from the rest.

We can go forward to the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. There’s an “and” added here. It’s very important. Of course, I could see that. We’ve got some section issues. There’s a comma that was needed as well. We’ve got “paragraphs” changing to “paragraph.” Heaven forbid we refer to “paragraphs” instead of just the “paragraph.”

There are many more. One of the more important ones is section 15 of the bill, where we talk about the Forensic Psychiatry Act. It’s critical. This is the Forensic Psychiatry Act. In today’s society, mental health issues are first and foremost in what we’re doing, and heaven forbid that we refer to an “inpatient” rather than “in-patient.” Now, I’m confused about that, and it’s causing me some mental anguish, particularly as it’s in the Forensic Psychiatry Act.

When I look it up in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “inpatient” is “inpatient.” I know it sounds like “impatient,” which I’m sure the members are right now, as I’m speaking, but “inpatient” seems to be okay.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Surrey–White Rock suggests that I do not jest when I say that.

There are many. The Great Bear Rainforest Act, an act brought in very recently. Instead of now saying “new-non GBR,” it’s “new non-GBR.” Not sure quite what the change is in that…. Oh, sorry. The hyphen was in the wrong place. It was “new-non GBR,” and now it’s “new non-GBR.” Another important change.

I could go on. I could on with the many, many changes.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Oh, the member for Chilliwack-Kent would like me to go on.

I want to come to the schedules at the back, where the changes are. There are so many of these commas and others, which are important, obviously. We come to the schedules, and these are some of the most dramatic changes that need to be done.

On page 10 of this bill, it says “in so far” as opposed to “insofar” with no spaces. It’s replacing that in so many places, in 12 different bills. Sloppiness, going back to the 1990s, heaven forbid.

We look at the error. It was made in all the bills. The Arbitration Act, 1996. The Cooperative Association Act, 1999. The Creston Valley Wildlife Act, 1996. The Frustrated Contract Act, 1996. I didn’t know such an act existed. The Interpretation Act, 1996. The labour relations code, 1996. My good friends the NDP here shouldn’t have made the mistake in that one. The Land Title Act, 1996. The Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services Act, 1996. The Offence Act, 1996. The Railway Act, 1996. The Securities Transfer Act, 2007. This error clearly, while originating in the decadent eras of the 1990s, perpetuated through sequential Liberal governments and was not corrected in the 2007 bill, brought in as the Securities Transfer Act. I’m so glad it’s being changed. Grammaticists and spell-checkers around the world are celebrating today.

[3:30 p.m.]

On Schedule 2, I must admit that I don’t understand this. I guess I do. In 13 — 13, no less — bills, most of which were done by the B.C. Liberals, “mail box” is corrected to “mailbox” with no space. Now, that’s important. It is not “male box.” They’re not saying “male box.” I get why some males should be in a box. They’re saying “mail box,” being replaced by “mailbox,” no space. Now, I don’t understand that one. I thought “mail box” was pretty clear that it’s a mail box, but apparently not. So I do appreciate these changes, and I thank government from the bottom of my heart for bringing these changes forward.

We also have, in schedule 3, “merit based processes” being corrected to “merit-based processes” in many, many spaces as well. And finally, schedule 4 on this bill, at the end….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin is taking such an aggrieved point of view about this bill. Oh my goodness.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Cariboo North. I’m so sorry. I’m looking forward to her standing and speaking passionately in support of this, as I’m about to head to Education estimates in about one minute.

The final change that I think needs to be celebrated here today is “self propelled” being corrected to “self-propelled.”

With that, I will self-propel myself back into my seat.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney closes debate.

Hon. D. Eby: I want to thank the member from the opposition for his comments and recognizing the work of legislative drafters and the interesting remarks in relation to the ability of government to reform acts, to improve legibility for members of the public. I also want to thank the leader of the third party for bringing us all together in a way that I had not anticipated through his remarks.

With that, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that Bill 9 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 9, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2017, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Eby: I call Bill 8, the Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2017.

BILL 8 — LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Hon. D. Eby: I move that Bill 8 now be read a second time. This bill introduces a new two-year prohibition on lobbying for all former public office holders, which runs from the date the individual ceases to hold public office. The definition of “former public office holder” includes all those individuals who are currently included in the definition of the act, with the addition of former parliamentary secretaries.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Currently the act does not prohibit former public office holders from lobbying for any period of time after leaving public office. Senior public officials and decision-makers who become lobbyists at least for a time can have more insider knowledge and influence over former colleagues than lobbyists who did not formerly work in similar positions.

The bill also provides a registrar of lobbyists with the discretion to grant exemptions from the prohibition on a case-by-case basis if such an exemption is in the public interest. For transparency and administrative fairness, the registrar will be required to make available to the public every exemption, its terms and conditions, and the reason for the granting the exemption. Non-compliance with the prohibition on lobbying will attract administrative penalties and will be subject to the offence provision in the act.

These reforms will balance the interests of having well-informed policy-makers who contribute to the democratic process and ensure a level playing field for all lobbyists. They will eliminate the potential for undue influence and the improper use of insider knowledge in lobbying.

The bill also adds a new registration requirement for lobbyists who are lobbying a person on the staff of a minister or MLA in order to influence the minister or MLA. In this situation, the act only requires that a lobbyist disclose the name of the minister or MLA on their return. Lobbyists will now be required by law to disclose both the name of the staff person and the name of the minister or MLA in their return.

The new registration amendments will address the public’s concerns with lobbying in the province by increasing transparency and openness in the business of lobbying.

L. Throness: I rise to address the Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, Bill 8. It’s a pleasure to do that.

Before we get to the legislation before us, I want to talk for a moment about the job of lobbying and how it works in this place. It stems from experience I’ve had in another life, when I worked in the House of Commons as a political researcher and assistant for a total 12 years. After some years in opposition, the Conservative government came to power, and I worked for several ministers in four different federal departments, and as such, we were visited daily by stakeholders who had an interest in government policy.

[3:35 p.m.]

I would say on the government of Canada that you cannot get bigger, in the Canadian context, when it comes to stakeholders. The department of agriculture, for instance, has 14,000 employees. They serve nearly 300,000 farmers and an untold number of agribusinesses right across the country. The department regulates on every aspect of farming and on country life right across the nation, so there are strong interests right across Canada.

In this and other departments I’ve worked in, I met with literally thousands of stakeholders over the years when I worked in Ottawa. As a result, there are many lobbyists that I also met with. Although lobbyists generally seem to have a bad name, I think this is unfortunate, because I found them to be good people, people of integrity, and they fill an important niche in how public policy is made.

Let me tell you how lobbyists work to assist the progress of public policy in Canada. Let me give you an example. There may be a business, say in northern B.C., far from Victoria, the owners of which don’t think about politics or politicians. They may not like politics or politicians. They don’t know anything about government or how to approach government. They hear that a certain ministry is going to put in place a regulation that will affect their business in a negative way, and they need to act.

What do they do? They have to do something. Well, they might visit their MLA, and that’s probably a good idea. They might write a letter to the relevant minister or even to the Premier. But really, if they want to be effective, they need to take a more aggressive approach and make themselves known to public servants to explain their objections and let them know just how the new regulation will affect them.

How do they do that? Who do they call? Sometimes they try a direct approach, but they often don’t have time for that or the knowledge to do that. They’re busy doing what they do best. They’re operating their business. In that case, they always have the option of hiring a representative, say in Vancouver or Victoria, usually a lobbyist, to speak on their behalf.

The best lobbyists know their policy files intimately. They’ll lobby in a certain subject area for a long period of time, so they really become experts over the entire span of a career. I’ve met lobbyists who are widely known and appreciated within government and within industry alike. They’re sensible people. They’re trustworthy people. They’ve worked with public servants on files in the past, so they know how government works, and they know who to talk to.

They’ll come in alone or maybe with a business person, their client, along with them to make a presentation to the minister or the minister’s staff or people in the department or ministry so that government officials can understand the impacts their proposed regulation will have on the stakeholder community and make the required adjustment in the regulation.

This is a genuinely important function. Without it, government would often be ignorant of the unintended consequences of its regulations. So as a ministerial assistant, I would breathe a sigh of relief when I heard that a lobbyist was going to come in with a certain stakeholder, because I would know that the lobbyist would have thought carefully about how to explain what is often a complex problem in a short time.

They might have created a PowerPoint presentation and have already decided on a communications and policy approach. They knew exactly what changes were needed to help their industry succeed. This is all very helpful in communicating with government.

Communication from business to government also worked in the opposite direction. For political reasons, there were times when I didn’t want to confront a stakeholder directly — for example, to tell them that they were simply mistaken about a certain policy issue or, more usually, that what they wanted was motivated by their private interest and was not actually in the public interest.

It was a relief to be able to tell the lobbyist that in a very clear way so that he or she could figure out how to communicate that to their client and perhaps come back again with some kind of a negotiated suggestion — without having a big confrontation directly with their client. The lobbyist acted as a kind of mediator that both sides could trust.

The profession of lobbying is a beneficial one in the context of public policy, and that’s why we have a Lobbyists Registration Act. The act itself is an acknowledgment that lobbying has a legitimate place in B.C. Yes, we want it to be transparent. We want it to visible. We on this side of the House passed that legislation way back in 2001. We created this window of transparency into how government works, so we are fully supportive of the concept.

Moreover, the Lobbyists Registration Act was amended in 2010 to make lobbyists registration mandatory, to expand the powers of the registrar, to enforce the act, to create an on-line registry to allow citizens to see who is lobbying which public officials with respect to which issues. We were at the vanguard of openness and transparency, and we are proud of that.

[3:40 p.m.]

Now to the bill before us, Bill 8. There are really only two relevant sections we need to look at: section 2 and section 5. The first, section 2, adds the definition of “former public office holder” to the other definitions at the beginning of the existing Lobbyists Registration Act. The government is simply taking that definition from another place in the existing act — which has always been there, purely for reporting purposes — and moving it into the definition section, as is, except for the addition of parliamentary secretaries in the bill before us. For our purposes in this bill, then, former public office holders include former cabinet ministers, parliamentary secretaries, political staff who work for either and, in addition, several categories of senior public servant.

The second clause that we need to look at in this bill, the most important clause, is section 5, which simply prohibits former public office holders from lobbying for two years after the date the person ceased to be a public office holder.

Now, in general, on this side of the House, we think that a cooling-off period is a reasonable idea, so we will, in the end, be supporting the bill. I would point out that federal public office holders are banned from lobbying for five years, which some think unreasonable. Indeed, it has proven to be a hardship for some of my colleagues who worked with me for many years in Ottawa and desired to stay on to become lobbyists after their political work was done. So we think that the two-year period is generally a reasonable thing.

However, I would point out that the two-year period differs from a report in 2013 by Elizabeth Denham, who was then the lobbyist registrar. As we know, the registrar is an independent officer of this Legislature, and she put out a report called Lobbying in British Columbia: The Way Forward in 2013. This final report, which followed an earlier report and extensive consultations, recommended several legislative changes, but in respect to the cooling-off period, Ms. Denham recommended something quite different than this legislation offers.

While the registrar considered a 24-month ban on lobbying after employment, she finally rejected that idea and recommended a 12-month cooling-off period instead, not the two-year period laid out in this legislation. Allow me to quote from her report. “In making a recommendation on this point,” she said: “I recognize the need to balance the public benefit of having well-informed policy-makers contribute to the policy process and the goal of fair access to influence government decision-making for all citizens.” To the registrar, it was a matter of balance. We don’t want undue influence, for sure, but neither do we want to deprive good people of a good career while their knowledge is still relevant in this fast-moving, fast-paced information age.

The registrar herself considered the two-year period carefully and rejected it. Why would the government not follow this recommendation? On this side of House, we don’t quite understand that, and we’ll be questioning the minister about that in committee stage.

Now I want to address a negative aspect of this bill, which is the retroactive nature of the bill. It reveals for us, whether intentional or not, a nasty side effect of this legislation. This legislation will be retroactive. The two-year ban on lobbying will apply to former public office holders. That includes any former MLA who worked as a cabinet minister or a parliament secretary and anyone who worked in their offices as political staff.

Now, the two-year ban would not be applicable to several categories of people, and I want to name those categories. It will not apply to someone who left the office more than two years ago. That’s obvious. They’re not at all prohibited from lobbying now. It will have no effective impact on former cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries either, because they’re already covered by the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act, which already requires a 24-month cooling-off period. So as I understand it, this legislation, while redundant, will have no additional impact on former cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries and is really not relevant to our debate here.

Finally, NDP or B.C. Liberal political staff who work for MLAs who are not cabinet ministers or parliamentary secretaries and who lost their jobs in the turmoil of the election are not covered by this bill either. They can lobby right away if they can get a job in that field.

So who will it impact? Who am I talking about? Well, the election on May 9 caused a lot of unrest in this place, on both sides of this House, because not all members were re-elected on either side, and their political staff had to find other jobs. In particular, about 120 political staffers on the government side were ejected from the offices of ministers and parliamentary secretaries after the election, and this legislation will apply to them — all those political staffers defined in this bill as former public office holders who worked for a cabinet minister or a parliamentary secretary.

[3:45 p.m.]

Now, most former political staff are young people who need to continue to work. They need to find jobs right away. A number of them will naturally want to stay in the business of public policy. Some of them have already received jobs in the past months. As lobbyists, they’re already working. This legislation could cause them to lose their jobs or make them unemployable in the industry for the next year and a half, which by then, may be too late for them to join in the industry.

In fact, they had no idea that this legislation was coming or what the legislation would say. They may have made decisions about their careers. They’ve passed up good opportunities and made other decisions that may be irrevocable. They may have been putting their lives on hold for the past six months, preparing for a career in the industry, and have been now blindsided by this piece of legislation. We feel that this is deeply unfair to them, and it leaves the government open to the possibility of lawsuits, to the cost of fighting those lawsuits and the cost of compensation if and when they lose those lawsuits.

If someone is working in a perfectly legitimate and legal profession, the government can’t simply make that occupation illegal when it was legal before. I think the government will lose in court should they try to find someone in breach of this law if they received a lobbying job prior to the law’s passage. So the risk of a legal challenge is a needless liability for the taxpayer, while being simply unfair to former staff members.

Now, I want to be fair here myself. I want to note that under section 5 of this proposed piece of legislation, the lobbyist registrar can choose to exempt someone from the 24-month requirement of the bill if he considers it in the public interest to do so. But he doesn’t need to do that. And I think he would only do that in exceptional cases because the intent of this bill is, of course, to prohibit lobbying, for political staff and others who have just lost their jobs, for a period of 24 months. But I would encourage the lobbyist registrar to consider the public interest carefully in this case, considering that some people have already found jobs.

Further, I would submit that there is no reason for the retroactivity to apply to former government staff. The ostensible reason itself for a cooling-off period is that friends of the government might have special access to government circles after they’ve quit their jobs and thereby enjoy undue influence in government so soon after they’ve left office.

In this case, I would point out that we have a different government in place, a government that changed hands. Those who may have received a lobbying job a few months ago can be assured that they will not have special access to their friends in office because their friends are sitting today in opposition. They’re no longer part of government. Therefore, there can be no undue influence. Therefore, there is no reason to include them retroactively in this legislation, especially after some have already found jobs in the lobbying industry, which I would remind this House is a perfectly legitimate industry.

The government might ameliorate this situation by exempting those people from the legislation or by simply making it public that they think that it would be in the public interest for the lobbyist registrar to make exceptions in their cases. We on this side would certainly consider it in the public interest to do so, and, no doubt, the lobbyist registrar is watching this debate.

But our greatest concern is not about who is included in this legislation. It’s who is absent from it, who is excluded from the legislation — about those who are left out. For example, there is a great advantage for former NDP members who are not in cabinet or parliamentary secretary positions and their political staffers. They’re not covered by this bill and could right now be lobbying the government — and I believe there are some who are — with impunity, with no cooling-off period. For them, there is the real possibility of undue influence because they will be lobbying a friendly government. I would repeat that this legislation fails to capture them.

There are other categories of people who are not included. Employees of the confidence and supply secretariat have access to all sorts of insider information, but they’re not included. They’re making friends at the highest level of government, but they’re not included. They’re having briefings. They’re having meetings. They’re getting to know people. Their influence is growing, but they are not included. Neither are MLAs belonging to the Green Party or their political staff. The confidence and supply agreement lists the confidential briefings and the other insider information they will receive. They’re constantly in touch with the senior levels of government, but they’re conveniently omitted from the bill before us.

There is a further issue which causes the opposition some alarm. The federal Conflict of Interest Act includes the Prime Minister’s transition team as public office holders, but this legislation omits the Premier’s transition team — even though the Attorney General said that they were modelling this act roughly after the federal legislation. Those transition members have had rich contracts with special access to the Premier’s office and all cabinet ministers in recent months. They have already exercised enormous influence.

[3:50 p.m.]

Perhaps they have even placed cabinet ministers in their posts. They’ve made decisions about which cabinet minister sits in what seat. They may have given parliamentary secretaries or deputy ministers or other senior officials their jobs, and those people may all feel beholden to one or more of the transition team members. Yet members of the Premier’s transition team — by definition, members of his inner circle — can begin to lobby immediately. It’s okay, according to the government, to let them use their influence. We must not underestimate that influence to lobby government because they are not defined in this legislation as former public office holders.

I further want to highlight the deep connections of the transition team members to union interests. We know that the NDP are joined at the hip to the union movement. But I would remind the NDP government that things are different now. They can’t forget that they are on the other side now. They are on the management side. They are the gatekeepers of the public purse. The interests of management and of unions often diverge, particularly with respect to the cost of higher wages and more costly working conditions for dozens of thousands of government workers.

To allow transition team members, who have such close ties with top union officials, to manage the transition team and then lobby at the highest levels of government inserts the economic interests of unions — which, in many cases, is contrary to the interests of taxpayers — at the most senior levels of public service. Now they will begin to lobby immediately with impunity. This is hardly in the public interest.

Let me summarize so far. Government staffers have been intentionally barred from lobbying, but former MLAs and former NDP staffers can lobby a friendly government immediately. The NDP will allow any and all of the Premier’s influential transition team to lobby right away, in addition to the Green Party members and their staff and members of the confidence and supply secretariat.

The facts suggest to the opposition that this legislation has something of a partisan motivation. We see it as aimed directly at a vulnerable group of former government political staffers who, by definition, would not be able to exercise undue influence anyway because of the change in government. Since there is no danger of undue influence, this bill is trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. The opposite partisan motivation exists for friends of the government. NDP staffers and former MLA offices can lobby immediately, as can powerful transition team members and others I have mentioned. In other words, NDP insiders are off the hook in this bill.

I want to highlight one more concern, and that’s section 9 of Bill 8 before us, which gives cabinet the power to make regulations designating any position in the provincial government a former public office holder. This is a wide-open door for government to quietly make changes through an order-in-council that could be harmful in the future. I certainly want to question the government in committee about what they anticipate doing with that section.

To our mind, there should be an amendment to this bill. The government should add transition team members to the definition of former public office holder, knowing that, in the future, it will apply to B.C. Liberal transition team members once power inevitably changes hands again. This also should include employees of the confidence and supply agreement secretariat, Green MLAs and their staff, all of whom are privy to many government secrets through the confidence and supply agreement.

We will ask the government to make this change in committee. If they agree to this, we would be willing to support that entire section. Otherwise, we will be voting against this section when it is considered in committee. I would urge the government simply to amend this section so that we can vote for it.

In summary, in conclusion, we on this side were the authors of the original piece of legislation that this bill amends. We support, in general, the principle of transparency and openness that it requires, and we don’t oppose the idea of a cooling-off period for former public office holders. We think, however, that its application is deeply unfair against those who may already have found jobs as lobbyists and are now being cut off at the knees by this legislation. We feel strongly that transition team members and others need to be added to the bill. NDP insiders who were guiding the top decisions of government just a few months ago should not be allowed to lobby for that 24-month period in order to preclude any perception or reality of undue influence on the government.

We look forward to further debate on the bill. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to it today.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: I’m rising to speak today in support of Bill 8, which we’re presently debating. I’m very supportive of cleaning up how people are able to influence government. I think that British Columbians around the province want to be reassured that how decisions are being made, who is advocating for what and who is influencing any potential decisions are all done in a very transparent manner and in a way that doesn’t use privileged access to information and relationships that could be seen as unfair.

Now, I was listening to the member opposite’s comments about how it might be unfair to have a two-year period before anybody who had held office, or anybody who had worked in a minister’s office, to actually…. That two-year period — that two-year cooling-off period, so to speak — would somehow be unfair, especially considering that we’ve had a recent change of government. I wholly disagree with that.

The primary things that need to be driving this decision-making process are transparency and public accountability, not fairness to your friends. That’s why I think that this bill has hit the right mark. We’re seeking to ensure that public confidence in how government decision-making takes place is there. We’re not here to protect our friends or our former staff or our former colleagues in the way that the Liberal member was suggesting. We’re here to ensure the public interest is met.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Mungall: To that effect…. I hear lots of mumbles across the way. I’m sure they’re very disappointed in having a two-year cooling-off period. In fact, it doesn’t really surprise me, when we consider the past 16 years and what had been going on in other areas of that administration. We’ll all recall how B.C. was deemed the Wild West of political financing and how inappropriate and embarrassing that….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Mungall: No, that was incredibly embarrassing for all British Columbians. I know you guys liked it, and that’s why you’re chattering around right now. But actually, British Columbians found it embarrassing to be called the Wild West of political financing. Sorry that upsets you so much, Member.

All the same, it’s the exact same thing in this particular situation. It’s about bringing integrity back to government so that the public can have confidence in how….

Interjections.

Hon. M. Mungall: Oh, they cannot stop, can they? They cannot stop. They’re so upset at this concept. They’re so upset at the concept of public accountability, of integrity in government, aren’t they? Please.

A two-year cooling-off period. That’s essentially what this bill is about. Public accountability. Making sure that we have transparency and that we limit the influence of those with inside knowledge on government policy-making. That’s exactly why we want to be dealing with this issue and ensuring that lobbyists have not been involved with government, in terms of the executive council, in terms of parliamentary secretaries and senior staff.

[4:00 p.m.]

Who does that all include? Let me communicate that for all members of this House. This is exactly who this bill will be affecting: obviously, former cabinet ministers and their political staff; parliamentary secretaries, as I mentioned; deputy ministers; ministry CEOs; associate deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers or any positions of an equivalent rank in a ministry; and the two most senior positions and board members of universities, institutions, school boards, health authority boards, hospitals and organizations in the natural resources and economic development sector, transportation and social services sectors, the Workers Compensation Board and a number of Crown corporations, agencies as well as associations.

That is who is going to be impacted by this bill, to make sure that those people who had intimate knowledge of government programs, policy and decision-making are not using that knowledge the day that they get out of those positions and then use that to influence government and, obviously, get paid to do so. Because that is the job of lobbyists. They are getting formally paid to support organizations, to build relationships and influence government decision-making.

I’m not, by any stretch, saying that people who work in government relations are not useful and not doing a good job and don’t work with the highest integrity. I’ve met many, many people over the years, obviously, who have demonstrated incredible integrity and a very strong dedication to the organizations for which they are working, to ensure that government is informed about the issues that are of concern to British Columbians, to a particular industry, to a particular sector, to a particular social service sector, for example. These people….

It’s not that they are doing a bad job or they’re inherently problematic in the system. It’s not that at all. It’s that we want to ensure that there is a level playing field. And we want to ensure that there’s no undue influence….

Interjections.

Hon. M. Mungall: Wow, the chatter doesn’t stop. I am so honoured that the heckling never seems to stop any time I get up. Thank you so much to the members opposite for letting me know that they are awake and listening.

We have identified a two-year cooling off period, as I mentioned, for these particular individuals, when they leave government, before they’re actually allowed to step forward and then lobby government — use that knowledge that they garnered while under the employ of government and step forward.

But that’s not to say that the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists is not able to make exemptions. We have definitely allowed for that in this legislation, recognizing that that particular individual, the office of the registrar, is the body that actually oversees the lobbyists in this province and has a fulsome understanding of who is doing what. And they hold that information on behalf of British Columbians.

The registrar is able to make exemptions if they deem that it is in the best interest of the public. I think that’s appropriate. They’ll be able to look at all of the details and determine whether somebody is, in fact, not using their previous employ in an undue manner. So that option is there. However, if somebody should do that, we do acknowledge that there will be penalties. There will be administrative penalties up to $25,000. That’s what we are putting forward. Therefore, there are mechanisms of accountability.

Now, we’re not alone in this approach. A lot of other jurisdictions are doing that. At the federal level, the federal government’s Lobbying Act, for example, prohibits designated public office holders to lobby government for a period of five years. So at the federal level they’re looking at five years. Here, we are looking at two, which is in line with a lot of other provinces. Some other provinces have a one-year prohibition. Saskatchewan has only six months for anybody who wasn’t a cabinet minister. Cabinet ministers have a one-year prohibition.

I believe that augmenting that to two years is a better approach, obviously, because I’m in support of this bill. The reason I do is that by the time you have that two years, especially into a new government….

[4:05 p.m.]

Or say you’ve had a government that was even around for, let’s say, 16 years. I feel that two years gives enough opportunity for distance to occur between that individual and their knowledge of what went on within government and the government of the day. I think it does a better job than just one year, than essentially one budget cycle. So two budget cycles, I think, does a better job of that. At the end of the day, we’re here to do the best job we possibly can for British Columbians, and that’s why I think that two years is better than one.

Some other points that I want to make. I mentioned the exemption and that the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists will be able to provide exemptions, if they believe that’s in the best interests of the public. I’ll give you an example of what could possibly trigger an exemption. That would be if the former public office holder were in office for a short period of time or had limited influence in their ministry. However, this will always — always — be at the discretion of the registrar.

It’s not the discretion of the government of the day. It’s the discretion of an independent office holder of the Legislative Assembly, as a whole, who will be reviewing the details of that person’s particular employ with government and then be able to determine whether it is fair to exempt that person or not. I would say that for transparency and administrative fairness, the registrar will be required to make available to the public every single exemption, its terms and conditions and the reasons for granting the exemption so that the public can see what’s going on, and they can know exactly why the registrar made that decision.

I also wanted to mention…. I believe it should be noted that one of the things that this act also does is require that lobbyists list to whom they are specifically speaking to. My understanding presently is that lobbyists are required to just say: “We’re speaking to a particular ministry or to a particular caucus.” We want to narrow that down even further so that the public has complete knowledge of who, specifically, lobbyists are speaking to so that they know where the actual transfer of communication is, where the influence may be happening, where information may be transferred, and so on. The public has a right to know this, so we’re formalizing that with this act.

I will wrap up by saying that I think that it’s very important for us in this place to consistently be mindful of how we ensure that the public has confidence in what we do here on their behalf. There’s no doubt about it. Many people who are working in government relations do a formidable job in ensuring that the organizations for whom they work, whether they be a non-profit, whether they be a corporation — that they’re assisting those entities to provide government with information so that we are able to make better decisions, so that we are better informed. That is an important activity in government.

That being said, it needs to be done in a way that is transparent and gives the public confidence. I think that it’s important since the last time we saw any update to the Lobbyists Registration Act was 2009. We’ve learned from practices since then. I think it’s important that we take those learnings and actually implement them into law so that the public can have confidence that government is making decisions in a transparent way on their behalf.

At the end of the day, the integrity of this place is paramount, and it only exists if the public has confidence. I believe this bill will go to ensure public confidence in the way in which people advocate on behalf of organizations who employ them to do so, and it’ll ensure that those who are doing that advocacy are not using undue experience and knowledge of government programs and insider information that is not appropriate.

[4:10 p.m.]

With that being said, I again reiterate my support for this bill. I thank the minister responsible, the Attorney General, for putting this together, bringing it forward and allowing us to have this debate and restore public confidence in the way in which B.C.’s government operates.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Saanich North and the Islands. [Applause.]

A. Olsen: Wow. I’m speechless.

Interjection.

A. Olsen: Okay, all right.

Thank you, hon. Speaker, for this opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill 8, the Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act.

The 2017 election was fundamentally an election about trust. Do British Columbians trust each of the political parties and we, as elected officials, to act on their behalf. Sadly, we’ve seen trust in government and in politicians consistently erode over the past several decades to the point where politicians are now one of the least-trusted professions. We, as elected officials, have a duty to change that. This is a duty that I and my colleagues take very, very seriously.

Lobbying reform is one of a suite of commitments to rebuild trust in government that formed one of the central pillars of the B.C. Greens’ election platform. It stood alongside campaign finance reform, electoral reform, increased transparency and accountability of government performance. To rebuild public trust, we must demonstrate through actions that we as elected officials put British Columbians, not special interests, first in our decision-making.

This bill is also important to me because it was one that originated in our platform. The B.C. Greens was the only party that clearly committed, in our platform, to broad-based lobbying reform. In signing the supply and confidence agreement with the government, we insisted that the first steps of lobbying reform be implemented in this first sitting of the Legislature. So we’re very happy to be able to stand and speak to this bill today.

We recognize that the government may need to do some more consultation — in fact, wide consultation — to arrive at a more comprehensive set of lobbying reforms. Yet there were clear, important changes that we could make now, without delay, to bring our lobbying industry into line with other jurisdictions.

In our consultations with the NDP, we made it clear that we had three priority outcomes for our lobbying reform: (1) increased transparency of lobbying and accountability of lobbyists, (2) reduce undue influence of special interests on government decisions and (3) bring B.C. standards in line with other jurisdictions.

This bill, as it stands now, represents one piece of a larger number of reforms that the B.C. Greens will push forward to improve our lobbying industry and to help restore public trust in government. The bill takes an important step forward, so I will support it. However, as I have said in the media, we also believe more comprehensive reforms are needed, and this bill on its own, I don’t believe, goes far enough.

I’ll briefly review the priority outcomes and speak to the ways in which this bill advances these outcomes and the steps we must take to move us forward.

First, increasing transparency of lobbying and the accountability of lobbyists. In her report, Lobbying in British Columbia: The Way Forward, the former registrar of lobbyists, Elizabeth Denham, notes that lobbying is a natural and important part of the democratic landscape.

As the report reads:

“Lobbyists come from all walks of life. They are employees and contractors of non-profit associations seeking additional funding for out-of-school care, local businesses seeking changes in law enforcement policies, multinational corporations seeking to increase investment opportunities, chambers of commerce seeking business tax exemptions and environmental groups seeking to protect indigenous species of plants. They are employees and contractors of any organization seeking to influence public policy decisions….

“The truth is that lobbying is an important part of the political decision-making process. Politicians and other public servants cannot be expected to know and understand every angle of an issue, and lobbyists bring valuable information and expertise to the decision-making process.”

[4:15 p.m.]

Yet a problem arises when the lobbying occurs in back rooms and without adequate transparency. People start to wonder who is influencing whom and doubt whether their elected officials are truly representing their interests. Indeed, the Lobbyists Registration Act, which regulates lobbying in British Columbia, is designed to promote greater transparency so British Columbians know who is lobbying whom, on what topic and for what purpose.

Right now lobbyists are required to register who they intend to lobby and who they have lobbied. Unfortunately, this approach has undercut the goal of transparency. The problem is that the registry doesn’t differentiate between the two, so the public doesn’t actually have any way of knowing which meetings actually occurred. Some lobbyists will even submit an undertaking to lobby every MLA, just to cover their bases. Where it was intended to increase transparency, the registry in some ways actually helps obscure the real and meaningful lobbying that occurs.

For this reason, I would like to see the requirement to disclose one who intends to lobby be removed from the act and replaced with the requirement to disclose who one did lobby, within ten days of that lobbying occurring. This approach offers the added benefit of real-time disclosure so that the public doesn’t have to wait for updated filings six months after a meeting may have occurred. The registrar made this recommendation in a report, and we should ensure that we do what we can to bring it to fruition.

Two, reduce undue influence of special interests on government decisions. At the heart of restoring public trust in government is the need to reduce the influence of special interests in our political system. The Election Amendment Act takes an important step forward in this regard by eliminating corporate and union donations and limiting individual contributions to $1,200 per year.

The Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act also takes an important step forward by introducing a two-year prohibition on lobbying for former senior public office holders. Prohibitions of this nature have become commonplace in jurisdictions across the country. They come from a recognition that senior public office holders often have access to relationships and information that can give them, the organizations that they lobby for, an outsized influence.

Indeed, there are many examples in B.C. of the revolving door that has occurred between government and the lobbying sector, which only serves to undermine public trust in government. A two-year prohibition on lobbying, while not a perfect fix, will help limit the likelihood that former senior public office holders are able to use sensitive and confidential information to influence their lobbying efforts.

Three, bring B.C. standards in line with other jurisdictions. Sadly, over the past decade, B.C. has fallen behind most other jurisdictions on lobbying. For instance, federally, the government had imposed a multi-year prohibition on lobbying, back in 2008. Here we are, nearly ten years later, finally bringing our standards in line.

Indeed, the registrar’s report on lobbying in British Columbia outlines 13 recommendations, most of which are not included in this legislation. These recommendations are significant, and they should be considered, and they should be acted upon.

[4:20 p.m.]

They include: adopting “those parts of a code of conduct that strengthen transparency in lobbying, support existing ethical standards for public office holders and enhance public decision-making processes”; requiring lobbyists to disclose to public office holders that they are lobbying, on whose behalf they are lobbying and to identify any third-party interests that are funding or directing their lobbying; tightening up prohibitions on lobbyists offering gifts and benefits to public office holders; requiring “designated filers to identify other persons or organizations that control or direct the lobbying activities and-or have a direct interest in the outcome of the lobbying, including agencies that fund or direct activities of an organization or client represented in a lobbying effort”; and requiring a mandatory review.

These recommendations are all designed to ensure greater transparency and accountability, to establish minimum standards for ethical conduct of lobbyists to ensure that our lobbying regime is robust enough to help restore the public’s faith in their government.

I am pleased that the government has committed to doing a comprehensive review within the next year to consider these additional elements. That review could build on and yet go beyond the great work that the registrar of lobbyists has done in her report. It could start with the recommendations of the registrar, and yet it should recognize that reforming our lobbying industry is also a matter of restoring public trust in government, and that must include a public conversation about the role that lobbying plays in our province and the measures that would offer British Columbians even a greater sense of confidence in the lobbying process.

Of course, the expectation with the review is that it will culminate in a bill that will enact the recommendations that result from this review. In the meantime, can we strengthen this now? Perhaps. But, after all, the most important thing that this minority government can do is earn the trust of British Columbians. I and my colleagues will continue to bring forward concrete, actionable proposals to the table to strengthen British Columbians’ trust in their government. HÍSW̱ḴE.

M. Morris: It was the B.C. Liberals that brought the original Lobbyists Registration Act in, in 2001 and further amended it in 2010 for a number of reasons that have been reflected here in the House this afternoon.

I go back to some of the work that I did prior to becoming a politician, working with the B.C. Trappers Association and some other organizations. If it wasn’t for lobbyists, guys like myself — and there are thousands of people out there right now — would have extreme difficulty finding their way and navigating their way through the political system that we have. It doesn’t matter whether it’s in British Columbia or whether it’s in any other province in this great country that we live in. If it wasn’t for lobbyists….

My colleague from Chilliwack-Kent talked about his experience in that regard. Lobbyists play a very significant role in helping people navigate through the systems that we have here, whether it’s political or at the senior bureaucratic level.

There’s this notion out there that the lobbyists are…. They conjure up all kinds of notions of nefarious activities and nefarious actions out there. I haven’t seen that. There has been the odd case. I worked for years as a police officer, and I saw all kinds of nefarious activities. People had taken advantage of the position that they were in, breach of trusts. There are a number of things out there. I often found that legislation and policies were written so stringently to try and prevent a lot of those things from taking place that they actually hampered the work that those legitimate people were trying to do at the end the day.

I hope we don’t go down that road with this particular legislation here. Like I said, we brought it in, in 2001, and I think it served its purpose well.

We also believe that the two-year cooling-off period is appropriate. It’s appropriate for people moving from political life into the private sector. They take a lot of knowledge with them. And for that reason, we’ll support this bill.

But there are problems with the bill. The retroactivity portion of this bill causes some concern for me.

[4:25 p.m.]

We have some great senior workers, some great senior staff that worked in government prior, who are now out in the field. They got jobs within the industry, very legitimate jobs in the industry, providing some significant assistance to various sectors across the province that rely on lobbyists to help them navigate through the system, particularly with the new government.

These people have gone out. They’ve got a job. And with this retroactive portion of this bill that I have problems with, it is now going to affect these people that have got these legitimate jobs and is basically going to put them out of work, not unlike some of the other things that have happened here with Site C. Now we’re looking at fish farms with people out of work. Now we’re going to look at previous senior government staff that have legitimate jobs out there that are going to lose their livelihood.

I’m just wondering whether this government has put much thought into that, to have a look at that, notwithstanding the fact — and it’s been identified here already — that there will be a court challenge to that. If I was sitting in one of those positions, I would certainly be looking at that avenue of redress.

You go out, and you lawfully take employment to support your family, to support your livelihood, and you have somebody come along at the end of day and take that opportunity away from you. I think that’s something that really needs to have a close scrutiny and some reflection to make sure that that doesn’t happen.

The bill also has some glaring exceptions. It only applies to former government officials, not NDP officials. Insiders like former MLAs, former senior staff, former party executive members, employees in the confidence and supply agreement secretariat that the public taxpayers are funding, Green Party MLAs with full access to insider information or even the Premier’s powerful transition team that he’s put together are not included in the two-year prohibition. I think that’s a glaring error here.

The way this amendment reads right now, it’s penalizing the former government people for the great work they did while they were in government. Again, as my colleague for Chilliwack-Kent reflected upon, the senior government people were working for the B.C. Liberals when we were in government. They had some connections with various members at the senior level within that government — probably not as many connections now with an NDP government. There wasn’t a lot of liaison with those senior people with an NDP government, and they don’t have those connections.

I think this legislation needs to expand to include individuals within the NDP and the Green Party to ensure that those individuals will not be unduly influenced in the lobbying industry itself. NDP insiders are given free rein, including the transition team that’s already received $300,000 from taxpayers in those lucrative direct-award contracts that we’ve heard about in the House here.

So instead of putting forward the comprehensive reforms, as the Attorney General has promised, this bill is simply just another broken NDP promise that punishes former government staffers and gives the advantage to NDP friends and insiders.

We’d like the government to amend the legislation to exempt political staffers who are casualties of the 2017 election. It’s totally unfair to have these people who go out and get legitimate jobs to be told at the end of day, if this legislation passes in the form it’s in right now, that they’re out of work.

Of course, this is a bad time of year. We’ve got Christmas coming up. We’ve got the cold weather coming up. We’ve got a number of factors at play here that will impact significantly on the people that are already working within this field as professionals.

I think my colleague for Chilliwack-Kent reflected on the fact that this legislation is trying to solve a problem that really doesn’t exist. It might exist perhaps in the minds of some of the folks sitting across the hall from us here, across the House here. But in essence, I think that they’re making a mountain out of a molehill here.

Two main sections in the bill. The first one defines former public office holders, and the second prohibits them from lobbying for two years after they leave office. Again, we said we don’t have a real problem with the two-year period of time, but we do have problems with the retroactive portion of this.

[4:30 p.m.]

Of course, we’ll have a chance to debate this at the committee stage, but I think that really needs to have a close look. There’s no doubt in my mind that it will cause some reaction that might cause some legal challenges against that section, cost taxpayers more money at the end of the day and protract the whole legitimacy of whatever the government is trying to intend to do with this.

The two-year lobby and prohibition will retroactively apply to former public office holders — defined as cabinet ministers, parliamentary secretaries and their political staff; deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers and positions of equivalent rank; and the two most senior positions of provincial entities, such as universities, school boards, hospitals, Crown corporations, etc. The prohibition from lobbying is across the board and is not restricted to the portfolios the individual has worked on. It’s an all-encompassing piece of legislation — or these amendments — that I think go too far, are too broad and are too restrictive at the end of the day.

We would like to see the government amend section 2 to exempt political staffers who were casualties of the 2017 election, to ensure that we don’t impact on their lives any further. As we all know, in an election process, we don’t come into this naive. We understand the election process does cause some significant changes, particularly when there’s a forum or a change in government here. But I think to provide some stability for the individuals that are working in this industry right now, that were former senior staffers within the previous government, would be a good step to ensure that they’ve got some stability in their lives. There’s enough instability in this province right now with the approaches that this government has taken to a lot of the different initiatives that we see. I think we should try and limit that to the extent possible.

The updates that this government is anticipating here, I think, like I said, we applaud the fact that they still recognize the legitimacy of this particular statute. Again, the amendments…. We support the two years. We just need them to have a look at section 2 — the definition — to make sure that it includes the NDP staffers, the folks in the Green Party that are working within the secretariat, MLAs, and that it is not retroactive to affect the senior employees that we had in the 2017 election that are now working out in the field as lobbyists.

So, unless those amendments take place, we will not be supporting it in the form that it is right now.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. J. Sims: I’m happy to rise today and speak in favour of Bill 8, the Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act. In this past election, British Columbians said loud and clear that enough is enough. They want a government that is working for them.

For 16 long years, we’ve had a government that cared only about those at the top. They gave massive tax breaks to giant corporations and the top 2 percent of income earners, while life got more expensive for hard-working British Columbian families. Theirs was the government of triple delete and “win-at-all-costs.” That side of the House made government opaque, and the people of British Columbia lost confidence in their government.

I found it interesting, Madame Speaker, before you came in, that the speaker before me said that this legislation is trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. I find that intriguing, because British Columbians I talk to did see a problem when those who have sat in the executive or senior staff end up being lobbyists, straight after finishing working or finishing their term.

[4:35 p.m.]

It, once again, shows that you have a government — or we had a government — that is now sitting in opposition that lost touch with British Columbians, if they really believe that there isn’t a problem that needs to be fixed. Plus, calling it — that this legislation is making lobbying, on the amendments we’re making here — making a mountain out of a molehill….

Once again, let me tell you that British Columbians care very, very carefully. They are worried not only about the wild, Wild West of election finance; they’re also very, very concerned about insiders — whether they’re cabinet ministers, whether they’re senior staff, whether they’re deputy ministers, parliamentary secretaries — having inside information and then, upon finishing their term, going straight in, with that wealth and depth of knowledge, to make a living for themselves. That, they believe, gives them undue influence.

Nobody is saying that all lobbying should stop. Lobbying is part of the democratic process. But when lobbyists have inside information that others are not privy to, then we have a problem. Then that is an interference with the democratic process, and that’s what this bill is trying to prevent.

Well, British Columbians have a new government, a government that is focused on the people of British Columbia, where decisions that are made keep people at the centre — people at the centre. We know that British Columbians want a government that works for them, a government that listens and works to make life better, a government that is focused on growing decent-paying jobs and at the same time ensuring that we support each other.

I’m so proud to be a member of a government that has introduced legislation that will end the Wild West of political financing in B.C. by taking corporate and union funds out of our elections. We’re putting people back at the centre of our politics.

In the last 90 days, this government has taken concrete steps to make life better for British Columbians, eliminated tolls on the Port Mann and Golden Ears Bridge, raised income assistance and disability rates. MSP premiums have been cut in half as of January 1, and — guess what — that is going to benefit both the businesses and individuals. Moving towards a $15-an-hour minimum wage….

You know, I could go on, but I’m going to stop there, because it’s amazing what a government can do when it has a will to take action in a hundred days. But this is just the beginning. There’s still a lot more to do. This government and Premier John Horgan have made a clear commitment to strengthen our democratic institutions….

Deputy Speaker: Member, only by riding names or titles.

Hon. J. Sims: Sorry. My apologies.

This government and the Premier have made a clear commitment to strengthen our democratic institutions, to restore British Columbians’ trust in their government. That’s why I’m thrilled to stand up in support of this bill.

What we’ve done is we’ve looked at what was happening across the country. Because when you’re writing up legislation, you want to see the practices across this country as well. At the federal level, currently, the Lobbying Act prohibits designated public office holders for a period of five years, and this bill only limits it to two years.

Saskatchewan prohibits former cabinet ministers for one year and other former public office holders for six years. Quebec has a two-year prohibition for former cabinet members and members of the National Assembly and a one-year prohibition for all other positions. Newfoundland and Labrador has a one-year prohibition.

So taking a look at where the rest of the country was and wanting to come up with a piece of legislation that works for British Columbians and gives British Columbians confidence that their government is being run fairly, openly, and that it is not being manipulated with insider information being used by ex-employees or ex–elected officials, we have said that under the new legislation, the cap is for two years. And yes, it will apply to everyone that is covered under this legislation, and it will become active within two months of the legislation being passed.

[4:40 p.m.]

And yes, if somebody stopped being a cabinet minister — let’s say, six months ago — that’s when the two-year clock will start running, from six months ago. And if they get employed now, that means that for 18 months they would not be able to lobby because they do have sensitive and very detailed information from government and from the work they have done.

It’s worth noting that this legislation doesn’t just cover elected people. It also covers senior staff and parliamentary secretaries — who are elected, of course.

The Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act will protect our public institutions from undue influence by prohibiting public office holders and their senior staff from acting as lobbyists for two years after leaving office. I don’t think that’s onerous at all, and I don’t think that’s in any way punitive. What it’s saying is: we have to be fair to the public and to British Columbians. And if you have that kind of sensitive information, the insider information, then for two years….

It’s not saying you can’t go and work and make a living. What it’s saying is you just can’t be working as a lobbyist. I know that I’ve heard from across the way that we’ll be interfering with people’s right to make a living. No, that does not say that at all. We’re not saying they can’t work for anybody. They just can’t use that information to be a lobbyist.

For 16 years, we had a government that was only working for the top donors and political insiders, while regular British Columbians were told to get to the back of the line. Well, British Columbians now have a government that’s working for them, and we know that the people of this province deserve better.

They deserve to have the confidence that their democratically elected representatives have their best interests at heart. We on this side of the House are going to make sure that British Columbians regain the confidence they lost in their government because of the actions of that government over the last 16 years.

We’re going to be prohibiting public office holders from lobbying for two years after they leave office. We’re ensuring that they don’t benefit from the insider knowledge they gained while working in government. British Columbians expect their elected representatives to work for the public good. I want to stress that: for the public good — not for their own private benefit — and we couldn’t agree more.

It’s not just cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries who will be subject to this prohibition. This legislation goes even further. It also prohibits their senior political staff. Deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers, board members of hospitals, universities and other public institutions…. The list goes on.

Individuals in those roles also have access to a lot of valuable information about our public institutions that could be used to reap significant financial benefit for private companies or individuals. That is why our government is taking concrete action.

But there’s more. The bill will also increase openness and transparency in our government by ensuring that all lobbyists disclose the names of the staff of ministers and MLAs that they meet with. Often, that’s the opaqueness that has existed over the last number of years — that people come to lobby and there isn’t that clarity and that transparency that is needed. Who were they meeting with? Which staff did they meet with? Which ministers did they meet with? Now all of that information is going to be available.

We know that the previous government had an allergy to openness and transparency. They preferred to do things behind closed doors so the public wouldn’t know what their government was doing. But we know how important transparency is to the people of British Columbia. This bill will ensure that the public knows who is meeting with government staff and trying to influence government policy.

By the way, this bill applies to everyone — all of us. This bill isn’t designed, as it was hinted earlier, just to punish Liberal cabinet ministers of the past. This bill will apply to everybody, no matter which side of the House you sit on.

[4:45 p.m.]

These important changes will go a long way to restoring public confidence in their democratically elected officials, but we know there’s so much more to do. We’re just getting started.

D. Barnett: I am pleased to rise on Bill 8. Certainly my colleagues and I in the B.C. Liberal caucus support good governance and proper business practices for ex-officeholders. It is essential that the public has confidence in their system of government, and this includes the conduct of former elected officials and senior officeholders.

With respect to the lobbying industry I would like to remind this House that it was a B.C. Liberal government that enacted the original Lobbyists Registration Act, in 2001. It was further amended in 2010. We are, in fact, the authors of transparency in the lobbying industry. We want to promote public transparency and integrity in government.

There are two sections to this particular piece of legislation. The first section defines former public office holders. The second relates to prohibition or a cooling-off period for two years.

To begin, I am rather perplexed why the government intends to conduct a review of lobbying activities, yet it is proceeding with this legislation. I see no purpose for public consultation if the views that are solicited are not taken seriously or are even ignored. It is that type of conduct by government that generates public cynicism.

Why conduct a year-long review at all? It seems to me that we are putting the cart before the horse by introducing legislation ahead of time. The list of public office holders includes former cabinet ministers, parliamentary secretaries, who are already prohibited from lobbying for two years in the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act. This is redundant.

It is interesting to note, however, that the definition of “former public office holder” does not include senior party executive members or staff, members of the NDP transition team or former NDP staff. I think this is more than a convenient oversight. This includes senior NDP insiders who have recently registered to lobby and have close connections with members of cabinet. This begs the question: why?

At the federal level, the Conflict of Interest Act includes the Prime Minister’s transition team as public office holders. This bill fails to do so, despite the Attorney General saying that this bill has broad similarity with the federal act. That’s not good enough.

The definition also excludes confidence and supply secretariat staff or secretariat committee members outside of cabinet. In addition, the exclusion also of Green Party members who have had input and access to government materials, and senior staff of the Green Party caucus. Again it begs the question: why?

If it is the government’s true intention to restore public trust in their government, why is the NDP and Green Party coalition deliberately excluding their own people from the process? Let’s examine some of the reasons why the NDP and Green Party should be covered in this legislation. We need not look any further beyond the confidence and supply agreement signed between the NDP and Green Party.

The government is expected to consult with the B.C. Green Party caucus on “broad outline of the government’s legislative program, legislation to be introduced in the House, major policy issues, broad budget parameters, and events or policy changes with provincial or budgetary implications.” The agreement further assures the Green Party will be informed about the policy agenda of the government and be provided with access to key documents and officials.

[4:50 p.m.]

If the Green Party is more than just an ordinary opposition party and if they are, indeed, that close to government, why would Green Party members and staff not be included?

With respect to the second part of the bill, prohibition. My colleagues and I in the Liberal Party believe a two-year cooling period is appropriate for people moving from political life to the private sector. However, the prohibition from lobbying is across the board and not restricted to the portfolio the individual worked on. To be sure, research by the Legislative Library reveals no other jurisdiction in Canada in which a prohibition on lobbying was applied retroactively in the same manner as this bill. This, essentially, takes the issue too far.

Hon. B. Ralston: I’m pleased to stand in support of Bill 8, the Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2017. This bill makes further strides towards rebuilding of public trust in our democratic systems and institutions, particularly the manner in which legislation is made that governs citizens of the province.

The goal of this legislation is to enact a strong, sweeping prohibition so that former public office holders and their senior staff cannot unfairly use their insider knowledge and contacts in order to influence government policy on behalf of organizations or corporations.

As members have pointed out, the Lobbyists Registration Act has not undergone significant amendment since 2009. However, what this last election showed us was that, clearly, people in British Columbia struggled to trust a government that had ceased to hear the voice of its constituents. Indeed, that’s been acknowledged on the other side in the recent leadership debates, where some of the leadership candidates have apparently said that, according to reports in the media, to Liberal Party members — in fact, that that was recognized as a major deficiency in the conduct of government prior to the last election.

I think this point is acknowledged. So one would expect, given that acknowledgment, that perhaps there might be more fulsome support by the other side of this legislative measure. Given that one of the causes — the lack of trust in the government by failing to listen to its constituents as opposed to a very narrow and selected 1 percent minority of the population…. Given that, that might be something that would be acknowledged and listened to.

Clearly, British Columbians harboured great concern that the government was subject to the influence of a few individuals, interest groups and corporations who could operate under the cover of broadly permissive lobbying rules. When that lobbying was coupled with the electoral finance system that was in place but about to be changed, the combination was a very devastating one in the sense of excluding most people from the ear of the government, other than a select few.

In my view and the government’s view, the government is presenting a clear vision, a practical road map towards governance that is more responsive to the needs and concerns of British Columbians. When this bill is enacted, British Columbia will have some of the toughest rules for lobbyists anywhere in the country.

It’s worth looking at section 2 of the bill, which defines what a former public office holder is, because the definition is quite expansive. It means: “(a) a former member of the Executive Council and any individual formerly employed in the former member’s former office, other than administrative support staff.” So that includes all political staff who might have worked in the minister’s office.

[4:55 p.m.]

“(b) a former parliamentary secretary, or (c) any individual who formally occupied (i) a senior executive position in a ministry, whether by the title of deputy minister, chief executive office or another title, (ii) the position of associate deputy minister, assistant deputy minister or a position of comparable rank in a ministry, or (iii) a prescribed position in a Provincial entity.”

By that definition, a provincial entity is defined to include, in addition to the categories that I’ve spoken of, the two most senior positions and board members of universities, institutions, school boards, health authority boards, hospitals, organizations in the natural resource and economic development sector, the transportation and social service sectors, the Workers Compensation Board and a number of Crown corporations, agencies and associations.

That’s quite an expansive definition, although it’s restricted to those at the top of those organizations who were actually or presumably in a position of influence and access to knowledge that was acquired during the course of their employment that would not be available to a member of the general public or even a well-informed member of the general public. So certainly what would qualify as specialist insider knowledge. That is included in the definition of a former public office holder.

In addition, the legislation also introduces a new registration requirement. The amendments will require lobbyists to disclose the names of any person on the staff of a minister or an MLA with whom they speak, which certainly would increase openness and transparency in lobbying. This will allow the public to know who has been contacted by lobbyists in an attempt to influence government policy. This is in addition to disclosing the name of the minister or MLA to whom a lobbyist speaks. It’s, again, an expansion of the present practice. The view is that that’s a simple increment and not an onerous requirement of anyone who’s engaged in this business.

Given that definition and that registration requirement, the other measure that’s been spoken of is extending to that category of persons described in the act…. They will be prohibited from acting as a lobbyist for two years after leaving office. The two-year prohibition would begin on the date employment ended. There will be a discretion afforded to the registrar of lobbyists to grant an exemption to this two-year prohibition if it were deemed to be in the public interest. What is envisaged by that possibility is where the person’s time in the position was very brief and such that they may not have accumulated, in the view of the registrar of lobbyists, not in the view of the person, sufficient knowledge that the prohibition is required in order to achieve the ends of justice.

There will be a retroactive feature. I know that this is the subject of some comment by members opposite. For those lobbyists who are already registered and who will be caught by the prohibition, they will be prohibited from lobbying starting on the date the changes came into effect. They will be required to wait two years after the date they ended their public office before beginning to lobby again.

Apparently, there has been a review of the existing lobbyists registry, and there appear to be relatively few individuals who would be possibly affected by this provision. Two of the identified individuals would only have three months left in a two-year prohibition once the act comes into effect. Those who are affected could also avail themselves of the request for an exemption from the registrar if they are of the view that an unfairness is being worked.

What these amendments will achieve is a balance between the interests of having well-informed policy-makers who contribute to the democratic process and ensuring a level playing field for all lobbyists. This will eliminate undue influence and improper use of insider knowledge in lobbying.

[5:00 p.m.]

This two-year term can be contrasted with the federal term of five years, which came about after the Gomery Commission and all that that entailed at the federal level. At the provincial level, there are terms of everything from six months in Saskatchewan to two years in Quebec.

The two-year prohibition that would be enacted by this legislation seeks to strike the right balance between having policy-makers working in government to the best of their ability but prohibiting those from leaving public office and taking with them an unfair advantage when they transition to attempting to influence government.

The further comments that I want to make are not lengthy. The disclosure requirements, I think, will enhance the democratic process, which has been corroded, and there’s been a loss of public confidence. This will be a partial step towards restoring public confidence in the legislative process. We believe this is a critical move and represents bold action on one of the most important promises made to electors in the last election: to increase government transparency and build confidence in our elected officials.

We are proposing this legislation in an open and transparent way so that if a political party moves an amendment to exempt any group of individuals, we will consider those amendments in good faith. Public policy is intended to serve the people of British Columbia. That’s why we want to work with the parties in the House to ensure that British Columbians, including lobbyists, public officials and elected officials, have a clear understanding of the rules with regards to influencing public policy, working towards a system where no one group or organization has an inordinate impact on public institutions and the policies we enact.

With that, I conclude my remarks.

R. Sultan: It gives me great pleasure to add my two cents to this act, Bill 8. Of course, it encompasses a very, very important dimension of government; namely, who’s trying to influence government above and beyond the normal intercourse of citizens going about their daily business — all of us presumably representing the citizenry of the province as a representative cross-section of people interested in the broad public interest.

Now, unfortunately, I think all of us who have been in politics for a while realize life isn’t quite so pure and quite so simple. This $50 billion enterprise we call government, which is approximately 20 percent of the whole economy of British Columbia, impacts every walk of life, virtually. The lives of people are impacted by decisions on taxation, on regulation, on spending, on health, on education and on regulation, whether it’s of salmon farms or whether we have a competitive marketplace for the services purchased by government.

Like it or not, a lot of people have a very strong vested interest in what government is up to, and they look to the power centres of government, starting at the very top, and try and impress them with their point of view and their preferences. That is a process that has become formalized as lobbying. It goes on all the time, some of it quite indirect and subtle, just saying: “Here’s an association.”

For one example, we had the Association for the Advancement of the Health of Men at lunch today, giving us a piece of salmon while they explained that the health of men was actually important. I noticed there were probably more women in the audience than men, but we all agreed that, yes, the health of men is important.

[5:05 p.m.]

Whether we would call that lobbying…. I would say it’s a bit of a stretch. Perhaps it is really in the category of education, which is another issue, because much lobbying is, in fact, information and education. They’re just trying to explain things to us poor, benighted, ignorant MLAs so that we can make more enlightened decisions. They’re not lobbying; they’re just explaining. Fine. We can all use more education.

Nevertheless, there is always the suspicion — and, I think, in fact, a warranted suspicion — that there’s probably more going on than is necessarily in the broad public interest, and special favours and special interests are being promoted. While this is unavoidable, I think, given the reach of government in so many areas of our life, the purpose of lobbying legislation is to put it out in the sunlight so that people are aware of what’s happening. If they are concerned about it, they can hold people to account.

I’m very proud that the previous government, which I supported for 16 years — and this opposition party, which I, of course, continue to support in opposition — originated the first lobbying bill in the history of British Columbia in 2001. The Premier of the day, Gordon Campbell, certainly had knocked around the political world at various levels of government for many years, had many friends in the corporate world and was well aware of the pressures being brought to bear upon officials and politicians. I believe and have the impression that it was Gordon Campbell who said: “We need to clean up government’s act here and have a lobbying statute.” So we did.

It was not perfect. It did, for the first time, require lobbyists to submit, from time to time, to government a list of the people in government that they intended to contact and educate, as they would say, or try to influence, as perhaps the cynics would say. Those lists were made public and were available on the Internet. There were, obviously, gaps and loopholes, and they were amended with further corrections and improvements to the act in 2010 — again, on the initiative of the government of the day, the B.C. Liberal Party.

I must say I do find it a little hard to accept the characterizations of some of our friends on the other side of the aisle, who get carried away with their enthusiasm in describing the previous government — the government I have supported for many years — as, really, people of perhaps dubious morality and quite willing to sell out the public interest for pieces of gold.

That is not, in fact, the way the system has worked in my observation, having been engaged in industries and companies where to do so was common practice. I was asked, at times, to engage in such activities myself and even quit organizations because I refused to do things which I thought were unethical. It’s not as though I’m naive about what has been happening.

With that, shall we say, experience, if not expertise…. If it was rampant, I think I would smell it, and I did not. I’m not saying these things don’t happen, but I think British Columbia — Canada generally; I might make an exception in a few places — is blessed with a government which operates in the public interest. Special interests lobbying to benefit one particular faction over another, I think, is rare.

[5:10 p.m.]

We are blessed. I think the international surveys of corruption and so on, carried out from time to time, usually put Canada near the top of the list in terms of how we conduct our public affairs in this country, and it’s something to be proud of. I’m proud of the track record of the previous government, which I have supported lo these many years, for bringing in the statute. I think it has codified and made more transparent existing practice. I’m not suggesting it revolutionized conduct in any material way, but nevertheless, it has all been helpful.

There is one dimension, though, of the lobbyists registry that I think was inadequate. I, of course, always eagerly looked up the registry to see who claimed to be lobbying me. I thought I could compare that with my own Outlook schedule, and I must admit to some deflation to discover that not many people actually lobbied me. I’m sure it had nothing to do with the fact that I was on the back bench, but maybe it did.

Nevertheless, I showed up on many lists, and I couldn’t quite reconcile that with my own experience until I realized that the way the statute was worded required lobbyists to list the people that they might lobby but didn’t necessarily get around to actually lobby. Well, that’s a dumb way to run our affairs. You should be asking: who did they actually lobby?

While I’m not an expert on this bill, I would hope that that weakness between the potential target versus the actual accomplished mission is made more clear. Otherwise, you might as well submit the entire B.C. government telephone directory and say: “I may call upon any one of these people in the course of my affairs, and here’s the list, Mr. Registrar.” I would not be caught out because anybody I talked to is bound to be on that list somewhere. I’m trivializing it, of course, but nevertheless, I think there’s an important distinction between intentions and reality.

I favour any improvement in lobbyists legislation that we can offer, and I think, by and large, improvements such as the government has brought in on Bill 8 are to be commended. However — there’s always a but — I think it’s instinctive, and I suppose that we’re no better than they, to influence the definitions to be a little softer on your side and a little harsher on the other side.

Unfortunately, I think the definitions of who is captured by the lobbying rules in this proposed legislation are tilted a little bit excessively to one side — namely, us — and tilted a little bit less away from the other side, which is you folks that I’m looking at right now.

I think, in the sense of fairness, sure, capture former employees and advisers and staffers and consultants, but do it equally on both sides. Don’t, by the quirk of definition, more than a pure accident, capture our associates and somehow let off scot-free your associates. It is really beneath your dignity to do so, and I plead you to have more fairness and equity in a statute which, of course, is all about maintaining fairness and equity in government. To have a statue which is skewed to favour one party over the other really undercuts the purpose of the legislation, which is noble and to be supported.

That’s one item that I think can be legitimately criticized. It has been pointed out, and I was listening to the debate on the television monitor in my office.

[5:15 p.m.]

For example, people involved in transition, with the new government coming into power — certainly intimately involved and handsomely paid for these very brief services they rendered before heading back home with a rather large cheque in their pocket — presumably were paid such high fees because they provided very important and sophisticated and far-reaching, learned advice.

If they, in fact, were doing so, they should be listed as people of influence and captured in the legislation, along with other lesser lights who, for one reason or another, were let go on our side. So that’s one imbalance in the legislation that I protest against strongly.

The other feature of the legislation as it is written is its retroactivity. So now, whether by design or meanness or vindictiveness or accident — who knows? — we capture former servants of this former government, who have gone out and created new careers, and now they find, retroactively, that they are in breach of the new rules. I suppose they have to submit their resignations forthwith and maybe beg for mercy for having been in violation of a law that did not exist when they took their new assignment.

This is bad legislation, and I urge the government to amend it accordingly, to release the people who have taken positions and are unknowingly being captured by the new, somewhat harsher, regime.

Those are two features of the proposed Bill 8 that I think need curing before I can support it. Aside from that, I think anything which improves the transparency, the accessibility, the reality of lobbying, encompassing people who have actually been lobbied — as opposed to some hypothetical list of people who might someday, maybe, who knows? — is all to the good and should be commended.

With those remarks, I will turn it over to someone else.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and speak to Bill 8, the Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act. I’m in support. I’m very pleased to rise and speak on some of the features that will be addressed and that I think will serve to strengthen and improve our democracy and also play a role to reinforce the confidence of British Columbians in being able to have trust in our electoral system.

We’ve heard from both sides of the House the role that lobbyists play in this place and certainly recognize that — their expertise in terms of being able to facilitate various groups and organizations that have interests, and to connect and communicate their issues and priorities to elected officials. Certainly, that’s recognized, and recognize that it was the previous B.C. Liberal government that brought in the first act to regulate lobbyists.

This act — now, in 2017 — serves to update that. We haven’t seen a significant update to the lobbyists act since 2009. So some of these amendments and these improvements look, really, to catch up and to address some of the concerns that we’ve heard from British Columbians and to ensure that our democracy is fully transparent and that the public can have full confidence that those ideals are being respected.

[5:20 p.m.]

This legislation toughens the rules around political lobbying, with the purpose to help protect the integrity of our public decision-making, following on the comments of a number of my colleagues which we heard over the last election, and concerns of British Columbians. Certainly, I’ve heard concerns around British Columbia of the impact of big money on our politics — a lot of money distorting our democracy — and concerns that British Columbians have to take steps to remove big money from politics.

We’ve taken steps to restrict corporate and union donations. This attempt to amend the lobbyists act is in addition to that so that British Columbians can be assured that their political system is working on their behalf, on behalf of British Columbians. There’s a clear commitment from our government and, certainly, clear commitments expressed by the Greens around issues of electoral reform and banning big money. This is one component in terms of addressing those concerns.

This legislation, Bill 8, will ban former public office holders and their senior staff from lobbying government for two years after leaving government. It allows for the registrar of lobbyists the discretion to grant an exemption from the two-year prohibition if it’s deemed for the public interest. I think that’s an important recognition — that there’s an independent officer so that there’s an opportunity to appeal decisions and that they can also make decisions if there are individuals who disagree with the legislation.

It’s important for British Columbians to know that decisions that we make here are in the interests of families, communities and the province and, ultimately, not because a lobbyist has access to inside information.

The importance of this act and the measures are that, previously…. What’s different from before to now that we want to address and that we want to remedy? Before, individuals could go straight from a senior decision-making role in government to lobbying. There was no cooling-off period. There was no break. The provision that we’re bringing in will ensure that knowledge is not to be used or sold for private gain after employment with the province ends.

The changes that we’re proposing here…. We’re catching up. British Columbia has some catching up to do with respect to the approach in other provinces. There’s really a continuum in terms of a range of approaches from other provinces. For example, there are lobbying prohibitions of varying time periods. For example, the federal government’s lobbying act prohibits designated public office holders lobbying for a period of five years. That’s kind of on the one end, and then we have a number of other jurisdictions as well.

Saskatchewan prohibits former cabinet ministers for one year and other former public office holders for six months. Quebec has a two-year prohibition for former cabinet members and members of the National Assembly and a one-year prohibition for other positions. Newfoundland and Labrador has a one-year prohibition.

British Columbia falls within that continuum, and the proposed changes to the Lobbyists Registration Act prohibits former public office holders and their senior staff from acting as lobbyists for two years after leaving office. The two-year prohibition begins on the date employment ends. I mentioned that in the event of disputes, the registrar of lobbyists has the discretion to grant an exemption if they deem it’s in the public interest.

In addition, there are penalties if the act has been contravened. They are penalties up to $25,000. As well, for convictions and fines, there’s $25,000 for a first offence. Up to $100,000 for a subsequent offence may be imposed. These are steps to really bring our treatment of lobbyists up to date.

[5:25 p.m.]

We know, as well, that lobbyists have to disclose the names any of staff person working in a ministry or MLA’s office with whom they speak. They also have to disclose the name of the minister or MLA to whom a lobbyist speaks. There is also a review that is ongoing with respect to that.

We know that the definition of former officeholders includes former cabinet ministers and their political staff; parliamentary secretaries; deputy ministers; ministry CEOs, associate deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers or positions of an equivalent rank; and the two most senior positions and board members of universities. The purpose is to really have an across-the-board, comprehensive approach and ensure that for individuals who have access to privileged information, certainly, the public can be assured that they are not able to directly go from that employment and translate that into a business opportunity.

So these are steps that are being undertaken with this act. To address some of the concerns that I have heard from my colleague from West Vancouver, as well, the criticisms that there may be undue impact on certain sides, I’d like to reassure the member that that wasn’t the intent. The intent of the act is to ensure that there’s a level playing field for all individuals, regardless of party affiliation.

Going forward, it will be applied equally to all members who currently were in government or who are in government. Certainly going forward, that’s the intention — that this act will seek to ensure that British Columbians can be assured that there’s transparency in lobbying efforts and that individuals do not benefit unduly from being employed in the government.

In addition, while there were provisions restricting lobbying, the two-year provision is new for British Columbia. It’s an important addition, because it was an oversight in terms of not ensuring that we had that protection in place. This addition is important, and I think that it goes a ways towards reassuring British Columbians.

I’m in favour of the act and look forward, as well, to taking more steps to ensure that British Columbians can be assured that their democracy is working for them and that their government is working for them and that they have full confidence in their democratic system. I’m very pleased to speak in favour of the bill, and I’ll be concluding my remarks. Soon, I know, we’ll have another speaker who will be taking their place to speak towards the bill.

It’s an important bill, I think, that I’m looking forward to conveying to my constituents in Vancouver-Kensington and will be a welcome addition to ensuring that voters and citizens in our province have the confidence in our electoral system. With that, I’ll be taking my seat. I look forward to hearing remarks from more colleagues and their thoughts on this bill.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the member for Vancouver-Kensington for the eloquent words speaking in favour of this bill, a bill that obviously, I’m rising to speak in support of, with recognition that perhaps there are some things that we might expand upon as we have this debate go forward. Some interesting ideas have been raised by members opposite.

[5:30 p.m.]

I’m sure, in the spirit of trying to develop the best possible Legislature and with the new access that members opposite have…. Actually, the government deserves a lot of credit for this. It’s quite remarkable that they have given us access to legislative drafters to allow us to actually provide amendments to legislation, government legislation, on a trial basis this fall, that could actually meet the issues that we raise, but at the same time, do so in a manner that we know has spanned across the legislative framework.

So when we put forward amendments — if there are any such amendments — we know that government could make a decision knowing that it has gone through legislative drafters as opposed to — even if it’s an amazing piece of amendment — having to say no because they’re concerned that maybe legislative drafters haven’t seen it.

I think the government deserves an awful lot of credit for providing access to both the B.C. Liberals and the B.C. NDP MLAs. I hope we, collectively, don’t abuse that so that we have the access withdrawn. But I think it’s a good step forward for our democracy, and perhaps members opposite will be standing forth with some legislative drafter–approved or assisted-upon amendments.

This bill that I’m standing to speak to — Bill 8, Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2017 — takes steps forward in British Columbia for much-needed lobbying reforms. But, of course, it doesn’t include all the reforms that everybody would want, perhaps, but it does make an important step forward. Reforming lobbying is fundamental. It’s essential to rebuilding public trust in our democracy, in government and ensuring that special interests do not exercise undue influence on this or any other future governments.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists has issued a number of recommendations to reform lobbying in British Columbia. And our priorities for reform were drawn from and in line with these recommendations. The B.C. Greens were the only party that formally campaigned on introducing lobbying reform legislation, and we’re absolutely delighted that government has seen fit to bring forward a bill here to take steps towards improving the Lobbyists Registration Act by the amendments that are brought forward.

In particular, the bill before us acts on one of the recommendations from the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists, and that recommendation was instituting a prohibition on lobbying for former senior public office holders for a period of two years since leaving office. What does it mean now to say former senior and public officers?

Well, we’re delighted with the definition here in section 2 of the bill, where it says, “‘former public office holder means,” and therein lies a definition: “(a) a former member of the Executive Council and any individual formerly employed in the former member’s former office, other than administrative support staff.” Why that’s important is that ministerial staff have access to information, and ministers have access to information that most members here do not have access to. It’s information on how this government is operating at a very fundamental level. So we support this inclusion of those within the minister’s office.

It also says “a former parliamentary secretary”— again, access to information that most members here will not have, including members in government, who were not in cabinet. Cabinet confidentiality is something that is respected not only with member’s opposition, but also member’s in government do not have access to the information unless they are in cabinet. That’s important that that be kept that way.

I fully support this ban because going out, until now, lobbying a cabinet or a government where you have inside information, potentially puts people into awkward situations. I think we should try to avoid that.

[5:35 p.m.]

The definition further continues saying, “any individual who formerly occupied (i) a senior executive position in a ministry, whether by the title of deputy minister, chief executive officer or another title, (ii) the position of associate deputy minister, assistant deputy minister or a position of comparable rank in a ministry, (iii) or a prescribed position in a Provincial entity” — the famous prescribed position done through regulation.

Again, senior members of government have access to privileged information — information that, in many cases, is subject to cabinet confidentiality. It’s information that is not available to the general public, and therein lies an important point. Sure, we want people with expertise to lobby in their area of expertise, but having inside information gives undue influence to various individuals — kind of like insider trading.

If I know, for example, that a company is about to go bankrupt and I’ve been told by the chief financial officer of a company that the company is going bankrupt, and I act upon that by shorting that stock, that’s illegal, and the reason why is because the public does not tolerate the use of inside knowledge to undermine general public interest, which happens in that case. That’s the intent of this, and I applaud government for bringing forward legislation that’s true to that intent.

What’s important…. I’ve heard a number of members opposite speak about the fact that some staff may have moved off into positions now and they have to resign. I think that a case could be made, based on section 2.3 of this bill, which is entitled “Exemption from prohibitions.” It says here: “If the registrar is satisfied that it is in the public interest, the registrar may, on request and on any terms or conditions that the registrar considers advisable, exempt a person from a prohibition set out in section 2.1(2) or 2.2.” Again, there are more details that the registrar has to do.

This doesn’t mean…. You know, this is what I would like to see through further discussion. The exemption is there, and if a compelling case can be made that somebody…. Well, honestly, I knew a couple of people who moved here from afar. They weren’t political, per se. They were very talented individuals who have since, because of the downsize of government, lost their positions. You know, one could make a case that they are impartial. They happened to work in the positions they worked because of an opportunity for their career advancement, particularly young people.

But we have the exemption here where the registrar could be approached with a compelling case. So I don’t see this legislation, as some members have pointed out, as being particularly unfair to those who have worked in a ministry’s office.

As I said, the B.C. Greens — soon to be officially recognized in this House, I should say…. I should say right now that the three independent members who ran under the B.C. Green banner…. It was the banner of the only party to actually campaign on lobbying reform. Frankly, it was one of our central pillars of our governance reform platform, and our confidence and supply agreement included a discussion of this.

You know, as in any agreement, it’s not that you bring your baseball bat and your ball to the game and then you stand up and walk and stomp out if you don’t get your way. Clearly, if…. This is not 100 percent what we would have written, but on the other hand, we understand the importance of collaboration, the importance of listening to other views, the importance of actually reflecting upon your position and being willing to change or expand upon it, based on new information that is brought forward. And again, we commend the government on bringing this forward, recognizing that it is a first step.

When we did our campaigning on reforming lobbying in B.C., we wanted to see, first and foremost, an increase in the transparency of how lobbying takes place in British Columbia and an increase in the accountability of lobbyists and public office holders. So one of the things, again…. To expand upon that, we wanted to see a requirement to disclose who one actually intends to lobby removed from the act and replaced with the requirement to disclose who one actually lobbies within ten days of lobbying.

Let me tell you why we thought that was important. We recognize, of course, that lobbying is a natural part, an important part of political life. It’s an important part for us to gather information as legislators on what the issues are facing various groups. It’s critical — lobbying within the democratic system. But the public needs to know who is lobbying whom. By making it more transparent, then, decision-makers are more accountable for their actions, but also, the public trusts them that when they make the actions, they’ve done so in an open and transparent manner.

It’s quite common for a lobbyist to say that they’re going to lobby 87 members of the B.C. Legislature — well, 86, because one member has since stepped down. Well, that’s not very helpful to anyone.

[5:40 p.m.]

Let me suppose I’m from the Deep Earth coal mining company of Kansas. Well, let’s see. Who is a member here? Saanich South — the Deep Earth coal mining company from Saanich South. It’s very unlikely that that person would be lobbying the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin or elsewhere, but if they listed with the lobbyist registrar that they’re lobbying all 87 members, nobody really knows who they’re lobbying.

But if they were to lobby the member for Saanich South, the Minister of Agriculture now, or the Minister of Energy, we’d want to know that. The public would want to know that. They wouldn’t want to know that they intended to lobby everyone, because they’re not. They’re obviously going to lobby whoever. This is done with the greatest respect for the member for Saanich South. I just happened to look to see if there was someone in the audience here.

The purpose here is to register who you are lobbying to, so we recognize that this is a first step. We would hope that, at some point in the future and in this Legislature, we’ll be able to list who is lobbying who, as opposed to “we’re lobbying everybody.”

One of the second goals that we had, in including lobbying reform in our platform, was to reduce the undue influence of special interests on government decisions. I don’t want to rehash all of the last four years I’ve been here or the last 16 years in total — or even the 1990s. We don’t need to rehash all of that. The reality is the public wants government to work in the interests of the people of British Columbia, not in the interests of vested interests. One of the ways of getting that is reforming lobbying to get to transparency and to reduce undue influence.

One of the things with doing the two-year prohibition is it does just that. It gives, in some sense, a cooling-off period for those who’ve had that insider knowledge, so to speak, a cooling-off period that allows them to, you know, figure out what they want to do. Frankly, if it’s an MLA, it’s going to be tough when moving from an MLA. You’re going from 24-7 a day to suddenly having time on your hands.

Going back to university…. I’ll tell you, hon. Speaker, as you would know from the University of the Fraser Valley, that’s a cushy job compared to what we’ve got here, having to work — and B.C. Greens sitting on five committees. They’ll have time to reflect upon what they want to do — maybe they won’t become lobbyists, and good on them; power to them — and build upon the expertise that got them here in the first place.

Public office holders have, as I mentioned, special privileged relationships and access to privileged information that would give them outsized influence if they become lobbyists immediately upon leaving. As I said, two years is a sufficient time for these lobbyists to, in some sense, get a sense of what they want to do. We don’t want government and the senior civil service to be a revolving door. Once government, then lobbyists. That’s not good for democracy.

The third thing we wanted to do is…. We felt it was very important — and again, we’re very grateful to government for moving down this path — to bring B.C. standards in line with other jurisdictions in Canada. As has been pointed out, we’ve been called the Wild West here in British Columbia. And I would argue that in lobbying reform, we do lag behind other jurisdictions across other provinces and at the federal level.

In 2008, the federal government imposed a multi-year prohibition on lobbying. Now, kudos go to the Harper government at the time for doing just that. A multi-year prohibition on lobbying was in recognition of the undue influences that could have, the special interests of somebody with inside knowledge lobbying as soon as they left.

We know that Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia all have so-called “cooling-off periods” as well for former public office holders and a variety of lengths. Here we’ve got two years proposed, and they also have more stringent requirements for reporting codes of conduct, and so on, and so forth.

You know, this bill goes a long way towards reducing some of the problems that we face here with lobbying in British Columbia. Coming back to what this bill does, this bill, as I’ve said, takes steps forward for much-needed lobbying reform. It does not include all of the things that we felt were necessary, but it does make a good step forward. The two-year prohibition — wonderful.

What’s also really important — and frankly, give government credit for this — is that they’ve committed to undertaking a review of lobbying. Government has said that they are committed to undertake a review of lobbying. I think that’s a good step forward, and I hope that we get a multi-party agreement that this is something that we could….

[5:45 p.m.]

This is not a partisan issue. I recognize that there are a few individuals who this legislation might actually cause some difficulty for right now. But we do have that exemption in section 2.3 that they could seek to apply for and make the compelling case why it’s important that they continue as lobbyists.

By committing to undertaking lobbying, I think we all will have collectively a chance and an opportunity to actually bring our views to this.

I do note that the Chair of the committee has entered. I do note the hour, and I reserve my right to speak on this matter further on Monday and do so move adjournment of debate just now.

A. Weaver moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. on Monday, October 23.

The House adjourned at 5:46 p.m.