Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 8. In Committee A, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Education.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to present the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists’ Investigation Report 17-07, Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, designated filer: Chris Gardner.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

(continued)

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place and continue with debate on Bill 8, Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2017.

Last Thursday, as I was noting the hour, I was coming near to an end of the issues I wish to raise in this bill, but please let me just expand a little bit more upon something that I think is very important that government has announced that it will do.

One of the key aspects of this bill is not so much what’s in the bill — it’s a very good first step — but also that the government has committed to undertaking a review of lobbying in general. While it’s not in the legislation, this is being put forward by government as a means of us moving forward to account for some of the areas that have not been covered here. We’ll come to one in a second.

I would like to note that the B.C. Green caucus will be delighted…. Well, we’ll soon be called the B.C. Green caucus, I hope, if the Constitution Amendment Act changes. We’ll be participating in this review, as we have some ideas that we’d like to explore in further discussions.

One of these priorities for further changes that we’d like to explore is dealing with actual versus expected lobbying. As it stands now, the bill doesn’t really address the transparency issue. The bill articulates….

[2:35 p.m.]

It still remains that you’re supposed to register who you’re going to lobby. As we know, various lobbyists will sign up to lobby all 87 — or 86; I forgot one member’s seat is open. They will sign up to lobby all 86 members here. The public really wants to know who is being lobbied by who, not whether somebody is lobbying anybody. Transparency isn’t met in this registry system because of the fact that we don’t actually know who is lobbied.

I recognize that the bill before us is called the Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, and the whole framework of the bill is such that it’s designed as a registry, as opposed to a list of who you’ve lobbied. It would require substantive changes throughout the entire act, were we to start to note who was actually lobbied, rather than registering as a lobbyist per se.

Elizabeth Denham’s 2013 report had some words attributed to a media spokesperson. I won’t mention his name. It said the following: “The current system creates a smokescreen about who is really being lobbied. We should be able to search the registry and find out who was actually lobbied, when and where.”

We support that. I support that. My colleagues have spoken about this. I’m sure my friend from Cowichan Valley, who will speak shortly, will reaffirm that we support this recommendation, as articulated in the quote that I just did — again, expecting to lobby, as opposed to who you actually lobbied. We’d like to see who you actually lobbied be reported within ten days. It’s something we hope that, as we move forward in this discussion process, we’ll be able to have input on.

There is no code of conduct, in the actual legislation, for lobbyists. Again, this is something that we will be looking to push. That is, actually, the development of a code of conduct. Now, we recognize that a bill is probably not the right place to embed an entire code of conduct. We’re looking to see if we can enable the registrar to come up with a code of conduct that will be made available to lobbyists, and they would be expected to follow that code of conduct in their lobbying efforts.

Finally, we want to look a little bit at government accountability and what role ministers play in confirming lobbying that actually may have taken place. We think there can be some further measures taken there to expand upon transparency.

Obviously, I will be standing and voting in support of this bill. It takes important first steps towards the reform of our lobbying in British Columbia. I look forward to further discussions of this at committee stage. I particularly look forward to the discussions that will ensue as we develop this comprehensive review of lobbying registration in British Columbia in the months ahead.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Abbotsford-Mission. [Applause.]

S. Gibson: I appreciate the warm welcome from both sides of the House. I was encouraged by the congenial atmosphere I find here — quite often, frankly.

On behalf of my constituents of the Abbotsford-Mission constituency, it’s a pleasure for me to speak here in this place regarding Bill 8. I just want to acknowledge colleagues from Columbia River–Revelstoke and Delta South, here with me, and others as well, today.

I want to begin my remarks with a bit of background on how we got to this point. I’m very proud to say that it was our B.C. Liberal government, in 2001, who introduced the first-ever lobbyists registry. I think we know, on both sides of this House, that lobbying is a good thing. It’s not a negative thing, but it needs to be carried out with transparency.

We need to have opportunities for officials in public sector societies and others to have their chance to engage with elected officials and share their views in order that those officials may make decisions that are in the best interests of the entire province. The goal then was to ensure transparency by allowing British Columbians to see what was being done by lobbying, what the issues were and who was doing it.

[2:40 p.m.]

In 2010, the Lobbyists Registration Act was updated to create one of the strongest regimes for lobbying registration in our country. Those updates significantly increased the lobbyists registrar’s powers and duties, giving powers on three levels: conduct those through investigations; compel testimony — an important one; and, also, compel documents to be received.

No doubt, lobbying fairness is something we care about deeply on both sides of this House. One of the proposals this bill puts forward is redundant, really, due to the legislation we already have in place. Section 2 of this bill applies to former cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries. But these individuals who held the roles are already prohibited from lobbying for two years under the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act.

When we look at this bill before us, certainly there are some elements that we acknowledge are reasonable. We believe, for example, a two-year cooling-off period is appropriate for people moving from political life to the private sector. While the lobbyist registrar recommended only a one-year ban on lobbying in her 2013 independent report, a two-year ban does seem reasonable. But there are some significant problems with this bill that we have some concerns about, and I’ll note those now.

One of the biggest concerns is the two-year prohibition on lobbying that will be applied retroactively. This would be really unfair, especially to approximately 120 former political staffers who just lost their jobs after the recent election. Many of them have already found new jobs in the lobbying and government relations sector since that election, so this would deal another blow to them.

It also applies to public office holders. Make that former public office holders — including cabinet ministers, parliamentary secretaries, political staff, deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers and positions of equivalent rank — and the two most senior positions of political entities such as universities, school boards, hospitals, Crown corporations and others.

Now, I’m not sure if there are other jurisdictions in Canada where lobbying prohibitions have been applied retroactively. If government does have a precedent for this kind of move, I’d welcome them sharing it. Not only is the possibility of this retroactive element opening up government to a court challenge, but it possibly could result in some legal bills and the prospect of the law being overturned.

The bill does allow the registrar of lobbyists to grant exemptions to the two-year prohibition, given exemptions are deemed to be in the public interest. However, given the sweeping intention to this bill and its retroactive application, I’d be surprised if exemptions would be common.

This bill is one-sided. It applies only to former government officials, which means that former NDP officials are exempt. Therefore, this bill would clearly have the most immediate and direct impact on former B.C. Liberal government staff. As former B.C. Liberal political staff, these individuals have no ties to the current NDP government, meaning there is no reason to be concerned about undue influence. So while there’s no cause for concern about conflict from this angle, the legislation was nevertheless designed with specific interests in mind. NDP adherents — like former MLAs, former senior staff, former party executive members or even the Premier’s transition team members — are not included in the two-year lobbying prohibition.

Unlike former government staffers, who are the subject of this bill, these NDP officials have free rein, meaning they’re able to use their connections to lobby their friends in government without restriction. This comes after NDP supporters already received $300,000 from taxpayers in direct award contracts, meaning there was no competitive bidding process for just a few weeks worth of work as part of the NDP transition team. It’s a clear exercise in the kind of patronage that government claimed to be so strongly opposed to while in opposition.

[2:45 p.m.]

Nationally, while members of the Prime Minister’s transition team are defined as public office holders under the federal Conflict of Interest Act, individuals that receive these positions provincially are conveniently excluded, despite the Attorney General saying that this bill was largely similar to the federal act.

What’s more, confidence and supply secretariat staff, which we’ve discussed here at some length, staff who are currently being paid by the public to manage the political relationship between the NDP and the Greens — between those two — are also excluded from the former public office holder definition. That’s interesting. While there are other aspects of this bill that are problematic, there are more that we can talk about.

The Attorney General has promised comprehensive lobbying reform here in B.C., and the government has promised an extensive review of lobbying over the next year. But while the government seems eager to initiate reviews and consultations before taking action on other issues, we see quite the opposite here — a government that has promised to review an issue but has already introduced legislation. This effectively reverses the expected order. This falls short of the kind of comprehensive lobbying effort the Attorney General promised would happen in British Columbia.

Instead, what this bill puts forward is a biased and incomplete amendment that puts former government staffers at a disadvantage and heavily favours NDP adherents. Disappointingly, this bill represents another broken promise by the government.

While I largely support the content of this bill and applaud that accordingly, including the two-year cooling-off period for those transitioning from the political to the private sector, I have serious reservations about certain aspects, particularly the fact that the NDP adherents are effectively exempted from this bill, while former government staffers are clearly targeted, and the concern that the retroactive clause it contains potentially opens government to potential legal challenges, which many believe is a definite responsibility.

I nevertheless think the underlying premise is sound. I certainly hope we can work together towards a solution that is practical and fair for both sides of this House.

S. Furstenau: I’m pleased today to speak to Bill 8, the Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act.

By now, many know my personal story of how I came to be here. I was inspired to run for office after watching the previous government fail the people of Shawnigan. That government permitted the dumping of massive amounts of contaminated soil into an active quarry located in the heart of our drinking watershed. What followed was a multi-year struggle to assert our community’s right to safe drinking water.

We came together to stand up for ourselves, since our government was not willing to take the necessary actions. Throughout this struggle, the fundamental trust between us as citizens and our government was sadly eroded. I ran, in part, to try to fix that. I’m a firm believer that one of the most important things this minority government can do is re-earn the trust of British Columbians and restore their faith in government. That trust is what underpins our democracy and what gives us the legitimacy to do what we do in this chamber.

Sadly, I have heard countless similar stories from across the province of governments of all stripes putting special interests ahead of the interests of British Columbians and eroding that trust in government. These stories arose in spades under the old campaign finance regulations that saw corporations and unions funnel millions of dollars into our political system. Examples of cash-for-access events and donors benefiting from government decisions raised serious questions about the influence of special interests in B.C. politics and undermined public trust in government.

[2:50 p.m.]

These stories also exist in relation to lobbying. Too often, British Columbians are left to wonder who is lobbying whom, on what issues, for what end and on whose behalf because of the limitations of our current lobbying regime. As it stands, one cannot know, based on the lobbying register, who a lobbyist has actually lobbied or who they simply intend to lobby. The very fact that we lack sufficient transparency around lobbying in B.C. only serves to further undermine public trust in government.

As trust diminishes and cynicism grows, we enter into a vicious cycle. Voter turnout decreases. People are less willing to stand for office. As elected officials, the trust between us and citizens needs to be paramount. Without it, we lose the foundation for strong democracy.

When citizens question decisions made by government based on the assumptions that public officials are acting in the interest of a select few or influenced by large sums of money into our political parties, it strikes a blow to democracy.

With that in mind, we as B.C. Greens ran on a suite of commitments to rebuild trust in government, and this formed one of the central pillars of our platform. We were the only party to run on a clear commitment to lobbying reform, and this bill is the first step in achieving that reform. Our caucus has three core policy outcomes for the reforms we want to see.

One, increased transparency of lobbying and the accountability of lobbyists. Two, reduce undue influence of special interests on government decisions. And three, bring B.C. standards in line with other jurisdictions.

This bill obviously does not fully address all of these outcomes. Even with this bill, our standards will remain far behind those of other jurisdictions. There are many reforms that the former registrar of lobbyists outlined in her report Lobbying in British Columbia: The Way Forward that are not included. For instance, the bill does not establish a code of conduct, nor does it incorporate the elements of a code of conduct into the Lobbyists Registration Act that would strengthen transparency, support ethical standards for public office holders and enhance the public decision-making process.

We recognize that the government may need more time to consult more widely on these comprehensive reforms, yet the act does take one very important step forward that our caucus agrees is an important change. It introduces a two-year prohibition on lobbying for former public office holders after the date they cease employment. The need for a prohibition comes from a recognition that former public office holders can have information or relationships from their previous employment that could offer them outsized influence in their lobbying. Prohibitions such as these are common in other jurisdictions. Federally, there has been a five-year prohibition since 2008.

Sadly, there are many examples in B.C. of the revolving door between government and the lobbying sector that has helped undermine this essential trust in government. I’m glad this change is going forward. Of course, there is still much to be done to increase transparency and bring B.C.’s lobbying regime in line with other jurisdictions.

We need to remove the requirement to register who a lobbyist intends to lobby, and shift towards real-time disclosure of lobbying that has actually occurred, as recommended by the former registrar of lobbyists. This change includes a shift to disclosing individual meetings that occur, not just the intent to lobby in general.

We also need greater transparency around whose interests lobbyists are representing and to ensure that either a code of conduct for lobbyists is established or that the essential elements of a code of conduct are incorporated into the Lobbyists Registration Act.

These are but a couple of examples of changes that could make a significant difference for improving lobbying practices in B.C. I trust they will be considered in the more comprehensive review that is forthcoming and in the resulting legislation.

With that in mind, I will be voting in favour of this bill as a much-needed first step.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan. [Applause.]

D. Routley: This is amazing. I’ll just stand and wait for more.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill. I definitely have an interest in the act, the Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2017.

[2:55 p.m.]

I served in opposition as critic for freedom-of-information and privacy protection, which also, at least at that time, included the registrar of lobbyists. So I did have a lot of experience with that world, a world that people aren’t generally very knowledgable about but are quite aware of, from some quite negative perspectives or view.

The word “lobby” and the word “lobbyist” both are tainted by people’s perception that this is just a form of influence peddling. I would agree that if we weren’t to take the steps that we are now, it does very much appear that influence is being offered for sale by former politicians and their senior staff when there are no controls over the length of time before which they can become lobbyists.

This bill, with the two-year ban, puts all lobbyists essentially on an equal footing. They cannot benefit from their previous employment as a minister or a deputy minister or senior staff or an elected person at any provincial level. This is going to increase transparency and increase confidence.

The fact is that lobbyists are essential to our process. We need to hear as much information from as many perspectives as possible. Lobbyists generally are able to bring information from their clients and place it in a context that is meaningful for public policy decision-makers.

Often a group, an agency, a company will want to communicate with government but don’t have either the skill or insight to be able to present their case in a meaningful and persuasive way. This is an essential part of the role of a lobbyist, that they take the circumstances of their client and attempt to show the government how their client’s need can match the need or the purpose of government. This is an important role.

In the United States, I attended some parliamentary conferences in the past as an MLA. At one, I learned that, unfortunately, in the state houses, representative houses, the congresspeople in those states generally are paid very, very little money to sit in those houses of representation. They rely solely upon lobbyists to provide them all the information they receive in order to make decisions. This seems absolutely ludicrous to me.

I felt very fortunate that we are coming from a jurisdiction where, for one thing, politicians are paid in a way that will allow them to leave their private life and engage in public service and then return without great harm; but also that we provide enough research staff that we do not depend exclusively upon information from lobbyists. This is an important distinction as well.

The changes that were made several years ago to the Lobbyists Registration Act were changes that had been demanded for over a decade, or a decade and a half, in fact. Once they were made, it was pretty much like closing the barn door once the horses had fled. But in any case, many changes that should have been made weren’t made. There will, I’m sure, be changes in the future that will improve the act as well.

The focus of our government, in this case, is to ensure that public office holders do not leave office with an advantage over others because of their inside knowledge about government decision-making. Their senior staff are similarly restricted for two years, but this two-year ban does provide for exemptions.

Of course, there are currently lobbyists who are engaged, who, under this legislation, would have to withdraw from lobbying for a certain length of time in order to qualify on that two-year period. They may very well have to do that, but they can at least apply for an exemption that would be adjudicated by the registrar of lobbyists.

The decision then, once made, if an exemption is granted, would be made public, so more transparency. The reasons and the names of the people who would be exempted must be made public, and I think that’s a very important aspect of this as well.

[3:00 p.m.]

It does accommodate for circumstances where, perhaps, a person in the public interest should be allowed an exemption. I think that’s foresight, and I’m proud of our government’s bill in that regard.

One of the things that I found troubling about the previous circumstance was in a personal way. Representing the Cowichan Valley, I succeeded former MLA Graham Bruce, who was the B.C. Liberal Minister of Labour and the Deputy Premier at the time. He was caught up in the Lobbyists Registration Act for not properly registering because of some of the exemptions under the act. For instance, if a person is an employee of a First Nation, they are exempt from the ban. This was the claim that that person made at the time.

If there is a two-year ban, so much of the difficulty in determining whether a person is acting with integrity as a lobbyist, acting in the public interest, would be removed. That’s our goal here. Our goal here is to ensure that the public policy decisions made by this chamber are informed from as many sources as possible and made with independence and balance, without undue influence from people with inside knowledge. This is a very important aspect of the bill. This is the bill, and I hope that members opposite will find their way to support this.

I do remember that I believe the B.C. NDP opposition at the time of the last amendment act did support the amendment of the Lobbyists Registration Act. Even though we saw shortcomings in that bill, we saw that it was an improvement to ensure greater registration and adherence to the rules.

Currently the fact is that somebody can leave office and negotiate a contract to represent a company — say, for example, an energy company when a decision is about to be made on a pipeline or permission to explore for resources in sensitive areas. A person leaving government who was in cabinet or was a senior official from those offices would have a very great head start in being able to secure that kind of work and influence government decisions.

We’ve seen enough of that. People in this province are tired of feeling as though government isn’t in fact working for them. They feel that, in fact, their government has been captured by special interests, that their government’s decisions are captive to those interests and that the interests of them, their families and their communities are secondary to the interests of the people influencing government.

Of course, one of the tools or mechanisms of influencing the democratic process is lobbying. By virtue of people in the province having seen the Wild West of political financing finally be brought under control…. What they’re used to seeing is people paying exorbitant sums of money in order to have their views on the table of decision-makers in a way that is probably inappropriate in the minds of most British Columbians.

I have yet to meet a single person who has criticized the fact that this government banned union and corporate donations and limited personal donations. I feel that I will not be successful in finding a person who would criticize this bill.

People do have a suspicion and a discomfort with the words “lobby” and “lobbyists.” That’s unfortunate. As I said earlier, people in the province have a skepticism — in fact, a cynicism — that is well earned through a series and a pattern of misbehaviour, a pattern of government being influenced by its wealthiest donors.

[3:05 p.m.]

People, naturally, suspect every mechanism of delivering influence to government — rightly so. That is unfortunate for all those diligent lobbyists who act with the greatest integrity, who have standards and maintain those, who operate honestly. That is by far the vast majority of lobbyists, and they, unfortunately, are smeared by this sense and this cynicism around influence of government.

In fact, what we are doing is helping the lobby industry achieve a greater status of trust with British Columbians. Everything we do to make lobbying more transparent and more easily accessible to people makes their industry better, makes us better in this House, because the information we’re receiving, we can be confident, isn’t tainted by some sort of undue influence. I think that’s a landscape change for British Columbian politics.

I think that this bill in combination with the elections financing legislation that has been introduced to this House and debated are the two most important things our new government has done so far. It’s the foundation of everything else that follows. You must have integrity in government, and you must have the trust of the people. This House operates on the notion, the concept, the principle of confidence.

Every government that sits in this House must win confidence votes and pass budgets in order to have legitimacy, like this government. But the unfortunate part of all of this is that that trust…. In order for our work here to be meaningful in the lives of British Columbians, there must be a degree of trust. All legislation asks citizens to subject themselves to rules that we collectively make on their behalf. People do not respect a process that they feel is tainted or in some way polluted by something like the toxic effects of big money in politics in British Columbia. We’re changing that, and I’m proud of that.

I’m proud to stand as a member of the House…. That cynicism that people have developed over the years has been, as I said, well earned through the patterns of behaviour of the various governments that have sat in this House in the last 16 years. But you know, I….

Interjection.

D. Routley: Pardon me?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

D. Routley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky criticizes a letter that was written by a member of the House to ask the status of the timing of a decision. And since the members are, in the minds of all British Columbians, the masters of the type of influence peddling, the type of public policy for sale, it’s only appropriate that I should be hearing criticism from them. We’ve heard nothing but hypocrisy from the official opposition, who, only in July, supported all of the pieces of the B.C. NDP platform and plan for governance in their clone speech, and all supported that.

Now that they’re sitting in opposition, they can reverse their coat, wear a different colour and expect that people will be convinced by that, fooled by that. I wish I could say that it isn’t so, but unfortunately, that’s the world that we live in. We live in a British Columbia where people’s confidence in the public process has been impaired, has been damaged, has been rended by the behaviour of a government, that side of the House, that sat in government for 16 years and allowed this terrible circumstance to develop.

These issues of improper influence of government don’t arise by themselves. It’s not as though we in opposition somehow made up a story that the B.C. Liberals were being influenced by big money and thereby undermining people’s confidence in the very upstanding profession of lobbying. So the effect of the behaviour of the previous government, and the effect of so many examples of influence….

[3:10 p.m.]

I’ll give you just one. A Burke Mountain property valued in appraisal at $5.6 million was sold to a B.C. Liberal insider who had donated almost $100,000 — sold for $150,000.

Now, when people look at that, what conclusion, Mr. Speaker, do you think they draw? I think they rightly draw the conclusion that there has been influence exercised in a way that doesn’t benefit them. That’s their property that was sold. That’s their property that was given away by the government.

I’m quite sure that every British Columbian will be happy to see that not only are we banning union and corporate donations, limiting personal donations, but we’re also taking the step to ensure that the lobbyists in this province operate in a way that they can hold their heads high. They can operate in a way that they can be proud to say: “I’m a lobbyist in British Columbia. That means I communicate with government on behalf of people who need to have their issues understood by government.” That’s a very lofty thing.

Unfortunately, that important work — the reputations, the impression of the entire industry — has been polluted by the same kind of toxin that has polluted this public process here, and that’s the influx of big money.

What is the phrase that people…? Even if people don’t understand the issue right before them…. Often you’ll talk to people about a public policy issue, and they’re not necessarily very well informed. But they will always say this: “Follow the money.” They’ll always say: “Follow the money, and that will lead us to the truth.”

In B.C., when you follow the money, it leads you to a truth. It leads you to a conclusion. It leads you to the conclusion that what this House represents — the uplifting of the public interest, the expression of the views of British Columbians to their government, the participation of British Columbians in decision-making in their own province, the faith of British Columbians in that decision-making, their willingness to subject themselves to regulation and law made in this House, all of that — has been impacted by this former government that has allowed this situation to generate to a point where it’s so out of control that people have absolutely just given up.

Then we’re all smeared by that same brush. We’re all tainted by that same stain. I think it’s, absolutely, not just unfortunate but tragic. This House, as I said, stands on a principle of confidence. Governments stand on a principle of confidence. Law is enforced, but it is confidence in the law that persuades people to observe it.

When the B.C. Liberals, over these many years, have so desperately undermined people’s confidence in that principle, then they might be forgiven — and I certainly forgive them — for adopting a very cynical attitude. Cynicism itself is the next strongest toxin to politics in this province — money and cynicism. Money has distorted politics, and cynicism has distorted people’s ability to participate and engage in their province.

We aim to change that. Our government is going to change that. We are changing it. We’ve changed that Wild West landscape of political donations out of control. That’s changed. We’re changing the Lobbyists Registration Act to ensure that people feel that decisions made in this House are not unduly influenced.

These are very optimistic changes for British Columbians. These are the kinds of changes that give us all confidence. It’s a funny word, that, isn’t it — “confidence”? It’s a notion. Describe it. It’s difficult to describe, but everybody knows it. Everybody knows what it means. It’s also something, like trust, that is difficult to build, that has to be built on consistency, and that is so terrifyingly easy to evaporate or lose. Once lost, it is that much more difficult to bring back.

[3:15 p.m.]

Okay. I’ve had my say on this bill. I hope that the House will support it. I think that it contributes greatly to transparency and integrity in the public process in British Columbia. Having said that, I will end my remarks.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney General to conclude the debate.

Hon. D. Eby: I just wanted to say that I appreciate very much all of the perspectives that I’ve heard in the Legislature, and I move second reading of Bill 8.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 8, Lobbyists Registration 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: In this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill 9.

Committee of the Whole House

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

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

The committee met at 3:18 p.m.

On section 1.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m joined here by Sherie Verhulst. She’s legislative counsel with the legal services branch.

On Bill 9, the Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, Committee of the Whole.

I welcome questions from members.

A. Weaver: I got confused. I looked at a couple of these. My second reading speech was a little tongue in cheek. I do recognize the importance of these changes, but in section 1, when I tried to follow it through, it looked like, ultimately….

When I followed through to the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act, this ended up, in the end, referring to a section that was repealed. I was confused as to…. I may be wrong, but we’re changing “purposes” to “purpose,” and then we follow through with references to sections. In the end, we refer to a section that was repealed. Was I incorrect in that regard? Could some clarification be given?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: This is one of these moments when you’re very glad that you have staff. This is a complicated one. I’ll run through it slowly and, hopefully, not misspeak.

The Farm Practices (Right to Farm) Act included regulatory authority under section 10(3) which gave the authority for the board to engage or to retain specialists and consultants in accordance with regulations made under section 12(2)(d). Section 12(2)(d) referred to the fact that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can make regulations “for the purpose” of section 10(3), not the purposes, of section 10(3). There was an attempt, in December of 2015, to amend this.

The member is right. Section 10 was repealed, and there was an attempt to repeal section 12(2)(d), but the attempt to repeal it failed because it said it struck out “for the purposes of section 10 (3)…”, but the actual section reads “for the purpose of section 10 (3)….” So the attempted amendment is inoperative. It can’t strike out the text, as it tried to do, because it referred to the plural when, in fact, it should have referred to the singular.

This correction today will actually make the 2015 amendment effective. By making it singular, then the attempted amendment becomes operative, and the whole section is struck — and the member will be able to sleep at night.

A. Weaver: I do thank the minister for that, because I will now sleep well at night. I would like to say that this is why we have such exceptional legislative drafters here in the province of British Columbia. You need to have multiple degrees in something to be able to have found that track. I do thank the member for the clarification. I look forward to a good night’s sleep tonight.

Sections 1 through 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

A. Weaver: This is one of these ones…. I mean, I don’t want to belabour this. But when I looked up in the dictionary, “inpatient” and “in-patient,” I find the same definition. So I’m wondering why we’re changing “inpatient” to “in-patient” — other than the potential stress that is caused by the fact that this is in the Forensic Psychiatry Act.

I couldn’t resist that, sorry.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that legislative counsel and legislative drafters in British Columbia use the Canadian Oxford Dictionary as the standard for legislative drafting. I’m referring to the paperback version. It looks like the 2004 reissue. In that, at page 510, “inpatient” is indeed “in-patient.” So to comply with the standard that’s used by the drafters of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, “inpatient” — one word — has been proposed to be changed to “in-patient.”

A. Weaver: I do appreciate that. I use the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and I admit that in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, it doesn’t have the dash. But I defer to the wisdom of the legislative drafters for so using an English Canadian Oxford Dictionary, as is appropriate here in British Columbia.

With that, I thank the minister. I have no further questions, on any of these sections, to the end of the bill.

Sections 15 through 64 inclusive approved.

Schedules 1 through 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:25 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Hon. D. Eby: In this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill 5, the Constitution Amendment Act, 2017.

Pardon me, Mr. Speaker. I've jumped the gun. I’ll take my seat until you give me the high sign.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

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

Bill 9, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2017, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Eby: In this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill 5, the Constitution Amendment Act, 2017.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — CONSTITUTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 5; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 3:29 p.m.

On section 1.

Hon. D. Eby: I would like to begin by introducing Nancy Carter, the executive director, and Renee Mulligan, legal counsel from the civil policy and legislation office, Ministry of Attorney General.

J. Rustad: In lieu of my colleague, who is absent from the chamber, I’ll be walking through a number of questions around this today. A number of other colleagues of mine will take the opportunity to enter into the debate and discussion. I’m not sure if the Green member has some questions as well, but we’ll work that out so we can make sure we can fit things in accordingly.

[3:30 p.m.]

As we walk through this…. I mean, it’s pretty straightforward in terms of the Constitution Amendment Act, in terms of the intent of what is being done in the act.

I might start with a question on section 1. Are there any other jurisdictions in Canada with a definition of two members to be a political party?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’ve got some great trivia for the member. It’s very interesting Canadiana.

Two or more members. I can advise that Saskatchewan has two or more members as a requirement for party status. Nova Scotia also has two or more members, but you also have to, as a political party, have had candidates running for three-quarters of the seats in the House or more, and the party must receive at least 10 percent of the popular vote.

One or more. The Yukon, one or more members. P.E.I., one or more members and at least ten candidates nominated or at least 0.35 percent of the popular vote. There are jurisdictions that require four or more members — Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and, certainly, the federal parliament. Notably, Quebec is 12 or more members in order to obtain party status, or the party received at least 20 percent of the popular vote.

J. Rustad: In doing this, with the requirements that have been mentioned in other jurisdictions, did you take any of those thoughts into consideration when you picked the number of two members in forming an official party?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that one of the animating principles behind this was, in fact, British Columbia’s history. There was a period in time when British Columbia had just two members of the New Democratic Party in the House, and the party did not receive official party status. That was certainly recognized by many people at the time to be an issue within our system that needed to be addressed.

I can see, by the fact that there are other jurisdictions that have pursued not just two or more members but actually one or more members in smaller provinces, this is something that…. It’s certainly not a direction that we’re looking to go — to one — but two makes sense for British Columbia.

J. Rustad: I do recall that time. Although I wasn’t elected at that particular time when that happened, in 2001 to 2005, I do certainly recall that time.

There were other circumstances, of course, in the large portion of the popular vote that came in as part of that. It was the circumstances of the day, when the government was elected out of office for various reasons. But that isn’t necessarily the reason that we’re here to talk about, so I won’t go into details with regards to that.

I am curious, though, in terms of that, because in a situation where you might have two independents elected — may not be affiliated at all, may have 1 percent or less of the vote — that could end up being considered a party. I’m just wondering whether those circumstances, those types of things, were considered when the minister put together this particular section of the bill.

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that we certainly did turn our minds to the possibility that two members may come together and form a party in the Legislature in order to better express their views, and we welcomed that kind of cooperation.

J. Rustad: I want to come back to that question a little bit, but some other things are on my mind, in particular with regards to this section.

What exactly are the privileges that are available to an official party that aren’t available to private members?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: One of the things this does is guarantee representation for the party on what we call LAMC, which is the Legislative Assembly Management Committee. This is the committee that manages the business of the Legislature. It’s an important committee that we feel all parties should be able to participate in. It provides additional speaking time in the Legislative Assembly. There is also entitlement to increased remuneration for certain positions, such as the leader of the party, as provided in the Members Remunerations and Pensions Act.

J. Rustad: I thank the minister for the answer. My understanding of LAMC is that its current composition, I believe, is two members from the government, two members of the official opposition and the Speaker. I believe that makes the composition. In a scenario like we would have now with a third party in this Legislature, how would that change that composition of LAMC?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that I’m looking at the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act. In it, section 2 sets out the composition of LAMC. I’ll just use that as shorthand. It includes the Speaker, the minister, the Government House Leader, the chair of the government caucus, the Opposition House Leader, the chair of the official opposition caucus and then, to the member’s question, one member appointed from each additional party by the members of that party.

He has hit on a point that we are going to come to later in the bill, it is my hope, which is that there is a consequential amendment to this act — the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act — to amend “additional party” to mean “a political party with two or more members in the Legislative Assembly.” Currently it’s defined as “four or more members in the Legislative Assembly.” We’ll be coming to that later on. But just in practice, that means one member from each additional party that would qualify under the amendment.

J. Rustad: Sorry. Just to make sure I’ve heard that right, it would have the Government House Leader and…. Sorry, I can’t remember the composition. But the two from the official opposition and any other party, whether it’s part of government or opposition in any sort of agreements, then would have one representative and not the other. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: The composition under the LAMC Act right now is the Speaker, the minister responsible — I take it it’s the minister responsible — the Government House Leader and the chair of government caucus. Those are the two the member was talking about. The Opposition House Leader and the chair of the official opposition caucus are the two opposition members the member was referring to, and then one member appointed from each additional party. So if, let’s say, there was a Green Party caucus, a Conservative Party caucus and a Libertarian Party caucus, that could be as many as three additional members on the committee joining, if they had two MLAs each elected, under the amendments as proposed.

J. Rustad: We’ll get to section 7, so I apologize for mixing these two components together. What other…? Sorry, the minister would like to….

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for giving me a second, because I did miss a really key provision, which is letter (h), after (g). For each additional member that you add from an additional party, there is one additional government member from the government caucus appointed by the Government House Leader.

It’s not impossible to imagine that you would have a sufficient number of additional parties in the Legislature that they would form a majority on the committee. This provision is intended to ensure that the governing party has a majority on the committee. That’s under the LAMC Act. That’s not an amendment. That’s just as the act stands right now.

[3:40 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for that. It poses some additional questions that will come up under section 7, but thank you.

So what other benefits? We talked about opportunities to speak in the Legislature. Exactly, how would that work? What’s affected by official party status, in terms of that? So if we had one additional party, or perhaps three additional parties, in this Legislature, how does that change things in terms of the standard orders of the day?

Hon. D. Eby: Members of recognized political parties are allotted more time under the standing orders to speak, which, of course, can be amended by the members of this place. But the current standing orders are to address in reply and amendments, leaders of recognized parties are given two hours to speak. Other members are only given 30 minutes to speak.

For budget debate and amendments, leaders of recognized parties are given two hours. Other members are only given 30 minutes.

Public bills in the hands of private members. These are private members’ bills. Leaders of recognized parties are given two hours to speak to this. Other members, 30 minutes.

And then all other proceedings in the House not otherwise specifically provided for. Leaders of recognized parties are given two hours, and any other members are given 30 minutes.

With respect to the Committee of Supply, leaders of recognized parties are given one opening statement up to 30 minutes, and thereafter, 15 minutes. Whereas other members are only given 15 minutes.

So each additional party will have one member who is appointed the leader, who will have this additional period of time to speak.

J. Rustad: Thank you for that. I believe that those rules will be in place. Can there be a designated speaker, rather than the leader, which is often used on bills, I believe? Just curious as to whether or not that applies.

Hon. D. Eby: This bill that is put forward makes no amendments to the standing orders, so any rules around designated speakers would continue to apply as they do today.

J. Rustad: For those watching at home, we often use acronyms here. LAMC is the Legislative Assembly Management Committee, which manages the structure of how everything goes within the Legislature. Just to make sure, in case everyone is wondering “what’s LAMC?” Some members may not even know the answer to that — some of our new members.

Moving on in terms of that. Other than the additional speaking roles, how do the additional parties change what happens in question period? I understand that’s not directly as part of this bill, but by changing this, obviously, it will change how that action happens within this Legislature.

Hon. D. Eby: Currently, question period is arranged within and among the non-governing parties, so they allocate time among themselves. To the best of our knowledge, there is no standing order in relation to question period.

J. Rustad: Maybe I can ask somebody else — one of your staff — about that, because my understanding…. What I’ve been told or what I’ve heard, which is what I’m trying to confirm, is that official parties are given a question each question period as opposed to what’s currently happening right now, which is, I think, there’s one a week or something like that, in terms of the questions as a percentage of the number of people associated with question period.

Given that there are typically six or seven people that have an opportunity to get up in question period, if there were to be four or five different opposition parties…. Obviously, one party may have three-quarters of the seats in opposition, yet the time wouldn’t necessarily be divided equally. Is that something that the minister has turned his mind to, in terms of the potential designation of official party status?

Hon. D. Eby: Question period time is, as I understand it, allocated by the standing orders. How the opposition parties or the other parties use that time has, to the best of our understanding, been negotiated among those parties on whatever basis that they see fit.

[3:45 p.m.]

We will have a look at that. If the information that comes back contradicts that or there is some other formal rule that applies to question period, certainly, we’ll advise the member. But as we understand it, this is something that the Opposition House Leader negotiates with the leaders of the other parties who are not in government to determine how to allocate question period time.

J. Rustad: Regarding other potential changes that may come by achieving official party status, it’s my understanding that each member, as an independent, receives a certain amount of resources for the management of their duties as an officially elected member within this Legislature.

When you become part of a party, those resources change. Could you, perhaps, clarify what the level of resources are for individual members versus the level of resources available to members as part of a collective, as part of a party?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question. I’m reading from the Legislative Assembly of B.C. Policy Manual. This is policy 7520, Caucus Funding. It’s a Legislative Assembly Management Committee, LAMC policy, that was approved December 1, 2016. I’m happy to track down a copy for the member.

It’s technical in its wording about how it allocates the funding the member is talking about, which is the funding for staff and capital expenses for a party, a group that is recognized as a political party in the Legislature. The key provision is 1.03, and there’s a calculation that says: “Caucus operating budgets are calculated as shown below. Where specific LAMC decisions have been documented….” I’ll skip over that.

“The caucus receives funding equal to the salary and benefits of a research officer N21, step 5, for each non-executive member of the caucus; plus, the caucus receives funding equal to 50 percent of the salary and benefits of a research officer N21, step 5, for each executive member of the caucus; plus, the caucus receives funding of $4,000 for each non-executive member of the caucus and $2,000 for each executive member; plus, the caucus receives additional funding of $5,000 for each member of the caucus. The Speaker is not part of the caucus and does not participate in the…funding formula.”

“Independent members,” by contrast, “receive double the operating budget allocated to a caucus non-executive member.”

It’s all a lot of technical talk, but the bottom line, in terms of the financial impact for a three-member caucus, as the Green caucus is, is actually that their operating budget and capital budget will be reduced by approximately $25,000, under these calculations, by becoming an official party. Financially, from an operational and capital budget perspective, they’re doing better off as three independents as opposed to a political party.

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for his answer.

[3:50 p.m.]

It is very technical. It’s one of those things that, for me, I just wanted some clarity and also to have on the record what those differences are. There is a change, obviously, in terms of potential resources and resources that we all use as private members, as members of this Legislature, to be able to carry on with the business of the people and represent, obviously, our ridings and our parties.

To that end, the reduction that the minister has mentioned that will come…. Has the minister, through his relationship with the Green Party members — or the independent Green Party members, as they are currently called — discussed this particular issue and those reductions of services?

Hon. D. Eby: I have not had any discussions with the Greens about this. Any discussion likely would take place in the LAMC committee in terms of the allocation, if there was concern about that. That’s where that discussion would be taking place.

J. Rustad: Thank you for that, and you’re right.

I actually apologize. I shouldn’t have asked the minister directly whether he would have had those discussions. But I guess the question is more: has the secretariat had these discussions between the two organizations with regards to the change of political party status?

Hon. D. Eby: I can’t tell the member. I don’t know — I’m not a member of the secretariat in terms of sitting in these meetings — what has been discussed. But I can certainly advise the member that the Green Party was aware that we brought forward a bill that would impact their party. They, I am sure, understand that if they wish to address this issue of the fact that they’re losing $25,000 in operating funding, the proper place to bring that concern is to LAMC, if they want to have that addressed.

There has been considerable discussion of this in the media. The fact that this bill proposes changes that will, in effect, if the three members wish so, they could be recognized as a political party….

To anticipate one of the member’s questions, there is a change, as well, for the compensation for members of a political party versus independent members that are sitting as a group of three members, for example, or group of two members. If you come together as a political party, it creates the possibility of creating positions that receive additional compensation in the form of salary.

Those specific positions are Leader of the Third Party or additional party, which is 25 percent salary increase; Third Party House Leader, which is 10 percent salary increase, Third Party Whip…. Of course, the Green Party would have no such office. Third Party Whip, if they did, would be a 10 percent increase. And Third Party caucus chair would be a 10 percent increase.

J. Rustad: I just need some clarity around what you said, associated with the three-member party. I believe it was the caucus Whip position that they wouldn’t have. I’m just curious as to why that position wouldn’t necessarily exist in the Green Party structure.

Hon. D. Eby: This will teach me to make jokes. The Green Party has often reminded the NDP that they do not whip members in terms of caucus votes. It’s an ongoing discussion, a policy difference between the parties — and certainly, between them and the B.C. Liberal Party as well. So I take the member’s lesson for making jokes.

J. Rustad: I’m aware of the situation. I just I couldn’t resist asking the question, and I apologize to the House for taking some time to discuss the nuances of the political differences between various parties.

[3:55 p.m.]

I guess the other question…. In recognizing that there are four positions that are paid positions that have salary remuneration increases associated with a four-member party, which is what the legislation was originally set up to do in the recognition of those four positions…. I believe that was one of the rationales as to why four members was the threshold for creating a political party.

I guess the question is: if a party decided — a three-member party or, in this particular case with this legislation, a two-member party — that a member should hold more than one of those executive positions, what would the impact be on their remuneration associated with that?

Hon. D. Eby: Any MLAs that hold more than one position under the LAMC rules get the compensation for the best-paid position that they hold. If you’re a committee Chair, for example, as well as a caucus Whip, or if you’re leader of a party as well as having some other position, you only get the compensation that is the highest level of the two or more positions that you may hold. You don’t get to stack them up together in additional salary.

J. Rustad: Thanks for that explanation. It’s curious, though, in terms of the rules, I suppose. You know, this Legislature has obviously operated for a very long period of time now and is based on the Westminster parliamentary system which has operated for some 400 years, plus or minus, which has all these rules and components in place. When our Legislature was set up, it anticipated these types of things. As the member has said, it’s different in other jurisdictions. Other jurisdictions have taken things differently.

I am curious, given that there is a three-member caucus of the Green Party, why there would be the move to two members. I recognize the issue in 2001 and the circumstances associated with that, but I am curious as to why that threshold was set up in the current situation that we have within the Legislature.

Hon. D. Eby: To the member, I can advise that it’s the position of this government that parliament works best when parties are able to work together and participate in the legislative process, whether it’s LAMC or the debates or other processes. The system that was set up is one that favours recognized parties, so we set the threshold at two, recognizing that there is a history in this place of having two members in a group that — it’s this government’s position — should have been recognized as a party.

Obviously, other provinces have found themselves in similar situations, because they have similar policies in place. One of the interesting things about the parliamentary systems in the Commonwealth is some of the really remarkable differences between different jurisdictions that have evolved because of situations that each parliament has faced.

I’m sure Madame Chair, as a Speaker that has participated in many Commonwealth discussions about differences between jurisdictions, would be a great witness on the distinctions and the differences and the evolutions between different parliaments. And the Mother Parliament, for lack of a better word, in the U.K. looks very different in some situations than our own parliament, although obviously we come from that tradition.

This is another example. We’ve got a proposal here in front of the House for two or more members, out of a recognition of both the history in this parliament and also the belief of this government that this place will work better if more parties are recognized that wish to be and that they shouldn’t be eliminated by the fact that they haven’t elected four members.

J. Rustad: So outside of the direct operations, I guess, that we’ve talked about…. We touched on, you know, the speaking times within the Legislature. We touched on question period and the various components associated with that, LAMC — sorry for using the acronyms — as well as, of course, the positions and remuneration that would be created through this, the changes in the budget for them.

When it comes to parliamentary committees of various kinds, does a recognized party receive any additional benefits in terms of membership or, say, how parliamentary committees are structured and the operations of those committees?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: We’re not aware of any such additional changes that would result from recognition of party status.

J. Rustad: The current situation, the current composition, of Committee A consists of an even number of government and opposition members — I believe it does — in addition to one of the independent Green members, as well as the Chair. Because that is what has been decided here, will that become the official practice of operations of Committee A, which is the committee that, obviously, handles estimates and other things that are referred to it?

Hon. D. Eby: The member has asked a good question. We’re not aware of any standing orders that will be affected by this change in relation to committees or committee makeup. I think he raises a point that if this is an informal practice…. In parliamentary systems, informal practices rapidly become parliamentary conventions and then sort of accumulate additional force in that regard. That is the only way that we’re aware of in which this change could potentially impact committee makeup — that maybe there was some sort of tradition established. We will have a look with respect to standing orders, and if we find anything different, we’ll advise the member.

J. Rustad: It’s funny when you think about the traditions we have in the Legislature. We introduced a new tradition with the speaking stick being added into it, which is one of those rare changes to the traditions that are here. I often chuckle when I have tourists come in to talk. People say: “Why does government sit on this side and opposition on that side? Why is it not different?” In different legislatures, it is different because of parliamentary practices that have built over time.

I always have to chuckle a little bit because it goes back to a time before there was central heating, and government would take the side with the heat source — I can’t quite understand why — leaving the opposition, of course, out on the other side. Hence, the saying that the opposition is out in the cold, while the heat is on the government. These kinds of traditions, of course, are all a bit of fun.

In seriousness, changing the composition and the rules will potentially change how this Legislature operates, which is why I ask these questions in terms of: what are the intended consequences? What are the unintended consequences that we may want to recognize as part of changing the structure of political parties?

I may have a few more questions that may come from that, but at this time, I want to cede the floor to my colleague from Kelowna–Lake Country.

N. Letnick: I would like to ask the minister a few questions, if I may. Actually, the member for Nechako Lakes has asked excellent questions, but I’d like to drill down a little bit more, if I can. Then, clearly, on the orders of the day, there are two amendments that I’m proposing. The minister probably is aware of that. I will make the motion on the first one after I get through asking a few questions, if I may.

As the member for Nechako Lakes canvassed, official party status triggers certain well-defined entitlements, some of which I believe the minister has articulated. In particular, entitlements that an official opposition party would get that independents would not. One is having a leader. Another one is having a Whip, potentially a Deputy Whip, a House Leader and a caucus chair.

[4:05 p.m.]

Could the minister please comment as to why he believes or why the government believes that for a caucus of potentially two people, all these positions should be available?

Hon. D. Eby: The four positions, I think, contemplate a significantly larger caucus. It is up to whichever political party that receives party status which of these positions they wish to bestow on each other. But it’s important to recognize, from the public perspective, that you could have a two-member caucus and everybody has got two titles each, but the salary is capped. You can’t go beyond the salary of the best-compensated position.

The idea of these positions is that in a caucus, there are additional responsibilities, obviously, for different members of caucus, and it’s an attempt on the part of the Legislative Assembly Management Committee to recognize those different responsibilities. If, in light of the amendments in this bill, the committee decides to revisit how it does these kinds of positions, they’re certainly entitled to do those kinds of things. But I think, as the member rightly notes, there are potential additional consequences that flow on these positions — are recognized in different places in our legislative rules.

The idea here was simply to right what the government believed was a wrong, which is that a two-member caucus would not be recognized as a political party.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for the answer. Let’s drill deeper into this one, then. If we assume we’re dealing with a caucus of two Members of the Legislative Assembly, I would imagine one would be the leader. It would be not inconceivable to assume that one of them would be the leader. Since whipping two people probably would be not necessary, then I would assume that the other person would either be the House Leader or the caucus chair. Now, given that the leader is probably going to take the role of chair, caucus chair of two people, that really leaves that party of two to be a leader and the House Leader.

But then you get into the problem where: why would you have someone else be the House Leader negotiating what goes on in this place other than the leader? So it gets very contrived.

My question to the minister. I know he said that he’s trying to address a problem that was apparent back in 2001. Why not wait until we have a caucus of two in this place, to actually deal with the particular situation, and not limit it to a caucus of three?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for his question. The reason not to wait for a caucus of two is that that actually happened, and the caucus of two was not recognized as a political party. It’s something that should have happened, and it didn’t happen — in the opinion of the government.

I take the member’s point that the LAMC rules and the LAMC policies — these are Legislative Assembly Management Committee policies — were written for what will, hopefully, soon be the old Constitution Act, in terms of the number of people in a political party, which was four. Hopefully, in the new act, when we’re done this business of this bill, it will be two members.

If the Legislative Assembly Management Committee sees fit, they may wish to address exactly the issue the member is talking about. That is not something that’s in the bill in front of us here today. This is an issue for LAMC to address: “Well, it doesn’t make sense to have a two-member caucus with a Whip and whatever.” All the more power to LAMC to consider these kinds of policy changes that flow from this bill. But not a good reason, with respect, hon. Chair, to not do this change and not make this change.

N. Letnick: Again, thank you to the minister for the answer. I would also propose that the situation back in the early 2000s was completely different than the situation today, where you had two basic parties, one with all but two seats. And whether or not I would agree with what happened in that instance…. I wasn’t there, so I’m not going to make any comment on it.

[4:10 p.m.]

However, the situation today is completely different, where not only do we have, potentially, three parties — and I hope very soon to have a third party and a third-party leader in this House — but potentially, throughout this province, many other opportunities for slicing and dicing that the government of the day is proposing to promote. Then you’ll have three or four or five different parties of two in this Legislature, which is a completely different situation than 70 — whatever the number was — and two.

Given that the minister has identified that not all contingencies have been accounted for in the proposed legislation, and then part of this happens at LAMC — which is not part of the proposed amendments, the consequential amendments in this bill, because the bill has no control over LAMC, apparently — could the minister identify if the government has any intention, after the passage of this bill, to propose changes, either in the legislation or at LAMC, that would provide increased funding in any way or changes in any way to the parties of two?

Hon. D. Eby: The matter that’s in front of us here today is a bill that proposes to change “4 or more members” to “2 or more members” in the act. I understand the member would like to know what LAMC might do in the future, in light of this amendment. The opposition actually has two positions on LAMC. If the member wishes to raise changes, if he wants to know what’s on the agenda, he can ask his members who are sitting on that committee, and I’m sure they would be happy to advise him.

I disagree with the suggestion that the government hasn’t considered the consequences of these amendments. In fact, there has been a considerable amount of work, looking at other jurisdictions that have two or more members, which looks at the costs to the public. There are Treasury Board costs assessed, the cost implications of the legislation. The member was in cabinet. He’s aware of these kinds of assessments that take place. I simply disagree with that representation — that there hasn’t been adequate consideration here.

On the simple question of what is on the LAMC agenda…. Will they change anything in relation to two-member parties? I think the member raises a good point. We don’t actually have, at least not currently, a group of two members who is seeking party status in this Legislature, at least that I’m aware of. So that probably won’t be addressed until there is such a group. But that is not a reason not to do this change. That is simply something that hasn’t happened yet in the Legislature.

The reason we’re doing this change is that it might happen, and governments often put forward legislation that tries to anticipate scenarios that might not be immediately in front of us but prepare us for the situation that may come up in the future. That is what this amendment attempts to do.

N. Letnick: I must apologize if my question wasn’t clear. Let me ask it again. Is it the government’s intention, should the passage of the bill occur, to propose any changes in any other legislation or in the compensation provided to parties through LAMC? Is it the government’s intention to do so?

Hon. D. Eby: The only intention that I can speak to that I’m aware of is our intention to amend the LAMC Act as well. It’s a consequential amendment that rolls on from this amendment in section 1. Beyond that, I’m not aware of any intention to amend any further acts. Any changes to compensation for political parties or for members would have to go through LAMC. There’s a process. I’m not aware of anything that’s happening at LAMC.

N. Letnick: I hate to put words in such a learned mouth, but I will assume that what he is saying is that the government has no intention to make a proposal to LAMC to change the amount of remuneration or research or anything that is impacted by the proposed bill.

Hon. D. Eby: The best I can do for the member is advise him that I’m not aware of any intention to do that or any proposals that are going forward to LAMC.

N. Letnick: Moving on to a different part of the entitlements that are offered to opposition party groups. We haven’t heard this one yet today, but I did read it in the newspaper, so I won’t assume that it’s correct. I’d just like to hear from the minister himself to make sure that its validity is supported. It’s that official opposition parties have the opportunity to ask for funds to set up an office in Vancouver.

[4:15 p.m.]

Could the minister please comment on, one: is that correct? And two, if so, under what conditions would (e) offer parties of two people the expense of an office in Vancouver?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member, through experience in opposition, that the official opposition in the last parliament had an office in Vancouver that was operated, that was funded, as part of the official opposition budget envelope.

These amendments don’t make any changes to any rules that might be in place around funding. What it does do is it…. We had a chance to canvass a little bit of this with the previous member. The capital funding and the operational funding for a party are different than funding for independent members.

The impact of a three-member caucus in this Legislature, under existing rules: going from being independents to becoming a party is actually net negative. They end up losing $25,000 in operational and capital funding.

We’re not aware of any restriction on using operating and capital funding to open an office somewhere else in the province — whether it’s in Vancouver or in the north, wherever. We’re not aware of any restriction that would prevent a party from doing that.

There certainly are, as the LAMC policy sets out, very clear rules around how much money a party gets for operational funding and for capital funding that this set of rules does not change.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister. I hope he will endure this line of questioning just a little more. The purpose, of course, of this part in our procedure — for those that are watching at home — is to try to get clarity on the intent of all these sections. That’s what we’re trying to do here.

If I understood the minister correctly, the minister is saying that within the research and operating budget of an official party, opposition party, they may, if they wish, set up an official opposition office in Vancouver or, as the minister said, I think, in the Peace country up north, if they would like to. But that would have be encompassed within the operating budget provided to that official opposition party, and that’s provided by LAMC. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: That’s correct. I just want to make a clarification of terminology that there is a distinction, as I understand it, between official opposition and an additional party. There are additional privileges that flow to the official opposition versus additional parties. For example, on the LAMC committee, the official opposition gets to appoint two members to that committee, but an additional party only gets to appoint one additional member.

So just in terms of the official opposition being able to set up an office in Vancouver or in the Peace or an additional party being able to set up a similar office, we’re not aware of any restriction in terms of how they use their capital and operational funding.

Yes, that’s our understanding. It would come from the capital and operational funding to do that.

N. Letnick: Again, thank you to the minister for that.

When I put all the pieces together, what I’m hearing is that yes, an official party may, if it wants to, use part of their budget to set up an office outside of Victoria. But if they want to get more money to pay for that or anything else, they would have to go in front of LAMC and request that money from LAMC, to which the government has stated, through their minister, that the government has no position at this time as to whether or not extra money should be afforded to those parties.

I think that if I put all the answers together, that’s the synopsis of the answer to the question. The minister may wish to correct me, my interpretation, when he gets up in a moment.

[4:20 p.m.]

Another question that came up had to do with question period. I believe the minister said that the function of question period as to how many questions parties would get is part of the standing orders.

Could the minister please identify for us exactly how standing orders are changed? It’s so I have a sense of comfort that we’re not going to be in this position where, let’s say, we have four or five other parties, and the official opposition gets five minutes and all the other parties get 25 minutes’ worth of questions.

Hon. D. Eby: We believe that at the beginning of the legislative session, the standing orders are put forward, and members vote on those standing orders. In terms of the specific process for amending standing orders, I think it’s been so long that none of us really knows exactly what the process is for amending these things. I would imagine that a good start would be LAMC and then a proposal coming forward in the House and a vote on that.

If the member is interested, we will provide information about the technical means by which those are amended. It’s important to note that this bill in front of the House does not make any amendments to standing orders — it doesn’t propose any — or any additional powers to create standing orders or anything like that.

Just with respect to the member’s comments about my suggestion to him that I was not aware of any initiative to change the amounts of money that individuals or parties are receiving. I am not a member of LAMC. I don’t know what’s on the agenda. I don’t know what’s anticipated. I would urge him, if he is concerned about proposals coming forward to LAMC, to check in with his representatives from his caucus who sit on LAMC, to check in with LAMC about that.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I am, of course, concerned that we do not have clarity on how parties of two would be able to take over question period, away from the official opposition. I think our democratic system is very well served by a strong government and a strong official opposition. The minister has not given me confidence that that will continue under this new proposal.

While I do understand that there is a party of three in question here and I am prepared — and, I believe, government is also prepared — to see them achieve party status, at this point, I think the best route is to introduce my amendment to section 1, which is on the order paper. We can have a debate on the four versus two — I guess it’ll be three versus two, depending on how you look at it — at this time so that we can flesh out this issue a little more and get some confidence.

On all these things put together: the issue of questions, the issue of independents versus party, the issue of number of positions they can hold, the issue of offices around the province, the issue of cost to taxpayers, whether it’s worth going down to two or we should stop at three…. Let’s try it out with the Green Party, which is right in front of us and is anxious to move on. Then, should ever there be a case for two, by then, maybe the government of the day will have a plan in place that will ensure that we have a strong government and a strong opposition to hold them to account.

At this point — the Clerks and you, Madame Chair, can correct me if I have the procedure incorrect — I’d like to move, in the Committee of the Whole on Bill 5, intituled Constitution Amendment Act, an amendment.

[SECTION 1 by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

“2 3 or more members”.]

On the amendment.

[4:25 p.m.]

N. Letnick: I’m changing it from two to three. It’s confusing, I know. It’s really easy. I’d like it to say “three or more members,” striking out the two. I’d like to add to the reasons that I gave just a minute ago.

I believe we’re all elected as members of a political party or as independents, and we should be acknowledged in this Legislature as such. Indeed, even an individual who was elected under a party banner should be recognized in British Columbia as representing a political party and not as an independent member, for they are clearly not independent from the party apparatus that helped them get elected.

As such, the opposition supports lowering the number to be recognized as an official party in this Legislature from four to three, to accommodate the members of the Green Party — but not two. The concern is not solely 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 law in British Columbia, which are not necessary at this time nor warranted.

Rights and benefits for a caucus of two — such as increased cost to taxpayers for positions in name only, with no added real workload; the potential cost to taxpayers for setting up opposition offices elsewhere; the guarantee of at least one pair of questions, multiplied by every official opposition party of two people every day during a short 30-minute question period; amongst others — have led me and the opposition to the conclusion that at this time, the best course of action would be to proceed with an amendment to see it go from four to three, and not to two.

Hon. D. Eby: Just before I weigh in on the motion, I’ll just advise the member on the standing order issue that they can be changed by a vote on a motion in the House. That’s the way that standing orders are changed.

The member raises all kinds of concerns that he has, some of which I think are great to go forward to LAMC. He should advocate for changes around titles if he thinks there are too many potential titles that party members could have, some of which, frankly…. I have a hard time distinguishing the difference between two members and three members.

There are a bunch of seats in this Legislature which could easily be made up by a multiplicity of three-member parties, which the member says he is in favour of. Similarly, it could be a multiplicity of two-member parties, which the member says he is opposed to because of the risk of setting up so many opposition offices. “What are you going to during question period? What is the role of the official opposition?” I cannot see the difference between three-member parties and two-member parties in terms of the issues that he has identified. In fact, this government has been committed to increasing the opportunities available to the official opposition, not taking opportunities away.

The member says he’s concerned that the official opposition might lose question period, for some reason. This is the government that has given legislative drafting for the first time in the history of British Columbia to the official opposition. We’re increasing the resources available to the opposition to do the job of the opposition more effectively.

So the suggestion this is some sort of secret agenda to perhaps take question period away from the opposition is, I think, missing the point of what we’re doing here in terms of trying empower the opposition and the third party to do what the people sent them here to do, which is to advocate for constituents and hold the government to account.

Because I simply do not see a difference between a two-member party and a three-member party in terms of the issues of the number of offices, how you would handle question period and the other issues the member has raised, I cannot support the amendment.

The proposal is two or more members, because in B.C.’s history we had a two-member group that wanted official party status and couldn’t get it. The group that had the overwhelming control of the Legislature refused to give them party status. So we are righting that wrong, anticipating that it may happen again in the future, in this proposal that we put forward.

We very much, as the government, support the idea that two or more members be recognized as parties. I think this change will improve democracy in British Columbia.

A. Weaver: I’d like to thank the member for Kelowna–Lake Country and the member for Nechako Lakes for their very thoughtful probing of this section in the legislation before us, and thank the minister and staff for their responses.

[4:30 p.m.]

Obviously, this is a section that affects us directly, as three independent MLAs who were elected as B.C. Greens in the last election. As the member for Kelowna–Lake Country has said, we are not independent. We clearly ran on a platform. We clearly articulated that platform across the province of British Columbia, and the three of us were elected on that platform, the B.C. Green platform. I agree with the member for Kelowna–Lake Country. When you run on a political platform, it’s very difficult to be viewed as independent, so obviously we support that statement.

The question boils down to three versus two versus four, and that’s what we’re debating here. When I look at this, I ask the question: “What about the future? What about the next election?” I am drawn by the analogy to 2001, where we had a situation — and prior to that, in the 1990s — where the Reform Party also had a number of MLAs, two MLAs sitting here in the Legislature.

I look at that, and I think that there should have been, at the time, party status for these people. The subsequent questions about whether the funding should be this or whether the names and titles should be that are very good questions. I think we can address those in different forums. So, for example, LAMC would deal with any funding issues. I agree with the member. It doesn’t really make sense for three of us to have a Deputy Whip. Like, we don’t.

I would like to put at ease the members opposite with respect to offices in Vancouver. Again, I think, ultimately, we are judged by the taxpayer. What would the taxpayer say if the B.C. Green Party were suddenly to get a big office in Vancouver with no MLAs sitting in Metro Vancouver? I would suggest that the jury of the public would be quite judgmental on that, so this is not something we’re actively pursuing because it’s not something, frankly, that we think is correct. If there had been four of us, and two were from Vancouver and two from Victoria, maybe a slightly different thing. In our case, we’ll probably not actively pursue this.

It’s important, again, coming back to the three versus two, to think: what about the next election? I hope that we can bring it upon ourselves to actively campaign in the upcoming referendum for proportional representation. I know that the official opposition will do this, with humble….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The former official opposition. It’s hard to take that off your….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I know. I’ve seen other MLAs in the opposition say the same thing.

I know that the government will campaign for it, as we will, obviously. I know that in the throne speech of the summer, the B.C. Liberals said they were supporting proportional representation, and there are members on record who support it as well. If we get this proportional representation passing in the fall of next year, we’ll move to a 2021 election wherein there may be a multitude of parties. Wouldn’t it be healthy for us to recognize a democracy wherein two parties can be recognized as two parties?

Now, I understand. We can’t have…. Let’s suppose two members opposite decide that they want to form the disgruntled Liberal Party, and they so register according to rules, coming up to suggest that they should then have a question every day. Well, that’s not something that’s within the…. We have to look to precedent there, and it would start to become silly.

The precedent in the House, of course, is that when the NDP had two and when the Reform had two, there was a question a day, typically with a third party. We haven’t had four parties, and that would be a new precedent. I think we would look with the members opposite very carefully to say: “What is fair? What is truly representative?” Is it that two members are disgruntled, and now they figure they should have undue influence in this Legislature?

I’m not sure. They ran on a platform. They would have run on a platform that was a Liberal platform, but now they’re suddenly claiming to be something different. It’s a slightly different situation. I’m sure, seeing the openness of the government here to providing us legislative drafters, that this is something that we could discuss.

I believe, if we think to the future, that the number two is the correct number, in light of the history here in British Columbia. But I recognize the concerns that have been raised by both the member for Kelowna–Lake Country and the member for Nechako Lakes and agree that many of these concerns would have to be addressed. They’re hypothetical right now, but they would have to be addressed. I think that the legislation, which appeals to LAMC as well as the Legislature as a whole, could indeed address that, if that situation were to arise.

[4:35 p.m.]

I don’t think it will arise till the next election anyway, because we have a big happy camp over on that side — unless, of course, we could actually end this debate if two members opposite would like to come and join the B.C. Green Party here. We’d have five, and away we go.

J. Rustad: Why two? You just need one to get four.

A. Weaver: We’ll take two.

With that, I thank you, and I look forward to the vote.

R. Sultan: I think the first point to be made is that this bill is only part of a package of bills totalling four in number which, cumulatively, will change the working of democracy in the provincial government in British Columbia. I really believe that. And I accuse the government of employing a salami technique to introduce one little bill at a time and distract the argument on this one — do a discussion of LAMC or perhaps an office in Vancouver — when the grand sum total is much more far-reaching and certainly changes parliament as we know it.

I support the amendment to Bill 5 reducing from three to two the number of persons required to constitute a fully fledged political party in this House. The point is made: “Well, really. Three, five — does it really make much difference?” Well, it’s a 50 percent difference. Certainly, I think the precedent to go to two members is very significant indeed.

The rumoured reason for this amendment, the scuttlebutt in the corridors, is that the Green Party is faced with the loss of a member crossing the floor, and they’re going to only have two members. My heavens. Therefore, we must change the laws of parliament to preserve the sanctity of the Green Party as a party with full standing. If that is indeed the reason — it’s pure speculation on my part; I would not expect either confirmation or denial of that possibility — it strikes me as being a very trivial reason and not one that should constitute the foundation of our government.

It’s also speculated, and perhaps I can speak with a little bit more personal knowledge on this matter, that some members in the…. What was the label attached? The disgruntled Liberal faction would split off and form their own parties. Indeed, the arithmetic suggests…. We have 42 sitting members, which might, theoretically, under this law, enable 21 new parties, in the extreme. A rather a radical suggestion, but legally possible, I presume.

As the member for Kelowna–Lake Country has already enumerated, and as he reminded me, even though we only have two or three members, they are entitled to party leader, House Leader, Whip, caucus chair, Deputy Whip, an office in Vancouver, members of LAMC, two questions each in QP — we’ll have to extend QP for most of the day, it appears — a certain amount of research money — and, certainly, will dilute the official opposition integrity and strength, which may, in fact, be the ultimate purpose of this amendment.

I have to point out that this fundamental change in our democratic process is being introduced at a time when the official opposition is crippled by being in the middle of a leadership campaign, and we are being distracted. I don’t think that this is time for calm reflection and judicious weighing in balance of the structure of this House when fully one half of the House is distracted with other very important functions.

Finally, have we considered, and I will pose it as a question to the Attorney, what the lessons may be from other jurisdictions? Here are five, for example, drawn from Europe. Belgium in 2010, 11 parties in parliament. They took 581 days to negotiate a government. For the rest of the time, they really did not have a functioning government.

[4:40 p.m.]

We’ve seen the logrolling, the midnight meetings, and so on, that went into the makeup of the coalition or whatever it’s called between the Greens and the NDP. Well, multiply that exponentially as we increase the number of parties we’re talking about.

Consider the Netherlands in 2017, 208 days to form a government, a four-party coalition government involving 13 parties.

Spain in 2015, 314 days without a government. No government was actually formed. They held a new election six months later, contested by 12 parties — 12 parties in parliament.

Italy has had two separate systems since 1993, 65 governments in 70 years, hardly a formula for stability. Currently 28 parties — 28 parties in Italy.

Germany. I have not added up the number of parties, but it strikes me as being worthy of note that one of the parties that will take seats in the Reichstag, if I get the name of their parliament correct, will be, really, a reborn Nazi party.

This is an example of what happens when you have small, very special-purpose parties, dealing with a group of zealots who are bound and determined to be represented in parliament. I do not think that this is a formula for stability and certainty or, in fact, good public policy.

So I must ask the Attorney. When the changes, when we add up the slices of salami, are so significant, isn’t it remarkable, with a government noted for its rush to consult on everything from fish farms to taxi cab licences, that we see no outside consultation, no outside experts, no deliberation beyond this particular hall this afternoon and in the ensuing days, when we debate the other parts of the package as individual pieces — that we are having other wise thought and deliberation presented for our consideration?

I find it unusual. I could use stronger language. Let me quote the former Attorney on this subject. “This bill is important far beyond the suggestion of its short number of sections in terms of its effect on our democracy. This is part of a package brought forward by the NDP in recent days consisting of Bill 3, Bill 5, Bill 6 and Bill 9 — the cumulative effect of them being to change our democratic system substantively, with no consultation, no public consultation whatsoever.”

No public consultation whatsoever. We’re just going to pass it and — what the hell — get on with life. No reference to any expert panels, and no consultation more broadly than in the cabinet room.

So my question to the current Attorney is: why not? Why no consultation? Is not the future operation of this House more important than how we determine taxi licences and fish farms?

The Chair: Are you responding?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you, hon. Chair. I understood that we were debating a motion and that the member had risen to debate it. I have no additional submissions.

I mean, I didn’t realize I had the right to answer each speech. I’m glad to. I heard the member’s spirited advocacy for 28 parties instead of 42 parties. It was very enthusiastic support for three-member parties instead of two-member parties.

I can share with the member that the government doesn’t believe that giving a two-member party, party status will lead to Nazism in British Columbia. It was an argument — I’ll give it that — but not a particularly credible one.

I believe what the member is speaking about is proportional representation. The government did commit to a referendum on proportional representation, and in fact, the government will be rolling out a public consultation on exactly that issue in the weeks to come.

[4:45 p.m.]

We got a little bit off track from the bill and the proposed amendment, but I’m happy to advise the member that there will be quite extensive public consultation on that particular point. I encourage him to make a submission, as well as the members of all the parties in this House and outside of this House.

R. Sultan: We’ve been submitted over the past several days to what I’ve described as an unctuous flow of self-serving arguments. This is not all about good public policy. This is all about retaining and strengthening and building a great big moat around two parties who have decided to get together and run this province. That’s what it’s all about. So to don the garbs of democracy, to quote the Mother of Parliament, as the Attorney did a moment ago, to overlook….

I happened to pick up a book last night in the apartment on King John and the Magna Carta, talking about Mother of Parliament. Well, the people insist upon maintaining the right to govern themselves. So there’s a long history here. We talk about tradition. We talk about principles of parliament. We shouldn’t cast them aside as readily as the package.

I agree with the Attorney that, by itself, three, two…. Well, it’s not the hill to die on. But as a package, it is a hill to die on. I certainly object to this characterization that this is all in the public interest. This is all about power. Let’s be realistic. Who’s going to run this province? I think it should be according to rules which do not encourage fragmentation of the opposition.

As a final note, I would caution members opposite, even while I and the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky — and maybe we could lure the member for North Vancouver–Seymour into the North Shore Party — could be subject to the same centrifugal forces.

So the idea that a solid phalanx will be there with spears and shields to fend off this disorganized rabble might just as easily turn out to be the other way. I do not think this is good public policy, and I’ve said my piece.

A. Weaver: I think the last comment needs to go challenged. We have an assertion here that the legislation going from three to two is somehow — two to three — about power.

Now, I recognize that the mindset of B.C. Liberals is nothing more than: “We’ve got to get into power, and forget public policy. Forget public policy. Let’s not work together. It’s all about the power.”

You don’t have to believe me. You could go to the education parliamentary democracy meeting and listen to one of the members from Abbotsford who told the teachers from British Columbia here that the role of the official opposition is to get into power.

I understand why the member for West Vancouver–Capilano thinks it’s about power. I understand that, because that’s all they can think about.

What we’re trying to do here is actually work together — work together to put people first, not to put our corporate donors first. I recognize how….

Interjections.

The Chair: Through the Chair.

A. Weaver: I recognize how banning corporate donations….

The Chair: On the amendment, Member.

A. Weaver: I do appreciate being brought back to the amendment. The reason why I so diverged is because we were specifically addressed by the member opposite with respect to a package of bills. This is not a package of bills. We’re focusing specifically on one amendment.

I’d love to listen to the further discussions of this amendment, but to suggest that somehow the National Socialist Party will arrive in British Columbia because of this amendment is truly outrageous.

M. Morris: Listening to the debate, it reminds me of a situation that I was in a few decades ago now, arguing a position before the Federal Court of Appeal.

[4:50 p.m.]

The learned judges called for a recess, and they went into deliberations. They came out, and they dismissed my appeal. The phrase that got my attention at that particular time said that I had presented a significant case based on common sense but common sense has no bearing in law. I’ve sort of held that ever since.

That’s what reminds me of this scenario here today. Common sense seems to be thrown out the window. To grant official party status, the current legislation states “four” — understandable. Once you have four people, you do need to put a little bit of thought into who the leader might be and to making sure that everybody is where they’re supposed to be, so you have a Whip position. But for two positions, you know, it defies common sense.

To grant party status to two people so that they can appoint one the leader and one a House Leader and the other one a Whip and the other one a caucus chair — for what? They can sit beside each other, as they do in this House, and they can figure out their strategies. They can get together for coffee at the end of the day and talk about their strategies and how they’re going to approach different things. It kind of defies logic, in my mind, that here we are going to amend legislation to allow two members to take advantage of the remuneration that’s afforded these positions. But I can’t see any other reason or any other logic that would flow from this legislative change.

I’ve heard members on both sides of the House talk about the election in 2001 that reduced the NDP down to two members. But that was the public. That was the voters that made that decision on who represents them in this House. That wasn’t a piece of legislation; that was the voters that made that decision. I think that’s where that decision needs to stay — with the voters that are out there to determine who represents them in this House. Whether it’s the official opposition or government, the voters determine that.

If we water it down and render it down to the point where we have two members that are forming parties, we could have, as has been said in this House before already, a number of them representing their own special interest groups in this House. I think that waters down the effectiveness of government, waters down the effectiveness of the official opposition, and in some senses, diminishes the effects of this House. I think that really needs to be looked at.

Our proposed amendment is stating “three,” and I can live with three. You know, the way that it was written, with four, I could live with four as well. But to water it down to the point of defying common sense by having a two-member party in this House…. I think it’s going to lead to all kinds of speculative things that we’ve already heard in this House as well — how it’s going to affect some of the policies, some of the LAMC decisions, the way we conduct our business in the House. It’s going to affect costs to taxpayers. We have no idea….

The speculative nature that we’ve heard already — the possibility of increasing costs to taxpayers — I think is there. The duty of this House is to ensure that we keep our costs in check, that we keep the integrity of this House intact by making sure that government and the official opposition have the ability to conduct the business in the House in question period and a number of the other forums that we have in this House, whether it’s Committee A or the various committees that we have here.

I think that this amendment needs to be approved by this House. To water it down to any more than three people, which we have here, I think discredits the voters in this province. Like I said earlier, they’re the ones that determine who represents them here in the House, and the legislation, I think, needs to support that.

I’m in support of this amendment. I’m in support of the fully functioning government and official opposition and probably a third party in this House. But to water it down any further than that, I think, is going to cause some discourse and some problems in the future for this House.

I support this amendment.

[4:55 p.m.]

A. Olsen: I guess I thank the members of the official opposition for the opportunity to speak to this. I see this kind of twisting in the wind here, frankly, to be honest with you.

You know that the party that I represented when I stood for this election has an organization, and it previously elected just a single MLA. He was supported by a whole framework and a platform and the work that was done. This time around, 17 percent of the people in British Columbia elected three members. It could have very easily, with very similar numbers, have elected two members. A full 17 percent, almost one in five British Columbians, could have elected just two members into this House.

All the twisting away that’s going on over here, the talking about common sense and splitting hairs between two or three…. It almost feels like we’re talking about going from ten seats to three seats or something, like we’re talking about something substantive. But actually, what we’re making a big deal about is a single seat. The numbers could have very well returned two members of my party or two members of any party, for that matter, to this place.

The suggestion that operating with two or three members in this place — when you run on a platform and you run on a set of principles, on a set of values — is easier, that there are two or three or a small party…. I can assure you it’s not.

In fact, the draw on my time, the draw on my colleagues’ time, the various places that we have to be, to be effective in holding government to account and working with the official opposition, is very substantial. I think that I need to provide a level of push-back to those members here that are suggesting that, oh, it must be easier.

I always look at an argument that’s being made, and I look at the level of hyperbole and speculation, the fearmongering and the rumours that are inspiring the debate that’s being made, the threats that are being made. It inevitably starts to break that argument down — that all of a sudden we’re going to be taken over by 21 parties, that the official opposition party is going to deteriorate into just a couple of individuals because we went from three to two.

It’s actually a phenomenal argument when you think about it — right? — that the simple change from three to two is all of a sudden going…. This party that was, for 16 years, in power is just going to vaporize into a bunch of gangs of two, and they’re going to run around the province with clubs or something. It would be really quite phenomenal, to be honest with you, if that did happen with this simple amendment.

The level of conspiracy theories here that’s behind this, that are propping these arguments up, is really quite fascinating. I have to say that I and my colleagues get along very well. So if you’re wondering if this is all about speculation and conspiracy theories…. Oh, we’ve got one member ready to go rogue and trying — I don’t know — to get a Liberal to join them and become their own party. I don’t know. It’s really quite fascinating.

The other thing which is interesting is that I’ve noted, in a lot of these debates that are going on, that both sides of the argument are being argued. On one side: “You’re doing so much consultation. You’re consulting. You know, it’s consulting for years.” Then, on the other side, it’s like: “You’re doing not enough consultation. You’re not asking enough.”

When I see both sides of the argument being debated or being argued, that’s when I start to say: is this amendment really something that I’m going to be able to support? Is it just trying to make a big scene out of something, or is it actually something that’s worth voting on?

I come down to it, and I have to say that on this amendment….

To the member for Kelowna–Lake Country, who raised it, I have to say that I won’t be voting in favour of your amendment. I know. It does hurt.

[5:00 p.m.]

P. Milobar: I rise to speak in favour of the amendment to change the party number to three instead of two. There are a few reasons around this, and we’re hearing much back and forth. I do look forward to the day that the Green Party does hold the government to account. I’m not sure on what day that will come and when they will actually vote against anything the government is doing but….

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, you know that the commentary comes when you are seated in the seat assigned.

P. Milobar: So there are many things that have been said around this, and it’s not just that it could fracture to smaller, two parties on this side of the House. We could see, as I’ve referenced…. There are several long-standing members in government now that would have been fully expecting cabinet positions and that didn’t see that come to fruition. I could see a Nanaimo–Sunshine Coast party being created — and make sure that the remuneration they feel was due to them would come.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

So it doesn’t have to be exclusively that a member of the Green Party may decide to cross the floor and join government instead of trying to hold them to account, as we have heard is their intention.

There are several different reasons why going from three to two is actually quite significant. We did hear from the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head that this is not self-serving — that it’s great for democracy. Then later, in the comments of the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, he said: “Why don’t the two of you just come join us, and we’ll have five, and then we don’t need to worry about this?” So it’s either really, really good for democracy, unless: “I have enough seats, and then I don’t need to worry about it.”

That, I think, speaks to the problems around going from four to three to two, instead of just staying at three. I have absolutely no problem in recognizing that the Green Party — in this unique situation that we find ourselves in, in this legislative 41st edition — is very unique and has not happened in terms of this — or a very, very long time. So to recognize that and to recognize the minority, appointed status of the current government, in terms of not being elected with the majority of seats in a general election, but being appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor and creating a coalition with the Green Party — all within parliamentary rules — is totally correct that they were able to do that. And kudos to them for being able to do that.

But let’s face it. The coalition was about making sure to have the power and to make sure that they were able to have the power of running government. I can understand why they would do that. But I don’t think it would indicate that the B.C. Liberals are power hungry and that the Greens or the NDP are so…

A. Weaver: They’re so righteous.

P. Milobar: …righteous. That’s a good word, actually, member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. It wouldn’t indicate that the Green Party or the NDP party are so righteous as to not cling to power and to make sure that they were able to still claim for that.

I would note that it’s amazing, when you embed yourself with government, how quickly you can hit the button of righteous indignation, as we have been hearing from Oak Bay–Gordon Head lately. But nonetheless, I will continue to refrain my comments to the number of three.

As we’ve heard that there’s really not a huge fundamental difference in terms of going from three to two, well, I would suggest that the argument could be made that there’s not really a big difference then to go back and leave it at three. And if it’s really not that big of a problem….

To me, that’s what people in the public expect. They have an expectation of how we are going to conduct ourselves in this House, moving forward, and when they hear ideas being bandied about, I think that there is a public expectation. So when they heard very early on that one of the bargaining chips that the Green Party was asking of both parties, in terms of who they would become a coalition partner with for the appointed government…. They made it very clear that one of their conditions was that they’d like to be recognized as a party in this House. And the B.C. Liberals agreed with that. In fact, we tabled legislation that the Green Party did not even want to read. And the NDP agreed with that, as well, and that is okay.

But here’s the kicker, and I think the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head is really going to want to hear this part.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

[5:05 p.m.]

P. Milobar: Here’s the part that’s really salient, I think, to the public. Around that is when people were hearing that the Green Party was demanding to be recognized as a party back after the May election, I think the public expectation was that they were talking about three members, seeing as they had three members elected and not two. So to suddenly say: “Well, that’s not really that big of a fundamental change….” I would suggest that if it’s not that big of a fundamental change, then supporting it to stay at three, which would not result in the Green Party losing any abilities that they currently have as a party, would be the just thing to do for the general public.

We do have a proportional representation referendum coming. There may be other changes that need to happen legislatively around parties in this House for the operation of this House. To make sure between now and whenever the next general election is that the Green Party is duly recognized as a party — I have not heard any member of this House say that should not happen.

We’re really talking about the difference between three and two, and as we’ve heard from the Green Party, it’s really not a big deal. So if it’s not a big deal, let’s keep it at three, keep them whole and make sure they can operate. That way, the public can reassess if this is a good system or not.

As I say, I think the public expectation, when politicians speak, is that if it hasn’t been spelled out definitively…. I did not hear “We want party status of two” when the demands of the negotiations were happening. I heard: “We would like party status.” That was the ask of the Green Party at the time. And I think the public expectation is that it would be three as the number to turn into for party status. As I say, especially given the fact that we have….

Interjection.

P. Milobar: See, now we actually have that Nanaimo-Sunshine Coast party in the House together, so there we go.

What I would like to point out…. I would like to say that I’d…

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. Members, one member at a time, please.

P. Milobar: …been around for that long, but I wasn’t here 16 years ago. That’s for certain. I know some members opposite had languished for 16 years on those sides, but I was not one of them that had been in the House for 16 years.

However, in terms of three versus two…. I know that sometimes in this House, it’s tough to make sure we stay on topic and stay on focus of the debate, but I would like to just point out that in these times, we have an appointed minority government. We don’t have one duly elected by the majority of the people in the various ridings. We have an appointed government, duly appointed, properly appointed — no one is disputing that — but appointed nonetheless, not elected.

To take the reach, to continue to change some of the fundamental rules that we have existing around democracy in this province is problematic. I would point out that, I believe, there’s one, maybe two, provinces that actually recognize two as a party number. So again, we go back to…. It seems to be convenient, when we want to pick and choose.

We seem to want to use Quebec for lots of examples of how to do things right and how we should be, I guess, the have-not province that gets $11 billion in transfer payments like Quebec does — and lots of other things that we look to Quebec for in this House, it appears. Their party status number is 12, not two but 12. There’s an actual one in front of that two, and that makes a huge fundamental difference. In fact, you’d have to actually take your shoes off to be able to count with your fingers and your toes to get to the 12.

There’s a wide range within the country of what constitutes an actual party. As I say, there are very few examples, though, where two is the number, and those would be very different extenuating circumstances. So to say that we are now trying to right a wrong that was felt 16 years ago, when we have a current appointed government situation, a minority government situation, where we have a Green Party that could do what the expectation of the public is…. That would be to accept the party status of three. I think that a lot of people in the public are wondering why the Green Party would be so resistant to not still make sure that they remained recognized as a party in this House, but at the number of three, which they have for members right now. No one is in dispute of that.

[5:10 p.m.]

In the spirit that we have been hearing…. Since May, we have been hearing non-stop about how we need to do politics differently in this House now, how we have an opportunity to work across party lines, how we have an opportunity to be able to finally show that we don’t have to have petty squabbles over things. We are sitting as a caucus saying…. To simply go from two to three with this one simple amendment, which would still recognize the Greens and allow the Greens to be a whole party, would actually give the Green Party and the government the ability to demonstrate that, indeed, we can reach across party lines, and we can work together.

Unfortunately, what we’ve been seeing is hollow words of great marketing but no real action to implement those types of things, where this would actually not impact anyone in this current legislative session in terms of creating the Green Party as an official party in this House and still be able to conduct the business of this House on a regular basis.

That’s why I think people start to question the motives behind the move from three to two, and that’s why I think people want to know and seek clarity around whether or not there are ulterior motives in the background, whether there have been rumblings about floor crossing or party moving and all of that. I think we could dispel all of that type of rumour and innuendo that might be out there by simply moving, and agreeing to move, the amendment from two to three, still making sure that the Green Party is fully functioning, recognized as a third party in this House and would have all the rights and benefits.

When I look at the list of jobs, I had to question…. I know the Green Party has done a good job of already appointing names and titles to people, but I have to say I was a little confused when I saw that there was a designated Whip for the Green Party when the Green Party, all campaign long, prides itself on not whipping anything within their party. So one has to question why you need the title of Whip when you actually pride yourself, as a party, on never actually having a whipped vote or whipping or telling your members what they should be doing.

I notice even some members opposite seem to nod in agreement with that. That’s a little perplexing on that.

There are more than enough job titles there. They could get rid of the title Whip and still have more than enough job titles there to pay $10,000 a year under a different title. I’m not really that worried about that. It was just a weird little oddity that popped in my head.

Interjections.

P. Milobar: I’m always happy when my fan club shows up to help along.

It’s been a very interesting process, when you try to explain in this House what the average person out in the real world is saying — and expecting their government to act and behave and bring legislation in.

As I said, if we’re holding the government and the Green Party and ourselves true to our word after the May election…. We’ve heard non-stop about working across party lines and trying to work together and trying to bring a new way of doing government. This seems like the simplest piece of legislative amendment we could possibly pass that would demonstrate that to the public. It would not impact the Green Party at all under their current state, and it would bring people together in a good way.

I guess the one question I would have, though, for the Attorney is…. There’s a very secretive million-dollar secretariat at taxpayers’ expense that the appointed government and Green Party are needing to keep themselves working together. So I was just curious, and the question I would have for the Attorney is: who made the request to change this legislation from three to two? Was it the government, or was it the Green Party that made the request that the legislation reflects that number two as opposed to the number three?

C. Oakes: Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of this amendment today. I’m incredibly proud to represent Cariboo North and to stand in this House and to take great pride in the Legislature, particularly the parliamentary practice that we have in British Columbia.

I think it’s critically important to put on record my concerns that I currently have on going down to two members and why I’m in support of three. I hope that the Attorney General will have the opportunity to reflect on what is being said today and to bring forward specific elements.

[5:15 p.m.]

To the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. I’ve had the honour of listening to how he talks about points in constitutional debates. I think it’s critically important. I would like to talk about, actually, standing orders and the parliamentary practice in British Columbia, which I think are critically important.

The reason why, as we bring forward this amendment, is the effects that’ll have, and it’ll be twofold. The first will be around the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act, the consequences of moving from three to two, and why that matters today. The second element of it will be from the 2007 report of the Independent Commission to Review MLA Compensation.

On the first, around the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act. The Attorney General, in an earlier question on what kind of effects this legislation will have on LAMC, on this particular act…. I think it’s critically important, when we look at two members, what those consequences will be to current legislation that we have, through our standing orders.

Specifically, I would like to read in — for people at home to understand why we are so passionate about this — the critical powers that are given to this particular committee, the “Powers and duties of the committee.” We are talking of the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act. “The committee has jurisdiction to deal with all matters affecting (a) subject to any other enactment and any rules of conduct established by the Legislative Assembly, policies for the administration of the Legislative Assembly and for the conduct of the members of the Legislative Assembly.”

It has powers and duties over “(b) the provision of facilities and services, including allocation within the Legislative Precinct, that are required for the effective functioning of the Legislative Assembly.”

It has powers and duties of “(c) the appointment, supervision and management of staff of the Legislative Assembly, other than permanent officers of the Legislative Assembly, (d) review of estimates of expenditure for the Legislative Assembly for Vote 1 including the preparation of forecasts and analyses of expenditures and commitments of the Legislative Assembly, (d.1) payments….” The list goes on.

I encourage members of the House to make sure that you have the ability to go on and read specifically what the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act does. By the vote of moving a 50 percent change — currently having four members provided a party status; going down to two is 50 percent — a substantive change to the way our House operates, all of the parties that are now recognized will now have the appointment to the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act.

Earlier in debate the Attorney General didn’t have a clear or specific response — I’m not sure how it was flagged — when you were going through the committee process of understanding that the decisions made will have consequences on other pieces of legislation that we currently have before the House. This would be one example of changes that would have effect on other pieces of legislation.

The other significant piece that I would like to read into the record is around basic compensation. If you go to the 2007 report of the Independent Commission to Review MLA Compensation — which is a piece of what remuneration happens here in the House, and it is guided through our standing orders and our parliamentary procedure — what does that difference make?

Well, for every party that we have recognized here in the House, the leader of that additional party will be given an additional $26,470.46. The third party, or the additional party, House Leader will receive additional compensation of $10,588.18. The additional party Whip will receive $10,588.18. The party caucus chair, that additional party caucus chair, will receive $10,588.18. In reality, we have more pieces of compensation that are outlined in our processes than we actually have people, if we go down to two people constituting a party.

[5:20 p.m.]

My question, and the reason why I’m supporting the amendment of three, is: does that mean that if you have a party of two, you have a House Leader, you have a party Whip for two people, you have a caucus chair, and you have a leader? We are talking about additional compensation for members, when you have two people.

When I look at efficiency and I look at taxpayer fairness and I look at compensation…. I understand that the Attorney General, earlier, said that they don’t have to take that money. I would feel, probably, a lot better if, on the compensation…. I don’t know how you’d police that.

I guess as taxpayers of British Columbia, that’s a significant additional amount of revenue that MLAs in this House will be voting on. They’re actually voting to give themselves a raise through going down to a party status, specifically, of two. The constituents of Cariboo North, I know, want to make sure that we are respecting taxpayer dollars and that we’re doing it effectively and efficiently.

The other thing is around good public policy. When you review the standing orders and we look at speaking times for question period, and when you are looking at parties being formed with two members, that will have significant consequences on how we do business in this House. It will change the operational structure of how we raise questions in this House, on how we operate — whether it’s our committees.

The member opposite earlier recognized how it is difficult — when you, currently, have three members of the House — to ensure that there are representatives on all of the committees, the standing committees, that we have here in this Legislature. If you have two members, how do they possibly represent, and are represented in, each of the standing committees that we strike in this House, in this Legislature?

I raise these incredibly important operational pieces because I think that we have acts and we have standing orders in this House for good reason. When we make changes of 50 percent, it does have consequences. It has financial consequences and it has operational efficiency consequences that, I think, are critically important for us to understand.

My colleague from North Shore, earlier, talked about some of the other constitutional jurisdictions around the globe, whether it was the Netherlands or whether it was Belgium, and some of the challenges that they have — when you have multiple parties in a Legislature — to bring important pieces of legislation forward and to have an opportunity to raise questions in this all-important House.

It is very important that we provide good, solid understanding and good, solid debate around that and the purpose of why we’re putting the amendment forward here today. We want to make sure that it’s fair. We want to make sure that it’s equitable. But we want to make sure we respect standing orders that we currently have in this House. We want to make sure that we respect the taxpayers of British Columbia. We want to make sure that we have staffing levels that can accommodate the changes in the Legislature. And we want to make sure at all times that we have good public policy, because British Columbians expect it of us.

That’s why I’m supporting this amendment. To the Attorney General, my concerns that I’ve raised around the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act and how it relates to the standing orders as well….

L. Throness: It’s a pleasure to speak to the Committee of the Whole on Bill 5, which is the Constitution Amendment Act, today. Section 1 is being amended by deleting the text shown, which is two members, and changing that to the number three. I want to support this amendment today.

First of all, I want to talk about the notion of constitution writ large. What does the idea of a constitution mean? For a long time, I was studying for my PhD in Britain. I was listening or reading about people talking in the 18th century about the constitution of Britain — what the constitution of Britain was and changing the constitution of Britain. There is no written constitution in Britain. So I didn’t really understand what they were talking about.

[5:25 p.m.]

It took a while for me to grasp, over time, that they were speaking of constitution writ large in a much broader way. They were talking about how the government was constituted, how it was made up, how it was formed and structured in order to provide a basis for how Britons governed themselves.

That included all elements of the government. It included the House of Commons; House of Lords, the laws that it passes and how they pass those laws; the function of the Speaker; how the House works; the judiciary; the public service; the rules of democracy; how an election functions; the budgetary process; cabinet and how it is constituted; the Office of the Prime Minister; and what was far more influential then, the office of the monarch of the day.

It also included the idea of a political party. There were two major parties then, the Tories and the Whigs. They were the forerunners of what we call the conservatives and liberals today. All of these elements working together formed the constitution of Britain.

What in the dictionary, then, does the word “constitution” mean, if we apply it to British Columbia? It is “a body of fundamental principles or established precedents, according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed.”

Well, in speaking of a constitution of any body of people, whether it be the bylaws of a strata corporation or the constitution of the United States of America, we’re talking about something fundamental. We are talking about something basic, something foundational that undergirds our form of government — how we govern ourselves.

That means that at any time we want to amend the constitution of our government — and, particularly, today, the government of B.C. — we’re talking about changing the underlying rules that form the basis, that constitute the basis, of the way we govern ourselves.

Any amendment to the Constitution Act, therefore, should be subject to a lot of scrutiny. It’s an important thing. It always warrants a very close look, because we don’t want to do anything that would shake the foundation of our government.

We have enjoyed very stable government in B.C. for over a century, and to shake that foundation would bring a tremor through everything that happens in this province. Because to shake the foundations of government brings uncertainty. It brings changeability. It brings unpredictability to all the institutions of government and the decisions that the government makes that make up the way that we are constituted.

However, the NDP are attempting in the first few months of its government to alter, I think, in a radical way, how B.C. is governed. And this, I would submit, is in keeping with the way the NDP have operated so far in this province. Let me list some of the ways in which they have been radical so far, just in the few months that they’ve formed their government together with the Greens.

They’ve been radical in their economics. They’ve raised taxes on corporations. They’ve taken away B.C.’s competitive advantage. They’ve increased ICBC premiums. They’ve increased other taxes to the tune of over a billion dollars a year. They’ve reversed the revenue neutrality of the carbon tax. That will mean tax increases to the tune of another billion over the coming years. They’ve increased spending, which will reduce the surplus.

The Chair: Member, keep your comments relevant to the amendment, please.

L. Throness: Okay. I’m just pointing out that they have acted in a radical way so far, and they are continuing in this amendment to act in a radical way.

It seems that the NDP are not really a measured government. They are over the top and nowhere more so than in the measure before us today. I would say that this is a matter of public trust. A question should be raised as to whether the people of B.C. should trust the government in what they’re doing here today.

Our entire Legislature is run by party government. We trust in groupings of MLAs in this Legislature to provide us with stable government, and that’s why we have parties in government. The first party was begun, I think, in 1904 in this government, because they found that it was too hard for the Legislature to have coherence, to have a coherent public program without parties.

I suppose that we could all be independent and act alone, as single actors where we all have our own agenda, but that would be chaos. So we’ve provided for political parties, which consist of groups of like-minded individuals who get together and decide on a political platform, a political program, and try to put that program forward in this House.

Now, there are distinct advantages to being named as a party in this House. Let me list just a few of them. There is a historic legitimacy to being named a party in this house. It is a mark of distinction that is afforded to all political parties in this House. A party may get time and attention that it would not otherwise receive.

[5:30 p.m.]

Parties in this House get media attention, which is of enormous value in this House, and a sense of official recognition, which is not a small thing in a political sense. It is an intangible and vague benefit. But political gain in this House is a positive gain, to be sure — and, particularly, more funding to individual MLAs. As they can claim to be caucus officers, they would get a raise. They would get money in their own pockets. A party can take advantage of the rules of this House. For instance, they may claim a place on LAMC, which is the committee that runs this House and operates its multi-million-dollar budget.

The NDP would disturb this equilibrium, this idea of stable government, by allowing just two members to be named a political party. At this rate, the next step would be to allow one person to be recognized as their own political party. That would make the potential for chaos complete.

I would point out that the NDP is doing this for the sake of partisan advantage — not in the public interest but in the interest of their own party. Because the election was so close, because the people of B.C. actually voted in greatest numbers and seats in this House for the B.C. Liberals, not the NDP, the NDP would seek to divide this House as much as possible so that they continue to govern in what I would say is a radical way.

I would point out that there have been no public consultations over this bill. There was no plan. There’s no rationale given by the government. There’s no consultation with British Columbians beforehand. I would note that, of the 280 or so promises given by the government in its political platform in the election earlier this spring, this one was not among them. They have no democratic mandate from the people of B.C. to do this.

They would dangle the temptation of party advantage over the heads of all members — more distinction, more media attention, more manipulation of the rules of this House and, in particular, more money for individual members.

Allow me to read from the Members’ Handbook that talks about the advantage, particularly the economic advantage, to be given to a leader of another recognized party — a 25 percent increase in personal salary. Right now, that adds upwards of $30,000 per year to a member’s salary. The caucus chairperson of another recognized party would get 10 percent more in salary. That’s well over $10,000 a year. The same for the House Leader of another recognized party — more than $10,000 — or the party Whip of another recognized party.

I don’t understand why we would want to dangle that kind of temptation over the heads of all members of this House. It would be to B.C. Liberal members. It would also be to NDP members. And it would be, of course, to Green Party members as well.

An additional problem with just two members forming a political party, and receiving the advantages that accrue to a political party in this place, is that two members may receive a vanishingly small percentage of the popular vote yet wield great power in this House, as we’ve seen across the way, where the Green Party, which has only three members, without even being recognized as a party, has wielded enormous influence, disproportionate influence, unrepresentative influence on the government. This bodes ill for the future stability of this place.

We’re going to be talking much more about this, of course, when we get to the discussion about proportional representation. People in my riding come up to me and tell me that they didn’t vote for the Greens, yet they are in many ways controlling what the B.C. government does. I don’t think that’s healthy for democracy, where the majority is supposed to rule. Instead, we’re being effectively run by 17 percent of British Columbians — the percentage of the vote in the last election received by the Green Party.

We have the Greens standing up in this House and saying that this is no big change — that three members to two members is nothing to look at. Move on, folks. Yet they’re the ones with the most to gain. If they should lose one member at some point in the future, under this legislation, they would retain their status as a party and their tenuous grip on power. So this is certainly all about power for them. When the NDP poach a member from their caucus, as they, I’m sure, are trying to do every day and which we all expect at any moment, they would still retain party status under this legislation and much of the power that they now enjoy over the NDP government.

To claim some kind of neutral or objective stance on this legislation by the Green members is patently absurd. They are vitally interested in their own party power here.

We on this side of the House are a reasonable bunch. We’re not averse to having the Green Party being named a party. They are effectively so already. But three members are 50 percent more than two members, and there is a tangible and important difference here.

[5:35 p.m.]

To have three members join together is a bit more than two MLAs sitting down at a gripe session, having a coffee and saying: “Life in opposition” — or in government or in the Green Party — “is boring. I’d like a raise. How about you? Let’s form a political party together.” To allow and even encourage this kind of instability, where the House could conceivably be fragmented even more, is harmful to the way our province is constituted. It’s harmful to the constitution of our democracy.

Now the Attorney General alleged a few minutes ago in, I think, a most fatuous way that this House might divide into 43 parties instead of 29, which, of course, is ridiculous — both ideas. But there is a real and tangible difference here. It would not result in 29 or 43 parties, but it would result in more parties in this House, and that difference would be tangible and could be very significant and very negative.

I want to tell you how it would work. Smaller parties would result in more shifting alliances, in more disagreements, in agreements that would be struck one month and perhaps unravel in the next one. That would then result in public policies that would be set one day and changed the next. That could result in all sorts of hesitation in public projects, as we have already seen with the party grouping that is already in place in this House, resulting in uncertainty for investors and small business people and an overall negative economic climate, which I know is of little consequence with this government. It could even result in more elections, as well, and act generally to the detriment of good government in B.C.

I want to close with a question to the minister. Given the motivation of the NDP in this House to try and divide the House as much as possible, to splinter it into smaller and smaller fragments for their own political advantage — even though I would say it’s shortsighted because it could result in their own detriment at some point in the future, as well as the detriment of other parties in this House — why would the minister undertake to change the constitution of B.C., the fundamental foundational way we are governed, without consulting the people of B.C. about it first?

Why wouldn’t the NDP have said during the election in their election platform: “We are planning to change the constitution of British Columbia — the basic way we are governed — in a fairly radical way”? Why would the minister not have consulted about that during the election campaign?

D. Barnett: I stand here today to discuss the issue at hand. What should we do in this House to create political parties? Why should we stand in this House and make changes to the constitution?

I’ve listened for the past few hours to a lot of my colleagues, on both sides of the House, discuss this in some manner. I’ve listened to some pretty heavy-duty insults from some of the members in this House, which, basically, is probably why we’re standing here discussing this bill today.

I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with the way this House is represented now, but I will support a party of three — not a party of two but a party of three. Even at that, it is going to cost the taxpayers of British Columbia more money. It makes the constituents in my riding ask questions: “Why? Why is this being done?”

We look at what happened during the last election, where we actually won the election, but we’re not the government, probably due to constitutional issues that I’m not too sure of. I have seen nothing that shows me that the other side of the House wishes to change how we govern. I have not seen cooperation with this side of the House. Many of us have asked for many meetings. Many of us have asked many questions.

[5:40 p.m.]

Personally, those of us that I know on this side of the House care about one thing. They care about the constitution. They care about the respect of this House. They care about the respect of each other. And most of all, they care about the people that they’re sent here to represent. That is why we are here, and that is why we are all supposed to be here. That is what we fight for day in and day out.

To change the way we do business, if it’s going to improve the quality of life for the people of British Columbia, I can understand it. But I certainly, in my own mind, still wonder why. And when I look across the floor and I see the power of three that is running the province of British Columbia, I hope that if there is a constitutional change permanently, this is not how business is done continuously in this House.

I will support three for a party, but not two. And I will turn this over to my colleagues.

J. Rustad: I want to thank my colleagues — colleagues on all sides of the House, actually — for the comments associated with the bill. I have a couple of specific questions, and then I believe the member for Kelowna–Lake Country, if I have that correctly, will also wrap up.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: I should have known that. My apologies. It’s getting late in the day.

A couple of specific question around this. Go back to the history of our province and the formation of parties. It was 1903 when political parties actually were created in the province. Prior to that, people would declare themselves as either being members in support of government or members opposed to government, as opposed to political parties.

I’m just wondering if the member opposite, if the minister, has looked at that history and as to why those political parties were created in 1903.

Hon. D. Eby: I wanted to take the opportunity to thank all the members for their thoughtful remarks — it was clear that some preparation had gone into those remarks, so I thank them for that — and to respond to a whole bunch of questions at the same time.

There was an earlier question about question period — how it will work after this change. The question period operates at the discretion of the Speaker. Now, the tradition has been that the official opposition party works with the other parties, and they figure out time allocations, but it’s at the discretion of the Speaker. Where there’s some kind of dispute or other problem, it would be the Speaker that would deal with that. In the alternative, of course, members could amend the standing orders to allow for rules related to question period, which would be a motion on the floor and then a vote from the House.

I heard a number of comments from the member for Cariboo North, attributing comments to me that I certainly didn’t remember saying and, in any event, weren’t accurate. I was reminded of another democratic innovation, the Hansard — which was also an NDP government — so we can look back and see what was said. I would refer her, on a number of questions she raised, to the Hansard, on comments we made earlier.

There was a comment about voting — that the Green Party was essentially voting to give themselves a raise. This amendment, it’s important to recognize, has no impact on whether or not the Greens get party status. The amendment would have three members get party status. The bill as it stands would give two members, or more, party status. That doesn’t change one way or the other, so it’s not a fair characterization of the amendment to suggest that there’s some sort of financial impact one way or the other on the Green Party, because there simply isn’t.

The member from Williams Lake mentioned that she hadn’t seen any changes in how we govern, to demonstrate a change in approach. This government has given drafting services to the official opposition so that their amendments can come forward in a form that is more likely to be able to pass and be consistent with B.C. drafting. It’s the first time in B.C. history that’s been done.

She said she has difficulty getting meetings. I welcome her to come any time, to approach me outside of the House and to raise meetings that she’d like to have. I’d be happy to sit down with her or, if she needed a briefing on something, to arrange that briefing.

There was a comment about standing committees that I didn’t understand. That a two-member party somehow couldn’t get out to…. There are lots of things that a two-member party couldn’t do, just by virtue of numbers.

[5:45 p.m.]

This bill doesn’t deal with that. It doesn’t deal with: “Well, if you divided into two or three Houses, how could they be in all three Houses? How could they be in the Legislature but also potentially be doing research” — or whatever else — “somewhere else?”

It doesn’t solve the problems for a two- or three-member party. All it does is recognize them with official party status and with some of the privileges — not all the of privileges — that come with party status in the Legislature. The official opposition gets more status, and then the government gets more status that comes with the traditions of this House.

There was also a suggestion that because this is the constitution, there was some extra burden that was on the government beyond traditional legislative amendment. Of course, the amendment that’s put forward by the member would also amend the Constitution Act similarly, without the consultation the member said we’d have to engage in, in order to amend the Constitution Act. I’m not sure how you can put forward an amendment and say you want to change the Constitution Act and then in your argument say you can’t change the Constitution Act without consultation with the community. That doesn’t make any sense.

The one point, though, that I do want to raise in relation to a number of the speeches that came forward was that there was some agenda to splinter the House into multiple factions of parties. Some sort of plan on the part…. In order for that to happen, many of the members who stood up and made speeches would have to participate in that process. They’d have to splinter off and form individual parties. It’s simply absurd.

The two-member amendment is meant to respond to a very clear historical precedent that happened in the past in British Columbia. I heard the leader of the third-party-to-be, hopefully, mention that he thought that there were two Reform members elected at one point. That history had escaped me, but certainly in 2001, there were two NDP members that were elected, and I think that both deserved party status.

I wanted to respond to a few of those comments. Specifically to the member’s question on the history of why parties were established in British Columbia in 1903, I’m afraid that I do not have the answer for the policy reasons for that change in 1903.

J. Rustad: The reason why I asked the question about why parties were formed in 1903 was because it was determined that it was too challenging to try to actually form government with a whole bunch of individuals and try to hold it together. There were elections frequently, and it made it very difficult for government to actually get anything done. So when you think about the party status and the rules that were made around it, it was in recognition that a whole bunch of individuals made it very, very difficult to be able to govern within the province.

I guess the question is: what is the difference between one and two? When you’re talking about creating the challenges within government and the challenges in terms of how government can operate in the province of British Columbia, there was very good reason why British Columbia moved to a party system in 1903 and has had that party system ever since. It’s served well within this Legislature.

There’s a reason why the limit was put at four. Because the lessons learned from the history of British Columbia and why political parties were formed were brought forward and reflected in the party status component within the Legislature.

Does the minister believe there is a potential challenge? Now, obviously not in this current configuration. Whether it’s two or three, we have a party system within this province. But I mean we have to take into consideration what will come after us, and we’re setting a bar that will be very difficult to change by any government in the future.

Do you believe, or have you given consideration to, the fact that we may end up with a situation where we have many small parties reflected within this Legislature that could create a challenge back to what it was prior to 1903?

Hon. D. Eby: I accept absolutely the member’s concern that there could be a lot of small parties in the Legislature, and that would present a challenge for LAMC and for governance. But accepting that doesn’t mean that I accept his premise that three is somehow some greater principle than two in terms of the multiplicity of parties. Or, frankly, that four is some sort of a magic number, given the number of four-member parties that you could potentially have in this Legislature, running amok under the existing rules.

[5:50 p.m.]

The reason for two, I think, has been amply canvassed by me. It’s not anything more complicated than the fact that we’ve had two-member groupings in this place before and that the government does not feel that democracy was served by denying them official party status.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for answering the questions and to all my colleagues for their support of the amendment. I will be closing the questions for the official opposition on the amendment at this time.

Just by a simple reminder to the House and the people of British Columbia as to why we are opposing the bill as it stands and proposing an amendment to go from two back to three, where we hope all members of the Legislature can find consensus….

It’s our belief, besides the very fundamental operations of what it means to be in a party of two and whether or not you need to have a Whip and a chair and a leader and all that for a party of two…. I think most people would agree now that it’s very unnecessary. And the minister has offered that the potential changes might occur at some other body.

The challenge is that there is nothing in the act that talks about consequential amendments to those parties that have the power to control things like standing orders and others and the operation of this facility within the act. So what we’re being asked to do here, at this point, is to trust that should we, at some point in the future, have members forming a party of two, we can trust the government, trust LAMC — which has just brought up another one, trust the Speaker — to make decisions that will actually help this House function well with just parties of two members.

We’ve had members on both sides of the House discuss whether or not there’s some — as a member on this side of the House in this position used to say quite a bit — opportunity for jiggery-pokery. I’ve been waiting a few weeks to be able to add that in there, just in honour of Bill Routley. I can say his name right now.

Quite frankly, I proposed the amendment because, like the member who preceded me on this side of the House in this location, I believe the government is up to jiggery-pokery. I really believe that the government is looking at several issues that it can institute to make its hold on power even stronger going forward, subsequent to the vote on proportional representation and into the next election, to fracture this House so that it can have the best opportunity for forming the next government.

I’m assuming they want to form a majority government, but don’t be surprised if this comes to bite them in the — somewhere. They might be the ones that are seeing a challenge with members of their party forming into smaller parties of two and thereby dwindling their authority and hold on power.

The fundamental structure of our democracy system here is under challenge, as other members have so eloquently put it way more than I can. I’m just a businessman from my local area of Kelowna–Lake Country trying to represent the needs of my constituents. There are far better orators in this House than I am.

It is clear to me that the unintended — or, actually, maybe intended — consequence of this bill without this amendment is to see the government in power continue to form power as long as they can. Therefore, I would ask all members, in particular the Greens, who want to see themselves as “holding government to account” yet have not voted against any of their bills so far — invite them to actually step forward and join us in this amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: I do thank the member for his comments. He clearly holds very strong conviction about this. But honestly, I can’t understand exactly what it is that gets him so animated about two versus three.

Sixteen years ago when two NDP members were sent to this place…. This government feels, certainly, that it was a grave injustice that there was no official party status for those two members.

[5:55 p.m.]

We also feel that democracy is best served, when people send folks to this Legislature, when they have an opportunity to bring forward their ideas. If you can elect two members in the huge province of British Columbia for your party, you deserve to be recognized for this. This is clearly a philosophical difference.

I’ve tried very hard to understand why the member feels that two versus three would irreparably rend the fabric of our province but three is fine. I don’t get it. I won’t be supporting the amendment, obviously. But I do thank him, because that clearly is something he holds to quite firmly.

J. Rustad: I just want to make one thing very a clear with regards to the amendment that’s moved forward, and just in terms of comments. I don’t want anybody to be left with the impression that we aren’t supportive of the Green Party, the three Green independent parties having official party status. That’s not the question here. The question is whether it’s two or three members that create that, and all the arguments to be made for why there should be three.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

J. Rustad: I’m actually just curious. I mean I understand the intent of why this section was put in, why we have a situation where you put this in. What I don’t get is: why does the clarification need to be there about if the member is deceased? I’m not quite sure what problem this is solving.

Hon. D. Eby: The concern is that in the situation of a catastrophic event, the time of the Legislature is not best spent debating language that’s not clear; the time in the Legislature is best spent responding to the crisis.

I agree with the member, that certainly the existing language could potentially capture the situation where a member is actually dead, but it’s not unambiguous. There could be debate about it. So the thought was: “Let’s make it really, really clear so that no time is spent in the event of an emergency, debating whether or not someone is acting with authority.”

Let’s make it clear so that everybody understands what’s happening and why it’s happening, and that people can get on with the business of dealing with whatever catastrophic event has happened.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

J. Rustad: Section 3 gets to the meat of a second issue, which I think is an important for us to canvass here in this chamber.

The committee stage process, of course, is a fundamentally important part of how we address legislation and how we go through each section line by line to try to understand the intent of why various things are put into this. Under section 3, where it says, “Subject to subsection (1), a general voting day must occur on the third Saturday in October….” I’m curious as to why the Saturday? In previous bills that were moved by the governing party — at the time, they were members opposite — Bill M209 in 2017 and M204 in 2015 talked about the vote being on the first Tuesday in October.

[6:00 p.m.]

The members opposite obviously felt…. The governing party obviously felt, when they were in opposition, that Tuesday was a significant time to hold an election rather than the Saturday. Also, Bill M205 in 2011 also called for the second Tuesday in October to be the election date rather than a Saturday. Given the minister’s party’s position with regards to a particular day, I’m curious as to why Saturday has been chosen.

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question. The idea behind voting on Saturday was simply to encourage increased voter turnout. The stats from Elections B.C. tell us that advance voter turnout across all electoral districts was, on average, 51 percent higher on Saturdays than on weekdays.

The idea behind this is if we’re promoting election day — and a lot of people focus on what day election day is — that we might hope to have higher voter turnout on a Saturday than a day during the week and that we could capture folks who had to work on a Saturday, or Saturday Sabbatarians, people who observe their religious observances on a Saturday, by ensuring that there were additional advance voting days available during the week.

It’s simply recognizing the fact that the majority of people clearly are interested in voting on Saturday and making that the day of focus of get-out-the-vote efforts by Elections B.C. and by political parties and providing advance voting days on the slightly less popular days when people can vote and might have to work on a Saturday, for example.

J. Rustad: If I heard correctly, I think he just said that Saturday was a more popular day for voting. What was the percentage of people that voted in advance polling in the last election and the previous election?

Hon. D. Eby: What we see from 1996 to 2017 is a rather startling climb in advance voter turnout. In 1996, it was 6 percent, and then 2001 was 7 percent. Fast-forward to 2013. It was 20 percent, and in 2017, 31 percent of people, of the total voters, voted in advance polls. We’re seeing a steady increase in advance polling turnout data.

I also note that as we transition to a model…. Hopefully, this will be another bill coming forward, where large donations from wealthy individuals, corporations and unions, including donations of in-kind staff to participate as volunteers in an election, are banned. Members and those who wish to become members will be more reliant on volunteers, and Saturday may provide an additional opportunity for more people to be able to participate in the election process as volunteers on election day.

J. Rustad: That poses a couple of interesting questions, but I want to stay along this line of the advance polling. So 31 percent of people participated in advance polling. I think that’s what the minister just said, which means, of course, 69 percent of the people did in general election, and out of that 31 percent of the people, I think it was roughly half that voted on a Saturday. Is that correct?

We are making a determination to move the vote to Saturday because 16 percent of the people voted on a Saturday as opposed to 84 percent of the people that voted on a day other than a Saturday during the general election. I’m wondering how the minister can make that rationale as to that being a popular day for voting when, clearly, the majority of the people in this province are voting on a day other than a Saturday.

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: We’re just trying to figure out some advanced statistical math here. I appreciate the member’s question. The idea is that we provide six advance voting days during the week, when the member feels that people might be more inclined to vote, but that the big push happens on a Saturday as opposed to a Tuesday, or a Wednesday or a Thursday. In B.C., Tuesday is the current general voting day.

I accept the member’s suggestion, and it may be that people prefer to vote during the week, in which case they’re going to have five advance voting days, which are during the week, and one advance voting Saturday before the actual voting Saturday. So they’ll have plenty of opportunity to vote during the week.

I do want to note that the advance voter turnout for the 2017 general election was between 1 percent and 170 percent higher on Saturdays than on weekdays in 81 of the 87 electoral districts. There were six electoral districts where Saturday turnout for advance voting was, on average, 13 percent lower than the weekday turnout. But the overwhelming trend among advance voting days, all things being equal, was that Saturdays were overwhelmingly favoured by voters.

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I still don’t understand how that math can be justified given that the vast majority of people that vote voted on a day other than a Saturday, given the opportunities. Perhaps it would be better for the minister to be considering adding additional advance polling days outside of the Saturday — sorry, advance voting days on other Saturdays, as opposed to having the election on a Saturday.

The challenge I see with this, of course, is that for many people, there is the provision that was put in place in the early 1900s to be able to have…. Originally, election day was a holiday. Then it was moved to a four-hour period of time to be away from work to enable members of the public to vote in an election.

On advance polling days, of course, they don’t have that opportunity to have that time off to be able to go and vote. That’s only on a general election day. Yet for the people that want to vote on general election day and for religious reasons or family reasons may be otherwise preoccupied on that day, they can’t do that. So the advance polling creates an actual barrier for some people to vote, because they can’t get the time off work, they might not be able to make the polls, and perhaps their religion or other components may make it so that they don’t have an opportunity to vote on a general election day.

I think democracy is supposed to be about allowing everyone to vote, to have an opportunity and a day to be able to vote on, and I think that having something on the Saturday could potentially create a barrier.

[6:10 p.m.]

Quite frankly, I guess the question that comes from that…. If it is true in that it does create a barrier — in that a person doesn’t have time off of work to vote in advance voting, and there’s a barrier because of religion — does the minister believe that you actually open government up to a legal challenge by people that maybe find they do not have the ability or time to be able to participate in a general election?

Hon. D. Eby: I appreciate the member’s concern around human rights and discrimination. I think it’s an important question.

We consulted with Saturday Sabbatarians, a number of different groups. Those that responded wished to ensure that there were adequate advance vote opportunities. We actually took a Saturday out of the advance poll and added an additional weekday in, which gives Saturday Sabbatarians the same number of days to vote as under the current law.

I’d also note that B.C. has a human rights code, which requires employers to reasonably accommodate employees. So an employee who needed to take time off to vote and couldn’t vote on a Saturday — an employer would be expected, under the human rights code, to reasonably accommodate the employee’s ability to vote, as required. In addition, Elections B.C. provides in-person voting at Elections B.C. offices at any time during the writ period, and there is a mail-in ballot process as well.

I definitely appreciate the member’s question, but I don’t believe there is an issue here that rises to the level of litigation, certainly.

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for the response. I’m probing this, obviously, for the reason of trying to determine why Saturday was suddenly the epiphany of the government, in terms of moving it. All the same rationale was there in the previous bills that had been moved forward.

Specifically, the minister just mentioned that there were people that were consulted and asked for an opinion. This government seems to enjoy going out and doing a significant amount of consultation on pretty much everything that’s happening, with the exception of a whole lot of the electoral stuff, oddly enough. I’m just curious as to how many people actually responded and were part of the query that the government has done with regard to the electoral day being on a Saturday.

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise that, in terms of formal organizations, staff consulted with the Orthodox Rabbinical Council of British Columbia; the Seventh-Day Adventist Church; the United Church of God, Canada; in Vancouver, the Church of God, British Columbia; the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism; and the Canadian Council for Reform Judaism.

Importantly, staff consulted with Elections B.C. The conversation was around how we maximize voter turnout. Certainly, Elections B.C. had no concerns about a Saturday date. In fact, it was our understanding that they were hopeful this would improve voter turnout.

J. Rustad: To the minister, thank you for that information.

[6:15 p.m.]

I want to continue to probe this Saturday, particularly the third Saturday in October. The reason for that, quite frankly, is Thanksgiving. Typically, the heaviest advance turnout is the weekend before an election — which falls, obviously, on the long weekend, the Thanksgiving long weekend, for those advance polling dates. That actually may create a barrier, in many cases, as people go out, whether it’s hunting or spending time with family. Some of them use the long weekend to travel, etc.

I’m curious as to whether or not that factored into the minister’s decision to move the election day to the third Saturday in October.

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question.

One of the priorities was making sure that the voting date was held after the passage of a budget prior to the election, which put us into October or November or December. Certainly, in many parts of the province, even October can be challenging with snow and ice. We definitely did not want to look at a November date, as a result.

The member raises a good point about Thanksgiving weekend and family time and these kinds of things. We, obviously, were not looking at a voting date on Thanksgiving weekend. So combining the factors of wanting have the budget in and passed before the voting day, wanting to stay out of the later dates — as you get closer to November and then November itself, which is more challenging for constituents, especially up north — this was, we felt, the appropriate accommodation of those different concerns.

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

What I’m hearing, I think, from the minister is that the Thanksgiving challenge…. That weekend wasn’t really considered in terms of picking the date, so that does pose a challenge.

Did the member solicit Elections B.C. with regards to the Saturday date and advance polling, the overlap with Thanksgiving and the challenges that would create having the election day so closely following a national statutory holiday?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right in the sense that Thanksgiving falls within the first two weeks of October. That is not going to be an issue with general voting day but perhaps with advance voting day, where you have a late Thanksgiving in any particular year.

The member is not correct that consideration wasn’t given to this. All kinds of holidays were looked at. Labour Day, when Labour Day falls in September; Remembrance Day; Rosh Hashanah; Yom Kippur; the first day of Sukkot; Shemini Atzeret; Diwali; and the First Sunday of Advent were all looked at in terms of 2017, ’18, ’19, ’20 and ’21. When did they fall? Which dates are available to try to hit that day of a Saturday, to increase voter turnout, after the budget was introduced? A lot of thought actually went into choosing this particular date.

J. Rustad: I can’t help but speculate that the government members in their previous private member’s bills asked for the first Tuesday in October, and I believe that was for a reason. The first Tuesday being in October was so that it would not overlap with Thanksgiving. It wouldn’t create that challenge, in this particular window. And of course, it would be after Labour Day and allow for the majority of people to be able to participate fully in democracy.

[6:20 p.m.]

I would ask the member once again: why the Saturday? Why this particular day? Clearly, with the challenges that we have seen with Thanksgiving…. People are away on that particular week. The advance polling challenges. To the member’s own rationale, as to why — they had picked the first Tuesday in October in their private member’s bill — suddenly, they decided to move it to this Saturday….

Hon. D. Eby: I’m glad to advise the member that this day was chosen in close consultation with Elections B.C. Also, I’ve been reminded by the Minister of Public Safety that Easter falls in the spring election campaign, which is a challenge for a lot of families as well.

It is, as I’m sure the member is aware, a challenge to find the right date that doesn’t impact on different holidays that are of priority for different cultural or religious groups. I think we’ve done that, and we’ve done it very carefully in consultation with religious groups, with Elections B.C., and that is the date we’ve put forward.

J. Rustad: I have a number of other questions associated with this section, so I would, at this time, recognize the hour and propose that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:21 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, 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. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:22 p.m.