Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Mark: In the gallery today, we’re joined by a number of technology leaders who hosted an amazing breakfast for us, all members of the chamber. We had a great dialogue about how they’re advancing work in technology, as technicians and leaders throughout the province, making our communities safe and advancing STEM — science, technology, engineering and math.

I’d like to welcome Sid Siddiqui; M.J. Whitemarsh; Paul Dangerfield, from Capilano University; Allen Bruce; Roslyn Kunin; Steve Cardwell; Chris Atchison; and Theresa McCurry, who is now the new boss in town.

I’d like to acknowledge the work of John at ASTTBC for the last 44 years, and I would like to welcome the leadership of Theresa and her team — Trent Reid, Sarah Campden and David Sparanese.

Thank you for being here. Thank you for hosting the dialogue today, and keep shining throughout B.C. Haawa.

S. Sullivan: We have some very special guests. We are joined by Lorna Morrison, who won the Woman of the Year in the north for leadership and has spent her life working on Aboriginal health.

Ron Townley, who is an entrepreneur and business person, has probably done every trade and business in the north. He’s living here now, and I’m told he has very few creditors.

We also have Vickie Jensen, author. She is writing a book right now about the burgeoning submarine industry in British Columbia, one of the hotbeds of submarine technology in the world.

We also have with us Jay Powell, who has spent his life on reviving and revitalizing Aboriginal languages. He has 12 languages that he has developed resource material for, and he’s the only speaker of Chinook jargon, the old trade language, Chinook Wawa. I’d ask the House to greet him with klahowya. Klahowya.

R. Kahlon: It’s my pleasure today to welcome here the National Association of Japanese Canadians. I look forward to meeting them shortly after question period.

We have with us the president of the national association, David Mitsui. We have the vice-president, Lorene Oikawa. We have board director Eiko Eby from Nanaimo. We have George Uyeda from Kamloops. We have Tsugio Kurushima from Victoria and Rick Ogasawara from Vernon. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Routledge: Well, any second now, the first of four groups of social studies students from Burnaby North Secondary are going to be walking into the gallery to experience the Legislature in action. When they join us, I hope you will join me in giving them a big welcome.

[10:10 a.m.]

P. Milobar: In the House today, we have several representatives from an important employer in Kamloops, Domtar. We have Jean-Claude Allaire, the Kamloops mill manager; Kristin Dangelmaier, the environment manager; Merl Fichtner, the fibre procurement manager; Debbie Kirkpatrick, the human resources manager; Bonny Skene, the regional public affairs manager. As well, we have Unifor representatives Mark Cameron, the national representative; Rene Pellerin, president of Unifor Local 10B; and Bob Stephens, president, Unifor Local 10B. Will the House please make them welcome.

E. Ross: There are two people already introduced in this House, but there’s a personal connection with myself to these two people in particular.

Lorna Morrison was actually the health director for my band for a few years before she got promoted to be the band manager. The thing about Lorna Morrison is that she’s a doer; she’s not a talker. She renovated our soccer shack and renovated our soccer field. She built our council office. She built our fire hall. She built our public works building. And she did it in a short period of time. Our people owe her a debt of gratitude for her short service to our community. It’s still being recognized and used today. Thank you, Lorna Morrison.

Jay Powell probably worked at my band office longer than I did, longer than other people I remember. I developed a great relationship with him. He understood more about culture and language than I ever could in any lifetime.

Thank you to both these guests in the House. To the House, please make them feel welcome again.

Hon. A. Dix: Today at noon in the Hall of Honour, the B.C. and Yukon Heart and Stroke Foundation and the B.C. emergency health services will be hosting an awareness and teaching event to promote learning CPR and how to use an AED. We’ll all be tested a little bit on that.

Here to help with today’s events are members from the Ambulance Paramedics of B.C., CUPE Local 873. They’re joining us in the gallery. I’d like to introduce Ellen Cheatley, Candace Kennedy, Bruce Honeyman, Kevin Lambert, Cameron Bradley and Lance Stephenson, who may or may not also play for the Indiana Pacers. I’m not sure.

We’re obviously grateful for the extraordinary work that ambulance paramedics do for all of us every day. I wish everyone in the House to make our guests welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M212 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

S. Furstenau presented a bill intituled Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2018.

S. Furstenau: Today I move that a bill intituled the Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2018, of which notice has been given, be introduced and read a first time now.

The bill I am introducing today amends the Environmental Management Act. The intention is to ensure protection of drinking water by disallowing the deposit of waste materials in a sand or gravel pit, in a limestone or sandstone quarry or above a highly sensitive aquifer. Quarries and gravel pits are porous, which means there could be significant risk of groundwater contamination from waste deposited.

On Vancouver Island, there are two examples where this practice has caused great concern. In Shawnigan, residents remain anxious about water contamination from a quarry used for landfill and contaminated soil. The permit has been revoked, but the waste remains at the headwater of Shawnigan’s drinking watershed, and it must be removed. In Campbell River, the community has grave concerns about a quarry being granted a permit to deposit waste. The quarry is adjacent to Rico Lake, which drains into McIvor Lake, the town’s drinking water.

Protecting drinking water needs to be a government’s highest priority. This amendment to the Environmental Management Act will help us take steps towards this goal.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

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

Bill M212, Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2018, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

FARM ROOTS SCHOOL PROGRAM IN DELTA

I. Paton: I think we’ve all heard of specialty academies in our high schools — everything from hockey academies to lacrosse, baseball, theatre, opera and dance. A few years ago the bright idea of an agriculture academy was forwarded by a group of Delta teachers who partnered with some local farmers and secured an empty elementary school in Tsawwassen and an unused acre of land next door. I was delighted to help this program get started with fundraising advice and even cow manure.

Earlier this month the Delta Farm Roots school program received the 2017 Ken Spencer Award for innovation in teaching and learning.

[10:15 a.m.]

This award recognizes hidden gems across Canada that produce creative and innovative approaches that empower and excite previously disengaged youth. It places a distinct emphasis on encouraging change in schools and raising the profile of classroom innovation.

The program itself teaches students the essentials of building and running a sustainable farm, drawing in students from across Delta. Students spend every second day at the mini-school campus in Boundary Bay, alternating with their regular high school. They combine their normal studies with planting, harvesting, business education, marketing and environmental science and are able to gain hands-on work experience and design their own research projects.

The program is highly individualized and flexible, and throughout the program, students develop deeper relationships with their communities and with local agriculture businesses. These relationships, in turn, expose students to a plethora of career possibilities and post-secondary education options they may not otherwise be aware of or have been interested in. This groundbreaking program is inspiring young people to get their hands dirty, get outside and try new things.

This is, I’m sure, the first of many awards to come for the Farm Roots Mini School in south Delta, and I am pleased to congratulate them. I am also hopeful that these students will go on to become the next generation of B.C. farmers and involve themselves in the exciting possibilities of agriculture as a career.

VAISAKHI

R. Singh: Vaisakhi, an important festival of the South Asian community, was celebrated with great fervour in Vancouver last weekend, and a big celebration is planned in Surrey for the coming weekend. The celebrations in Surrey will be the biggest in North America and the second biggest in the diaspora outside of Punjab.

Vaisakhi signifies harvest and renewal. It has a particular significance for the Sikhs, as on this auspicious day, the tenth master of the Sikh faith, Sri Gobind Singh Ji, laid the foundation of the Khalsa Panth, a force of dedicated Sikh warriors that was raised to fight against oppression and injustice. The birth of the Khalsa was the beginning of a new revolution that challenged the brutal caste system in the Indian society through empowerment of the oppressed groups that were often denied the right to education and to live with dignity and self-respect.

The legacy of the Khalsa and the progressive spirit behind Vaisakhi are still relevant as the world continues to grapple with social injustice, inequalities and oppression. Let’s resolve to carry forward the struggle for a fair and just society on this Vaisakhi. Wishing you all a very happy Vaisakhi. Vaisakhi di Lakh Vadhai.

COURT RULING AND WINE EXPORTS

J. Yap: I rise today to acknowledge the Supreme Court of Canada judgment in the Comeau case. This is a disappointing loss for many of our B.C. wine producers, who we have long supported in their desire to export their product to other provinces, including via direct shipping. It’s also disappointing for consumers, who have said time and time again that they want the right to buy Canadian wine, including our high-quality B.C. products.

Indeed, B.C. has gained an international reputation for its top-quality products. Our producers have won many, many accolades. They are the hard-working men and women who put their hearts and souls into each bottle. However, the court has made its judgment, which we fully respect.

I and other members of this House acknowledge the importance of reducing trade barriers and increasing economic cooperation within Canada and beyond. This underscores the importance of cooperation and political agreements in enabling our key industries to thrive. Past governments have produced agreements, like the new west partnership, which contribute to the prosperity of many western Canadians.

Let us recall, also, that the previous government symbolically dropped its barriers to wine. Surely we can all appreciate the important contributions of B.C. wine to our economy and to the dinner tables of homes across Canada.

IBS AWARENESS

A. Kang: When was the last time you had a bowel movement? My topic today is no laughing matter. In fact, it is a very serious one. April is Inflammatory Bowel Syndrome, or IBS, Awareness Month. In kindergarten, I was taught that it is inappropriate to use washroom language in public, and it’s so unimaginable that I would be using it here today at the Legislature.

[10:20 a.m.]

Why is it that we are able to openly share our thoughts about other debilitating or life-altering syndromes, such as cancer, autism, cholesterol and even Alzheimer’s, but it is awkward for us to talk about something as important as inflammatory bowel syndrome?

The Gastrointestinal Society represents Canadians living with gastrointestinal diseases and disorders, including those with IBS. What many of us may not be familiar with is that people with IBS have significantly impaired quality of life. The symptoms of IBS can have a substantial effect on daily life due to their frequency, severity, unpredictability and persistence.

Patients often need to make lifestyle alterations in order to accommodate the symptoms. Quoting from a patient: “I cannot make plans ahead, as I never know when it will affect me. I’m not able to work, because I never know when I will have to call in sick. Isolation. Fear. Always feeling that I smell.”

Many of those with IBS believe that they are not taken seriously and that their symptoms are not real. Some individuals with IBS are discouraged from seeking medical help, because they believe that they will not be heard or understood.

With April being IBS Awareness Month, I want to encourage people with IBS to speak up early, speak up completely and speak up often. Also, friends, let’s listen, be compassionate and be understanding.

WORKPLACE STRESS IN
WOMEN’S OCCUPATIONS

A. Olsen: What do child care providers, nurses and teachers have in common? If you said they were typically occupations that employed women, you would be correct. If you said they’d been historically undervalued because of this fact, you would be correct. If you said that they are three of the jobs with the highest levels of workplace stress and levels of mental health issues, you would be correct.

In Canada, 95 percent of nurses are women. These numbers increase when you consider the particular types of nurses that deal with society’s most vulnerable population: children, the elderly and those with mental illness. Sixty-eight percent of teachers in Canada are women, while 84 percent of elementary school teachers are women and 94 percent of early childhood educators are women.

Women are trusted to take on the job of ensuring that the minds and bodies of young and vulnerable Canadians are taken care of. But who is ensuring that nurses and teachers in B.C. are sharing the same courtesy? Studies have shown that teachers and nurses are tied for first place in levels of harmful workplace stress.

In Manitoba, 52 percent of nurses report experiencing physical assault, and at least 30 percent to 40 percent exhibit signs of post-traumatic stress disorder. It’s possible this number is higher. Not only is PTSD misdiagnosed as anxiety or depression; symptoms are often based on men with PTSD, which can differ from those experienced by women.

Historically, as women enter professions, they’ve seen a reduction in both pay and prestige. This has been the case with both nurses and teachers and is repeated in the attention to how their mental health is received. While the gender pay gap is well known, the gender PTSD and workplace stress gap is less so.

Work done by women is invaluable, and we need to start acting like it.

STANLEY PARK ECOLOGY SOCIETY

S. Chandra Herbert: This Saturday, April 21, we will be celebrating Earth Day. Now, we celebrate, but we also need to, I think, reflect on the challenges we have made for our earth to thrive. For the species, for the creatures, for the planet’s great abundance to be all that it can be, we need to recognize our role, our often harmful role, in limiting its true potential.

While we remember that, we also need to, I think, reflect on the great successes that we have started to make, to recognize our role as a creature of the earth, not a creature above the earth.

I think we need to recognize that we need to connect to nature and reconnect to nature. All too often when I walk through the streets of my community or streets of many of our communities, I see myself and others staring at a small screen as we walk through the streets, very often not acknowledging those around us — or the birds or the trees, the flowers, the bees.

There’s one organization in my community that’s working hard to try and change that, to connect us back to nature. I want to acknowledge them. It’s their 30th birthday this year, and we’ll be celebrating on the 21st. It’s the Stanley Park Ecology Society.

[10:25 a.m.]

They’ve worked to, in some ways, decolonize the park. What does that mean? Well, in their sense, they’re focusing on invasive species, on things introduced from the outside that were never there before — English ivy, Siberian blackberry.

They bring the community in to do that, to get our hands dirty, because in the concrete jungle we sometimes live in, in the West End, you can lose that connection to the earth. They do very important work through their nature house, bird walks, planting of native species to bring back the birds that maybe don’t feel as connected there — bringing back otters, seals and the abundance that truly was there before the domination, the colonization.

I want to acknowledge them and wish them a very happy birthday for the very important work they do.

Oral Questions

MEDIA APPEARANCE BY
PREMIER’S CHIEF OF STAFF

J. Johal: I have here a copy of the Standards of Conduct for Public Service Employees. This is a document on the government website, last updated March 27, 2018.

Can the minister responsible for the Public Service Agency confirm that these public service rules still apply to all political staff?

Hon. C. James: I’ll take a look at the document. I’m presuming that, yes, those apply. Again, I don’t have a copy of the document, so I’ll take a look at the document that the member raises.

Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.

J. Johal: Yesterday the Premier’s chief of staff taped a promotional radio appearance to sell his book. Page 8 of the Standards of Conduct for Public Service Employees has strict rules for public employees doing work outside their regular employment.

Again to the minister, can she explain how taping a radio appearance for personal gain during working hours complies with these standards of conduct?

Hon. C. James: I’ll take a look at the issue that the member raises.

Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a second supplemental.

J. Johal: Just to provide a bit more information. Not only was the promotional appearance done during normal working hours, but the employee was very clearly introduced by his title of chief of staff to the Premier.

This individual is already paid $195,000, by taxpayers, per year. Can the minister explain how it follows the rules for the Premier’s chief of staff to take advantage of his position to sell his book?

Hon. C. James: People certainly are aware of the responsibility and the duties of the individual that the member speaks about. I am certain that he took great care in making sure that his work wasn’t interrupted, but I will take a look at the specifics that the member raises.

AGREEMENTS WITH FIRST NATIONS ON
TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND
COMMENTS BY ENVIRONMENT MINISTER

P. Milobar: On March 14, the Environment Minister was asked about the 33 B.C. First Nations with benefit agreements. He said: “What’s difficult to ascertain is whether support was a condition of receiving benefits.” He went on to call it “a sort of support.”

This is what Simpcw Coun. Don Matthew told me about the minister’s comments: “Our members voted to support the project knowing full well that our main objective was to be involved with the environmental aspects from start to finish. We are quite capable of knowing what we sign.”

Will the minister retract his statements that trivialize the decisions of the Simpcw?

Hon. G. Heyman: Certainly, I had no intent to trivialize the concerns of any group of Indigenous people, any nation, on either side of this question, who are taking legitimate positions. The fact remains that there are different positions, and it is not a matter of counting up how many nations support one side or how many nations support another side.

The real question is a question of rights and title and impact. For 16 years, we had a government in British Columbia that ignored British Columbia’s First Nations, that ignored rights and titles until they were forced to by the courts. They refused to implement the United Nation’s declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, and they refused to take seriously the importance of reconciliation.

[10:30 a.m.]

We’re taking a different approach. We recognize the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We recognize the United Nations declaration. We recognize the decisions of the court. We’re working carefully and with purpose throughout every ministry in government to build new relationships and ensure that we take actions that not only build respect for rights and title and engagement with Indigenous people but create economic opportunities for all.

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–North Thompson on a supplemental.

P. Milobar: Well, yesterday the minister did say: “I would never, ever trivialize the concerns of voices of Indigenous people….”

Let me read more of Simpcw Coun. Don Matthew’s concerns with the minister’s remarks and how they feel the minister’s remarks impact them. “We knew what was happening, and we approved what was going to be done in our territory. We don’t need non-native politicians looking out for our best interests these days.” This is the feeling of the Simpcw.

Again to the minister, will he apologize for his offensive comments to them?

Hon. G. Heyman: The member himself read out a statement by me which said I have no intention of trivializing the concern of any nations. I’ve been clear about that.

Nations have differences of opinion. People in British Columbia have differences of opinion. The job of the government of British Columbia is to respect them all.

The fact remains that it’s not up to the government of British Columbia to speak for First Nations. They’re doing that on their own. While some nations have signed agreements and support the project, others have gone before the Federal Court of Appeal to protect their interests, as they say, seeking to overturn federal approval of the project. That includes the Tsleil-Waututh, the Coldwater and the Squamish.

We need to resolve these differences with respect for the United Nations declaration, with respect for the calls to action, with respect for previous decisions in courts and with respect for decisions yet to come. That’s our government’s commitment to British Columbians.

DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON
TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND
ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF PROJECT

A. Weaver: Yesterday I asked the government whether they share the concerns being raised by many experts about the economics of the Trans Mountain pipeline. I’d like to pick up on that here.

Earlier this year and for the very first time, a new class of tanker — a very large crude carrier, or VLCC — left the newly refurbished Louisiana Offshore Oil Port destined for Asia. These tankers can load over two million barrels of oil, and the LOOP facility can fill them at a whopping rate of 100,000 barrels an hour.

The Aframax-class tankers that would leave the terminus at the end of the Trans Mountain pipeline can only take 555,000 barrels of diluted bitumen out of Burrard Inlet. This means that any Asian buyer would need to contract four Aframax tankers from the Trans Mountain terminus versus only one VLCC from the LOOP facility.

Based on this obvious economic reality that any Asian buyers would be serviced by the VLCCs out of the U.S. and not out of the terminus of Trans Mountain, my question is this. To either the Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance or the Premier, if he’s here: is her government or his government and her ministry or the Premier’s office taking a hard look at the financial case for the Kinder Morgan pipeline?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for the question. I and other members of the government are certainly aware of the controversy around the economics, the different studies, the changes in conditions and different alternatives. I thank the Leader of the Third Party for reading these into the record.

With respect to the Leader of the Third Party, it is the job of proponents to determine the economics. It is the job of other governments backing the project to determine the merits of the economics. I think all Canadian taxpayers would want other governments to take a long, hard look at the economics of a project in which they’re considering investing billions of dollars.

[10:35 a.m.]

Our job, as the government of British Columbia, is to look at the interests of our environment and our economy, and that’s what we’re doing. That’s why we are considering every measure, every inch of our constitutional jurisdiction, to protect against a catastrophe that’s possible and that could have significant and awful economic interests on British Columbia. Tourism alone — 19,000 tourism businesses in British Columbia, employing 133,000 people in every corner of this province, in every constituency represented by members in this chamber.

It’s our duty, it’s our responsibility, to look out for those people. It’s not our responsibility to ignore them because a large project comes along. Our job is to ensure that if there are large projects, they don’t impact and take away the livelihood of those people or the $17 billion in revenue that the tourism industry generates every year in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: I do thank the minister for his answer there and his commitment to protecting British Columbia, but I respectfully disagree. I believe it is the government’s responsibility to inform British Columbians about the economics of this proposal.

Why? Because the previous government claimed that the economic benefits for British Columbia were very large and, in fact, claimed that the government’s fifth condition was apparently met. Now, unfortunately, the fifth condition was based on assertions that were put towards the 2012 National Energy Board in the submission. It’s now six years old, and many of the fundamental assumptions of that submission, of that economic case, on which the government claimed its fifth condition was met, are no longer valid.

Keystone XL and line 3 have been approved. That means that we have more than a million barrels a day of export capacity, which was unaccounted for. We’ve got North America now having the ability to ship through VLCCs. That was never able. And we know that you can’t get bigger ships in Burrard Inlet. This government, I would argue, has a responsibility to review those numbers so that British Columbians are given correct, accurate and up-to-date information about the economics of this project.

My question is to the Minister of Environment and then to the Minister of Finance, who still has laryngitis. The previous provincial government made claims about the economic benefits to B.C. from this pipeline that have been cast into serious doubt. Why isn’t this government examining the economic case more closely?

Hon. G. Heyman: Again, I thank the Leader of the Third Party. As he respectfully disagrees with me about the role of our government in this regard, I respectfully assert again to him that this is not a project that this government thinks is good for British Columbia. We’ve made that clear. We think the risk is so great and far outweighs the reward.

What we are doing is ensuring that within our jurisdiction, within our ability to regulate and place conditions on a project that is federally decided upon, subject to an appeal to the federal court, we ensure that conditions and regulations are in place to protect our economy.

It’s important. It’s important up and down our coast. We have a fisheries and seafood industry that contributes more than $660 million every year to our gross domestic product, and it employs 14,000 people, paying almost $400 million in wages.

Just yesterday 450 businesses understood why we were taking this position; 450 B.C. businesses signed a joint letter calling on the government to continue to stand up for our coast and the tens of thousands of jobs that depend on protecting our coastline and our environment from a spill.

REFERENDUM ON ELECTORAL REFORM

M. Lee: On October 4, 2017, the Attorney General announced that British Columbians would be asked to vote on proportional representation before the end of November 2018. Over six months later, the ballot question of this referendum still has not yet been announced.

[10:40 a.m.]

To the Attorney General, when will he inform British Columbians of the referendum question they will be asked in just a few months’ time?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question and for his interest in this. We had an exceptional level of participation by the public in our engagement process — 180,000-plus site visits, 88,547 questionnaires completed in multiple languages; British Columbians feeding back from 30 organizations spending an average of 14 minutes on the site, spending an average of 16 minutes completing the questionnaire.

This is a huge amount of feedback for us, and I can assure the member that we are taking that feedback very seriously. There will be a report that summarizes all that feedback — it will be available to all members — with recommendations about the question or questions, the rules, whether third parties should be funded and so on, and it will be based on the feedback of British Columbians. The ultimate question about our political system and the voting, how we send representatives to this place, will be decided by British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Langara on a supplemental.

M. Lee: While the Attorney General views himself as a non-partisan, neutral arbiter, no one else does. He has yet to inform voters of the ballot question. He has yet to announce the campaign rules. He has yet to even provide the exact date of the referendum. Key information that voters need to make an informed decision is being withheld while he continues to manipulate the process.

Can the Attorney General explain why he hasn’t told voters something as basic as what the question will be, when we’re mere months away from this referendum?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m not sure what the member hopes would happen here. We went to British Columbians, and we said: “What should the question be? What should the rules be?” They participated. I hesitate to say it, but this was certainly one of the largest engagements of British Columbians, in terms of the number of people participating, in the province’s history — in multiple languages.

We are compiling that information for all members to be able to review. All of the information will be available to them. What better process than this to set the question and the rules? And the member will have that information as soon as we can get it to him.

J. Martin: Last fall the government released a questionnaire that many have claimed is skewed in favour of proportional representation. I happen to have a November 15 email from a director in the Attorney General’s ministry that might explain why. In this email, the director reveals that political staff in the Attorney General’s office directly provided input to shape the questionnaire.

To the Attorney General, what input did his political staff have in the drafting of the questionnaire?

Hon. D. Eby: We had several academics that assisted us in the process of setting up this questionnaire. They were of various backgrounds, but their expertise was in consultation with the public in British Columbia. Certainly, I agree with the member that I have political accountability for the questionnaire, for the referendum process. That is the job that the Premier has given me. I accept that responsibility.

The questionnaire has been criticized by people who are pro–proportional representation, and it has been criticized by members who are anti–proportional representation. I think that’s exactly where we should be.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack on a supplemental.

J. Martin: Well, absolutely no one views the Attorney General as non-partisan or neutral in this matter. We now know his political staff had direct input into the drafting of a questionnaire widely seen as being skewed in favour of proportional representation.

As the supposed neutral arbiter, will the Attorney General table in this House all input his political staff had into the drafting of the questionnaire?

Hon. D. Eby: There have been a number of freedom-of-information requests in relation to this. They have all been responded to, and I imagine that’s how the member got the document he’s talking about. He already has the information. I’m not sure of the basis for the question.

[10:45 a.m.]

What I can say is that I will not be lectured by members from a government who put forward a referendum called by pollster Angus Reid as “one of the most amateurish, one-sided attempts to gauge the public will that I have seen in my professional career.” That referendum about whether or not First Nations people had rights — unacceptable.

M. Stilwell: Last April the Premier promised that he would “set up an all-party committee to hear from citizens and formulate a referendum question at the conclusion of that process.” But as this hasn’t happened, it seems the government has either blundered or chosen to manipulate the process, or both.

Why is the Attorney General in charge of the process, instead of an all-party committee — breaking the Premier’s promise?

Hon. D. Eby: Members throughout the Legislature had the opportunity to stand up and provide submissions. They told me they did during the second reading debate about the referendum process. Their feelings about the values that needed to be represented…. All of that will be incorporated in the report that will be available to all members.

Every political party had the opportunity to provide submissions. We had submissions from the Conservative Party, from the Greens, from the NDP, and certainly, we had submissions from B.C. Liberals. So with respect to the member, all parties have participated. There will be a full report of how their submissions were considered and recommendations going forward. I heard from members across — concerns about rural representation, about local representation. Those concerns were heard loud and clear, and they will be incorporated in the final report.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.

M. Stilwell: Well, that’s certainly a new definition for all-party committees.

The Premier also broke his promise that the referendum ballot would be a written, simple yes-or-no question. Groups like Fair Vote are actively out there campaigning for a more confusing, two-ballot question, as they feel it will increase their chances of winning.

Will the Attorney General recommit to the Premier’s promise of a simple single-ballot question, yes or no?

Hon. D. Eby: The hypocrisy of these questions — on one hand, saying that we shouldn’t go out to British Columbians and consult with them, that there should have been a different process; on the other hand, saying that the Premier himself should have set the question. I’m not sure which the members favour here, but I can tell them the process that we are engaging in.

Every British Columbian had the opportunity to provide feedback. Mailers to every house in British Columbia. Every political party had the opportunity. Statements in Hansard from second reading speeches. Every party had the opportunity to provide written submissions as well — all compiled by public servants into a report with recommendations for all members to see before it goes to cabinet. That is the process that is being followed here, and whether or not the member, individually, agrees with that, that is what is happening.

J. Sturdy: Last April the Premier made a clear promise that he has since broken. He said that the amending formula for our constitution is similar to the kind of formula we’d need for a plebiscite on changing how we elect people in B.C.

Can the Attorney General explain what happened to the regional threshold requirements the Premier promised?

Hon. D. Eby: The legislation was in front of this minority parliament around how the referendum would be held. It passed with a majority of votes. The rules are very clear. A majority of British Columbians, one British Columbian and one vote, will decide the future of our electoral system in the province.

Mr. Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky on a supplemental.

J. Sturdy: Well, let’s look at this Premier’s broken promises. He said he’d set up an all-party committee; he didn’t. He’d said the ballot would be a simple yes-or-no question, but now it looks like it won’t be. He said that there would be regional threshold requirements similar to the constitutional amending formula. So far, there are not.

Will the Attorney General recommit to the regional threshold requirements, or is this yet another broken promise?

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’m trying to figure out why the members are so unhappy about a process where, in a minority parliament, a bill was passed that set out the rules for the referendum where every British Columbian gets a vote about the future of our electoral system in the province. Not only that, one of the largest engagements…. I’d guess the largest, but certainly one of the largest engagements in our province’s history about what the rules should be, what the question should be.

I know the member for Kamloops–North Thompson wasn’t happy with that process. When he heard that there were tens of thousands of completed questionnaires, he said, “Well, it would be interesting to know how many of those questionnaires came from outside B.C.,” suggesting, perhaps, Russian influence.

Let me tell you that the responses to the questionnaires reflected the population of British Columbia almost exactly. We had communities that were underrepresented, like greater Vancouver, Squamish-Lillooet and Similkameen. Kootenay-Boundary, Sunshine Coast, Mount Waddington and the capital region were more heavily represented. Overall, it reflects the geographic diversity of our province, as did the feedback.

C. Oakes: The Premier made a promise to British Columbians. The Premier promised a referendum would need broad regional consensus, but the NDP have lowered the bar to the weakest possible 50-percent-plus-one majority threshold. The NDP has also said voter turnout as low as 10 percent would be valid.

Can the Attorney General clarify how low voter turnout has to be for the government to reject the results?

Hon. D. Eby: First of all, these are…. The voter turnout rules are the same that elected the member, so I’m not sure why she’s so concerned about that.

Secondly, the largest engagement in B.C.’s history, tens of thousands people spending 14 minutes to fill out a questionnaire on voting systems. The engagement of British Columbians on this question is through the roof. We expect huge participation in a referendum.

I thank the member for her question very much, but I can assure her that if this questionnaire is any indication, there will be a record voter turnout for this referendum.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo North on a supplemental.

C. Oakes: Tens of thousands, largest engagement in in British Columbia. How disrespectful can this Attorney General be to those people? What is the question? When is the referendum?

Look at what happened in 2005 and the 2009 provincial referendum. It required a 60 percent threshold in favour across the province, and at least a 60 percent threshold of ridings. The member opposite said he would be happy to incorporate all of the things that he heard. So are you changing the threshold? Are you prepared to change that threshold?

The provinces of Ontario and Prince Edward Island had the same requirements. In fact, it is standard in British Columbia to require a 75 percent threshold just to change your strata council.

Why is the Attorney General afraid to seek a strong consensus for such a fundamental change in our democracy?

Hon. D. Eby: So 180,880 site visits, 88,547 questionnaires completed by British Columbians across the province — a remarkable level of participation that indicates that the member’s fears are groundless.

British Columbians are incredibly engaged on this question, engaged in ways that they have never been engaged before, and I am thrilled about that. I am thrilled about every British Columbian getting a vote about how we send members to this place. What better reflection of our democratic system than that?

[10:55 a.m.]

J. Isaacs: The NDP–Green Party confidence and supply agreement was signed almost 11 months ago. It reads: “The parties agree that they will work together…to determine the form of proportional representation that will be put to a referendum.”

A simple question: what exactly is that form of proportional representation?

Hon. D. Eby: That is exactly one of the questions that we asked in our engagement process. We asked people about submissions, what should the ballot question be, what system should we put to British Columbians. We are taking that feedback very seriously, and it will be contained in a report for all members to see.

Mr. Speaker: Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on a supplemental.

J. Isaacs: The confidence and supply agreement is the basis by which the government itself exists and, therefore, the basis by which the Attorney General holds his position. But after nearly 11 months of manipulating the process, the commitment to determine the form of proportional representation that will be put to referendum has not been kept.

Has there been disagreement between the NDP and the Green Party about which form of proportional representation should be presented to voters, and if so, when will it be resolved?

Hon. D. Eby: I know the member is new to this place. She may not know the history of referenda in our province here. When the members…. Many of them are still sitting opposite. When they held a referendum on whether First Nations people have rights, it was described as “stupid,” “immoral,” “amateurish” and “racist.” “By the May 15 deadline, only one-third of the mail-in ballots were returned. Many were burned. Others were turned into paper airplanes, cut into snowflakes, even toilet paper.” That is, of course, from news reports.

Now, I know the members opposite support a referendum. The member for False Creek: “I know that we’ve had referendums in 2005 and 2009, but there will be another one.”

The member for Kamloops–South Thompson: “We are committed to enabling a third referendum.”

The member for Richmond-Steveston: “The discussion around electoral reform is a key facet of our democracy, and renewing a healthy debate on our system is important.”

The member for Vancouver-Langara: “For many, it’s important that we conduct a third referendum on electoral reform to give British Columbians an opportunity to consider once again what is the best electoral system for this province and its people.”

Again, we listened, and we acted. I take his advice. We are acting. We will have the referendum.

[End of question period.]

Standing Order 35

REQUEST TO DEBATE A MATTER OF
URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE —
REFERRAL OF JURISDICTIONAL
DISPUTE TO COURT

M. de Jong: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 35 to move adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of definite and urgent public importance, specifically the necessity, advisability and consequences of referring to the Court of Appeal the question of British Columbia’s ability to regulate or limit the transportation of energy products on federally approved and regulated pipelines and rails.

I’ve provided copies of my statement. One will make its way over to the Government House Leader, and the Table has one. Presumably, all members of the House will agree that the importance of this issue is beyond question. B.C. is in a full-on dispute with the governments of Canada, Alberta and others on a matter that is central to the functioning of our federation. That dispute was triggered on January 30, 2018, when the government of B.C. issued a press release threatening to limit interprovincial transportation of energy products by pipeline and rail. This has led to retaliatory measures being brought by other governments against B.C.

The government of B.C.’s approach to resolving this dispute, we are told, relies almost exclusively on a judicial reference that it has repeatedly referred to but thus far not initiated. There is, clearly, much at stake. Proponents of moving ahead with the project, which has received federal and provincial approval, deny any jurisdictional ambiguity and point to the thousands of jobs that are at stake, the importance of facilitating movement of Canadian natural resources to market, and the reputational blow that will be dealt our province and country if those seeking to invest and build infrastructure can no longer rely upon properly secured approvals.

Those advocating against the project, including the government of British Columbia, which campaigned on a pledge to “use every tool in the tool box” to stop it, insists that a reference case is essential in order to clarify the jurisdictional uncertainty that they claim exists.

[11:00 a.m.]

This application under Standing Order 35 is not about resolving that fundamental difference of opinion, nor does this application rely upon the obvious importance of the issue for the province and country.

The authorities for this House are very clear. The test upon which an application for emergency debate pursuant to Standing Order 35 must be determined is the urgency of the debate itself. That urgency was highlighted yesterday when the Attorney General advised the House that the reference to the Court of Appeal would be initiated within ten working days.

Thereafter, any opportunity for this House to offer meaningful input on the approach being advocated by the government will disappear, or it will be the government and the Attorney General himself who reject any attempt by members of this chamber to initiate a discussion or pose questions, on the basis that the matter is now before the courts.

In determining whether the matter I’ve raised qualifies under Standing Order 35, I commend to you several previous rulings of the House. The ruling of August 8, 1977, by the Speaker, approving a Standing Order 35 application with respect to issues, ironically, pertaining to the construction of the Alcan natural gas pipeline, and the ruling of April 9, 1992, by Speaker Sawicki, confirming that a private member’s statement or reference to a matter in question period does not disqualify the matter for debate under Standing Order 35, pursuant to Standing Order 35, sub(10)(d).

Finally, a reminder that Standing Order 35 contemplates a very time-limited debate of one hour. This is not a question of hijacking the House agenda for any extended period. On a matter of this magnitude, where the opportunity for debate of any sort will disappear within four sitting days, I am hopeful that the government and Third Party will agree that it is reasonable and appropriate to take 60 minutes to canvass the views of the House.

Surely the government would want the opportunity to explain the rationale for its approach and share the nature of the question it is proposing to have the court answer. Surely the government would want the benefit of the views of members of this chamber.

Mr. Speaker, if you find my application to be in order, my hope and suggestion would be that prior to seeking leave to commence the debate, the respective House Leaders meet to settle upon an agreeable time for that debate to occur.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his presentation. Though I do have to ask a number of questions around Standing Order 35, the fact of the matter is, it is about the urgency of debate as opposed to the urgency of the issue. But the reality is, when it comes to the urgency of debate, that we have just spent 40 hours in the Ministry of Environment dealing with the very issue that the member raises. So to suggest that there has not been opportunity to debate I think is wrong.

The other issue that the member raises. Again, I would say that question period, for the last several weeks, has been preoccupied by this very issue. So again, has there been a lack of opportunity to debate? There has not been a lack of opportunity to debate.

Finally, I would make the following point. I understand — and the member knows full well — the rules of this place. Often, when these kinds of matters are the subject of an interest by the opposition, then if the opposition is truly interested in saying, “We think this is important,” there is no reason why the opposition, as opposed to, at the end of question period in almost a gotcha moment, trying to say, “We need this….” They could have approached the government to say: “You know what? We think this is important. Would you consider having a one-hour debate on this?” That also did not happen, which is unfortunate.

At this point in time, we do not see the need for a Standing Order 35 debate on the matter, because there has been ample time both in estimates and in question period to debate the matter before us.

[11:05 a.m.]

A. Weaver: I rise to speak to the application for Standing Order 35. We were informed of this about a minute ago when this was put on our desk, so we’ve had a quick caucus meeting here.

I will suggest that I do have a lot of sympathy for the arguments brought forward by the Government House Leader. I will also remind you of precedent. In the previous government, I rose pursuant to Standing Order 35, and I pointed out that it was critical at that juncture for the House here to have a debate on the issue of climate change in the lead-up to the Paris Agreement, because government was deliberating on what it was going to do there. And both sides of the House, at that time, suggested that the urgency test had not been met.

I have been talking about the issue of Kinder Morgan for five, six years now. I would argue that the urgency test is not met either, in light of the fact that I listened to estimates, in light of the fact that I’ve been here in this chamber for the last number of weeks and there has been time after time after time where this has been debated. Some of the motions in private members’ time, some of the statements are on this topic. We’ve had ample opportunity to discuss this.

Again, I come back to the precedent. I come back to the application of Standing Order 35 in the last parliament, when I rose precisely on an issue similar to this, and the Speaker at the time ruled that it was not a matter of urgency. I would argue that the parallels are very similar. The argument at the time was that the issue of climate change had been debated in question period, it had been debated in estimates, and it had been debated in statements on Monday morning.

The analogy is direct. So our advice, hon. Speaker, as you make your decision, is that we find it difficult to see how this test of urgency is met.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Abbotsford West, I will take your statement under advisement and provide a statement later today.