Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

M. Bernier: I am proud to introduce my first granddaughter and B.C.’s newest citizen, born this morning: Lillian Ava Stenersen, a healthy 7 pounds 3 ounces. Please join me in congratulating mom and dad, Devlyn and Chris, and in welcoming baby Lillian to the world.

Hon. K. Conroy: I’m honoured today to introduce Kúkpi7 Wayne Christian of the Splatsin First Nation and tribal chief of the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council.

Chief Christian is a tireless and passionate advocate for the recognition of Indigenous title and rights and the strength of Indigenous nations. I had the pleasure to be in Invermere this weekend with him and the Secwepemc people for their spring gathering and water ceremony, along with the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke. It was an incredibly emotional and quite passionate, moving ceremony that I truly had the honour of being at.

I’d like everyone to join me, with great respect, in recognizing a pre-eminent leader in our Indigenous communities, Kúkpi7 Christian.

Tributes

LYALL HANSON

E. Foster: I rise today to speak of a gentleman who sat in this House from 1986 to 1996, Mr. Lyall Hanson. He was the Minister of Labour from ’86 to ’89 and the Minister of Municipal Affairs from ’89 to ’91. Lyall passed away yesterday after a long illness. I was talking to some of his family members last night.

Lyall was the mayor of Vernon before he was an MLA, a tireless supporter of our community at that time and, certainly, after he retired from provincial politics. To many of us in those days — younger, aspiring politicians — he was a great mentor and a source of a lot of knowledge.

[10:10 a.m.]

I mentioned to the member for Richmond South Centre this morning, who sat in this House when Lyall was here in the early ’90s, that he had passed. She remembered him fondly and referred to him as one of the Socred six-pack. At the end of the Socred era, Lyall was one of the few Socreds that we managed to get re-elected.

Our condolences to his family and all of his good friends in Vernon.

Introductions by Members

L. Krog: It’s always a wonderful thing when the birth of grandchildren are announced in this chamber, and it’s timely because every child should grow up with the right to dig in the dirt.

However, this is Safe Digging Month in British Columbia. B.C. Common Ground Alliance hosted a breakfast this morning for both sides of the House as a reminder to all of us of the dangers of digging in that dirt, with all of the underground infrastructure this province has.

I’m delighted to ask the House to welcome to the chamber this morning a long list of people from the B.C. Common Ground Alliance: Dave Baspaly, the executive director; Cheryl Hogg, CFO; M.J. Whitmarsh, well known to many of us, their consultant; and from the board, Daniel Palmer, Michelle Petrusevich; Raj Sharma; Kevin Ramsay; my old friend Chris Hyland; Mike Ippen; Ian Turnbull; Patricia Poulton; Andrew Mark; Lance Ollenberger; Marc Spencer; Don Schouten; Chris Atchison; Abigail Fulton; Rieghardt van Enter; and Susanna Pirfeck.

They will be engaged in a presentation ceremony conducted by the Minister for Public Safety and Solicitor General later this morning. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Tributes

LYALL HANSON

Hon. J. Horgan: I just rise to join with the member for Vernon-Monashee, on behalf of the government, to acknowledge the passing of Lyall Hanson, a member of this place. With he and all members of this House, on our behalf, hon. Speaker, would you please pass on our condolences to his family and to the people of Vernon who supported Lyall as a member of this place and as mayor.

It’s a great loss. Whenever someone who has been in here passes away, it reminds us all that our time in here is finite and that we need to do the best we can to make sure we’re doing everything we can to make B.C. a better place. I know that was Lyall Hanson’s mission when he was here.

I certainly, on behalf of the government, want to pass on my condolences to the family.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Sims: It’s a pleasure of mine to welcome to the Legislature three classes from an elementary school in my riding. They are somewhere in the building right now, three classes from Hyland Elementary School.

They are accompanied here by their teachers Michelle Diamond, Sanjeev Hundal and Erin Potts. I’ve had the pleasure of spending time with these three classes at different times, and I can tell you that when I went to their classrooms, these young people had done their homework. They had excellent questions to ask about what we all do in this amazing place, about the role of the Legislature and what the Speaker does.

What always amazes me about young people when I visit classrooms…. One is that I always feel I’m home again when I’m back in a school, but second is the most thoughtful questions they ask — maybe some that grownups are reluctant to ask but that the kids are not.

Please help me to welcome our amazing citizens who are doing such a wonderful job in finding out how this Legislature works.

I. Paton: I believe my guest is maybe still on a ferry getting over here for the installation of the new Lieutenant-Governor. I speak of Mayor Lois Jackson, the mayor of Delta. She’s been a good friend to me in my eight years on Delta city council.

Mayor Jackson first got on to Delta city council in 1972, which was 46 years ago, and she has been the mayor of Delta for 19 consecutive years. She is retiring this coming fall, so I hope you all see her later this afternoon over here and congratulate her on 46 years in municipal politics.

Tributes

ELLIOT EURCHUK

A. Weaver: Today I rise, with profound sadness, to convey my deepest sympathies to the family of Elliot Cleveland Eurchuk, who tragically passed away on Friday, April 20, from an accidental overdose of opioids at just 16 years of age.

Elliot and his family are constituents, and Elliot was a grade 11 student at Oak Bay High School. He loved sports, hiking, books and hoped to study medicine in the future. He was known for his wit, humour and profound kindness.

[10:15 a.m.]

I cannot imagine the grief his family and friends are experiencing. His school and our collective community are grieving, together with his family. His parents, Rachel Staples and Brock Eurchuk — Brock, a longtime friend of mine who I graduated from high school with — have bravely spoken out to tell their story and warn other youth and parents about the danger of prescription opioids.

Every day in British Columbia we are losing youth in our communities. The B.C. Coroners Service reports that the number of overdose deaths among ten- to 18-year-olds almost doubled, from 12 in 2016 to 23 in 2017. One life lost is truly heartbreaking, yet the scale of this emergency could hardly be articulated in a way that respects and reflects the grief felt around B.C.

To Elliot’s parents and family, please accept my sincere condolences for your tragic loss. I’m sure I speak on behalf of all my colleagues in this chamber when I say that our thoughts and prayers are with you at these difficult times.

Introductions by Members

J. Martin: Soon to join us for QP festivities: 19 grade 11 students from Mount Cheam Christian School are on their way. Please make them feel welcome.

M. Dean: I’m very pleased to welcome two special guests today representing AIDS Vancouver Island community organization. Katrina Jensen is the executive director, and she has worked with AVI for 19 years. Also joining us is Chad Dickie, the chair of the board of directors for AVI. He’s also a part-time student at the University of Victoria School of Public Health and Social Policy, and he’s been involved with AVI since 2015. Both have offered countless hours of service to the community. Please would everybody join me in making them very welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 18 — LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES
(HOUSING NEEDS REPORTS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Hon. S. Robinson presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Local Government Statutes (Housing Needs Reports) Amendment Act, 2018.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 18, the Local Government Statutes (Housing Needs Reports) Amendment Act, be introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce the Local Government Statutes (Housing Needs Reports) Amendment Act. Local governments are key partners in supporting the delivery of housing, due in part to their role in the land use planning, development and building approvals.

The success of our collective efforts to deliver the right kind of housing in British Columbia will rely, however, on our ability to truly understand local needs and the type and extent of required housing. Consequently, it is critical that local land use planning and housing decisions are based on up-to-date information.

This bill will make housing information collection a regular part of local government business. In doing so, it will ensure that local governments have the housing information they require when they are updating foundational land use plans.

In order to make good decisions about the housing needs of today and understand what our needs will be tomorrow, we need to have solid, reliable information. In addition to helping local governments in their planning, it will help the province put our housing investments where they are needed most.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: 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 18, Local Government Statutes (Housing Needs Reports) 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.

BILL 23 — LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES
(RESIDENTIAL RENTAL TENURE ZONING)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Hon. S. Robinson presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Local Government Statutes (Residential Rental Tenure Zoning) Amendment Act, 2018.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 23, the Local Government Statutes (Residential Rental Tenure Zoning) Amendment Act, 2018, be introduced and read a first time now.

[10:20 a.m.]

I am pleased to introduce the Local Government Statutes (Residential Rental Tenure Zoning) Amendment Act. Our government, in both the throne speech and Budget 2018, has committed to build and retain housing that people can afford. This work will require partnerships with local governments and the use of new and existing land use tools. This bill delivers on that commitment.

Municipalities across British Columbia are experiencing low vacancy rates due to the shortage of rental supply and the high demand on rental housing due to the increased costs of home ownership. Under the current planning framework, local governments are not permitted to zone for residential rental tenure.

Today we are proposing changes to B.C.’s local land use planning system that will give local governments increased abilities to preserve and increase the overall supply of rental housing in communities across British Columbia by using their zoning bylaws to limit the tenure of rental units to rental in specific areas where they see fit. This is a bold action that will give local governments a new tool to better enable the development and protection of the homes that people need in their communities.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: 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 23, Local Government Statutes (Residential Rental Tenure Zoning) 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.

BILL 25 — REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
MARKETING AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Real Estate Development Marketing Amendment Act, 2018.

Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce the Real Estate Development Marketing Amendment Act, 2018. This bill will require developers to collect and report comprehensive information about strata lot contract assignments, otherwise known as presale assignments, to the property transfer tax administrator. Developers will be required to include new terms in their contracts to inform purchasers of the new reporting requirements.

Currently there’s no comprehensive information on strata lot contract assignments, or presales, that is collected or available. The assignment information will be used by the Canada Revenue Agency and the ministry’s revenue division to address federal and provincial tax avoidance. Other technical amendments in this bill will also strengthen the superintendent’s enforcement tools.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: 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 25, Real Estate Development Marketing 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.

BILL 26 — CHILD, FAMILY AND
COMMUNITY SERVICE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Hon. K. Conroy presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2018.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that Bill 26 be introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce the amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act. This bill’s amendments address the issue of Indigenous children being overrepresented as children in care. These changes reflect comments and concerns that we’ve heard from our Indigenous partners through various tables, engagements, caucus sessions and consultations.

The proposals help fulfil Grand Chief Ed John’s recommendations regarding a more collaborative approach to child welfare and improved information-sharing. Reducing the number of children in care is also a priority of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action.

The proposed amendments will provide more tools for social workers to share information and involve Indigenous communities in protecting, supporting and caring for their children. Included is the rights of Indigenous children to learn about and practise their Indigenous traditions, customs and languages and live in their communities.

There will be greater opportunities for social workers and Indigenous communities to collaborate and be involved early with a family when there’s a concern. This will help keep children out of care, find permanency for those children who are in care and provide a way for connecting Indigenous children to their cultures and communities.

[10:25 a.m.]

Here today to support the changes to the legislation is Kúkpi7 Wayne Christian of the Splatsin First Nation and Tribal Chief of the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council. Chief Christian is a tireless and passionate advocate for recognition of Indigenous title and rights and the strength of Indigenous nations.

Kúkpi7 Christian believes, and I agree, that our children are our future and the future is right now. He is here because he knows these amendments will not only help children and families in his community but children and families right across the province.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: 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 26, Child, Family and Community Service 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)

VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL TRADE FORUM
AND TRADE WITH CHINA

T. Wat: Recently I was pleased to attend the Vancouver International Trade Forum 2018 in Richmond, along with the member for Richmond-Steveston and the member for Vancouver-Langara. The theme this year was “Canada’s international trade and China’s belt and road initiative,” which is a development plan introduced by the Chinese government in 2013 to promote trade and economic cooperation among Eurasian countries.

As a former Minister of International Trade, I took great pride in signing the MOU on behalf of B.C. with China’s Guangdong province in 2016 to mutually support and participate in this belt and road initiative and the B.C. Pacific gateway strategy. This memorandum meant much more than just another agreement between the two provincial governments. It was a pivotal step in extending the belt and road initiative to North America, which was not originally covered.

By signing this cooperation scheme, B.C. has not only strengthened its relationship with China, our second-largest trading partner, but also seized new opportunities by joining a framework that unites more than 68 countries, 4.4 billion people and 40 percent of the world’s GDP. I’d like to congratulate the organizers of this forum, the North American Investment Association and the Canada-China lobbyists, general chamber of commerce.

The North American Investment Association has been authorized, as the exclusive representative in Canada, to organize a Canada pavilion in the first-ever Belt and Road International Food Expo, to be held in Hong Kong in June this year. It will be a fantastic opportunity to showcase our province’s finest food and drink, including our renowned B.C. wine and seafood. I wish the expo a great success.

MOUNTAINAIRE AVIAN RESCUE SOCIETY

R. Leonard: Today I would like to make some observations about MARS — not the planet, rather Mountainaire Avian Rescue Society. Maj Birch founded MARS decades ago and dedicated her life to conserve and protect native wildlife in its natural habitat through education and rehabilitation.

We lost her in 2015, but she left a generous bequest that supported a new wildlife rescue centre just a few minutes north of Courtenay. It will be open to the public in August. It’s staffed mostly by adult and youth volunteers as they continue to carry on with Maj’s vision.

Mentorship and education are at the core of MARS. There’s an opportunity for six- to 12-week student placements. During baby bird and fawn season, they’re busy 6 a.m. to 9 p.m., with those 4 a.m. feedings in between. They’re involved in rescues and releases, and they administer treatments and help with building projects like the new flight cage.

Then there’s the community outreach. Ambassador owls, hawks and eagles, who are rescued birds themselves, come out to many events with their ambassador human partners, drawing curious and excited onlookers. While there’s a captive audience, the human ambassadors talk about the rescued birds and relay important information about safe and appropriate human-wildlife contact. And 2016 saw 800 rescues, with a release rate of 33 percent. The rescue numbers are rising due to more human-wildlife interactions.

[10:30 a.m.]

I’m glad to know we’re investing in revitalizing B.C.’s wildlife management initiative and hiring more conservation officers. We all have a role in conservation and protection of the nature which surrounds us. MARS has played and continues to play an important role in the web of life.

B.C. COMMON GROUND ALLIANCE
AND SAFE DIGGING MONTH

P. Milobar: It gives me great pleasure during April, Safe Digging Month, to welcome the British Columbia Common Ground Alliance to this place. The B.C. Common Ground Alliance is a non-profit organization established to lead the development of consistent practices and coordination of activities to ensure the highest possible standards of worker safety, public safety and damage prevention in connection with underground infrastructure.

Coming from Kamloops, my understanding is that this year Kamloops had the fewest strikes underground with construction work, which is an important part we need to highlight during April — that in spite of a fast-growing economy, we can make sure the work is done properly and safely for all.

As we see further densification, further services being moved to underground areas, it’s critical that the workers are protected and that six simple steps are followed before people decide to dig. We want to make sure everyone gets home safely from work on the worksite, and we also want to make sure that neighbourhoods aren’t impacted for any long term through infrastructure being struck, like fibre optic lines or gas lines or other similar infrastructure.

The six before-you-dig rules are very simple. Clearly identify and white-line the excavation area. Call B.C. One Call at 1-800-474-6886 or use clickbeforeyoudig.com at least three working days before you dig. Contact all utility, pipeline, property or infrastructure owners who are not B.C. One Call members. Visually inspect the worksite for signs of underground site features and other safety concerns. Obtain all agreements and permits and keep them on site. Lastly, verify the location and expose underground utilities by hand digging or other approved non-mechanical excavation means.

This is thoroughly doable, and I hope people take April as Safe Digging Month quite seriously.

LITTLE MOUNTAIN NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSE

M. Elmore: On Wednesday, May 2, 2018, the Little Mountain Neighbourhood House in Vancouver will be celebrating its 40th anniversary. This celebration takes place during the fifth annual Neighbourhood House Week, which is a yearly event involving all 14 neighbourhood houses in the Lower Mainland.

Together, all neighbourhood houses employ more than 1,500 individuals and engage more than 3,000 volunteers in the provision of community services to youth, seniors and families. More than 100,000 individuals receive services every year.

The Little Mountain Neighbourhood House, located on Main Street in the heart of Vancouver, is an important part of the neighbourhood houses movement. It offers services in French, Spanish, Vietnamese, Arabic, Tagalog, Mandarin and Cantonese to residents in the areas of Riley Park, Mount Pleasant and Cambie.

The Little Mountain Neighbourhood House Society actively facilitates the development of a healthier, more inclusive community. With the financial support of all levels of government, community foundations, local businesses and individual donors, the Little Mountain Neighbourhood House is at the forefront of service provision in the areas of immigrant settlement, child care, seniors, youth programming and many other areas.

I invite all members to join me to celebrate at a dinner on May 2 in Vancouver. You’re welcome to join us. They have a very exciting initiative. They’re going to be moving into a new building at the Little Mountain redevelopment project, where they will have a new neighbourhood house and child care centre.

I’d like to ask all members to join me to wish the Little Mountain Neighbourhood House a happy 40th anniversary, to express our gratitude to the staff, board and volunteers for the services they provide to the Vancouver community and, also, to wish them another successful 40 years.

SHARE FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
SOCIETY IN TRI-CITIES AREA

J. Isaacs: Whether you are a new resident in Coquitlam or a longtime resident of the Tri-Cities, individuals and families know who they can turn to when they need assistance. SHARE is a not-for-profit organization serving the Tri-Cities community. With 140 employees and language translation services, SHARE’s programs have expanded through the years, and today the SHARE family connects, engages and strengthens individuals and families.

[10:35 a.m.]

Newcomers are welcome and supported through programs such as the English practice groups or parent and tot drop-in, and the resource centre provides opportunities to access employment and financial support.

SHARE’s consulting services offer courses on relationships, parenting skills, separation or divorce, anger management and anxiety, trauma, gambling and much more. From early intervention therapy for children under five to substance use prevention for teenagers, there is counselling for both individuals and families.

The Better at Home program helps seniors with simple tasks, light housekeeping and transportation to appointments. There are also welcoming senior spaces for people aged 75 or older. They organize group meetings and connection with other community members, and recruit and train outreach volunteers.

SHARE also operates the food bank and receives donations from great corporate citizens as well as farmers and individual donors.

Volunteers and staff work tirelessly all year to make sure that everyone is being served. It is the commitment of volunteers that allows SHARE to continue to expand and grow programs and services.

This year SHARE’s Imagine gala was another great success. The generosity of many sponsors and individual donations contributed to this year’s record success of over $120,000. This is money that will be well spent helping Tri-Cities families who are in need of assistance.

Congratulations, SHARE, on your many years of service in our community, connecting, engaging and strengthening individuals and families.

WESTSHORE AIDS VANCOUVER ISLAND
HEALTH CENTRE

M. Dean: The Westshore AIDS Vancouver Island health centre has been open in my community since November 2017. It is a thriving and busy clinic, with patients coming in for opiate agonist therapy and other family practice care. This extra care is very important, especially as many of the patients do not have their own family doctor.

A big part of the focus at the centre is educational training sessions. Overdose prevention tips and naloxone kits are provided by staff to patients and family members. Referrals are also made for counselling and treatment.

Because they want to maintain an accessible, low-barrier service, the centre does not charge patients a monthly fee, but some other clinics do.

We’re so grateful to have this centre right in our community. It’s making such a difference in the lives of patients and their families. As one mom said: “It’s been an absolute godsend to our family. Without it, I don’t know where my son would be.”

AIDS Vancouver Island is looking to expand its care and treatment in West Shore and offer more education and support groups. Their vision sees a comprehensive community health clinic in the near future while they work towards a world free of HIV and hepatitis C. Until that is reached, they continue to support those most at risk who are marginalized by stigma and discrimination as well as disease.

The Westshore AIDS Vancouver Island health centre is just one example of the ways that our communities are stepping up to respond to the current overdose crisis.

Thank you to the enormously dedicated team at AIDS Vancouver Island for the important work that is done today and every day.

Oral Questions

REFERENDUM ON ELECTORAL REFORM

A. Wilkinson: Last Thursday we had quite a show put on by the Attorney General as he demonstrated that he was unwilling or unable to answer the most basic questions about the proportional representation referendum that is apparently happening someday this fall.

The supposedly neutral arbiter of the process has demonstrated in the past, through his statements and behaviour, that he is in fact deeply biased in favour of a positive outcome for that vote. He has completely failed to avoid the perception of bias. In any judicial system, he’d be voluntarily recusing himself from the role. However, the Attorney General carries on and maintains the facade that he can be neutral.

Will the Premier keep his promise made during the election that he will establish a truly independent and non-partisan oversight process for the referendum?

[10:40 a.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question, but I have to say I reject the premise. I have full confidence in the Attorney General to discharge his responsibilities to this place and to the people of British Columbia.

We will be having a referenda in the fall to address the question of electoral change. That’s something that we campaigned on. That’s something the people on the other side of the House put into a throne speech that didn’t make it past first-day debate. But nonetheless, they seemed enthusiastic about it then. I don’t know why they’re not now.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: This is diagnostic of the problem. The Premier takes an arrogant, dismissive approach to this issue, which is going to be fundamental to how this institution is governed and how our province is governed.

Interjections.

A. Wilkinson: The members opposite mock the need for an objective process. Listen to them sneering at the prospect of an open process.

What we have is a record. In 2005 and in 2009, British Columbians were asked questions that were formulated by an independent body that took more than a year to develop those questions in cooperation with the academic community, with Elections B.C. The entire process was clear and transparent.

Instead, today we have a referendum with no date. We have a question apparently to be decided by cabinet. We don’t know if there will be one or more questions. There’s no prospect of a debate in this House on what the questions might be. There’s no set date for the referendum. There’s no clarity whatsoever about any funding for organizations, both acting in favour and opposed to the referendum. We are told nothing. The people of British Columbia are kept in the dark, and this is supposedly five months away. And we have arrogant and dismissive answers from the Premier.

To the Premier, how can he justify this charade in comparison to the 2005 and 2009 open, transparent and public engagement processes?

Hon. J. Horgan: We have had a record response to this question in terms of feedback from the public to the government and to this Legislature about where the people of British Columbia want us to go with respect to this question.

Electoral reform was a key pillar in our election campaign, as well as for the Third Party. Again, as I say, it was embraced most recently by those on the other side of the House last June.

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that we’re doing our level best to ensure that we have everything in order in a timely matter so that the public will have an opportunity to have their say on whether they want to keep the first-past-the-post system or they want to have a different approach in British Columbia.

We’re committed to that, and I would hope that the members on the other side would join us in that regard.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: The Premier has broken his promise of a simple yes-or-no question. No debate about that. The Premier has broken his promise for regional thresholds. No debate about that. The Premier has broken his promise to set up an all-party committee on proportional representation. No debate about that. A series of broken promises.

Now the Premier falls back on an on-line contact process, for which they refuse to disclose the actual material that came in and where it came from. Was this done by bots from Zimbabwe? We don’t know because they won’t tell us. This process is entirely secretive, is entirely hidden, and the Premier smirks with glee as he says: “I’m getting away with it.” This is an insult to the people of British Columbia.

Will this Premier finally acknowledge that this cynical exercise is nothing more than an effort to mollify the Greens to keep his fragile coalition together?

Hon. J. Horgan: Cynical exercises are being practised by those on the other side of the House who forget their record of 16 years of indifference to public participation, their indifference to engaging with the public to get a true understanding of where the people of British Columbia want to go. We’re engaging in that process now.

To suggest I’ve broken a promise on a question that we don’t yet know is a little bit of a reach by the Leader of the Official Opposition.

I understand that asking questions from that side of the House is new to those members and that they’re going to get better at it over time. But I think they should have some patience, allow us to fulfil the commitments we made to the people of B.C. It will be known in the fullness of time. I have full confidence in the Attorney General to do that in an impartial and just way.

[10:45 a.m.]

S. Sullivan: Victoria and Saanich have recently met with provincial officials to discuss the creation of a citizens’ assembly on amalgamation. This is a process the municipalities of Duncan and North Cowichan followed and have just concluded.

No citizens’ assembly is being contemplated for electoral reform. The citizens’ assembly is an excellent way of dealing with contentious issues. There needs to be a credible process. In many of the most advanced democracies in the world, this process would be illegal.

Can the Attorney General explain why there is no legitimate process and no citizens’ assembly on something as fundamental as electoral reform?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for his submission. The way that this is structured is that we went out to British Columbians and said: “What is the process that we should be using for the referendum?” And then, at the end of it, there’s a vote where every British Columbian who is eligible to vote gets to vote on which voting system we use to send members to this place.

I’m not sure which aspect of that would be illegal in other countries. I’m sure the member knows. As far as designing a process that is based on the feedback of 88,547 people who spent an average of about 16 minutes completing a detailed questionnaire about how we should run this process…. I don’t know why it would be illegal, and I’m glad it’s not here.

Mr. Speaker: Vancouver–False Creek on a supplemental.

S. Sullivan: Well, 2 percent of the population of our province…. Now, Duncan and North Cowichan were congratulated on their citizens’ assembly by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The minister also is quoted: “An important focus will be to ensure that the electorate has access to the information they need to make an informed decision when voting.”

But on electoral reform, we have no answers as to when the vote will occur, what the ballot question will be or even what the rules are. In most advanced democracies, there are rules and there are processes in order to bring about a referendum.

To the Attorney General, when is he going to answer these basic questions?

Hon. D. Eby: The largest public engagement in B.C.’s history meant that we received almost 90,000 submissions in multiple languages from British Columbians. Staff are going through those recommendations, that feedback from the public, and preparing a report based on it — recommendations based on that feedback. Thirty organizations provided detailed submissions as well, from the pro-rep side, from the pro-first-past-the-post side.

Staff are incorporating those all into a report, which will be made public, as will the recommendations, which will go to cabinet. Cabinet will then use those recommendations to create the regulations for the rules for the referendum.

There will absolutely be rules, Member. I can assure you of that. Not only that, there will be a process based on the feedback of tens of thousands of British Columbians.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS
AND PROFESSIONAL RELIANCE MODEL

S. Furstenau: Communities across this province are facing increasing challenges due to an approach to resource development that focuses on harvesting our resources and exporting them raw instead of adding value and building long-term economic opportunities for the people of B.C. This approach goes hand in hand with the environmental assessment and decision-making processes that rely on professional reliance. Projects are treated as one-offs in the application process, with little or no recognition of cumulative impacts.

This translates to economic impacts. Tourist operators lose business when viewscapes are destroyed. Sports fisheries face losses when salmon habitats are impacted by logging. And local governments shoulder the costs of water turbidity and the need for expensive filtration systems for drinking water.

My question is for the Minister of Environment. It is not a company’s responsibility to look at cumulative impacts or ecosystem-based management; it is the government’s. Will this government make these foundational principles in how they reform the environmental assessment and professional reliance models?

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. I know the member and members of her community know firsthand what happens when government destroys its capacity to monitor environmental impacts, to monitor public health impacts and to protect the public interest. They know firsthand what happens when government abdicates its responsibility for oversight. I have to say that it didn’t take the previous government their full 16 years in office to accomplish that. They did it in a few short years and perfected it over the remaining time in office.

We are reviewing the professional reliance model. I expect a report this spring. I expect further public discussion before we enact changes. We’ve consulted extensively. We’re consulting with professional associations that have brought forward excellent ideas. We are also reviewing, in a robust way, the entire environmental assessment process.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: Communities do not benefit from short-term economic decision-making. It merely sets them up for a boom-and-bust cycle. A huge piece of this puzzle is the community’s role in decision-making.

The current assessment model mutes the voices of communities and elevates the voices of proponents. There is ample evidence of this in the dozens of written submissions to the professional reliance review. From Spallumcheen to Haida Gwaii and Fort St. James to Youbou, communities across B.C. want more say in what happens to the land, air, water and resources they depend on for their local economies and their well-being.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. I know he is waiting for Mark Haddock’s report to make specific recommendations, but I’m looking for a commitment from him today that any action this government takes will focus on lifting up the voices of the communities across this province that currently feel shut out of decision-making processes that affect them the most. Will the minister make this commitment?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you again to the member for the question. There is a common thread through our review of the professional reliance model. It’s a common thread that extends through our review of the environmental assessment process. We want to hear from communities, because in order to have a prosperous economy and good economic development in British Columbia, we need to have public trust. To have public trust, we need to ensure that we consult with Indigenous people around the province and that voices from impacted communities are heard.

They’re heard throughout the process. That’s built into the process. The considerations of communities, the considerations of the environment, the considerations of Indigenous people — their knowledge, their culture, their rights and title — are all built into the process. If we do that right, we will have a system in British Columbia in which industry can see a clear pathway to success — success that has community support instead of community opposition and a community that feels shut out of the process.

REFERENDUM ON ELECTORAL REFORM

J. Martin: Last week in this House I asked the Attorney General to reveal the role his political staff had in the drafting of the skewed electoral reform questionnaire. We never received an answer. He stated that the information had already been made available. But we all know that is not accurate, as multiple freedom-of-information requests have been withheld, stalled or came back with no information whatsoever.

The Attorney General has had some time to think about the question, so I put it to him again. Will he table in this House all input his political staff had in the drafting of the survey?

Hon. D. Eby: There are two pieces to this question. One is, obviously, the member’s failure to draft FOI requests that provide returns. It’s not my responsibility. I don’t know what he said. But what I can tell him is that all FOI requests that come to my office are filled with integrity, which is something new for the government. That’s something that we’re doing on this side of the House. We are not triple-deleting, okay?

I regret very much the member’s suggestion of a lack of integrity in FOI request-filling in my office, which I take very personally, and I do not like.

[10:55 a.m.]

The second piece of it is the questionnaire — that political staff or I, as a politician, had some influence in the questionnaire. The answer is yes. Yes, I have political accountability for the questionnaire that went out, obviously. It went out under my office’s name. I approved all the questions. I approved the questionnaire. I have the support of staff in that. I am proud of that.

The questionnaire stands for itself. I understand that people who are pro first-past-the-post are opposed to the questionnaire. I understand that people who are pro-PR are opposed to the questionnaire. The questionnaire strikes a balance between the two sides. I’m proud of it. The member might not like it, but I will stand here and take political responsibility for that questionnaire.

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

J. Martin: I understand that the Attorney General finds it somewhat amusing, having his thumb on the scale of this very important process. But it’s very serious, and in this House, we have a right to have some very serious questions answered.

By now, the Attorney General has seen the memo written by a bureaucrat within his ministry. It states: “Our minister’s office has also had input.” Yet despite that evidence, he continues to dodge the question and refuses to acknowledge what role his political staff played in shaping this question.

To the Attorney General, we know his political staff had direct input into the drafting of the skewed survey. Will he table all relevant information and tell the public exactly what their input was?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m not sure what more I can say. We approached experts to assist us in drafting this. I take full political responsibility for the questionnaire. My staff definitely assisted — I assisted — in the drafting of the questionnaire, in which we tried to strike a balance between the two sides in this referendum.

I understand that the first-past-the-post people aren’t happy with the questionnaire. I have correspondence from pro-PR people who are not supportive of the questionnaire. I stand here to tell the member and this House that I believe the questionnaire struck the right balance. The member disagrees with that. I understand that. But definitely, this politician stands up and says that yes, I have responsibility for the content of that questionnaire.

T. Shypitka: Well, we now know that the Attorney General’s political staff helped shape the skewed survey. But last fall the Attorney General said nothing about political staff inserting themselves into the design of the survey. Instead, he implied that four academic experts guided and signed off on the questionnaire.

To the Attorney General, what role did his political staff have in vetting the academics’ advice?

Hon. D. Eby: I relied on my political staff. I myself reviewed the questionnaire that was put forward and that was posted publicly on the website. It had 188,000 site visits, and 88,547 people completed the questionnaire.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kootenay East on a supplemental.

T. Shypitka: According to one of the academics: “I provided some feedback on the survey you constructed. But that’s about it.” It is clear that it was the Attorney General’s office guiding the process.

Again to the Attorney General, can he explain why it appears his political staff had a more significant role in the construction of the skewed survey than the academic experts?

Hon. D. Eby: The minister is right. My office did guide the questionnaire. That was the responsibility given to my office by the Premier.

I’ll point out to the member that some of the experts, for example, provided contradictory recommendations, so decisions have to be made in politics. One of the decisions that my office made, and that I stand here accountable for, was to release the survey in the form it was released to the public for completion.

I believe the survey struck the right balance. I’ll take political accountability for that. I rely on my staff for assistance in the work that I do every day, and I’m very proud of them in the work they do.

M. Morris: The Attorney General has told the public to simply trust him, that he will produce a report on the consultation feedback that he’s received. But there’s no one who views the Attorney General as non-partisan or neutral.

In the interests of transparency, will the Attorney General publicly release all of the raw data received through the public engagement?

Hon. D. Eby: We have 88,547 completed questionnaires, as well as metadata, IP addresses and so on.

[11:00 a.m.]

I’m glad to work with the member and anyone else on the other side to make sure they have access to the information they need within the limits of information release under law in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Mackenzie on a supplemental.

M. Morris: I’ve worked with that legislation probably as much as the Attorney has over the years. If he eliminates the personal data off that, he can release the information that they’ve provided with no problem at all and follow through with the requests that have come through that.

The Attorney General has information from public engagement in front of him, on his desk. He quoted from it extensively last week. We know his political staff are actively involved in the process, and today he continues to withhold the information while it’s being manipulated. There is no excuse for withholding information from independent scrutiny.

Will he make all of the raw data available today?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is going to have to accept yes for an answer. The only caveat I put on it is that the release has to be in accordance with B.C. law. The member agrees with that, so I think we’re good.

C. Oakes: Last fall the NDP said that even if the voter turnout was as low as 10 percent, the outcome would still be valid. But when asked last week, the Attorney General said that “there will be a record voter turnout for this referendum.”

To the Attorney General, if he is so confident of record turnout, why is he so afraid of setting a threshold?

Hon. D. Eby: I do appreciate the member reading the quote. As I recall, I say “based on this record public engagement.” British Columbians are incredibly engaged, and based on that, I would expect a record turnout. If this is any indication of the level of interest, which is very high, I’m very hopeful.

Now, the member, I understand, wants a different set of rules for this referendum than are in the act. The rules are in the act. The rules were voted on in this minority parliament, and those rules are set for the referendum.

Mr. Speaker: Cariboo North on a supplemental.

C. Oakes: The Attorney General has repeatedly refused to say it will take more than 10 percent of the voters to change something so fundamental as how British Columbians elect their representatives. Even changes as insignificant as internal NDP party politics require two-thirds majority. I repeat: two-thirds majority.

To the Attorney General, will he set a threshold requirement, or is he too afraid to do so?

Hon. D. Eby: All of the decisions that have been taken — certainly by my office, to date — have been around making sure that as many British Columbians know about this as possible and that participation is as high as possible.

For example, we chose a mail-in ballot process because it had higher turnout. We want British Columbians to be engaged in this. We want them to vote on how we send members to this place. We want there to be a high turnout, and I hope that the member assists us in that, in getting the word out in her constituency.

R. Coleman: The Premier has made and broken major promises on proportional representation. There will be no all-party committee. There will be no simple yes-or-no ballot question and no reasonable threshold requirements.

To the Attorney General, what justifies these broken promises?

Hon. D. Eby: Well, thank you, Member. I know I have been criticized for pointing out the record of the previous administration on referenda. But the member who just asked that question was around the table when the decision was made to vote on whether or not First Nations people had rights in this province by mail-in ballot — with some of the most offensive questions, double negatives.

I do understand that we cannot hold ourselves to the standard of the previous government on referenda. It’s not sufficient. We will do better, and we will do British Columbians proud with a referendum that people can have confidence in, with a question or questions that they can have confidence in. And there will be a report they can look at and understand how we got to those recommendations based on the feedback they provided to us in record numbers.

[11:05 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The member for Langley East on a supplemental.

R. Coleman: The Premier used to support the concept of a higher turnout threshold for something as important as changing the ways we elect Members of the Legislative Assembly in British Columbia, on behalf of British Columbians.

According to the member for Cowichan Valley, the Green Party still does support those thresholds. On November 29, she said: “We saw a 50 percent turnout in the Vancouver referendum on transit. We would like to see something at least comparable to that.” So we know it wasn’t the Green Party.

Why did the Premier break his word on threshold requirements?

Hon. D. Eby: I think all of us would like to see a higher turnout than the previous government’s efforts in referenda. I think we all want as high a turnout as possible.

M. Lee: I think that all members of this House will agree that what we’re asking for is for this government to hold itself accountable to the promises it made. We’re talking about a referendum that is going to fundamentally change, potentially, the electoral system of this province.

The Premier has made promises. He’s made promises that there will be a simple yes-or-no ballot question. He promised that British Columbians would have a regional approval threshold to ensure that there was a broad consensus for a fundamental change of this nature. But with this Premier, it’s say one thing and do another.

Can the Attorney General explain how British Columbians will have confidence in this referendum when the Premier’s promises have been broken on something as fundamental as changing our electoral system?

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

The idea of a referendum is quite straightforward. Each eligible British Columbian able to vote will be able to vote on how we send members to this place. That is how they will have confidence in this. They will be the ones voting. They will be the ones deciding about which system we use. Whether we keep the current first-past-the-post system or we move to a proportional representation system, they will be the ones who choose that. That is how British Columbians will have confidence, and that is why we are engaging in this process.

To inform the rules around the process and the structure of it, we engaged with British Columbians directly and had the largest participation in the history of the province in public engagement.

Mr. Speaker: Vancouver-Langara on a supplemental.

M. Lee: British Columbians need a fair and open process. The Premier talked about ensuring that this referendum is being conducted in a timely manner. Time is running out for British Columbians. They need to know what question is going to be asked. They need to have the opportunity to inform themselves about the form of proportional representation that is going to be presented in this referendum.

Changing our electoral system should not be an issue of partisan politics. You laugh, but it isn’t. How we determine who we elect and how we elect members of this House is something that should be done by a neutral arbiter, something that has been done in the past involving the public beyond just this 2 percent survey, a biased survey. This process clearly cannot withstand the scrutiny within this House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.

M. Lee: It is nothing more than a shameless attempt by the NDP and the Green Party to achieve the result that they want.

To the Attorney General, I ask again, what justifies the complete lack of answers to basic questions and the fundamental disregard for the past promises given to British Columbians about this referendum?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ve listened intently for the past 30-odd minutes to questions from the other side of the House about the effrontery of asking the people of British Columbia to vote on how they elect people to this place. How outrageous of us to campaign on that commitment. How outrageous of us to join with the Green Party, who also campaigned on that commitment, to make sure that we get proportional representation in this House. That’s what we campaigned on; that’s what we’re going to deliver.

But the member for Vancouver-Langara just last fall said the following.

[11:10 a.m.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: Perhaps the member for Langley East will want to hear this. This is what the member said just last fall. “It’s only going to be used to get what we have today. We have a situation where they have to get along with each other, and that’s not good government.”

I can’t believe that those words could be uttered by a member of this Legislature, but the notion of working together in the interests of British Columbia is anathema to the people on that side of the House. I get that. We agree to disagree. You don’t want to engage with people; we do. We’re going to ask them what they think. They’re going to have an opportunity to vote, and if they vote to change the electoral system, we’ll get better government as a result.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

D. Ashton: I have a petition given to me by the regional district chair, Karla Kozakevich. The majority of Naramata residents who live on the higher elevations of that wonderful community are asking government for any and all help available to address the spring flooding and water drainage issues.

Ministerial Statements

VIOLENT INCIDENT IN TORONTO

Hon. J. Horgan: I rise to make a ministerial statement.

Hon. Speaker and members of this place, we heard in the prayer this morning from the member for Nanaimo. We were reminded of the tragedy that took place in Toronto yesterday, where innocent citizens walking on a sunny day, going about their business, were run down by an assailant who has now been apprehended by the good work of first responders in the city of Toronto.

We on this side of the House and, I know, all members grieve for the families who have had ten lives taken from them and for the 15 injured from the senseless violence brought upon the good people of Toronto for reasons not yet known. It’s the notion that citizens cannot enjoy the pursuit of peace, order and good government, that particularly Canadian way to look at things. This sort of activity that we often hear about in other jurisdictions has come home to us here in Canada.

I know that all members will join with me and, certainly, in the moments ahead, speak of their own personal feelings around this issue. For me, to have had the Humboldt Broncos incident visited upon the people of Canada, and now this…. I think it speaks to our ability to rise above tragedy and to hold fast as Canadians to those quintessential Canadian values of tolerance for each other, respect for the dignity of individuals and, of course, the sanctity of life.

Again, I speak on behalf of the government of British Columbia, and I know others in this House will speak to the people of Toronto. To the families, particularly, who were affected, our deepest, deepest condolences. And to the first responders and the victims and the witnesses that experienced one of the most tragic days we could ever possibly imagine, our hearts and our thoughts are with you at this time.

A. Wilkinson: In Canada, we are sadly accustomed to seeing tragic events unfold in other countries, but it rarely comes home to us here. A massive motor vehicle accident in Saskatchewan occurred very recently and shocked us all because of the innocent lives lost, the tragedy of the moment. But that was by no means intentional. What we saw yesterday was the intentional act of an individual who just went out and sought to destroy lives.

For all of us in this chamber and the many British Columbians with relatives and friends in Toronto, we are not accustomed to turning our eyes to the television and thinking: “Where are they?”

All of us have to recognize that this kind of thing does come to Canada. We cannot be naive. We have to commit ourselves, in this chamber and throughout our society, to working together across this country to reinforce the fundamental principle of Canada, which is peace, order and good government, because we all depend on it every single day.

A. Weaver: On behalf of my colleagues, I, too, would like to join the Premier in extending our sincere condolences to the families of those who tragically lost their lives in the motor vehicle attack in Toronto. We understand that this is a very difficult time for them. We understand that Toronto is hurting, and all of Canada is grieving.

[11:15 a.m.]

Let us hope that as we move forward and learn from what has happened here, we get to the source of these issues. We understand that people with mental illness or other issues need the treatment that they do. Let’s hope that we can prevent future such occurrences from occurring.

Our sincere condolences to the people in Toronto and the families of the victims.