The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. Sheila Malcolmson.

Introductions by Members

Lorne Doerkson: While I watched, with great anticipation, the Oscars last evening here in Victoria, a watch party, of course, was happening in Williams Lake, with much support for the Williams Lake First Nation. All of us anticipated a victory last night and an Oscar coming back to Cariboo-Chilcotin. Sadly, Williams Lake First Nation did not win the Oscar last night. However, they did win the hearts of so many in British Columbia.

[10:05 a.m.]

I want to just take a moment to thank and congratulate not just the Williams Lake First Nation, but Kúkpi7 Sellars, who danced on the red carpet last night at the Oscars. Also, I want to thank all the survivors, many that I've had the opportunity to have conversation with, and the producers and directors of the documentary called Sugarcane.

Private Members’ Statements

Amelia Boultbee: Imagine standing on the sun-drenched slopes of the Okanagan Valley, where vineyards stretch as far as the eye can see and where the air is filled with the rich aroma of ripening grapes. This is the heart of British Columbia's wine country and of my riding of Penticton-Summerland, encompassing the vibrant communities of Penticton, Naramata and Summerland.

Today I invite you to embark on a journey through this remarkable region, celebrating its storied past, its dynamic present and envisioning a future where our local wine industry thrives. The roots of viticulture in the Okanagan trace back to the 1850s, when French Catholic missionaries planted grapevines to produce sacramental wines.

Fast forward to 1932, amidst the challenges of the Great Depression, where visionaries like Guiseppe Ghezzi, Pasquale Capozzi and W.A.C. Bennett founded a wine-making company that would utilize California grapes to establish what would become Calona Wines in Kelowna, marking the dawn of commercial wine-making in the valley. Their pioneering spirit laid the foundation for an industry that has become a cornerstone of our local economy and culture.

I would like to highlight a few local wineries that contribute unique flair to our collective identity in my riding. Lightning Rock Winery in Summerland specializes in small-lot, low-intervention wines, capturing the essence of their distinct terroir. Poplar Grove Winery is recognized for crafting benchmark Pinot Gris and Cabernet Franc and offers tasting on a patio overlooking the breathtaking Okanagan Lake.

Haywire Winery in Summerland is known for its organic vineyards and innovative wine-making techniques, producing wines that truly reflect the character of the region. Dirty Laundry Vineyard in Summerland offers a unique and playful wine-tasting experience, reflecting the rich history and vibrant culture of the area.

These establishments, among many others, have transformed the region into a haven for wine enthusiasts and a vital contribution to our tourism sector. However, despite the undeniable success and global recognition of our local wines, our industry grapples with regulatory challenges that stifle its full potential.

In 2022, the provincial government extended a moratorium on new liquor store licences for another decade, a move influenced by lobbying groups aiming to limit competition. This decision has hampered innovation and restricts market access for burgeoning wineries eager to share their craft with a broader audience.

Furthermore, current regulations prohibit off-site tasting rooms, denying wineries the opportunity to establish satellite venues in urban centres. This limitation not only curtails direct-to-consumer sales, but it also deprives our towns and cities of the economic boost that accompanies wine tourism.

To cultivate a more robust and dynamic wine industry, it is imperative that we do the following:

(1) Lift the moratorium on liquor store licences. This will encourage healthy competition and invigorate the market, offering consumers diverse choices and fostering industry growth.

(2) Authorize off-site tasting rooms. This will allow wineries to operate satellite tasting rooms in urban areas, which will enhance accessibility, stimulate tourism and bolster local economies.

(3) Prioritize local wines in government liquor stores. Emulating models from other provinces, our Liquor Distribution Branch should showcase and promote B.C.-made wines, granting them the prominence they deserve on retail shelves.

(4) Expand retail access. Permitting wine sales in grocery and big-box stores, as seen in other provinces, will provide consumers with convenient purchasing options and open new revenue streams for local producers.

Finally, align with modern alcohol sales policies. Modernizing our laws to allow takeout alcohol sales from restaurants, similar to policies in other provinces, will support local wineries and offer consumers greater flexibility.

[10:10 a.m.]

The Okanagan Valley's wine industry stands as a testament to resilience, passion and community spirit. By implementing these reforms, we can unlock unprecedented opportunities for our local producers, enrich consumer experiences and fortify the economic fabric of our region.

Let us raise our glasses to a future where British Columbia's wine industry not only survives but thrives, unfettered, dynamic and celebrated both at home and on the world stage.

Jennifer Blatherwick: This Saturday, March 8, is International Women's Day, a day to celebrate the social, economic, cultural and political contributions of women across the globe and right here in British Columbia.

It’s a day to take stock of the progress made and to consider how we can improve conditions and recommit to doing the work to make those changes happen, how to achieve gender equity, empower people in their reproductive choices, combat gender-based violence and remove barriers, so that women, girls, two-spirit, transgender, and gender-diverse people throughout the province can make their lives better.

This week let's celebrate British Columbians, who chose to send 49 women to represent them here in this Legislature. British Columbia is the first province in Canada to elect a majority of women to the Legislative Assembly, following the Northwest Territories in 2021.

How do we build on this positive change? It's worth noting that the pay gap did close slightly over the last year, but on average, women still make 15 cents an hour less than men. There's more than one factor at play.

Women are overrepresented in lower-paid jobs. There's a strong and undeniable social expectation that women will take on the largest share of unpaid work and caregiving, which can lead to a drop in income. Women disproportionately experience sexual harassment, which is a significant barrier to workplace advancement, and plain old wage discrimination still persists.

That’s why it is so important to continue investing in child care by expanding spaces and stabilizing the sector with wage enhancements for early childhood educators; resourcing community-based supports, including projects led by Indigenous, racialized and marginalized people; and raising the minimum wage. Minimum-wage jobs are worked disproportionately by adult women supporting their families. This includes raising liquor-server wages, where 80 percent are women, to meet the minimum wage for workers.

Introducing free contraception allows more people to make choices about their reproductive lives and plan their families. In fighting gender-based violence, we've celebrated the one-year anniversary of Safe and Supported: B.C.'s Gender-Based Violence Action Plan. We've seen millions of dollars to reduce wait times for survivors, to improve access to crisis support and counselling and to expand violence-prevention education initiatives in schools.

Last week, I was together with a group of strong, capable, determined people who, collectively, have been working against gender-based violence and working for women for a combined total of more than 100,000 hours. It’s tough out there right now. There is a heaviness, a sadness that lies upon the sector and on many women, especially those who have intersectional identities that may include disability, gender diversity, racialized identities, precarious immigration status, new Canadians, or those who belong to the 2SLGTBQIA community.

We hear people talking scornfully about DEI or about affirmative action. The real affirmative action program — the longest-standing, the most pervasive, the most unfair, the least merit-based process — is the use of wealth and privilege to take opportunity from those who have less. We all benefit from the inclusion of diverse perspectives and equitable workplaces. Women work for all of us.

I have a packed schedule this week, with the opportunity to share in celebrations of International Women's Day across the province. There are so many women who have worked so hard to improve life for themselves, their families and their community. They fight food insecurity, homelessness, disconnection, poverty, grief and hate, and work for better mental wellness, science, education, health care, culture, music and community connection. With each of the things I name, I can see, in my mind, dozens of faces of real women who make those efforts every single day.

[10:15 a.m.]

I know that each of us can do the same. All of us are here because of the labour of women in our lives, paid or unpaid. We are only here because you were there. Thank you, and happy International Women's Day.

Brennan Day: I think, given our rather jarring 5 a.m. earthquake alarm clock, this speech is very timely. When disaster strikes in the Comox Valley, when a hiker is lost in the backcountry or a kayaker is swept away in a river, one team answers that call: Comox Valley Search and Rescue. These 60 highly trained volunteers put their lives on the line, 365 days a year, ensuring that those in distress are found and brought home safely.

From the rugged peaks of Strathcona Park and Mount Washington to the fast-moving water of our rivers, Comox Valley Search and Rescue ensures that those in need are rescued and brought home. Whether it's lost hikers, injured outdoor enthusiasts, or individuals in need of swift and specialized medical aid, their professionalism and commitment are unparalleled.

Just yesterday, March 2, Search and Rescue Volunteer Memorial Day was observed here in this precinct, honouring those members who have been lost. Today I rise not only to recognize the dedication of Comox Valley Search and Rescue, but to highlight the funding crises that this vital service and similar groups across B.C. are facing.

In the past decade, Comox Valley Search and Rescue's workload has doubled. Last year they responded to 76 emergency calls and donated over 15,000 volunteer hours, an extraordinary commitment to public safety. Their expertise spans rope rescue, swiftwater recovery, avalanche search and rescue and emergency medical aid, making them an indispensable lifeline for residents, workers and visitors alike.

Just last night, I spoke with Mike Fournier of Comox Valley Search and Rescue. While we were speaking, he was manning a mobile command centre, actively coordinating his team on a search call. This conversation reinforced the urgency of this issue. These volunteers are always on standby, ready to save lives at a moment's notice, but help is needed for those who help us.

Comox Valley Search and Rescue is seeking government support for a permanent, purpose-built facility in the Comox Valley. Their current operating space is no longer adequate for the level of service they provide, or the training their members require. A permanent facility would provide a secure base of operations, proper equipment storage and essential training space, ensuring that they remain prepared for the growing demand for their services.

Despite relying on these volunteers to help backstop Vancouver Island's tourism industry, this government has refused to commit funding for this critical project. Talks with the regional district on a suitable property have stalled, leaving Comox Valley Search and Rescue without the resources they desperately need.

We often speak in this House about supporting front-line responders and ensuring public safety. Now is the time to turn words into action. Supporting CVSAR is not just about keeping adventurers safe; it's about investing in a service that saves lives and keeps families whole.

Vancouver Island and the Comox Valley are home to some of the most spectacular outdoor recreation in British Columbia, attracting hikers, skiers, mountain bikers and climbers from across the province and beyond. Our economy is strengthened by these activities, but they also come with risk. Comox Valley Search and Rescue volunteers mitigate those risks with no expectation of reward, only the drive to serve their community.

Our north Island communities rely on search and rescue. Whether it's a missing senior, an injured logger, or a stranded kayaker, Comox Valley Search and Rescue's work touches every corner of our region and our province. It's time for this government to recognize their contribution and provide them with the resources they need to continue their life-saving work.

Supporting Comox Valley Search and Rescue is not just about funding; it's about saving lives. When we venture into the vast beauty of British Columbia, we do so, knowing that search and rescue teams are there when the worst happens, but they cannot continue this vital work without proper support. It's time this government steps up; lives depend on it.

Steve Morissette: It's an honour for me to speak on World Wildlife Day. World Wildlife Day is celebrated annually on the third of March in support of animals and plants across the globe. This day is to educate and inform people on the plight of wildlife around the world, as well as working to support governments and official bodies in working to end the devastation.

[10:20 a.m.

With more than one million species now estimated to be threatened with extinction, conservation has never been more urgent. I'm not surprising anyone here in saying that British Columbia is beautiful. British Columbia is home to more species of animals and plants than any other jurisdiction in Canada.

It's not a secret that the world's wildlife is in danger. We all know the numbers of many species are dwindling. Soon maybe the only place you'll be able to find some of them is in captivity. That's sad. While they don't draw the same headlines or tug at the heartstrings like animals do, plants are also under threat in much the same way. In most cases, the threats are the result of abuse, overuse or climate change.

In these instances, we have been parasitic versus symbiotic in our relationship, and it is our responsibility to do something about that. It is incumbent on us to ensure that our relationship with plants and animals is symbiotic and that both species thrive, versus parasitic, where only one thrives and the other is harmed.

I have had the pleasure of living rurally my entire life. Living rurally allowed me to enjoy and share living with nature. In my experience, living with wildlife gives a deep appreciation for the relationship we have. I have always respected and cherished wildlife and will continue to do so. I live on a small acreage, and we are fortunate to share our space with many animals: deer, bears, turkeys, raccoons, skunks and birds, along with the occasional coyote, bobcat or cougar.

I spend all the time I can outdoors. I summer at Champion Lakes Provincial Park, swimming and paddling the lakes up there or camping. In the winter, I ski there, and this past Saturday afternoon, enjoyed a ski this weekend.

This park is far enough removed that there are moose, elk, bear, cougars and wolves up there. I have been fortunate in my time recreating up there to see each of them at one time or another. In fact, a couple of years ago, a cow moose and its calf walked through our campground, as my wife and I had morning coffee. It's the best. We must protect them.

I hesitate to put a financial value on them, but a symbiotic relationship with animals and plants is a boon to our rural economy, and it is tariff-proof. I am not a hunter, but I do have many friends that make long trips north or east and spend weeks hunting, spending money on everything from accommodation and meals to fuel, camping, hunting gear and, occasionally, some spirits.

People also travel hundreds of kilometres to spend a lot of money to hike, camp and visit beautiful natural areas. It is critical for health, both mental and physical, as well as a financial boost to rural areas.

I have seen the decline in ungulates in the Kootenays and heard stories, from many hunters, of the same decline in the Boundary region. Habitat decline is a large contributor, and there are multiple factors involved: wildfire, invasive species, insect kills, increased human traffic and forestry operations.

I support the positive work the Minister of Forests is doing to reform forestry in this province, to build back a robust forest economy while maintaining ecosystem health and biodiversity. We need sustainable industries. Forestry, mining, and oil and gas extraction must be done with the least impact possible, and we must work hard on transitioning from the latter to renewable energy and creating new well-paid jobs in clean energy, such as upcoming wind power projects.

Ignoring the decline in species of plants and animals will be to our detriment and will become an existential threat for us. Long may we be able to enjoy and flourish with our beautiful ecosystems here in British Columbia.

[10:25 a.m.]

Bruce Banman: As you know, this building, this House, is steeped in tradition. From the opening prayer, the throne speech from the Lieutenant Governor, the bowing and bringing in the mace, to dragging in the newly elected Speaker, kicking and screaming, we preserve customs that have shaped British Columbia's democracy for generations.

One such tradition is the role of the party Whip, a role I'm proud to play. Now, the term “Whip” might conjure up images of Indiana Jones, but in politics, the Whip serves a different purpose. Historically, the Whip is responsible for ensuring party discipline, corralling members for votes and occasionally preventing certain members from straying.

Nowadays, the job is more complex than that. The Whip, today, is a counsellor, a sympathetic ear, a coach, and it has often been compared to the herding of cats, an image I find not only accurate but amusing. Today, however, here in the Conservative Party of British Columbia caucus, we’re doing something new and exciting and different.

Freedom of speech is a core tenet of B.C. Conservative values. We believe democracy works best when elected representatives are allowed to represent their constituents, not just the whims of the party brass. Our caucus stands for free votes, setting a precedent in this House and across the country — one that truly embodies democracy at its core.

Across Canada in legislatures and parliaments big and small, elected members are often whipped, brutally gagged with strict talking points, their words pre-approved and their speeches carefully scripted by their leaders and communication teams.

My grandparents and great-grandparents, on both sides, arrived in Canada as immigrants. They were poor. Like so many who have come to British Columbia, they were in pursuit of freedom and a better way of life, and they found it here.

They left their homelands to escape poverty, class distinction, persecution, to be able to worship in freedom and to speak their minds without fear of being sent to prison or to otherwise be punished. They believed in political freedom, and so do I, deeply.

Political freedom is a birthright to all British Columbians, and it is a foundational principle of this land, yet around the world, we see governments that stand against freedom of speech and suppress dissent within their own ranks.

Let's step back in history for a moment. The very word "parliament" comes from the French word parler, to talk, to discuss, to debate. Debate is the very heritage and history of this chamber, yet how can we have legitimate debate when members of the House are scripted? It's like watching an improv where the cast aren't allowed to ad-lib.

It's time for members opposite to rediscover, as we have, the very purpose and history of this institution: to be the voice of the people. British Columbia is a vast, distinct province. The concerns of the farmer in the Peace River region are not the same as those of a small business owner here in Victoria.

Consider Winston Churchill, one of the greatest statesmen of the Commonwealth’s history, a man who understood the importance of freedom of speech by standing by one's convictions and, yes, of occasionally breaking form with his own party. Churchill famously crossed the floor and was a member of two different parties in his lifetime. As he once said: "Some men change their party for the sake of their principles; others change their principles for the sake of their party."

Unlike our colleagues opposite, we don't whip our votes. That's right, Mr. Speaker — no muzzles, no scripts, no secret hand signals from the leader when it's time to vote yes or no. Our members think and vote for themselves, with their own conscience. The people of this province deserve to hear genuine debate, not centralized messaging.

The Conservative caucus of British Columbia provides a moment of authenticity in what has become an overly staged production, not only here but across Canada. Unlike my colleagues opposite, on this side of the House we believe British Columbians deserve genuine debate, not the rehearsed talking points we so often hear.

The precedent set by this caucus is something to be proud of. We are proving that democracy can function without rigid controls, because we trust our members to think critically, to stand up for their constituents' values and to vote according to their conscience.

That is true democracy in action. That is something to be proud of and for all of us to strive for.

[10:30 a.m.]

Susie Chant: I will do my finely crafted statement, which I did in conjunction with my constituency advisers.

As we go on, first off, I’d like to acknowledge that I’m speaking on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən people, specifically the Songhees and the Esquimalt. I’m very grateful to live and work here.

I also live and work in North Vancouver–Seymour, which is where the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and the səlilwətaɬ bands are working. We were so lucky this week to have a pod of dolphins come right up the Burrard Inlet. A big piece of that is the work that the səlilwətaɬ are doing on rehabilitating the water, so that the whales and the dolphins are coming back.

Talking today about firefighters, today at noon, at the Firefighter Memorial at the back of the Parliament Buildings, we will acknowledge and grieve for the loss of the firefighters over this past year and in the past.

I'd like to talk a little bit about our firefighters. In B.C. there are 4,400 professional firefighters, dispatchers, prevention officers and support staff working on the front lines, serving communities and keeping the public safe.

The B.C. Wildfire Service employs approximately 1,600 seasonal personnel every year, including firefighters, dispatchers and other seasonal positions. We all know what they get up to. In honour of the fallen who have so bravely dedicated their lives to our safety that they made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty, I'll talk about our local firefighters today.

In North Vancouver, we have the district of North Vancouver’s firefighters. This past October they celebrated an incredible 70 years of service and a legacy of innovation and courage. They are both innovative and neighbourhood-focused, seeking to exist as a partner within our community. Their execution of fire prevention and tactical excellence between the interface, bush and domestic residences is unparalleled, a model for others.

As part of that commitment, they offer hands-on prevention, tailor-made for residents living amongst the forests of the North Shore. A personalized, FireSmart assessment can be coordinated, wherein the firefighters will conduct a property visit and point out any areas where you can reduce the risks of a fire jumping from the forest to your home. Professionally trained wildfire mitigation specialists will then create a customized report outlining any preventable actions to take.

Just last month they announced a partnership with the Wilson School of Design at Kwantlen Polytechnic on a highly innovative and engaging project to design or enhance a rescue tool or piece of equipment to help them deliver exceptional service.

As a part of their research, students participated in a hands-on training scenario at Lynn Canyon Park, where they observed the operations up close and experienced being lowered on a rope system. Students have now developed initial prototypes, and with input from staff, they will refine their designs and create a product that will be integrated into the way that service is then provided.

Last April the District of North Vancouver Fire and Rescue hosted Operation Jubilee. I was very fortunate to be able to spend the day with them as they did this operation. This was a full-scale wildfire fighting exercise to help coordinate and execute a multi-agency response to a hypothetical wildfire situation at Camp Jubilee, up the arm from us, and houses anywhere up to 160 kids and staff at any given time.

This means that if there's a wildfire up there, what you have to do is get the kids out and the wildfire fighters in, and that is a bit of a challenge. This amazingly coordinated event was hugely successful in preparing both the teams and the public for real-world scenarios.

Just last month fire hall No. 2 permanently closed its doors after 43 years and relocated to Maplewood on Dollarton Highway, which is our new fire and rescue centre that opened in this past year. This is improving response times throughout our municipality.

These men and women are best in class. Firefighting in North Van is truly a calling, with an extensive history of long-service members and multigenerational career paths.

In September of 2024, Fire Chief Mike Danks received the illustrious King Charles III’s Coronation Medal for service to the North Shore community. Chief Danks was nominated by our own Bowinn Ma. He also was the team lead for North Shore Rescue prior to becoming our fire chief.

[10:35 a.m.]

In October, a whopping 18 members received exemplary service medals, and I could not agree more. I would add that they have received great leadership and will continue to under a detachment that is entrenched in the art of service.

Thank you to the district of North Vancouver firefighters. Thank you to the firefighters of British Columbia for your commitment, service and excellent works.

The Speaker: Members, during our comments, statements and introductions, members' names must not be used in the House.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill M202 — Eligibility to Hold
Public Office Act, 2025

The Speaker: Hon. Members, according to the order paper, we will look to the member for Esquimalt-Colwood to move second reading of Bill M202, Eligibility to Hold Public Office Act.

Darlene Rotchford: I would like to begin by acknowledging that I am speaking today on the traditional territories of the Songhees and SXIMEȽEȽ peoples. I want to thank them for allowing me to work, play and, more importantly, raise my family on their lands.

Today I rise in support of this bill, the local public office eligibility act. I move second reading.

This legislation is a critical step in ensuring that Members of the Legislative Assembly are fully dedicated to their provincial responsibilities. Specifically, this bill will prohibit MLAs from simultaneously holding elected positions in local government, such as city council and school boards.

This legislation is about upholding the integrity of our democratic institutions. British Columbians, quite frankly, deserve confidence that their elected officials are fully committed to the roles we have chosen to fulfil. They deserve assurance that MLAs are not collecting two separate taxpayer-funded salaries, that there are no conflicts of interest and that those elected to serve at the provincial level are dedicating 100 percent of their time and energy to addressing pressing issues of our province, similar to some of the ones we heard today and since sitting in the Legislature.

Furthermore, this bill brings British Columbians in line with practices of other provinces, where serving as an MLA is rightfully recognized as a full-time commitment.

Before I speak further on the necessity of this bill, I want to take a moment to express my deep appreciation for local government officials and the staff across British Columbia, especially those in my own community. I extend my sincere gratitude to the staff and elected officials of the Township of Esquimalt. Their support and guidance played a significant role in my journey to becoming an MLA.

I cannot tell you the countless meetings and coffee chats we’ve had about the importance of working together with our MLAs to make sure we are supporting those in our communities. Through them, I gained a deep understanding of the Local Government Act and of the essential role that municipal governments play in shaping the daily lives of the residents.

Local government officials are really the unsung heroes of our community. They dedicate time and effort to their work, attending council meetings, participating in subcommittees, engaging community organizations and responding to local concerns. To be quite frank, that is just a small list of the many things that they do. They demonstrate their unwavering commitment to public office. I can tell you, as someone from local government, people don't realize the commitment that it actually is, on top of your daily life.

I also want to acknowledge the hard work of the other municipal leaders across the riding of Esquimalt-Colwood. Thank you, Victoria city council, View Royal council and Colwood council. I got to work with you as a colleague when I was in local government. I am eager to collaborate with them all in my capacity as the MLA for Esquimalt-Colwood, to advance policies that improve the lives of the people we are all serving.

When I decided to run for provincial office, I made a commitment to my municipal council that should I be elected, I would step away from my role to avoid any conflict of interest. It wasn't an easy one, because I truly love my council. They are a great group of people. It was truly hard to walk away.

[10:40 a.m.]

I took a leave of absence during my election campaign, and upon being elected, I officially resigned from my position on the Esquimalt council. However, what really shocked and surprised me was learning that there was no legal requirement to do so. I was astonished to discover that an individual could actually serve as both an MLA and a local government representative at the same time — shocked. It still surprises me.

Many people in my community were equally surprised, and they asked important questions, such as: “How is it fair for someone to collect two salaries, funded by taxpayers? How can an individual possibly dedicate enough time to both roles? How does this not create a conflict of interest?” All questions I had myself, all valid concerns. This highlighted why this legislation is necessary.

Being in MLA is not a part-time job. Since taking office, my days have been long and demanding. Like many in this chamber, I begin work in the early morning and often finish late in the evening. Even though I live just across the bridge in Esquimalt, I could not possibly give my full attention to both provincial and municipal duties.

For anyone who knows me, I am the queen of multi-tasking. I love having so many things on my plate and staying busy, and I couldn't even fathom it. The people of Esquimalt-Colwood deserve an MLA who is fully committed to advocating for them at a provincial level, just as the people of Esquimalt deserve a local representative who is focused on their municipal concerns.

As I said, resigning from Esquimalt council was one of the most difficult decisions I made. I love serving my community at a local level and working alongside my colleagues, talking about how we’re going to better the lives, how we’re going to do it, what it takes.

It brought us together, even though we may not always agree, similar to people on both sides of this House coming up with solutions and working collaboratively together. However, I knew stepping away was the right thing to do, because I’ve been elected to serve in a new capacity, one that requires my very much undivided attention.

This bill is not just about workload. It's also about transparent accountability. Considering the issues of housing, one of the most urgent challenges facing our province — everyone in this House has spoken on that and the importance of it — our government introduced housing policies that require municipal cooperation.

How can an individual who serves as both an MLA and a municipal official remain unbiased? If I remained on Esquimalt council while serving as an MLA, I would have been expected to discuss, debate and potentially implement housing policies from both the provincial and municipal perspectives. This would have placed me directly in a conflict of interest.

Similarly, policing is a critical issue for both Victoria and Esquimalt, given that we have a policing agreement. As an MLA, I must ensure I’m advocating for my constituency when engaging with the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. If I were serving as a municipal councillor while holding discussions, how could the residents of Victoria and Esquimalt be sure I was acting solely in their best interest? The potential for divided loyalties undermines the trust that people place in our elected officials.

At this very moment, Esquimalt is holding a by-election to fill my former council seat. This, quite frankly, is how it should be. The people of Esquimalt deserve a local representative who’s fully committed to municipal issues, just as I’m fully committed to my responsibilities as an MLA. This principle should apply not just to my community but across the province.

It is important to clarify that this bill applies exclusively to MLAs, because we already have rules preventing an individual from serving as both an MLA and a Member of Parliament — again, for very good reason. Public office is not something to be juggled. It's not something that we try to fit in. It requires our full-time attention.

There are 11 MLAs across the province, from government and opposition, who were holding both elected positions. We did the right thing and stepped down to focus, 100 percent, on our work as MLAs. This bill is not about political partisanship. It is just basically about good governance. It is about ensuring that the people of British Columbia have representatives who are singularly focused on roles that they’re here to fulfil.

[10:45 a.m.]

I would like to mention a few quotes from some of us who have stepped down: “Right now I can actually do both jobs, even if I was elected as your MLA. I could do both, but of course I wouldn't.” Even that person recognized it's not the right thing to do.

“I am therefore resigning my seat on the Chilliwack school board of education so that I may focus on the job before me and make British Columbia a province that speaks up for families, celebrates our accomplishments, invests in small business and resources, and applies commonsense decision-making.” I couldn't agree more.

“I believe it is the best interest for the smooth functioning of a council and city hall that any perception of the city being too close to the province’s elected needs to be removed.” I 100 percent agree. These comments are made by members of the opposition, because they knew being an MLA is a full-time job, and it would put them in a conflict of interest.

This legislation is about fairness, transparency and accountability. It ensures that the MLAs are fully dedicated to their provincial responsibilities and that local government representatives are equally committed to serving communities. British Columbians deserve, quite frankly, nothing less. For these reasons, I strongly support the local public office eligibility act, and I encourage all members of this House to do the same.

Ian Paton: Of all the important legislation that needs to be looked at to run this province right now, here today, this week in the Legislature, we're talking this morning about the Eligibility to Hold Public Office Act.

I rise today to express my deep concerns about this private member's bill, the Eligibility to Hold Public Office Act, as proposed by the member for Esquimalt-Colwood, which is nothing more than an unnecessary and costly overreach. It is a bill that completely ignores the financial realities that many municipalities and taxpayers face in this province.

We've heard of the TV program The Righteous Gemstones. This morning I want to talk about the righteous NDP party, the party that broke their own fixed election date in 2020 by calling a snap election during the pandemic, the party that broke ranks with the supply and confidence agreement with the Green Party and also the party that just recently let down thousands of families in this province with their $1,000 family grocery rebate that they promised during their election platform.

Mr. Speaker, 11 people in this House will be called upon to do by-elections. In Vancouver alone, the councillor will cost the taxpayers almost $2 million for a by-election, and the rest combined will cost the province, the taxpayers, almost $5 million for these by-elections.

When I was first elected to this place, I served in both municipal and provincial government. Why? Because forcing a costly by-election on taxpayers is not always a responsible decision. Local governments, particularly in smaller communities like Delta, cannot afford the financial burden that this bill would impose. The cost of by-elections can be considerable, and this bill does nothing to justify those expenses.

We are talking about millions of dollars that could be better spent on improving access to services that actually benefit people in this province — on infrastructure, on public safety, on health care. Cities across British Columbia are struggling with rising costs, and this government thinks now is the time to impose yet another financial strain on local governments that already struggle under the burden of provincial cost downloading. It is reckless and completely out of touch.

Furthermore, this bill disregards the fact that many municipal officials serve at multiple levels of government, often with little financial reward. They do so out of a commitment to their communities, not for personal gain. The government's attempt to disqualify elected officials from serving in multiple roles is an attack on public service and the dignity of elected office, not an improvement to it.

In 2017, I was elected to this grand place here in Victoria as an MLA for Delta South. At the time, the Delta mayor, Lois Jackson, our CAO and my fellow councillors insisted, begging me to stay on, because they thought I was pretty good at my job as a councillor for the city of Delta. I stayed on for only 11 months, and I saved our municipality of Delta almost $250,000 that they would have put out for a by-election.

[10:50 a.m.]

During that time here in Victoria, I felt that I worked my butt off at both jobs as a city councillor and as an MLA for Delta South. I can remember before the days of Zoom. At 6:30 on Monday nights, I would take my little iPhone smartphone, I would leave this building and run to my hotel room next door at the Grand Pacific.

I’d log on every Monday night to our Delta city council meetings, to add my words of wisdom to our council meetings. Of course, I added to our public hearings that I always made sure I was at for the city of Delta.

I can also say that I met twice with the conflict commissioner — back in those days, Mr. Paul Fraser; rest in peace, Mr. Fraser — and he, on both occasions, told me: "Mr. Paton, you're doing nothing out of the ordinary. You're doing nothing wrong by serving both your local community and as an MLA."

It is pure politics at its most crass. Frankly, this government should be ashamed that at a time when British Columbians are struggling to make ends meet, they are wasting valuable parliamentary time with this partisan stunt. The reality is not every community has the resources of a city like Vancouver, which can afford to spend millions of dollars on by-elections, without a second thought. For smaller communities, these costs are not just burdensome; they are prohibitive.

I will not support a bill that prioritizes political posturing over fiscal responsibility. British Columbians deserve better than this kind of empty legislation. They deserve leaders who will make decisions based on financial prudence and real community needs, not just political games.

Stephanie Higginson: I would like to start by acknowledging that I am speaking from the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking people, the Songhees and the Esquimalt Nations, whose stewardship of this land, since time immemorial, I am grateful for.

I rise to speak in support of this long-overdue bill, entitled Eligibility to Hold Public Office. Unlike the previous member's statement about freedom of speech and speeches being written, I wrote this speech myself, based on my experience of being a school trustee. I was a school trustee for two terms, from 2014 to 2018 and again from 2018 to 2022. I’m very familiar with what that job entails and believe that it is impossible to carry out those duties remotely.

As was said earlier by my colleague about city council, a lot of people…. I think, actually, that fewer people know what it means to be a school trustee and the time that is involved in being an effective school trustee. It is true that many, if not most, school trustees, because the remuneration can be quite low, hold full-time jobs while simultaneously being school trustees.

Some may ask: "What is the difference between holding a full-time job as an MLA and any other full-time job?" Most of us new people in this House are realizing that this is not a full-time job; it's like seven full-time jobs in one, particularly when you're sitting in the House.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

To start, those full-time jobs that people are holding do not require a member of the board of education to be away from their community for six months of the year. To most folks, you would think that's 50 percent. But in general, school trustee work — not in every board, but in most boards of education — mimics the school year. It is done over ten months of the calendar year. So if you're required to be away from home during the times that we're sitting, that would be six of the ten months of the school year, or 60 percent of the time.

Having folks work away from home is not uncommon in my community. We have many families where one parent works in the far North or abroad. They work three weeks out, one week in, or two weeks out, two weeks home, or six weeks out, two weeks home.

What I have not seen yet are any of these folks putting their name forward for school trustee, because they know it would be impossible to do the job properly with a work schedule that has them away from home. They would be away from the areas that they are elected to serve, for a majority of the time.

Many may be wondering what the big deal is; they could just attend their meetings virtually. As someone familiar with the responsibilities of being a school trustee, let me spend a bit of time talking about what those responsibilities are.

[10:55 a.m.]

As a school trustee, you're not only expected to attend monthly board meetings; you're expected to participate in numerous committee meetings, along with other duties, such as representing your zone or school areas by attending events and meetings at these schools. These events are how you stay connected and informed with what the constituents you serve as a school trustee feel and need.

The board of education is responsible for the hiring of two key positions in the district. These are the superintendent and the secretary-treasurer. It was my experience that at least once a term, the board must undertake an in-depth search for one of these important positions.

These searches often involve multiple full-day meetings, along with meetings with stakeholders and partners. These are duties that your community elects you to perform. If you're not able to carry out these duties, then the responsibilities fall on your colleagues.

That, in itself, creates other issues within a board. Are your colleagues getting increased compensation for picking up the slack? Are they able and willing to do so? If not, how is this fair to the constituents that you are supposed to be serving as a school trustee?

I'd also like to touch on the issue of conflict that occurs if a school trustee becomes an MLA in government. Any questions about funding, advocacy, property sales — the list goes on — and you are suddenly conflicted out of these decisions.

In bargaining years, the conflict can be even greater. Imagine having a member of your board of education who could not provide a critical voice to issues as important as advocating to the province for funding, working with the employers' association to bargain for collective agreement positions that meet the needs of the students in your district.

I will say that every time an issue like this comes up, staff time is used to wade through the actual versus perceived conflict, pecuniary interests and the like. All the staff time used on wading through these complexities means that staff are not focused on the core purpose of improving student achievement.

When I was a trustee, I had two decision-making filters that I ran every decision through. Will this improve confidence in public education, and will this improve student achievement?

If I could answer yes to both questions, it was easy to support an initiative or action. If I could only answer yes to one of those questions, then I needed to think long and hard about it. If I could answer no to both questions, then it was clear that whatever decision I was facing should not be supported.

I ask my colleagues to think about these questions when it comes to having an MLA serving as a school trustee.

Personally, if I ask myself if serving as an MLA and a school trustee improve student achievement in my district, the answer is no. Will serving as an MLA, while also serving as a school trustee, improve confidence in public education? Again, it's no.

More importantly, as an MLA, let's reverse those questions. Will serving as a school trustee while carrying out my duties as an MLA improve confidence in my role as an MLA? Will serving as a school trustee while also serving as an MLA improve the situations or issues in my community that led me to run for an MLA? In both cases, the answer is clearly no.

Finally, I would like to address the issues of compensation for a brief moment. Some have focused on the direct remuneration that a trustee receives for their job. However, there are other taxpayer-funded remunerations that trustees also receive, such as funds for professional development and compensation for travel.

If you are a school trustee who also serves as an MLA, are you receiving professional development funds? Some may say no. Some may not; some may, but the question remains about whether it is fair.

In conclusion, I would like to say that holding two publicly elected positions raises serious concerns about divided priorities, potential conflicts of interest and the ability to effectively represent constituents at either level of government.

When I was president of the B.C. School Trustees Association, one of the biggest issues the association provided support to boards on was wading through the various complexities involved when a member of a local board of education was also elected to another level of government. In all cases, time and money was spent focused on things that were not related to the core purpose of boards of education: to improve student achievement.

Holding both positions shortchanges the people we were elected to serve and distracts us from the jobs we were meant to be doing. This bill will bring B.C. in line with many other provinces and will ensure that British Columbians can have confidence that their representatives aren't collecting two separate taxpayer paycheques, aren't in conflict of interest and are focused on addressing the challenges people face at the provincial level.

[11:00 a.m.]

Bruce Banman: I'm going to speak against this motion. I think it takes some historical reference, if I may. I have served as the mayor of Abbotsford, and I also served as a councillor for Abbotsford. Actually, I did it in that order because I like to do everything backwards.

While I make light of me serving as a mayor and a councillor, I will say that when I was the mayor, I had a councillor that was elected to this Legislature. I was very thankful that that councillor and I were able to work together and figure out a way that would serve the taxpayers of Abbotsford and the taxpayers of this province.

Now, at that time, it was not a long period where they had to serve. There were a few meetings that he had to make, and then he was able to basically withdraw, and everything went along fine. There are mechanisms in place if there is a councillor missing. That's why the chair has the tie-breaking vote. I was thankful because it eliminated the need for a very, very expensive by-election that the taxpayers of Abbotsford had to hold.

Now, what we don't want to see is where people with political experience…. I would say the members opposite have been very good at cultivating members from municipal and school boards. They've used that as a training ground to bring them up into higher levels of government. I think that there is meaningful engagement with that, because you do understand what local school boards and local municipalities need.

There were many…. I would say that, in this particular case, there were a few meetings that this councillor had to meet. We were more than happy to work with them, and it worked well for everyone.

This is a political grandstanding stunt. Let's call it what it is. It's politics at its worst level. It's low-hanging fruit. Sure, on the face of it, he said: "Oh, they're double-dipping." But when I sat down with the taxpayers of Abbotsford and I said, “Are you aware that it's approximately $400,000 to run a by-election?” they go: “Oh, I didn't know that.”

“Are you aware that that $400,000 could go into our parks or our soccer fields or whatever it is that the city budget requires?”

At that time, $1 million was approximately a 1 percent tax increase. This is not being prudent with taxpayers' money. Yeah, on the whole of it, it just seems like it's political scoring of points, and it's just not right. So when I ran and got elected, it would have been the same thing.

I would say to you that it was this NDP government’s deciding to break their contract with the Greens and calling a snap election that has now caused this problem. They've created their own problem again; to heck with being prudent with taxpayer dollars. There is only one taxpayer.

When I ran, I had thought that I would be able to do the same thing. I am now the Whip, and my party literally said: “You are going to retire, and we're going to blame it on the NDP. They caused this.” They had, I believe, 17 of them, at that point, that were elected from local government. “Just blame it on them.”

My mayor was furious because they were on the hook for that expensive by-election. For those that are watching this at home, the city of Vancouver has earmarked $2 million for a by-election. This is not a wise use of taxpayer funds.

It’s $400,000 I believe, in Langley, and it will come directly out of the school board fund. For those of you that were trustees on school boards, shame on you for taking that money away from badly needed programs that could have been done by your school board.

[11:05 a.m.]

Don't give me any nonsense that this is all about looking after the taxpayer and the voter. Baloney. This is nothing but the lowest of low political stunts I've seen, once again by this NDP government.

They could care less. This is all about knowing that they've got their backs up against the wall in the polls, barely won an election and are looking for any scrap they can find to try and make this side of the House look bad, when I've got two individuals that are actually doing what they believe is the right thing to do on behalf of the taxpayer.

There is only one taxpayer. Not an ounce of this has said: “What do we do to try and work this out?” I will say to you that one of my members has taken a leave of absence and is not collecting a paycheque. Leave this up to local governments to sort out. That's why there is this here.

This is nonsense. It is a huge expense to taxpayers. When taxpayers find out, they're going to be furious as to how much it costs, when they figure out that they have to now pay extra fees to register their kids in soccer or that a badly needed piece of infrastructure or program has been cancelled because they're on the hook for this expensive by-election.

This NDP triggered this. This NDP government is the one that broke the agreement. A couple of months, like I said, and many municipalities weren't even closed down for summer, as does this House. There were very few meetings indeed.

For those that say, "Oh, no, no, wait a minute. We shouldn't be allowing Zoom meetings," well, this House embraces hybrids. Are we going to get rid of that? Are we then setting a precedent?

What are we going to do for regional districts? There are a number of individuals that are collecting two paycheques for that. There are also, in some remote areas where it's very difficult, members that wear multiple hats on multiple political boards, whether it be a regional district, school board or municipally. There are rare occasions where they serve in multiple areas, because that's what makes financial sense.

This is a grandstanding stunt. Quite frankly, we've got better things to do with our time. How about if we work on homelessness? How about if we work on our failing health care system? How about if we work on the untold opioid deaths that are in front of us? How about if we worry about what we're going to do, if and when the tariffs are put in?

This is nonsense. It is a waste of this House's time, and quite frankly, that side of the House should be ashamed that they are bringing this kind of garbage to debate in this House.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I acknowledge that today I am on the territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking peoples, now the Songhees and SXIMEȽEȽ Nations, and my home is in the territory of the ancestral kʷikʷəƛ̓əm lands.

I rise today to speak in favour of this bill. I have a great deal of faith in democracy, despite its flaws. Decades ago, E.M. Forster, who lived through both the strength and weakness of the democratic system, said democracy “is less hateful than other contemporary forms of government, and to that extent it deserves our support. It does start from the assumption that the individual is important and that all types are needed to make a civilization.” So two cheers for democracy — one because it admits variety, and two because it permits criticism.

He was very clear that representative democracy was valuable because it did provide representation but flawed because it wasn't representative enough.

Our system also navigates that narrow path of compromise. Although there are governance structures on this land that do provide direct democracy or operate on consensus, I don't predict that the House will be moving towards that cooperative process soon. Issues before this House are large, complex, and people's lives are very busy for a direct democracy to be practical.

[11:10 a.m.]

As a society, we give up some measure of control to our representatives in order for the government to work on a day-to-day basis, in order for decisions to be made in a timely and, hopefully, knowledgeable way. Constituents give up some individual ability to make choice on each piece of legislation and delegate it to representatives, in good faith that we will take our fiduciary duty seriously and that we will represent them to the best of our ability without conflict or bias.

In order that democracy be as fair and transparent as possible, we plan ahead for the work and the effort of elections. We decide together, largely ahead of time, what that cost is. How often do we have elections? How many polling stations? How many advance days? Should we have mail-in ballots?

All those elements come with a cost, not just financial but the executive-functioning cost of making decisions and knowing we have to execute them, and we make them. Here, largely, we make them in favour of allowing the greatest number of people the greatest accessibility, while maintaining the integrity of the process.

It's possible that I'm mistaken, but none of us have ever argued in our councils or our school boards, if we have been lucky enough to serve there when we held civic positions, that there should be less representation. None of us ever argued that there should be less members of council or less school trustees. I don't believe that's out of self-interest. I believe it's because we know that those positions are important. That's why we ran in the first place.

I would bet that almost every single one of us, when we knocked on doors, when we made our brochures and when we stood up in debates, we argued passionately that we would be an advocate and a voice for the people in our neighbourhoods and that there was value in voting for us because we were going to do our job of providing vocal, active, vigorous, engaged representation. Local democracy matters, because those are often the issues that are closest to people's hearts and everyday lives.

I don't think I've ever heard any British Columbia school trustee arguing that we should go the way of provinces that have announced the abolishment of their school boards. We all agree that democracy costs money and resources, but it's money that is an investment in good, active, thorough representation for our constituents.

One of the things I often ask my kids to think about when they're choosing a solution is to think about a problem in two ways. One, what is the right decision, despite how much work it might take? Two, how do we do the right thing in the best way possible, so that making the right choice uses resources wisely?

You won't get any argument from me: the process of a by-election has its flaws, but my disagreement is with that process, not with the necessity of having it.

I think that in my area there are very good examples of why we need to ensure this bill is adopted. My school district encompasses five civic entities, the municipalities of Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam and Port Moody and the much smaller villages of Anmore and Belcarra. The representation on the nine-person school board is divided by population, four for Coquitlam, two each for Port Coquitlam and Port Moody and one for Anmore and Belcarra together.

If the trustee for Anmore and Belcarra had run for this position of MLA and won, there would be no unencumbered voice for the villages. There would be no one to truly represent the residents of their villages on the school board for almost two years.

For my community of Coquitlam, I mentioned that there are four positions. Coquitlam has a population of 174,000 people, meaning that every trustee represents 43,500 people in managing a budget approaching half a billion dollars and a staff of thousands. I know that there are at least 17 ridings provincially in this chamber that represent less people than that calculation.

I know we are not suggesting, for any reason, that if those ridings were to lose their representation, we would just not replace them, even if it did cost money. I can't imagine that if I chose to run in the federal election, was successful and announced that I should hold both positions, anyone in this House would accept that I could do both jobs.

For those of us who know what holding civic office is about, what it means, and for many of us who chose to make that very hard decision to step away from jobs that we loved, I know we value local democracy very highly. None of us argued against the value of our positions when we campaigned for them. We didn't try and cut them when we were in them, because we knew, from the inside, how important it is.

I want to thank the members of the Coquitlam city council, who are active, fierce advocates to me for the people of their municipality. I especially want to thank the trustees of the Coquitlam school board who served with me, alongside me, whose passionate dedication to education and the good of students in the district created a strong example of dedication and service.

[11:15 a.m.]

I started by quoting a very famous passage from E.M. Forster. Not so famously and speaking of Houses like this one, on the role of backbenchers and small democracy, he also said: “I believe in the private member who makes himself a nuisance. He gets snubbed and is told he is cranky or ill-informed, but he does expose abuses that would otherwise never have been mentioned, and very often an abuse gets put right just by being mentioned.”

I don't think that any of my colleagues have the intention to abuse the system, but I will call this an oversight in legislation, one that this motion will correct. I thank my fellow private member for bringing it forward.

Ward Stamer: I will not be supporting this bill. I was a previous municipal leader, going back as far as 1996. I know I'm dating myself a little bit. That's really when I started as an improvement district member, which was basically for streets, street lights, garbage and water. That doesn't seem like a big deal, but in a small community, it's very important to have those core infrastructure responsibilities.

When I look at what's been said here this morning, I think there's quite a big gap between what happens in Metro Vancouver and the rest of this province. As an example, when I became mayor of a community, I would argue that I had a lot more responsibilities than either a school trustee, a councillor or a regional district representative.

I look at the cost and what these people are paid: $27,000 a year, $25,000 a year. As a mayor and a member of the regional district, I wasn't even close to that. I was at $24,000 and change. So let's not even start talking about the money. Let's talk about the responsibility, as a municipal leader, that we have to our communities.

Now, I can argue that mine was a little bit different, inasmuch as I did stand down, because of the difference in the distance and the fact that as an MLA and as a mayor, I didn't believe that I was going to be able to continue responsibly in both jobs. I had said, from day one, that that's what I was going to do.

However, we have members, on our side, who are able to do those two jobs. As a member previous, Member Paton, basically said, there was no reason why he couldn't continue doing those two jobs. I would think, I would say, and I would argue that that's actually an advantage, to be able to be in this House and to also be able to do those jobs at that same time.

As everyone reminded the other side, we wouldn't even be having this conversation if we had kept in line with scheduled elections. The previous NDP Premier took political advantage during COVID to schedule a new election and totally changed this whole process. In the past, there used to be three years for municipal and four years for provincial, and everybody decided that it made more sense to do it at the same time so that we wouldn't have these costly by-elections in the first place.

This government's bill, Eligibility to Hold Public Office Act, is yet another example of how out of touch this government is with the realities faced by communities outside Metro Vancouver. The NDP seems to believe that every municipality in British Columbia has the financial resources to throw millions of dollars at by-elections, but that's simply not the case.

Let's take Vancouver again. For example, the city recently spent $2 million on a by-election to replace Minister Boyle. What about other communities?

Deputy Speaker: Members, just a reminder to refrain from using names.

Ward Stamer: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

What about rural municipalities where local officials do hold multiple roles? Again, in Barriere and in many areas of the Thompson regional district, you could hold three roles. You could be a councillor, you could be a regional district director, and you could be a school board trustee.

I can argue that in those semi-rural areas, there shouldn't be any reason why those people couldn't continue to do those jobs, because we haven't heard any issues on those situations yet. All we're hearing about is double-dipping from Metro Vancouver politicians that shouldn't have been doing this in the first place.

[11:20 a.m.]

When we talk about accountability and transparency, let's have some. Let's talk about the sewer projects. Let's talk about who has been pushing these things through, instead of trying to make this up as something that doesn’t have to be done in the first place. This bill ignores realities of small-town governance, and it does impose unnecessary financial burdens on our taxpayers.

Again, in many rural areas, officials do multiple jobs, and they do them very well. I commend them for doing that, because there are not too many people that would spend that much time to be able to work on behalf of their communities, particularly on what they are getting paid. These individuals take on additional responsibilities, not for personal enrichment but because their communities rely on them doing that.

Unlike Metro Vancouver, where stipends and committee pay can total in the millions, many rural officials receive no financial compensation whatsoever. In some cases, they’re lucky to get their mileage. I am not making that up. That is a fact.

When we talk about conflict of interest, I think we have very strong rules when it comes to conflict of interest in this House. I would hate to see that used as an example of why they need to change this bill, because really, I don’t think that’s necessary. We haven't heard of instances where this is coming into effect.

Quite frankly, even though this House passed bills, I am not personally responsible, or anybody in this caucus personally responsible, for administering any of that money. You are responsible for doing that, not us. We're only trying to do what's right for B.C. You're the ones that are spending all the money.

We need legislation that respects financial constraints of smaller communities, not reckless proposals that prioritize ideology over good governance. British Columbians deserve more.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. Just a reminder for remarks — through the Chair.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: I'm happy to rise and speak to this private member's bill. I, like my fellow colleagues that spoke earlier, after winning, made the decision to step down from the municipal government.

Serving as an MLA is a full-time job, and British Columbians expect their elected representatives to be fully committed to the job that they were elected to. I, like others that have just gone through two weeks here already, can agree that there isn't much time for anything else, as our days can be as long as ten to 12 hours long. We haven't even started on committees yet, so I can't see how holding two jobs in those positions can be done effectively.

British Columbians deserve MLAs who are here 100 percent focused on tackling priorities like health care, housing and cost of living. This is not a part-time job. I resigned, just like I said, like many other MLAs who stepped down from their previous municipal, regional or school board roles, when elected to provincial office.

The municipality that I am from has many important files and projects under discussion with the provincial government. It would not be fair to my community to have to recuse myself from any votes related to this work around the council table.

I heard from many constituents, while I was campaigning, about stepping down and why they thought it would be the best thing for me to do. I listened, and I heard them as they said that it would raise some concerns about divided priorities, potential conflicts of interest and the ability to effectively represent them at either level of government. Holding both positions shortchanges the people that we are elected to serve.

Talking about my experience at North Cowichan and the time and commitment that it entailed, we had long days there as well. There isn't, from what I can see, a way for me to be able to hold that position as well as being here.

[11:25 a.m.]

As I had mentioned earlier, we have long days. The increased accountability at our local governments and the added pressures of social media just add to all of those pressures that we hold in those positions.

Talking about virtual, it wasn't supposed to be used all the time. We did use it during COVID, yes, all the time, but there were always technical difficulties for us to be fully present in those moments.

This bill would bring B.C. in line with the rules of many other provinces, including Quebec and Ontario. This bill would ensure that British Columbians can have confidence that their representatives aren't collecting two separate taxpayer paycheques, aren't in conflict of interest and are focused on addressing the challenges people face at the provincial level.

As I had mentioned earlier about my experience of being at North Cowichan, the perceived conflict is what we're talking about here. In the community that I'm from, being on the doorsteps and listening to the people in my community, they said that there would be a perceived conflict.

Being a cabinet minister or parliamentary secretary is another duty that we do have here. These jobs have always been there, and again, those take up a lot of your time. Also, you can't just be halfway here. We have to be present here to do our jobs properly.

I will end it there, but I am in favour of passing this bill.

Jeremy Valeriote: Listening with interest to this debate, I will make my comments brief.

I also have some concerns about by-election costs and downloading those costs, especially to smaller municipalities. I’m also concerned about the time for councillors or directors or school board trustees to wind down their work. I don't know that I believe that the time period between election day and the return of the writs is enough time for that to happen. As we all know, it's an extremely busy time for MLAs.

I've been in the role of councillor and regional district director. Honestly, even in a smaller town, I can't imagine trying to do this role and both. I think MLAs need to be fully focused on this role, as do the local government positions.

There is a good intention here, but the Green caucus believes this bill needs work. We will support it through second reading and consider it by committee and try to bring some ideas to solve some of these issues.

I want to be clear that there's no commitment to support it past second reading. However, there may be a way to do this, to allow for some discretion and good judgment but also provide the public with the representation they deserve.

George Anderson: The Eligibility to Hold Public Office Act highlights some very important principles for our democracy. When British Columbians elect someone to this House, they aren't just hiring them for a job; they're entrusting them with a responsibility to be their voice, their advocate and their champion in this Legislature. With that trust comes the simple expectation that their MLA is fully committed to their job.

Today we're debating a principle that should be common sense. When British Columbians elect an MLA, they deserve someone who isn't dividing their time, splitting their focus or juggling multiple elected positions. They deserve a representative who is all-in on the job they were elected to do.

Now, we've heard the argument that people can do two jobs well. In many professions that may be true. A doctor might teach, a firefighter might run a small business, a parent might work two jobs to make rent.

[11:30 a.m.]

Let's be clear. The Eligibility to Hold Public Office Act highlights that serving as an MLA is unlike any other job. It's not a job that you shift into and clock into. It's a responsibility that requires, and follows you every day with, your responsibilities.

The issues we deal with don't stop at 5 p.m. The people we serve don't wait for us to be available. The challenges we face, from housing to health care to public safety, require leaders who aren't splitting their focus between two different levels of government.

We've heard that elections can be costly, and I can tell you, as a former city councillor and regional district director, that I understand those costs, coming from a mid-size community, but the fact is that we accept the costs of elections. We accept that government must spend money for elections, because democracy is worth it.

Maybe the members for Delta South and Abbotsford South and the opposition think that we should just cancel general elections because they cost too much money. The ability to choose strong, full-time representation is the foundation of our democracy, and a by-election isn't a waste of money. A by-election is an investment in better leadership.

Everyone in this room understands how demanding this job is — the late nights, meetings, travels, advocacy. We all know what it takes to do this work well. If we're to be honest, we also know that trying to do two elected jobs at once means that one of them suffers, and it shouldn't be the people who elected us who pay that price.

If we take politics out of this, would you trust a CEO of a company if they were also running the competitor at the same time? Would you want the head coach of a hockey team coaching another team in the same league? Of course not, because we understand that real leadership requires commitment. So why, when it comes to governing this province, should we have any standard that is lower?

This isn't just about time and focus. It's about conflict of interest. A city councillor who is an MLA might have to vote on provincial policies that directly impact their city's budget. A school trustee who is also an MLA may be making funding decisions at a table while advocating for their district.

To those who say, "Well, they could just recuse themselves," I'd ask: how many times should an MLA have to leave the room before we start asking who they are really there to represent? British Columbians should never have to wonder where their MLAs' first loyalties lie, and this bill removes that doubt.

For some people, we've heard from the opposition, this might be a radical idea. Well, it's not a radical idea. Ontario, Quebec and other provinces already have similar rules. They’ve recognized that being a provincial legislator is not a job that you can do alongside another level of government, and their democracies haven't come to a halt.

I have to say that many in this House have spoken passionately about aligning B.C. with the best practices from other provinces when it comes to economic policy, regulatory reform and interprovincial trade. If we believe in bringing B.C. up to standard in those areas, why would we settle for a lower standard when it comes to governance itself? This is the norm in many provinces, and B.C. shouldn’t be an exception.

I know that some people really like running in elections. Maybe they just love knocking on doors. Maybe they've got a great flyer that they want to reuse, or maybe they really enjoy the thrill of lawn sign logistics. But at some point, you've got to pick a job and stick with it. Otherwise, we're not electing representatives; we're electing professional candidates.

So we have the Eligibility to Hold Public Office Act, and I think it's good policy. It's policy that will give British Columbians what they deserve, and that's the full attention of their elected representatives. That's what the intent of this bill is. I appreciate the fact that my colleague has brought this legislation that, clearly, should have been in place decades ago.

[11:35 a.m.]

Again, we've looked at many jurisdictions across British Columbia, and they're making the right decision to make sure that elected people are spending the time on the work that they need to do. That is to go through bills, ensure that they aren't in conflict of interest and fully focus on the job at hand, which is dealing with issues like health care, dealing with housing and public safety, and ensuring that we have the best system for governance.

In conclusion, at its core, this bill is about respecting the trust that British Columbians place in us when they send us into this House. When voters elect an MLA, they shouldn’t have to ask which job comes first.

British Columbians deserve commitment. They deserve full accountability from their elected officials, and British Columbians deserve the full focus of the people who they put their trust in. That's what the standard of this bill upholds, and that's the standard that British Columbians deserve.

Dana Lajeunesse: This legislation is crucial for ensuring the integrity and effectiveness of our democratic institutions. The act aims to prevent Members of the Legislative Assembly from simultaneously holding locally elected offices such as on municipal councils and school boards. Let me outline why this act is not only necessary but also beneficial to our society.

First, it’s important to note that this act does not prevent individuals who currently hold local elected offices from seeking provincial election but, rather, that they step down once their election as MLA is confirmed. The Eligibility to Hold Public Office Act addresses the issue of conflict of interest. When an individual holds multiple elected positions, there is an inherent risk of conflicting responsibilities and priorities.

For instance, an MLA who is also a city councillor may face situations where the interests of the city conflict with those of the province. By disqualifying MLAs from holding local elected offices, we can ensure that our representatives are fully dedicated to their legislative duties and can make decisions without divided loyalties.

Moreover, this act promotes transparency and accountability. When elected officials hold multiple positions, it becomes challenging for the public to hold them accountable for their actions. By requiring MLAs to step down from local offices upon their election to the Legislature, we create a clear and transparent system where the public could easily track performance and responsibilities of their representatives. This transparency is essential for maintaining trust in our democratic institutions.

Another significant advantage of this act is that it encourages greater participation in local governance. By preventing MLAs from holding local offices, we open up opportunities for other capable individuals to step into these roles. This diversification of leadership ensures that a broader range of voices and perspectives are represented in local government, leading to more inclusive and effective decision-making.

Furthermore, the act addresses the issue of fair compensation. Currently, some MLAs receive substantial combined salaries from holding multiple positions. By disqualifying MLAs from holding local offices, we ensure that public funds are used more efficiently and that compensation is fair and justifiable.

[11:40 a.m.]

It’s important to note that this act does not prevent individuals from seeking local elected office. It simply requires them to step down from their local positions if they are successfully elected as MLAs. This provision allows for a fair and democratic process while ensuring that elected officials can fully dedicate themselves to their legislative responsibilities.

We've already seen several MLAs voluntarily step down from their local government or school board roles, recognizing the importance of focusing on their legislative duties. These actions demonstrate a commitment to serving the public effectively and without conflicts of interest. This legislation is essential for ensuring that our elected officials are fully committed to the roles and responsibilities.

Let me explain why this act is not only necessary but also aligns with practices in other provinces across Canada. Firstly, as we've heard, serving as an MLA is a full-time job. British Columbians expect their elected representatives to be fully dedicated to addressing critical issues such as health care, housing, cost of living. It's not a part-time job, and our MLAs should be 100 percent focused on their legislative duties.

This act ensures that MLAs cannot simultaneously hold a seat on a municipal council or school board, thereby eliminating any potential conflicts of interest and divided priorities.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

In Ontario, members of provincial parliament are prohibited from holding municipal or school board positions under the Municipal Act and the Education Act. Similarly, in Quebec, Members of the National Assembly cannot hold provincial and municipal offices at the same time. Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Manitoba have similar laws in place, disqualifying MLAs from serving on municipal councils.

By passing this act, British Columbia would join these provinces in upholding the principle that serving in provincial office requires undivided attention and commitment. It is unacceptable for elected officials to collect two paycheques from taxpayers for two separate elected positions. Most British Columbians do not have the opportunity to hold multiple public offices simultaneously, so why should MLAs?

This act addresses the issue of double-dipping and ensures public funds are used efficiently. It also raises serious concerns about the ability of MLAs to effectively represent their constituents at both levels of government. Holding both positions shortchanges the people they were elected to serve.

Many MLAs have already recognized the importance of focusing on their legislative duties and have stepped down from their previous roles. For example, there is currently a school board by-election underway in West Vancouver because the MLA resigned from their school board position. This demonstrates a commitment to serving the public effectively and without conflict of interest.

This act would bring British Columbia in line with the rules in many other provinces, including Quebec and Ontario, as I've mentioned. It would also ensure that British Columbians have confidence that their representatives are not collecting two separate taxpayer-funded paycheques, are not in conflict of interest and are focused on addressing the challenges people face at the provincial level.

It's not just about the costs; it's about the attention and time required to be an MLA. Being a cabinet minister or parliamentary secretary is integrated with being an MLA. Those extra duties are part of the job. However, serving at a different level of elected government is not. The issue here is double-dipping at two levels of government, which only two of 93 MLAs have chosen to do.

[11:45 a.m.]

In conclusion, the Eligibility to Hold Public Office Act is a necessary and beneficial piece of legislation. It ensures that our MLAs are fully committed to their roles. It eliminates conflicts of interest and aligns British Columbia with the practices of other provinces. It promotes transparency and accountability, encourages greater participation in local governance and ensures fair compensation for our elected officials.

By supporting this act, we’re taking a significant step towards strengthening our democratic institutions and ensuring that our representatives can serve the public with undivided attention and dedication.

The Speaker: Noting the hour, I’ll ask the member for Esquimalt-Colwood to close the debate.

Darlene Rotchford: To be clear, this bill only applies to MLAs. We already have seen and discussed that if you’re an MLA and you become an MP, you have to step down. Very clear. This is a full-time job. It's a full-time job to be an MLA in the province of British Columbia.

As for some of the comments made, I will touch on a couple of them briefly. Focusing on the money, this is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do because it's a full-time job.

Some of the comments made, like “small towns like Delta, approximately 113,000 people….” Well, quite frankly, I come from Esquimalt, and guess what. I'm in a small town, so I appreciate some of the comments made. I also knew, when I ran as an MLA, what that risk was if I got elected. I had those conversations. Again, as I said earlier, it wasn't easy.

As for the conflict-of-interest potential, there were comments made about that. You don't think it's done in this House, sure. But what about your local government? You want to talk about money? FOIs cost a lot of money. It's a lot of work. Removing yourself and adding those additional costs is something we also need to think about. If you truly want to support local government, we need to have someone in there who can be transparent, who isn’t going to do that.

Grandstanding. I see a lot of pointing and a lot of banging. My child is home watching — Hi; I hope you can do better — This isn't about grandstanding. This is about what's doing right, as an MLA, for the people of British Columbia. If you're truly committed to being an MLA, then you are not collecting two tax revenue dollars as a paycheque. It is that simple.

Oh, I have so many things to talk about.

Good governance allows transparency — comments made from that side. I totally agree. That's why 11 people stepped down to have true transparency for their local government. They could move aside, so that someone could seek election, could be truly transparent and could truly engage in local government, and what that may look like, to ensure that they are giving their best to the people of their communities.

Here in this House, we are all committed to giving what's truly fair to British Columbians, because on both sides of this House, we recognize things that are affecting people daily. We need to be focused on it daily because, again, this is a full-time job.

This legislation is about fairness, transparency and accountability. This ensures that MLAs are fully dedicated to their provincial responsibilities and that local government representatives are equally committed to serving their communities. You heard from my colleagues. Other provinces already do this because they understand the importance of it. We're just aligning ourselves to make sure we're also doing what is right for the people of British Columbia.

I appreciate a good Churchill quote, so I'm going to quote one back to our friends: “It's not enough that we do our best. Sometimes we must do what is required.” Well, this is required. It is required, when you are an elected MLA in this province of British Columbia, that you be fully focused 110 percent about what needs to get done, and our local government can focus 100 percent on what they need to do, with full transparency.

Again, 11 of the MLAs stepped down. We all knew what the cost of a by-election was worth for our integrity of public offices, and to avoid double-dipping. We all did that to ensure that our local people are best represented at the local level and here as an MLA.

I will close on one last note. The price of greatness is responsibility. When we talk about the price of greatness, I'm going to be supporting this bill because that comes with responsibility.

[11:50 a.m.]

We have a responsibility at second reading to pass this forward because it's important to British Columbians — they are paying for us to be here — that they know that we are dedicating ourselves 110 percent of the time to the issues important to them — health care, housing, affordability, public safety, and that list goes on.

The Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill M202, intituled Eligibility to Hold Public Office Act.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, did you say division?

An Hon. Member: I did.

The Speaker: That's fine. Yeah, division has been called.

According to Standing Order 25, we'll conduct a deferred division at six o'clock today.

Hon. Lisa Beare moved adjournment of the House.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.