British Columbia Hansard — 1 November 2018, p.m., Issue 176 (41st Parliament, 3rd Session)

20181101pm-Hansard-n176

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session, 41st Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Thursday, November 1, 2018 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 176 THE HONOURABLE DARRYL PLECAS, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Janet Austin, OBC Third Session, 41st Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Darryl Plecas EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance............................................................................................................................Hon.

Carole James Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training..................................................................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Minister of Agriculture.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General.................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ............................................................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Child Care...................................................................................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Citizens’ Services.................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Jinny Sims Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................ Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ...............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Mungall Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy............................................................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ..............................................Hon. Doug Donaldson Minister of Health .....................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon.

Scott Fraser Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology............................................................................................................................ Hon. Bruce Ralston Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon. George Chow Minister of Labour ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions............................................................................................................................ Hon. Judy Darcy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.................................................................................................................. Hon. Selina Robinson Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction..............................................................................................Hon. Shane Simpson Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture.....................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................ Hon.

Claire Trevena LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition................................................................................................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Leader of the Third Party ....................................................................................................................................................Dr. Andrew Weaver Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Assistant Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................... Linda Reid Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ................................................................................................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ....................................................................................................................................................Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees.................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Clerk Assistant — Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..........................................................................................Susan Sourial Sessional Law Clerk...............................................................................................................................................Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Penticton Bains, Hon. Harry (NDP)...............................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ................................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Beare, Hon. Lisa (NDP).............................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (NDP) ..................................................................... Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) .......................................................

Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal)......................................... Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (NDP)..................................................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal)....................................................... Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–West End Chen, Hon. Katrina (NDP).....................................................Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ............................................................... Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon.

George (NDP)............................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Columbia River–Revelstoke Coleman, Rich (BC Liberal) ...............................................................Langley East Conroy, Hon. Katrine (NDP)......................................................... Kootenay West Darcy, Hon.

Judy (NDP) ............................................................New Westminster Davies, Dan (BC Liberal) ..........................................................Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal) ............................................ Abbotsford West Dean, Mitzi (NDP)...............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (NDP) ...............................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon. Adrian (NDP)......................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Hon.

Doug (NDP).....................................................................Stikine Eby, Hon. David, QC (NDP)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP)....................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (NDP) ...................................................... Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (NDP) .....................................................Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal)........................................................... Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Hon.

Scott (NDP) ................................................ Mid Island–Pacific Rim Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) ........................................... Cowichan Valley Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ................................................. Abbotsford-Mission Glumac, Rick (NDP)........................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Heyman, Hon. George (NDP) .............................................. Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon. John (NDP) ...............................................

Langford–Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) .......................................................Surrey-Cloverdale Isaacs, Joan (BC Liberal) .........................................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain James, Hon. Carole (NDP)...................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Johal, Jas (BC Liberal)...............................................

Richmond-Queensborough Kahlon, Ravi (NDP)..............................................................................Delta North Kang, Anne (NDP)..................................................................Burnaby–Deer Lake Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) ..................................................................Nanaimo Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal)............................................................................ Shuswap Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .............................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Michael (BC Liberal) ......................................................

Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (NDP) ....................................................Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal)............................................Kelowna–Lake Country Ma, Bowinn (NDP) ................................................... North Vancouver–Lonsdale Mark, Hon. Melanie (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal)...................................................................... Chilliwack Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal)....................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..........................................Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Hon. Michelle (NDP).................................................... Nelson-Creston Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal) ...........................................................Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)........................... Saanich North and the Islands Paton, Ian (BC Liberal)......................................................................... Delta South Plecas, Hon.

Darryl (Ind.) ..........................................................Abbotsford South Polak, Mary (BC Liberal) ............................................................................ Langley Popham, Hon. Lana (NDP)..............................................................Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce (NDP) .......................................................... Surrey-Whalley Redies, Tracy (BC Liberal) ..................................................... Surrey–White Rock Reid, Linda (BC Liberal) ................................................

Richmond South Centre Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ............................................................................ North Coast Robinson, Hon. Selina (NDP) ....................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal)..................................................................................Skeena Routledge, Janet (NDP) .................................................................. Burnaby North Routley, Doug (NDP) ................................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, John (BC Liberal) ..............................................................

Nechako Lakes Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal) .............................................................Kootenay East Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ........................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Hon. Shane (NDP)................................................ Vancouver-Hastings Sims, Hon.

Jinny (NDP) .............................................................Surrey-Panorama Singh, Rachna (NDP) ........................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal) ................................................................Kelowna West Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal)..............................................Parksville-Qualicum Stone, Todd (BC Liberal)........................................

Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal).......................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal)...............................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ......................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ................................................................ Fraser-Nicola Thomson, Steve (BC Liberal)..................................................... Kelowna-Mission Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) .............................

North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal) ..................................................... Chilliwack-Kent Trevena, Hon. Claire (NDP) .............................................................. North Island Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal) ................................................Richmond North Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (BC Green Party) ......................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Quilchena Y ap, John (BC Liberal)..........................................................

Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ..........................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Hon. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West .................................................................... Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen.....................................................................

Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ...............................................................................Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds ..............................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North................................................................................

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin ............................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................................. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack.............................................................................................. John Martin Chilliwack-Kent..............................................................................Laurie Throness Columbia River–Revelstoke........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain................................................................. Joan Isaacs Coquitlam-Maillardville..................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox ................................................................. Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley ............................................................................

Sonia Furstenau Delta North ...........................................................................................Ravi Kahlon Delta South.................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin.............................................................................Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola........................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Kamloops–North Thompson............................................................Peter Milobar Kamloops–South Thompson ................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country....................................................................Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission.............................................................................

Steve Thomson Kelowna West.........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East .....................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West ...................................................................... Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca............................................................. Hon. John Horgan Langley....................................................................................................

Mary Polak Langley East .......................................................................................Rich Coleman Maple Ridge–Mission ............................................................................ Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..........................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim .............................................................. Hon. Scott Fraser Nanaimo ...............................................................................

Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan.............................................................. Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ...................................................................................... John Rustad Nelson-Creston.................................................................. Hon. Michelle Mungall New Westminster ......................................................................... Hon. Judy Darcy North Coast..........................................................................................

Jennifer Rice North Island ............................................................................ Hon. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ................................................................. Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour ......................................................Jane Thornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ..........................................................Dr.

Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .....................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North.................................................................................. Dan Davies Peace River South ............................................................................... Mike Bernier Penticton................................................................................................ Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam .................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam .....................................................................Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast ..................................................... Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ..................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount.................................................................

Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre ........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough .......................................................................Jas Johal Richmond South Centre........................................................................ Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston..................................................................................

John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap .................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena ......................................................................................................... Ellis Ross Stikine ..................................................................................Hon.

Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Fleetwood ...................................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers ......................................................................Rachna Singh Surrey-Guildford ....................................................................................Garry Begg Surrey-Newton.............................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama........................................................................... Hon. Jinny Sims Surrey South............................................................................... Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Whalley........................................................................ Hon. Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ............................................................................. Tracy Redies Vancouver-Fairview ............................................................ Hon.

George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek....................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview .............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings .............................................................. Hon. Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington ..................................................................... Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway ................................................................... Hon.

Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .............................................................................. Michael Lee Vancouver–Mount Pleasant ................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey...........................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Vancouver-Quilchena ......................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Vancouver–West End....................................................Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee...................................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill ................................................................ Hon. Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake .................................................................. Hon. Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano .................................................................

Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..............................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC Liberal 42; NDP 41; BC Green Party 3; Independent 1

CONTENTS Thursday, November 1, 2018 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members..................................................................................................................................................... 6141 Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 6141 Bill 53 — Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018(continued) A. Weaver P . Milobar D. Barnett T. Shypitka S. Gibson L. Throness B. Stewart R. Sultan J. Thornthwaite E. Ross M. Hunt J. Isaacs D. Davies

THURSDAY , NOVEMBER 1, 2018 The House met at 1:33 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Introductions by Members S. Thomson:I’m very pleased to welcome into the House today Carmen Sparg, who is the president of the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce, and Dan Rogers, who is the CEO of the Kelowna chamber. I had lunch with them. They’re here to meet with some representatives of government. Kelowna chamber, one of the largest chambers in the province, does a great job representing the community and our area. I’ d ask the House to please make them welcome. J.

Rustad:I also want to just extend a welcome to Dan Rogers, who is a former mayor of Prince George and some- one who I played soccer against for a number of years as well. It’s great to see him here in the gallery. Please make him welcome. Orders of the Day Hon. M. Farnworth:I call continued second reading debate on Bill 53. Second Reading of Bills BILL 53 — RECALL AND INITIATIVE AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 (continued) Mr. Speaker:House Leader, Third Party. Leader, Third Party. A. Weaver:Thank you, hon. Speaker. I continue my place in this debate after the demotion I just received over lunch. [R.

Chouhan in the chair.] For those in Hansard, I was introduced as the House Leader of the Third Party instead of the Leader of the Third Party. Deputy Speaker:Leader of the Third Party. A. Weaver:Thank you, hon. Speaker. I rise again to continue my place as designated speaker from the Third Party on Bill 53, the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018. [1:35 p.m.] I kind of want to summarize where I left off before lunch. As I left off, we were standing here in this Legislature essen- tially debating this.

On the one side of this House, we have a party and a third party, a government and a third party who are supporting legislation which will eliminate big money from recall campaigns and initiatives. What that’s saying is that this act — that is, the Recall and Initiative Act — will come into compliance, in essence, or come in to be similar to the elections act — which the Liberals voted against, mind you — to ban big money from B.C. politics. Now, what the official opposition is arguing, in

summary to this, is they’re actually arguing against this bill. In essence, this is what they’re saying. They’re defending the ability of one individual or one corporation with deep pockets to spend millions of dollars because he or she may have a per- sonal grudge against an MLA. They’re aggrieved by the affronts to democracy that this would have by not allowing one individual with a grudge against an MLA or a grudge against a government’s policy to be able to spend their mil- lions to actually recall an MLA or put forward an initiative. Y ou know, members opposite laugh.

I mean, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, who seems to find this all very funny, should probably spend more time talking to Brit- ish Columbians about how happy they were that big money was finally from B.C. politics. Let’s see him stand up there and defend the fact that they, the B.C. Liberals, continue to argue that it is okay. A year after we banned it from B.C. elections, they contin- ue to argue that it is okay for a corporation to intervene in our electoral process and spend millions of dollars because they don’t like an MLA or they want an initiative. This, to the B.C. Liberals, is democracy.

On this side of the House, we’re saying: “Enough of that. ” Y ou clearly — you being the B.C. Liberals — have learned nothing from the last election. Y ou have not listened to Brit- ish Columbians for the last year and a half. Y ou continue to think that British Columbians think it is okay that you seem to see that your only goal in this Legislature is to stand and complain about the fact that you’re in the opposition. At some point…. Deputy Speaker:Through the Chair, Member. Through the Chair. A. Weaver:At some point, hon. Speaker, the B.C.

Liberals need to recognize that they’re in a time-out, that they’re going to be sitting in opposition for a long time. As soon as they come to realize that, they might actually start to debate issues that matter here in the province of British Columbia, not issues that come to the foundation of their existence as a party and their quest for power. I cannot believe this. They seem not to have learned anything. They seem to not recognize that people in Brit- ish Columbia are cynical about the B.C. Liberal approach to politics.

They seem to not recognize that it is not okay for friends and donors to that party — through you, hon. Speaker, the 6141

other party that’s not on this side of the House…. It is not okay for them to have corporate donors give them hundreds of thousands of dollars and then them make decisions — some of which I hope to explore in the weeks and months ahead — that are clearly not in the best interests of British Columbians but are clearly in the best interests of the donors to the party making those decisions. This is what we’re hearing. We’re hearing a defence of the status quo from a couple of years ago, the status quo that put the opposition where they are.

In the debate, their critic to this file, the member for Vancouver-Langara, did not once mention the fact that this bill is actually banning big money. His remarks to the debate were a diatribe, a continuation of the 36 hours we’ve had to sit here and listen to the drivel — yes, drivel — misinformation, alternate facts emanating from members opposite as they try to campaign on a quest of fear over proportional representation. [1:40 p.m.] Again, they clearly haven’t understood that in British Columbia, the largest voting demographic are the millenni- als now. The largest voting demographic are the millennials.

And what they don’t understand is that millennials are vot- ing out of hope — the hope expressed by the two parties over here working together — and they’re not reacting to the fear of a dynasty from the last century, struggling to find a man- date for itself, unable to define who they are but united under one quest — the quest for power. They have the gall at times to suggest that ride-hailing not being brought in — it’s going to come in this fall; it’s not being brought in now — was somehow not their responsibility. Interjections. Deputy Speaker:Members. Please continue. A.

Weaver:I sat in this Legislature, and not once, not twice but three times brought in a private member’s bill that they had every opportunity to enact, to bring in ride-hailing, three years ago. But ah, they didn’t do it. Why? It’s because as I pointed out before lunch, the cynical framework that gov- erns the party opposite is one in which it is all about power. Heaven forbid they’ d actually bring in ride-hailing in the lead-up to the 2017 provincial election and alienate a few key ridings south of the Fraser that they were hoping to get.

For- tunately, they were trumped out by removing some tolls on those same ridings. Nevertheless, it wasn’t brought in. There is simply no high ground for the members opposite on this file. In fact, it’s almost humorous when they bring it forth. Coming back to this Recall and Initiative Amendment Act. Again, we’re seeing nothing more than consistency here, eliminating the ability of big money to influence politics in B.C. in its final form. Coming to some of the changes that I outlined earlier that are happening.

We know that the Elec- tion Act was amended last year and that this area, this partic- ular component, the Recall and Initiative Act, was not. Right now, all that’s happening…. This is what we’re debating here, not the proportional representation that they’re hung up on. Honestly, I come back to 36 hours in here. I’ve heard the same speech for 36 hours. For those riveted toHansard, just go back and type in the words “stacked deck” and see how many of the members opposite have been reading their media lines. Interjections. A. Weaver:Changed game…. I mean rigged game. Look up “rigged game” as well.

They have a 22-year-old staffer down in the basement who’s writing them speeches, and we have the puppets opposite who are reading the same speech member after member. It’s frankly embarrassing that we have 42 members opposite who collectively cannot write an independent speech, and we have to listen to that here. Interjections. Deputy Speaker:Members. Members. Let’s get back to the bill, please. A.

Weaver:Coming back to the financing, we know that this act aligns financing rules for recall campaigns with the Election Act and changes that were made last year, the Elec- tion Act amendment changes last year — which the mem- bers opposite also voted against because, of course, they still want big money in politics. We know that this bill before us is banning unions and corporations, just as has occurred in the local government elections, school board elections and provincial elections.

We know that it’s setting a $1,200 limit to contributions for individual British Columbians, just like it exists in the Elec- tions Act, just like it exists for local governments and school boards. We know it creates a third-party spending limit of $5,000 for advertising during the recall petition period. Frankly, these were needed changes.

Frankly, I do not think it is okay if somebody with a grudge, or an MLA who happens to have access to a deep corporate sponsor, could somehow, in the case of an MLA — there might be a recall campaign — perhaps go to somebody and get several hun- dred thousand dollars to prop up a campaign and spread dis- information. I don’t think that’s right. I don’t think it’s right that the opposite could occur — that a particular vested interest could solely fund a campaign initiative in British Columbia. These are commonsense changes. Again, I get that these commonsense changes make the Liberals feel uncomfort- able.

They make them feel uncomfortable because they’ve been playing by this rigged game with a stacked deck for far too long. What they’re finally seeing is that that rigged game with a stacked deck is being fixed. [1:45 p.m.] They can’t take it because they know that the reason why 6142 British Columbia Debates Thursday, November 1, 2018

they were able to remain in power and the reason why they were able to ignore British Columbians for so long was because they could appeal to their corporate donors for vast quantities of money to ensure that they got the airwaves filled with their message. They went on character assassina- tions of anyone who opposed them. That’s the way they go; that’s the way they operate. Look at where we are now. Corporate donations no longer. The B.C. Greens are nipping at the tails of the B.C. Liberals in terms of annual funding. We are not too far from them in terms of annual funding.

That’s what happens when people, not vested interests, have to support parties. As I said, the bill is common sense. Only one recall cam- paign can exist at a time. Now, I heard that the member for Vancouver-Langara somehow thought this was an affront to democracy, clearly not even listening to his own argu- ments during his diatribe. On one hand, he would suggest that it’s important for people to actually have an attempt to follow through with a recall and that maybe now it might be misused.

Well, in actual fact the best way to misuse a recall campaign would be, as soon as somebody did one, to start three others. Then you get people not knowing which petition they signed. This is actually cleaning up a problem that existed with the HST initiative that went forward and passed. What if we’ d had four that were running at the same time? Four ini- tiatives like that? How would that initiative have been suc- cessful? There would’ve been many people who signed and said, “I’ve already signed it. ” Confusion would have aboun- ded. That’s commonsense rule No. 1. Again, B.C.

Liberals hate that because it’s not the kind of status quo of their cyn- ical party politics from the past. Another smart change. We’re getting a prohibition of a recall petition six months before general voting day for a scheduled election. My understanding is that I think there was a recommendation for a year, but this is a comprom- ise from what was actually asked for by the Chief Electoral Officer. Six months makes sense. It’s kind of ridiculous to be able to have a recall campaign initiated in the six months, so that after you have the 30 days, you’ve got a few months left.

Y ou call a by-election, and basically, the person may not even come into the Legislature, or very much. Then you swear him in; you swear him out. Back to the election. It’s consist- ent, again, with by-election legislation. The six-month time frame is entirely consistent with that. Makes some positive changes, this act does, to violations of the act. It provides the Chief Electoral Officer with regulation- making authority. What it’s not doing, despite the fact…. If you listen to members opposite, you’ d think the world was going to end.

Chicken Little and his or her friends oppos- ite would suggest that the sky is falling. This bill does not provide any new protections for MLAs. It actually creates a level playing field that ensures the interests of British Colum- bians are front and centre, not vested corporate and union interests. If people wanted to make this harder, they would’ve pushed it up to 50 percent, to 60 percent. It’s 40 percent. Nothing has changed with that requirement of 40 percent of the electorate. It’s a very high threshold, a hard threshold, but it is still the only threshold that exists in Canada.

We are the one jurisdiction that has that. I don’t hear us today saying: “Let’s repeal this legislation. ” I don’t hear government today saying: “Oh, let’s make it 60 percent. ” I don’t hear government today saying: “Let’s ban donations. ” All I hear in this bill is government putting for- ward a very, very reasonable approach to protect our demo- cracy from the influence of big money and special interests. To conclude, I have sat here now for, it must be, two weeks listening to members opposite in question period, in speeches.

It seems that they have forgotten what it means to govern in this province, what it means to be in opposition. The role of an opposition is not to try to solely argue for everything in terms of trying to actually save a party and get back into power, no matter what. It’s about representing the will of the people of British Columbia. The will of the people of British Columbia is that big money be gone out of politics here. Interjection. A.

Weaver:Aw, thank you — I don’t know whether I’m able to acknowledge somebody not sitting in their chair — to somebody who normally sits down in the Premier’s chair for the support of this. Interjection. [1:50 p.m.] A. Weaver:Of course the member for Kamloops–North Thompson is shocked that the Premier would support this bill.

What should be shocking to the member for Kam- loops–North Thompson is the fact that they, their party, are yet again standing up before British Columbians and saying that it is okay for one corporation to donate whatever they want, because they have a grudge against an MLA, to try to out that MLA. Or it’s equally okay for the member for Kam- loops–North Thompson to go to a corporation and say: “I have a recall campaign against me. Can you give me a mil- lion bucks to fund the no campaign?” He’s essentially arguing that that’s okay. That is the essence of the argument that we have before us.

The members oppos- ite think this is funny, but what is funny is their lack of moral compass, the fact that their wind vane is broken. It’s spin- ning. There’s no direction. There are no values. British Columbians don’t know what they stand for, apart from trying to get back into power to ensure that their vested corporate interests are at the table, through donations, to actually ensure that their friend’s interest, as opposed to Brit- ish Columbians’ interests, are put front and centre in this Legislature in decision-making in British Columbia. Thursday, November 1, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6143

With that, I proudly stand, and my colleagues proudly stand, in support of this speech. I look forward to contin- ued debate. P . Milobar:I must say that it’s always a little difficult to get up and follow such a self-serving, sanctimonious and hypo- critical speech as that, but I will give it my best shot. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about Bill 53, the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, also known in these parts — quickly becoming known — as the EPA, also known as the self-preservation act. This bill is fundamentally flawed.

To hear the previous speaker talk, I think it actually shines a light on a lot of those concerns. In fact, this bill…. Maybe we were originally thinking it was for some already-talked-about recall cam- paigns, but perhaps the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who seems so concerned about this, is worried that people in his riding maybe are a little bit concerned about his bluster and lack of action around the speculation tax. Maybe members in his party and his riding are a little bit concerned about his bluster and lack of action on Site C.

Maybe they’re worried about his lack of action and bluster when it comes to LNG. Maybe they’re worried about his lack of action and, in fact, helping to be one impetus to drive Kinder Morgan to now be a nationalized project. Maybe they’re worried about the inevitable out, the con- venient out that will happen when the climate action plan comes forward and it’s nothing but a diluted piece of legisla- tion. Instead of bringing the government down around it, he will prop the government up yet again. Maybe he’s the one that’s actually worried about a recall campaign happening in Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

Frankly, I thought that the Attorney General’s comments were ridiculous until I heard the member, the Leader of the Third Party. To stand in this House and suggest that I was laughing because of the bill…. I was laughing because of the absolutely extreme, ludicrous examples that the Leader of the Third Party was bringing forward.

To suggest that this bill was designed because, in previous recall campaigns, individuals, let alone corporations, were running out and spending millions upon millions of dollars to fund recall campaigns shows you just how desperate and extreme both the Attorney General and the Leader of the Third Party are when it comes to this piece of legislation. The fact that they are reaching that far to try to come up with some type of a red herring for people to latch on to is flat-out ridiculous. The banning of big money when it relates to recall is one thing.

I would point out that it was conveniently forgotten about with all the other legislative changes. They didn’t make an amendment. It didn’t trigger when we dealt with the local government election act and made those changes in time for the local government election. [1:55 p.m.] It didn’t trigger that this was actually part of the legislation when they brought in the first legislation around election financing. No, this has been triggered nine, ten days, eight days before recall campaigns can go active. Frankly, I don’t get to Point Grey that often.

It’s a little bit outside of my neighbourhood when it comes to price point for housing, but I have driven through it. I have seen for quite some time very large signs, pretty much like a count- down clock, indicating to the Attorney General, in his own home riding, that a recall campaign is on its way. When the Attorney General stands in this House and tries to make it sound like he’s protecting everybody, and then the laughable extreme of his quote saying he actually would feel uncomfortable if people were trying to defend him by donat- ing….

That’s ridiculous in the extreme — trying to come up with an excuse to justify legislation that is taking a sledge- hammer to a nonexistent problem. We’ve had 26 recall initiatives in this province with a zero success rate on those 26. So the fact that the Attorney Gen- eral or the Leader of the Third Party would be this worried about these phantom millionaires that are going to come in with millions upon millions of dollars for a recall campaign is beyond ridiculous. Let’s set aside that part of this bill, and let’s look into the whole 51 pages.

Because although the Attorney General and the Leader of the Third Party would love us to think that this is only about big money, it’s a 51-page bill. It’s a 51-page bill that hammers down on anybody’s ability to try to engage in their civic right to try and recall somebody. And I say “try, ” because, again, 26 times it has not been successful. I’m not sure where all this phantom big money was on those other 26 times, but the Attorney General seems to be very, very worried that they’re going to come now. The problem with this bill is….

Those same signs that are up on people’s lawns, it gets very confusing if they’re allowed to do that individually or not in this bill. In fact, the cap, and everything else that they have in here, makes it almost impossible for anybody to run a proper recall campaign. By that I mean there’s almost not enough money in this for the limits for you to properly photocopy and have forms and petitions for you to be able to take door to door. And we’re not even sure how you would account for the pens and the paper, or the pencils, that you would need, if that would count as a donation or not.

Because it’s ridiculous in the extreme when you read through the 51 pages that this so-called legislation gets into. It gets into very back-and-forth, confusing areas. And one has to ask: what’s the rush? Again, it’s a self-serving piece of legislation. It’s a self- serving piece of legislation brought in by an Attorney Gen- eral who, since almost, I think, the budget…. I think it was the budget measures that actually triggered the unrest in his community, in his riding. Since about then, there have been “Recall the Attorney General” signs in his riding.

Miraculously, eight days before it’s going to start — eight days before it’s able to be triggered by the public for them to do a grassroots campaign — the Attorney General is worried and trying to stifle that. 6144 British Columbia Debates Thursday, November 1, 2018

Now we’re hearing from the Leader of the Third Party, who takes it to even more of the extreme in trying to elicit the image of million-dollar payoffs happening and million- dollar cheques being cut for a recall campaign. To show just how ridiculous that is, it took that side of the House ten years to be able to extract $20 million out of their handpicked 19 unions. They didn’t get $20 million in a year out of 19 unions. It took them ten years to get the $20 mil- lion out of them, and it took those unions 11 years to get the payoff back from the government. So it’s disingenuous to appoint…. Interjections.

Deputy Speaker:Members, you have to be in your own seat to make any comments. P . Milobar:It’s totally disingenuous for the Attorney Gen- eral to continue to say that this is actually about protecting the public from his supporters defending him. This is like we’re in a banana republic right now. This is just bizarre, what this government is bringing forward. [2:00 p.m.] We’re in the middle of debating proportional representa- tion on Bill 40.

I’m assuming, since the Leader of the Third Party spoke about almost every other type of bill and everything that happened over the last 16 years while talking to Bill 53, unlike the speaker before him, this won’t hurt the sensitivities of the members opposite this time when I talk about Bill 40 for a little bit, like he did earlier in the day. This is the problem we have. We have Bill 40 which is meant to try to fundamentally change the decision-making process that people might make in a referendum while they’re actually being asked to vote, while they can actively engage in voting.

The Attorney General brings forward that to try to change the conversation. Then we hear the member of the Third Party mad that we have the temerity to try to debate that in this House, to try to show to the public how ridiculous this is getting. Why that’s important is because a lot of the discussion in the communities is about lack of information around pro- portional representation, lack of what would happen under this system or that system.

Well, we know there’s no certainty on what happens in a by-election under proportional rep- resentation because the government hasn’t seen fit to tell us what that scenario would look like. Before they say, “Well, by-elections are rare, ” I’ll save them, because I think we might be having a by-election in Nanaimo pretty quickly here, if I’m not mistaken. By-elec- tions actually happen on a fairly regular basis in this House — not every year but fairly regularly. So I think people have the right to know how they would get a member elected in a by-election under prop rep. Interjection. P .

Milobar:I’ll draw the line for the member that’s con- fused about how this might be a lack of information for people as well. I see no language in this bill around what happens, for recall, to an appointed member of this Legis- lature under recall. I see no language under this — what happens to an elected member under recall with propor- tional representation. In other words, if this wasn’t such a self-serving rush to try to save one’s own hide, this bill could have come for- ward more complete post-referendum, knowing what type of electoral system we’ d have moving forward for the next little while.

But no, there’s a massive rush to try to ram this through. It is important, because if people are voting predicated on the percentage of votes should equal the percentage of seats and you’re an elected member of this House who loses their seat under recall, that changes the percent of seats in this House. Does the same party just get to reappoint a new person but that party holds the seat? Is there an actual by- election that happens? Instead of appointing 60 people or 50 people to this House, do the party bosses get to hand-select a new person to come in and fill that elected seat?

None of those are in this bill. It’s a rushed bill aimed strictly around serving one’s own interests when it comes to recall — which, again, has never actually been successful. So the fact that there would be this much worry…. Recalls have never, to this point, had the big-money boogeyman behind them that they’re trying to say on this. Y et I notice that the union loopholes are wide open still in this. The loopholes are wide open in this bill.

The loopholes that would allow unions to do exactly as they did in the last municipal election, where they could pay people to not show up to work that day and make sure they were paid and be able to go campaign, are still in existence. If the Attorney General was really trying to be forth- right with everybody here and trying to truly make this a level playing field, if the Leader of the Third Party actu- ally truly would follow through on what his words say with actions around this bill and many other bills, I would be very surprised. Again, it’s 51 pages. This is not about big money.

Y ou do not need the 51 pages to clarify the big money. This is 51 pages of trying to make sure that you can self-preserve yourself. The “six months out before a general election” clause. Now, on the surface, that seems actually quite reasonable. Then I have to listen to the Attorney General introduce this bill. [2:05 p.m.] His justification for the six-months-out clause is that for Elections B.C, it’s important for them six months out to be able to focus on an election.

Well, imagine if we hadn’t been running a municipal campaign at the same time as trying to get ballots in the mail and a voter guide out for the propor- tional representation vote how much more focus Elections B.C. could have had during the last municipal election. According to the Attorney General, it’s pretty difficult for Thursday, November 1, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6145

them to do two things at once. I don’t think it is. I think they’re a very professional organization, but the Attorney General certainly seemed to indicate in his speech that Elec- tions B.C. needs a clear six months of nothing else going on to make sure they run an election properly. Why is that important?

I know that in my riding, I got reports and complaints — and I know that in lots of oth- er ridings, we got reports and complaints — that during the municipal election, the Fair Vote volunteers with their third-party advertising were standing in front of polling stations and jamming proportional representation literat- ure in their hands. It would have been nice, maybe, if Elections B.C. wasn’t split in two directions on an election day when that was hap- pening. But that seemed to be okay for the democratic pro- cess. That really followed the spirit and the intent of what we do in the democratic process.

It doesn’t matter that you’re not allowed to have an elec- tion sign within 100 metres of a polling station. Let’s stand right at the front steps of the polling station and jam cam- paign literature for a different referendum in people’s hands, whether they want it or not, and when returning officers come out and ask you to move along, you tell them to leave you alone because you’re standing on public land and it’s your right to stand there. That’s sure the nice spirit and the intent that was followed through.

Unfortunately, Elections B.C. probably didn’t think that was going to actually happen so they didn’t bother to put in firm rules ahead of time to prevent that from happening. I guess we know that this government has no problem having convenient loopholes that work in favour of what they want to try to do. Just make sure you hammer down with 51 pages on anyone else that might want to try to voice an opinion in contrary. Now, I’m assuming that the NDP memo telling people that they cannot dissent to them was probably shorter than 51 pages, because that probably wouldn’t be called a memo at that point.

I think we’ve seen this government demonstrate already, both internally and externally, that you dare not dis- agree with them or else. That’s what this bill is saying. It is very clearly telling people: “Don’t you even bother trying. Don’t bother trying to do something that 26 times has already failed anyway. In fact, we’re so worried that it might be successful, we’re going to make it harder for people. ” But the interesting thing…. The Leader of the Third Party touched on this. I found it interesting. They didn’t change the 40 percent threshold for a recall. They kept that the same.

In fact, the Leader of the Third Party’s evidence that nothing is being rigged here…. I believe he kept using “stacked deck” and “rigged game. ” I assumed he was talking about Bill 40 and the proportional representation bill at that point, but I’m not entirely sure. He was rambling a little bit, and I wasn’t paying total attention, admittedly, to him. We have a 40 percent threshold in the existing legis- lation, and in this new legislation we have a 40 percent threshold.

The speaker of the Third Party thinks that’s symbolic, that that demonstrates the government’s not try- ing to hammer down on people’s ability and make this harder than it already is, because they were so generous as to not go to 50 or 60 percent. I point out that in the Referendum Act that they amended to have this referendum that we’re under, instead of keeping that percentage threshold at 60 percent with a secondary threshold of number of ridings so that the rural people would have an equal voice, they had no problem scaling that percentage right down.

Get it down to 50 percent plus one and get rid of regional thresholds. The same Attorney General had absolutely no problem — and the Leader of the Third Party agreeing — making a pro- portional representation vote much easier to pass. But when it comes to their own recall legislation, worrying about recall campaigns coming against them, they keep the threshold the same, the same threshold that’s 0 for 26. One has to wonder: why is that? Why didn’t they just lower that threshold at the same time? Why didn’t they lower the threshold down to 35 percent or 40 percent?

Why would that be? [2:10 p.m.] They seem to have no problem lowering the threshold to make it easier to get what they would like. Y et when it’s something that they want to try to hinder, when it’s people’s own personal opinions, people in their own neighbour- hoods…. Let’s remember that a recall campaign is not some provincewide phenomenon going on at the same time.

When the Leader of the Third Party goes on about people donating millions of dollars to a recall campaign, either he’s totally clueless about what that means in terms of a recall campaign — that it’s one specific riding or two specific rid- ings — or he’s trying to do exactly as he tries saying we do, accuses us of doing all the time, saying that we’re overexag- gerating. Talk about an overexaggeration.

Recall campaigns survive and thrive and, to this point, have not even been successful because they require people going door to door, knocking door to door in a very small geographic area, for the most part, especially for the Attor- ney General. It’s probably, what, 20 square blocks, his riding. I’m not sure how big it is, but Vancouver–Point Grey can’t be very large compared to Prince George ridings, Kam- loops–North Thompson. It requires that type of initiative.

It requires people going out within their own riding and saying: “We’ve had enough of this MLA, regardless of political stripe. ” Because of that 40 percent threshold, it requires usually cross-party lines. That’s why it hasn’t been successful anywhere. The one that came close, the one that people assume may have been successful if it had actually happened, if the mem- ber hadn’t resigned ahead of time, which I think is telling…. I think even the member at that point realized what was going to happen. That one was close. That one was because that member, at that time, to the public….

The public, across 6146 British Columbia Debates Thursday, November 1, 2018

party lines, felt like a trust had been broken and it was time to get a different MLA. To try to change this legislation with the amount of cross- ing the t’s and dotting the i’s that you will need, to be an aver- age person, to not be in contravention of this act and have someone phone and try to make this whole process inval- id…. That’s what this bill is really doing. This bill is stifling grassroots people from being able to get together. There’s a clause in here that says that even if you’re registered and allowed to be fundraising and able to fund a campaign, if you have it in your house….

Well, again, these are internal one-riding-off types of processes. If you have that fundraising event in your house…. Y ou are not allowed to get a donation over $100 from anybody if it’s in your private residence, even though the limit is $1,200. Talk about the state being worried about what’s going on in someone’s private residence. It doesn’t matter if you mark down their name. It doesn’t matter if you properly account for it all.

Y our neighbour can’t walk into your house, if you’re in charge of that recall campaign, and hand you a cheque for $101 — not the millions of dollars that the Third Party Lead- er wants to talk about but $101. Y ou would be in contraven- tion of this act. I’m not sure. Does the Attorney General want people to stand on corners and be able to hand the cheques back and forth? Is that more preferable? If it’s outside of your house, you’re allowed to take the money, but not inside your house. I thought we were past the days…. Interjection. P .

Milobar:Well, if the member would read his own bill, he would know it’s a $1,200 limit. I thought we had gone a little further along. I thought, frankly, an Attorney General who used to be the head of B.C. Civil Liberties would be a little less concerned about what people are doing in the privacy of their own home if they’re properly documenting the cheques and the dona- tions or the cash coming in and attributing a name to them. One would think that would be the bigger concern for the Attorney General, the former head of the B.C.

Civil Liberties union, not that somebody sitting in their living room with three neighbours happened to get three $200 cheques given to them to try to have a recall campaign against them. Talk about yet another overreach. We’re seeing that a lot with a lot of their legislation coming through here. All the loopholes they’ve got in here favour their supporters. [2:15 p.m.] The Attorney General will have you believe he’s really trying to protect himself from looking like he’s getting too much support in his community, and he doesn’t think that would look good.

Well, I can tell the Attorney General that what doesn’t look good is this bill that he’s trying to intro- duce, with eight days to go before recall campaigns can be initiated. Then there’s the “no two at the same time. ” Now, it’s how you want to look at this. Certainly the Leader of the Third Party has a very rosy picture of it. But the reality is that it would not take much to be able to orchestrate and have, basically, a piece of paper filed saying that there’s a recall campaign action happening but no one actually doing any- thing about it.

Although the Leader of the Third Party would paint it as, “Could you imagine three different sets of people actively running around trying to get petitions signed, ” if they were all working that earnestly for a true recall campaign, I would suggest those groups would figure it out pretty fast, and they would join forces and work together. Y ou would only have one active — one being actioned. Instead, what this legislation says is that you can’t even let those three parties that are all wanting the same end goal figure it out in the first few days and get together and work towards a common goal. No.

What the government is saying to you is that if one of the government supporters — those same groups that the Attorney General is so worried would look like they’re oversupporting him and trying to protect him — wanted to file the paperwork right on day 1, minute 1, it blocks anyone else from starting one. There is nothing that says they have to actually initiate, lift a finger, do anything to actually move forward on

an act- ive recall campaign. It just says no one else is allowed to. It doesn’t take long: a second filing and, boom, the interest and the heat of the moment, the passion people have, starts to die. This is yet another example of this Attorney General, of this Leader of the Third Party trying to game the system for the benefit of making sure that they cling to power. That’s exactly what this does. Mr. Speaker, you think of the scenario, right now, where you have a House with a one-seat differential.

Y ou think of the situation right now with a House where, if the Nanaimo by-election is lost by the government, that creates a whole other dynamic in this House. If there was a successful recall campaign on either side of this House, that changes that dynamic that much again.

The Attorney General, in the middle of a referendum, eight days before recall campaigns become live — even though he has known from day 1 that on the first day of 18 months in, recalls can be initiated — waits until eight days before, after months of going back and forth in front of signs in his own riding indicating there may be a recall coming. I’m not aware of signs in any other riding in the province suggesting recalls are on the way. The only one I’m aware of is in the Attorney General’s. Now, Oak Bay–Gordon Head….

I don’t live down here, but to hear the extreme ridiculousness of the Leader of the Third Party’s comments, in terms of dollars involved in this, in terms of process around this, one has to wonder if he’s not hearing rumblings in his own riding. Again, a long string of broken promises by the Leader of the Third Party — not to the B.C. Liberals. No. It’s broken promises to his core party members, to his core supporters, to his core people who donate — maybe he’s worried some of those people will Thursday, November 1, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6147

suddenly start donating to a recall campaign instead of to his party — and certainly to the broader public of British Columbia. Let’s not forget about walking away from fundamental promises around proportional representation, which both parties did. They basically were walking away from those promises before the ink was dry, as they were walking out of the Lieutenant-Governor’s house after they got given the keys to government.

We don’t have a single ballot, we don’t have a single form of proportional representation to vote, and we certainly did not have the vote during the municipal campaign — all of which was promised in the confidence and supply agreement. [2:20 p.m.] Perhaps members of the governing side, who cling to a one-seat advantage right now, with a by-election under- way…. They are desperate to hang on to power, and they have a long string of broken promises behind them.

Perhaps it is really them that are very worried about the upcoming recall season, as it were, and can see the writing on the wall that, in fact, maybe at some point, 0 and 26 becomes 1 and 26, because even the Cleveland Browns won a football game this year. So at some point, it happens. This bill guarantees it will never happen. This bill takes what is a long shot to an absolute, and that’s fundamentally wrong. It is totally self-serving.

It is totally self-serving for the members bringing this forward and trying to wrap them- selves in all of righteousness and all that’s good in the world by saying that if we dare to point out the flaws of what they’re trying to do, if we dare to question their motives, we’re some- how evil and trying to support Dr. Evil–type characters com- ing in and trying to rig an election to overthrow one person in a seat. That has never happened in the past. I don’t see why it would start happening now. A 51-page bill is complete overkill.

It is not protecting people from people coming in and writing phantom million- dollar cheques. What this bill does, though, is it prevents you from having your neighbour come into your house and offer you a $100 cheque. D. Barnett:I rise today to speak to Bill 53, the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act. We, as British Columbians, have a lot to be proud of when it comes to our democracy. Our electoral system has delivered a peaceful transition of power since we entered Confederation as the sixth province in 1871. We have elected stable governments. We have reflec- ted the will of most people.

And we built a prosperous and peaceful place that is the envy of the world. I’ve been sitting, listening to this debate now since it began earlier today, and I listened to the Leader of the Third Party in shock. We are debating a bill, a bill that is supposed to make life easier and better and fairer for processes. It does nothing of the sort. I listened to the Leader of the Third Party condemn this side of the House — myself, my colleagues and a government that worked for 16 years and made British Columbia the place it is today.

I come from rural British Columbia, a place where we have to work twice as hard as those from an urban centre do, where we have to travel distances that urban centres have no concept of. If you’ve ever gone door-knocking in rural Brit- ish Columbia, you may go ten miles between houses. The recall initiative is something that I believe is fair and democratic for all of us, even though some members’ ridings could be 20 blocks, with 100,000 people, and some of ours are 44,000 square kilometres, with 40,000 people. So we are not asking for any special concessions. Fair play is fair play.

But why now is this bill before this House? We’ve had 15 months. A bill was put before this House at the beginning of the session, after the last election, to take big money out of politics from unions, from corporations, from individuals. It was also put forward for local governments. There was elec- tion reform. I don’t believe there was enough reform, but there was election reform. So why now, a few days before the legal time is up to recall an MLA if you’re not happy? [2:25 p.m.] To me, this creates a conflict of interest for the minister. And that is not democracy. Fair play is fair play.

And we must always remember democracy is fair play. We must remember that in this House. We built a prosperous and peaceful place, as I said before, that’s the envy of the world, yet we are in the midst of one of the greatest bait-and-switch programs we have seen in our political system. Though we keep hearing promises and policies aimed at fixing our democracy, every step has brought an erosion, in my opinion, of our democracy.

For instance, that side of the House said they’re getting big money out of municipal politics, as I mentioned, yet big money remained, with union-endorsed candidates enjoying the support of union-paid staff. That doesn’t happen in rural British Columbia, does it? In rural British Columbia, we are independent people. We go out there, and we get ourselves elected in local government elections. We don’t have inter- ference — not as yet. I hope it never happens. I ran for mayor. I was mayor for 17 years. The most I ever spent on an election was $800, and I spent that out of my own pocket.

Normally, in municipal elections in rural Brit- ish Columbia, the reason you don’t need a lot of money is because you do your job. Y ou talk to the people. Y ou meet them on the street. Y ou meet them in the Safeway. Y ou meet them at the gas station. Right now British Columbians are voting in a referendum on proportional representation that proclaims it’s bringing more democracy to town and that somehow people’s votes will count more and be better reflected. I still can’t imagine how that is going to happen under what is on the table. I had a session last Friday night.

One of my colleagues came up, and we had a debate with the yes side and no side. Very interestingly, one of the local politicians who was elec- ted for local government and just went through an election was on the yes side. She stood up and said: “Well, 40 per- cent of the population should not be government; 40 per- cent of the vote isn’t enough. ” So I said to this lady: “Y ou just 6148 British Columbia Debates Thursday, November 1, 2018

went through a local government regional district election, and you got elected with 10 percent. ” Ten percent of that area went out and voted, and that person won by 7 percent. It seems we have two or three different systems. It all depends on who you are, where you are and what is believed in. Instead of more democracy for people, this government and its friends in the Third Party are just delivering more power to the political parties. The Leader of the Third Party, as my colleague said a few minutes ago, his followers and…. I had lots in my riding.

They believed in what they were sold before the election: “We’re going to look after getting rid of Site C. We’re not going to have LNG. We’re not going to have this. We’re not going to have that. ” Well, talk is cheap; action is not. For all the talk of making every vote count, the reality is that the real choices are being…. Deputy Speaker:Member, let’s talk about Bill 53. D. Barnett:Mr. Speaker, I am. Well before election day and by a small, inside party headquarters…. At least, that is what we have to guess from experiences we’ve seen elsewhere in the world.

That’s because the actual mechanics of PR in B.C. have yet to be revealed. What that side of the House calls more democracy, I call an erosion of democracy. [2:30 p.m.] This bill has many flaws. It has some really valid points, but it has many, many flaws. As I’ve heard from the other side over and over again, and I heard it just a while ago today, we’ve got to talk about HST. I recall when HST was put on the table, as I was an elected MLA. I recall the out- cry from many people. Of course, there was a referendum. We got rid of HST.

To change this recall legislation at this time and with many of the changes in the wording, to me, it is wrong — wrong timing and a lot of wrong words. [L. Reid in the chair.] I think what might be a good idea when there’s something that is of this much importance on a bill like this to the people of British Columbia…. The people really do like the recall. They like the idea of it. They like the concept of it. I’ve never heard anybody say they don’t. When you go to change it, I think this should be a public discussion.

I think having an all-party committee, if we’re going to make changes on something this important, would certainly give more credibility to it, more input. Probably, we would be looking after the interests of the people of British Columbia even better with an all-party committee. This here legislation proposed is made, once again, in one person’s office. It is made without input. It is made without public input that I keep hearing about over and over and over again is the most important thing in the world. I believe it is very important to have public input and especially on things as important as this.

With MLAs selected…. I just heard over here 80,000 people had input. Not to the recall legislation. I don’t believe anybody in the public had input into this particular piece of legislation. If they did, please tell me who it was. The party insiders will choose. They may even choose themselves. It is absolutely undemocratic at this time. I will say over and over and over again that I believe this is a con- flict of interest. When the person who put this bill on the table may be recalled…. There are signs out there. I’ve seen signs in the newspaper. That’s all I’ve seen. We could all be on recall.

So be it, if we are. But if you are, then, basically, a bill should not be on this floor at this time. I’m quite shocked at some of the comments I’ve heard from across the room. I believe every MLA does a job to the best of his ability. I believe MLAs work very hard for their constituents. The insults that I listened to over here from the Third Party Leader on the TV today totally, totally are unacceptable to anybody. We care about our constituents. We care about each and every one of them.

When I had to listen to what I listened to today, boy, sometimes recall may be better than I thought it was in the first place. That side of the House is claiming they’re cleaning things up and bringing rules in line with all of the other changes they have made. Well, it’s like they got rid of big money while letting union-paid activists work on municipal campaigns. If we’re going to clean house, you best do it completely, not just in your interest. As I’ve said before, British Columbians are proud of our Recall and Initiative Act as it is now.

If you don’t believe it, maybe talk to some of your constituents. [2:35 p.m.] Every British Columbian has the right to challenge an MLA and have them removed from office if enough people in their constituency agree with it. That is in the existing act. But that right is being restricted by this government in a bill tabled by a minister who is apparently being targeted by recall. In my opinion, he’s using his power to change the rules in his favour in the middle of the game. That, to me, is not acceptable. It is a conflict of interest. It is to be expected.

After all, it is the same minister who is portrayed as the government’s squeaky-clean independent arbitrator of electoral reform while at the same time acting as a fierce and formidable proponent for scrapping our elec- toral system. Shame. It’s like asking Colonel Sanders to be the independent arbiter of a vote on imposing vegetarianism. Can you believe it? If this bill passes, MLAs will only be subject to a single recall campaign. Once one recall is attempted, there can be no more during that term of office, which is totally unaccept- able.

Four years is a long time if an MLA is not doing what he should be doing as an MLA — him or her — and their constituents should have the right to recall under the exist- ing legislation. There’s always room for change — always. But it should Thursday, November 1, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6149

be done by all parties on a situation like this, and this is my opinion. I think it would be great if there was an all-party committee looking at legislation that is as important as this — so important to the citizens of British Columbia, not to the people in this House. If you’ve ever been threatened with recall, it doesn’t give you much sleep at night, believe you me. I’ve been there. I wasn’t recalled, but I was threatened.

We never want to shut out constituents with legitimate concerns, yet this bill, in my opinion, would be an erosion of our democracy, the most important thing we have in Canada, in British Columbia, in our homes and in our place of work that we have today. We live in a world full of struggle, strife. Y ou take a look at the countries around the world and what a mess some of them are in. Y ou take a look at the sadness, the things that happened in Pittsburgh here last week. It is heartbreaking, absolutely heartbreaking. We need a better world. We need a more inclusive world.

I keep hearing from the other side that that’s what they’re doing. But this is not being inclusive. I won’t even raise the spectre of a fake recall being held just to pre-empt an actual recall from being launched. That could happen under this bill. I mean, with all of these so-called democratic enhancements happening, one can’t imagine an anti-democratic move going that far, but I don’t know. This bill also seeks to lop six months off the window for recall — the six months before a scheduled general elec- tion. Again, this is reducing democracy and limiting the tools available to citizens.

It does not matter, in this debate, that in 26 tries of recall, only one single recall has suc- ceeded in its goal. What does matter is that the opportun- ity for recall is there. Citizens have the right to recall. Our democratic power rests with the people, all the people — not just some people but all the people. This will be a sad legacy for this House and this government if this bill passes in the manner in which it has been presented. [2:40 p.m.] T. Shypitka:Thank you to my colleague from Cariboo- Chilcotin. Well done.

I appreciate the opportunity to rise today and speak to the House on Bill 53, the Recall Initiative Amendment Act, 2018, or as my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson more affectionately knows it, the self-preservation act. Before I start, I want to give some credit out there. I want to lighten the mood a little bit and give some credit to the dining room staff downstairs. I had a great lunch today. I was in the hospitality industry for 25 years, and you know, we kind of take that dining room for granted sometimes. I don’t go there enough.

But for the quality they put out and for the price they put out — and the staff have always got a big smile — I think they need some credit down there. In ten minutes or less, the meal is out, and it’s great. I want to give a special shout-out to Amanda Cootes. She’s the hostess with the mostest downstairs. She’s always got a smile on her face. She knows your name. I thought I was lucky enough to be the only person that she knew, but she knows probably every single member in this place, so she’s got quite a memory, and she’s a great person. I just thought I’ d give a quick shout-out to her.

On to the act at hand, and that’s the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018. It is truly amazing, as I stand here about to speak and debate on it, that the other side isn’t pres- enting any speakers. It’s their bill. It’s their act. Y et they’re silent. We hear some chirping from time to time, and that’s to be expected, but the fact that they’re not even speaking to their own bill, to me, just speaks volumes on how much it’s actually being embraced on that side. I don’t think it is. I think for the most part….

There are some parts of the act that I can agree with, but for the most part of this act, it’s an erosion of our democracy. It’s coming at a very timely point right now, and it’s very suspect on those things. So I think the fact that nobody is speaking to it speaks volumes. To start off, I would just like to say that I’m proud to be a British Columbian, proud to be a Canadian. There’s lots to be proud of when we live in this great democratic society that we have. We have some of the best scholastic achievements in the world. We have some of the best health outcomes in the world. Our livability is among the best.

We also have a good choice on who we elect as our rep- resentatives. This has been going on for over 140 years. It’s part of the reason why I raise a family here, and it’s part of the reason why I feel secure and stable in this society. This is the key to the debate — that it’s a fair, representative choice of our voices to this House which gives us the prosperity that we have and the lifestyle that we enjoy. Since this government has been formed, this government here, in particular — the NDP-Green coalition with a minority government by the slimmest of margins — has all been based on a political agenda.

Right from the get-go, an agenda was formed by pen and paper and a backroom deal between the Green Party and the NDP , and what came out of this document would be the binding glue between the two parties that they have a mutual understanding on how this government is to be run. The document, as every- body knows, is called the confidence and supply agreement between the B.C. Green caucus and the B.C. New Democrat- ic caucus. As I said, from the get-go there’s been an agenda set, and this kind of speaks to Bill 53 and where we’re going with this.

When we talk about the confidence and supply agreement, we see the number one condition of a vote or a referen- dum on proportional representation. I know that some oth- er members spoke to this, and there is a connection between that and Bill 53. There’s no doubt in my mind. Y ou would think that when these two partners got togeth- er and they were hashing out deals for one another and how this partnership was going to work, a referendum on pro- portional representation would fall, maybe, lower down the list.

Y ou’ d think that some of the ones on the top of the list 6150 British Columbia Debates Thursday, November 1, 2018

would be, maybe, stopping the Site C project or the elim- ination of fracking or, you know, embracing the thought of an LNG resource to British Columbia. It would be some of those top priorities of this confidence and supply agreement. But no. It was all on proportional representation. [2:45 p.m.] Bill 53 is an extension of that agenda-setting and manip- ulating of the system for the endgame, which is, of course, proportional representation — giving life to extreme sides of the political spectrum that can’t win any other way.

Bill 53 is an obvious attempt to change the rules to rig the system, the political outcomes, plain and simple. I’ll explain why. We’ve seen some very rushed and timely decisions come about from this government — the referendum I just spoke of on PR. This won’t be implemented until 2021, yet there’s a big mad dash to get this rammed through and get it done in an untimely manner. It’s a flawed process, with not a lot of consultation from the public. We’re seeing the same thing with this bill. Why is this bill coming forward right now?

We’re literally on the eve of the recall period in our province, which is 18 months after the general election — literally days away. I’ll give you the definition of “recall” from the Elections B.C. site that I found. It’s interesting to read. It says: “Recall is a process through which a registered voter can petition to remove a Member of the Legislative Assembly from office. A voter can only petition to recall the member for the electoral district in which they are registered to vote. The voter must collect signatures from more than 40 percent of voters eligible to sign the petition in the electoral district.

Applications for recall petitions cannot be sub- mitted to Elections B.C. during the 18 months after the member was elected. In Canada, the recall process is unique to B.C. ” — we’re the only province to have this process — “No other province or territory has a system in place for removing elected representatives from office between elections. ” I found that interesting, and I thought: why would we be the only ones, in B.C., that have it? I believe it’s a fair process.

I mean, if we have a choice or if a representative that we’ve elected maybe is dishonest or does something wrong, I think we should have a process to get rid of that person. I’m okay with the legislation. But I went on further. This seems interesting that B.C. is the only province in Canada to have such

an act,

an act the other side is demand- ing is obsolete. They’re saying we’ve got to change. We’ve got to get rid of it, or we’ve got to put ridiculous caps on it. We’ve got to dumb this thing down a little bit. Money that we’ve seen in the past from corporations alike…. I pressed on, and I read a little bit further. “The Chief Electoral Officer has approved 26 recall peti- tions since the Recall and Initiative Act came into force in 1995. Six of those petitions were returned to Elections B.C. for verification.

Of the six, five did not have enough valid sig- natures and one was halted during the verification process because the member resigned. ” I thought to myself: it’s a pretty rare event that a recall would ever be successful. Technically, it’s never been done before. One MLA resigned during the verification, pos- sibly knowing the jig was up or he didn’t have a chance. Whatever the reason was, the MLA decided to resign. Nevertheless, a recall’s never been technically successful. It’s never been done before. So one could argue that a recall is extremely rare.

The second part that amazed me was the fact that this recall act came into play in 1995. Now, I don’t have a political science degree, like the Minister of Advanced Education does, but I’m pretty certain that 1995 would have been dur- ing the NDP’s reign of terror of that decade. I did a quick fact check, and it showed I was right. So this is an NDP piece of legislation that was brought to us 23 years ago, and now, all of a sudden, it doesn’t fit their agenda anymore. Somehow, something that they brought forward and they thought was a great idea now doesn’t suit their means.

This is part of the manipulation — I like to use that word — of this process, which is saying: “Let’s change the rules midstride, because we don’t like what the outcome could be, so we’re going to do this. ” It’s disingenuous. It’s dishonest in my opinion. I think that’s why we’re so passionate about this bill right now, and that’s why we’re having all of our mem- bers come up to speak to it. That’s probably the reason why nobody on the other side is speaking to it.

Why is there an urgency to change an NDP piece of legis- lation that rarely ever gets used and has never once produced a victim — or a product of the process, I guess, would be a better way to say it? [2:50 p.m.] My life, and I’m sure everyone’s life here in the Legislature, can understand the phrase that timing is everything. We see it from time to time, and we use that phrase all the time. I want to go back a little bit. One of my favourite heroes growing up was a hockey goalie called Ken Dryden. I’m a Montreal Canadiens fan, and I always admired No. 29. He’s a great guy.

I’ll just read a little something here, just a little brief thing that will kind of highlight why timing is important to Bill 53. Late in the 1960s and in the early 1970s, the Montreal Canadiens had no room for underperformers on their team. On the famous club’s roster, there were enough talented and highly experienced players to put together several teams. Like all top-notch teams, the old guard gradually retired, and the team had to be reinforced with young players, but rook- ies spent as much time in the press box as on the ice. In the spring of 1971, Dryden was called up from a farm club.

Actually — I might interrupt there — he was brought up from the farm club from out east. It was a guy, a goalie from Cranbrook, a town that I represent, that actually had the head goalie’s position. Ken Dryden was the backup. They were in the Memorial Cup or in some big tournament, and the head goalie, the guy from Cranbrook, couldn’t go, so they sent Ken Dryden. That’s another timely situation. This guy in Cranbrook used to always talk about it all the time, how he could have won four Stanley Cups in a row, but that’s anoth- er discussion.

Anyway, to make a long story short, Ken Dryden was Thursday, November 1, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6151

brought up. There was an injury. He was placed in the game during the playoffs. He won six games against Boston. They went on to win the Stanley Cup. Not only that, he went on to win another three more after that. He won several Conn Smythe and Vezina trophies, and the rest is history. But it was all about timing. I think that’s what Bill 53 speaks to. This is about timing. It’s not about what people want. I don’t remember anybody in my riding saying: “Y ou know what? We should really revisit that Recall and Initiative Amendment Act. ” I never heard that once.

I don’t think that was a platform for any- body on the other side, yet here we are, making a big push. All of a sudden it’s a big deal to get these restrictions in place and these limits and these caps in place. We talk about timing. Why is it now? Well, as we said and as other members on this side of the House have said, we’re right on the eve of a recall. There are a couple of situations I think we all know of where a recall is possible, and it doesn’t suit the other side of the House — plain and simple. I don’t know if anybody can deny that. I’m sure they may.

They’ve got an opportunity to say that, and I don’t see any takers on that side. Maybe that’s the reason why we’re hearing silence from over there. It’s about transparency. Y ou know, I hear big money: “We’re getting big money out of it. ” Well, we’re looking at this bill. We’re seeing that this isn’t about trimming down a little bit and making it better for all British Columbians, to have a fair, even playing field. We’re talking about drastic caps and drastic reductions: a $5,000 cap on third-party and a $1,200 individual cap. I mean, $5,000?

If I had a recall in my area — I hope I never do, as long as I’m the MLA there, but it could possibly happen — if that was the voice of the people, then I would honour and respect that. But $5,000 — I would say that half that money would be taken up just driving around my riding. I don’t even have the largest riding here. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson or the other members there from the Peace region — their ridings are the size of several small European countries. How far is $5,000 going to get to do a legitimate recall? It’s absurd.

This is an obvious statement from the other side going for- ward, saying: “We need to stop something from happening. ” They see something on the horizon that they don’t like, and that’s what’s happening with this bill, this act. The big-money thing is smoke and mirrors, in my opinion. The leader of the Green Party says he sat here and he’s heard the “stacked deck” and a “rigged game” over and over. Has a member ever gone throughHansard and seen how many times the catch phrase of “big money” is used on that side? Over and over again. It’s their national anthem, it appears.

They say it over and over. [2:55 p.m.] It’s a trigger to dumb things down, to make it simple and to say: “Y eah, I don’t like big money. ” They never say “uni- on money”; they say “big corporate donations” all the time. Never once have I ever heard them say: “We’ve got to get rid of this union money. ” That’s where we live right now. Now, this is not a one-off with this government. This Bill 53, as I said, is in an ongoing pattern. We’ve been seeing it here since the coalition between the NDP and the Greens. We see these glitzy catchphrases, like “big money, ” all over the place.

We’ve heard, “Every vote counts, ” even though that’s the farthest thing in the House. We’ve debated that on this side, so I won’t go into it. These dumbing-downs and these simplifications of something that’s more com- plex and has more going on in the background are insult- ing to British Columbians. It’s pitting British Columbians against one another. People are getting mixed messages, misrepresentation, misinformation. They’re hearing: “We’ve got to get rid of big money. ” Well, yes. There have got to be limits in place, and we’ve got to make it fair for everybody.

But to say that this bill that’s being put forward is an attempt to stop big corpor- ate money is absolutely insane, in my opinion. It’s got noth- ing to do with that. It’s about an agenda; it’s about power. It’s about stopping a process they don’t want to see happen — plain and simple. We’re days away from a recall being allowed to kick in across the province. There are a few recalls right now that are gaining some public support, and I dare say that the other side doesn’t want to see that get off the ground. That’s why we’re here right now, but now they want it changed, because it suits their agenda.

To be honest, this is shocking, but it’s also disappointing. I’ll go into a few little things that this amendment act highlights. It removes the possibility that an MLA be subject to more than one recall petition at the same time. Why is that important? Why wouldn’t we want to have more than one petition on any one MLA at any one given time? There are lots of reasons. Interjection. T. Shypitka:The member’s got lots of answers on the oth- er side, and I invite him to stand up and debate that after I sit down. It’s his right to do that. I’m looking forward to the member’s response after I sit down.

One could say it’s not to convolute the process, but one could also say it’s to block the process. If I were first in queue to put in a petition on an MLA for a recall, I might not be very motivated. I might not be too excited for the recall to reach everyone, and it might block the person that really has a legitimate petition to put forward, a genuine concern that this member has not done the right things and has dishon- oured or disgraced their constituency. The fact that this blocking, I would say…. I would call it a block — pure and simple. To remove this….

That there’s only one petition that can be allowed at any one given time on any one given member is, in my opinion, controlling at the very least, disingenuous for certain. I can’t understand why that would be one of the pieces that they’ d want to amend. It 6152 British Columbia Debates Thursday, November 1, 2018

opens the doors to false-flag recalls, campaigns to prevent a real one from launching. That’s what I’m saying with that. The second piece here applies, to recall campaigns, the same spending and advertising rules the NDP introduced to the Election Act for general elections — for example, the ban on corporate and union donations — and makes the $1,200 cap apply to recall campaigns, so that it will be very hard to raise sufficient money. I went into that a little bit already — $1,200 per individual, $5,000 per third-party campaign.

Four people could literally drive a campaign, and that’s it, no other money — $5,000 for a two-month campaign. I mean, I come from a small town. If I buy advertising space in the T ownsman, our weekly paper, it costs about $1,200 just for a quarter-page ad. I would say it was probably more like $2,500 for a full-page ad. [3:00 p.m.] For two full-page ads in a two-month period, to get people educated, to get the advertisement out and to collect and serve all this data…. I don’t think anybody here could say that’s acceptable. I don’t think anybody could make $5,000 stretch that far. It’s absolutely crazy.

It also requires third-party advertisers to register and dis- close their funding sources. Okay, I can go along with that. It’s got to be equal on both sides. As long as that’s the way it is, that’s fine with me. Like I said, it establishes a $5,000-value cap for petition period recall advertising for third parties. Once again, in municipal elections, I know candidates that ran as coun- cillors that spent more than $5,000 on municipal elections. We’ve also heard in this last municipal election, there was lots of help and volunteers that helped a lot of these muni- cipal candidates.

Some of them were sponsored by unions. Why does that not apply? Why is that one set of rules, and here’s another set of rules? Because it doesn’t suit the agenda at hand is the answer. It brings in significantly more disclosure requirements for spending, which is fine, but a lot more, which bogs down the system and makes people disinterested to what they have to put into a campaign that’s very rarely successful. As a matter of fact, it’s never succeeded, ever, in British Columbia before.

It creates another way to rule a recall campaign that was unsuccessful, by the CEO, of finding a spending disclosure violation materially affected the outcome, thus setting aside the outcome. Volunteer contributions are not considered contributions in this act…. So unlike the municipal elections…. Y ou can have volunteer contributions, and they don’t go towards the $5,000 cap. Those are over and above. It’s goodwill — I guess you’ d call it — or in-kind contributions. But we have seen through the municipal elections that a lot of organized labour is participating in these elections.

I dare say that they would participate in a recall. We’re not making things equal. We’re not making things level. We’re stacking it. We’re addressing an agenda that this side does not want to address. It’s very unfair that the people of British Columbia are getting forced into this again. I think that is almost it — just to re-summarize, I guess. We live in a great democracy. It’s been around since 1871 here, in British Columbia. We’ve had a really stable govern- ment. We’ve had the best outcomes in the world in many dif- ferent ways and the best livability anywhere, built a prosper- ous and peaceful place.

We’re the envy of the world. Y et we are in the midst of one of the greatest bait-and- switch programs we’ve seen in our political system. But we keep hearing promises and policies aiming at fixing our democracy. Every step taken has brought an erosion of our democracy. For instance, that side of the House said that we’re getting big money out of municipal politics. That hasn’t happened. That big money remains, with union-endorsed candidates enjoying the support of union-paid staff. Actions fail to line up with words.

Right now British Columbians are voting in a referendum on proportional representation that proclaims it’s bringing more democracy to town, that somehow people’s votes will count more and be better reflected. But instead of more democracy for the people, this government and its friends in the Third Party are delivering more power to political parties. We see that in the PR. It’s a party-based system rather than a voter-based system. We’re seeing it here with this act, where we’re taking away choices and ways to do recalls and we’re lowering the bar to the minimum. Like I said, $5,000 goes nowhere.

They talk about big money. They’re not talking about big money; they’re just talking about making it better for them so they can avoid something they don’t want to see. I guess more than anything, I just want to say…. I’ve said this time and time again. I’m a very balanced person. I’m not as partisan as some. I like to see fair process. I like to see things run in a good way for all British Columbians. But I see this bill as not one of those ways. [3:05 p.m.] I have family. I have friends, young children and aging parents. All we want is a fair and democratic process. We’ve seen a bill come forward here. We saw

an act that’s in place now that was brought in, in 1995, by the NDP party. Now we’re seeing them switch the rules. They want to take it away. It served them in the ’90s, and now it’s not serving them in 2018. With eight days or so before the recall can kick in, they want to change it back. I think people…. Y ou know, we talk about transparency. This is about as smoke and mirrors as you can get. For all of these reasons, I do not support this act at all, in any way, shape or form. S. Gibson: It’s a privilege for me to speak to Bill 53, the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act.

I just want to begin with a couple of little anecdotes that I think put into perspective my attitude to this act. I want to acknowledge the good presentation just a moment ago by the member for Kootenay East, who provided some excellent detail and some response. Good job. My wife and I were travelling a few years ago on a tour bus Thursday, November 1, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6153

in a country where they’re kind of a one-party state. The tour guide said to us: “When you have an election, you find out that evening who gets elected. In our country, we find out last year. ” Another time I was visiting a country in Africa. I won’t name the country, but my impression was that it was a democracy. It seemed to have some democratic ideals. That was my perception at least, as specious as it was. I put on the radio in the evening. They had some kind of rock music on, and at midnight, the newsreader came on.

The first story was that the leader of that country was wishing happy birthday to the President of North Korea. Now, I was struck by the fact that it wasn’t a democracy at that moment. Why do I bring that up now? The reason I do that is because I treasure the precious nature of democracy and how quickly it can be diminished, how quickly it can be diluted. I might mention that this is my 38th year in elected office.

When I was 28 and first elected to council in Matsqui, which later on amalgamated with Abbotsford, in 1995, the next youngest member of Matsqui council was a fellow by the name of Peter Dueck, who has since passed away. He was Minister of Health here in this province and sat in this Legis- lature for many years. He was the next youngest. He was 56. I was half his age. If you think that I treasure democracy, if you think I value it, you’ d be correct. It’s why I’m concerned about the general trend that this government is taking, both with proportional representation, which I’m sure we’ll be discussing again….

We’ve had an excellent discourse around this place on proportional representation. Interestingly, the public is very quickly wising up to the perils of proportional representa- tion, but that’s for another discussion. The democratic ideals that I bring to this place, I think, make me very suspicious when a government starts tam- pering with legislation that affects democracy. Democracy’s quite a fragile thing. It doesn’t take much to lose it. So I want to point out, for the interest of the viewers, the citizens of our province, that recall was something quite unique when it came up in the early 1990s.

In fact, as has been enumerated, British Columbia is the only province in Canada with recall. [3:10 p.m.] My strong suspicion is that if this was today, this gov- ernment would be afraid of recall legislation. I believe that. They’re already tampering with it — changing the rules, messing with it. Because they want to make it better? I don’t think so. I kind of did a little research and found the origins. Y ou know what? It’s kind of exciting to see the genesis of recall. What party brought up the idea of recall? Does anybody know? Social Credit. Social Credit brought up the idea of recall.

They brought it forward, and initiative, and in the 1991 general election, it was a part of the election process. Here’s something exciting. It was approved by 81 percent. People wanted recall. People like grassroots democracy. There’s a passion for it in our province. For myself, coming out of local government…. Many of us have. Some of us have been…. The member for Penticton was the mayor. We’ve got the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, who was the mayor of Kamloops, and many oth- ers on both sides of the House. We bring that passion. We’ve got ex–school trustees as well.

That passion for grassroots democracy is what we’re really talking about today. Eighty-one percent. Now, it was a part of that election. Which government brought in recall and initiative legisla- tion? Which one was it? NDP , yeah — the precursor to the current government, this temporary government that’s here right now. Later on it was adopted. Mike Harcourt was the Premier then, and I think that could be a part of his legacy at the time. So recall is grassroots democracy. There have been concerns around here, laments, that this government is trying to politicize democracy.

The best example, of course, is the proportional representation dis- cussion and act. Everybody on this side of the House is standing up for the public by saying we don’t want to politi- cize this vote. In the previous two times, ’05 and ’09, the citizens’ assembly was non-partisan, and it worked very well. Now it’s run out of the Attorney General’s office and the cabinet. No wonder the public is suspicious. The level of cynicism is high. My daughter, who just moved to the Chilliwack riding, and her husband are so suspicious of politics. They’re so cynical when I talk to them.

They’ve known me, of course, my whole life being in politics, and they’re so cynical. Well, a part of their cynicism relates to the kinds of acts that this government is trying to pull with the proportional rep- resentation and now tampering with something that’s been around for years. The Recall and Initiative Amendment Act…. Don’t tamper with democracy. It will flourish if you leave it alone. Let the public have their involvement. The public can make their decision. This government assumes that the public is not very smart. “We’re going to have to guide them.

We’re going to dictate what they want. ” On our side of the House, we’re freedom-oriented. We’re a free enterprise party. We trust the people. We trust them. This government is all about social designs, social construction. “We’re going to run your life. ” Here are some examples of that. It’s kind of a shame, in a way. It’s kind of a shame. Now, what on earth are they scared about? The member from Kamloops made some excellent points about recall. Of 26 attempts, only one was marginally successful because the MLA resigned before it could finally proceed. What’s the suspicion? What’s the concern? Surprising.

All of this excitement. Look at this document. I’ve read through this. How many pages? Forty-seven pages to correct something that’s really not a problem? Talk about inefficient. This is a very inefficient government, to have this huge doc- ument, 47 pages, for something that nobody has really com- plained about. [3:15 p.m.] Back to proportional representation for a moment, 6154 British Columbia Debates Thursday, November 1, 2018

because these are allied. In my five years as an MLA for the Abbotsford-Mission riding, I’ve never had one person phone me and say: “Y ou know what? How about a third propor- tional representation vote? Let’s get one of those going. ” Nev- er had that call. Never had a call about this either. This is government politicians taking the initiative, hanging out and saying: “Hey, how about this? This would be a good idea. Let’s intro- duce this. ” Messing with democracy. Now, the lack of success of recall should encourage us to realize that it’s difficult.

Y ou’ve got to have 40 percent of the folks that voted in the previous election, and you’ve got to do it over 60 days. It’s tough. But that doesn’t deter this gov- ernment from tampering with it, changing it. The member for Kootenay East had some of those details. I won’t go over those again. We know that. This government gives the impression that they’re nervous. They’re scared. They’re worried. They’re anxious. Why could that be? Is there something that they know that we don’t know on this side of the House? Is something looming just below the surface? It’s going to bubble up and take out somebody here.

We don’t know how many, but I think there’s a fear. There’s an angst over there, and I have some sympathy. I get it. When you’re nervous, you sometimes act strangely. I see that. It’s okay. We understand over here. We’re pretty empathetic. They’ve reduced the number of days for the recall. They’ve changed that six months. Y ou have to wait for the year and a half. They’ve changed that. Only one recall per member per term. Why is that? What could possibly be the reason for doing that? Fear. Fear is sweeping like a river over that side of the House. It’s almost tangible. Y ou can almost see it.

Hey, you remember that movie101 Dalmatians and the lady and that pink cloud that followed her? Remember that? Why do I think of that? I don’t know. It’s reminiscent, I guess. Now, the question I would ask myself, as a fan of demo- cracy, as someone who’s been elected for a couple terms here and there…. My question always is: is this furthering demo- cracy? Is it making democracy more accessible and more understandable to the average person? What’s the answer? The answer is no. Not. I would love to be able to listen in on some of these dis- cussions before they come to this House.

I think I would be shocked at the high level of partisanship and not caring for the public. We need to protect the interests of the pub- lic — just the average person who says: “I’m going to vote. ” Protect them. When theVancouver Sun wrote an

article about recall when it came up originally in 1994, this was the headline, and this is very profound: “This law would provide voters power to fire politicians. ” Whoa. That’s pretty heavy. That’s very heavy. Most people that run for elected office are defeated, right? In my community, in Mission, 19 people ran for six seats. In Abbotsford, 18 people ran for eight seats. So you can tell that most people are defeated. Then a bunch of others ran for mayor and school board, etc. Y ou know what? That is healthy. In democracy, there are winners, and there are the vanquished.

There are victors and the vanquished. [3:20 p.m.] This government is trying to compromise that by mess- ing with democratic ideals, first-past-the-post, by intro- ducing proportional representation, which allows the van- quished to have access to MLA rolls. We know that. Appointed. This is going to be very confusing, too, with this legislation — very confusing, right? Now we’re blur- ring who’s winning and who’s losing. This government is tampering with that process.

Now they’re claiming to get big money out of campaigns, and we heard this earlier from some of our colleagues, but they’re still allowing all kinds of folks to help out. There are lots of things going on here just below the surface, like the metaphor of the river that looks really calm. But don’t go swimming in that river, because you’ll get sucked in by that undertow. There’s an undertow here. I’m disappointed that this government is tampering sig- nificantly with democracy. They’re going in the wrong dir- ection. It’s very partisan. It’s very self-serving. Democracy is not being served.

I am totally opposed to Bill 53, the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act. L. Throness:I want to begin today…. Just for my constitu- ents who may be watching, I’m speaking to Bill 53, which is the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act. That is, it will amend the existing Recall and Initiative Act. I want to start with a bit of an historical retrospective, because I went to Ottawa with an MP , a Member of Par- liament named Chuck Strahl, in January of 1994. He was a member of the Reform Party of Canada, which was a new party, and we were extremely idealistic at that time.

We talk about a $1,200 limit on donations today. The Reform Party inched forward on $5, $10, $25 and $50 donations. It was not a movement of the intelligentsia, of the higher-ups in our culture. It was a grassroots movement of ordinary people. As such, it was highly idealistic. I have before me63 Reasons to Support the Reform Party of Canada, a pamphlet that was produced in 1994. It had all sorts of things in it — things like balancing the budget, cut- ting the size and role of government and cutting subsidies to business and Crown corporations. Getting rid of the GST was one. MP pensions, pay and perks.

Federal Reform members were true to their word, and they gave up a lot. For instance, Preston Manning gave up his pension and never got it back. He gave up the keys to the car that he was allowed and didn’t go to Stornoway, where he was entitled to live. I always think that Preston is one of the great men of Canadian politics — unrecognized and often maligned by the higher-ups in our culture. Two of the things, numbers 4 and 5 of those 63 reasons to vote Reform…. Number 4 was citizens’ initiatives. Reformers believe that Canadians should be able to put Thursday, November 1, 2018 British Columbia Debates 6155

questions to a national referendum by submitting a citizens’ initiative petition signed by 3 percent of Canada’s eligible voters. The fifth was recall. Reformers believe that constitu- ents should have the means to remove MPs who lose the confidence or betray the trust of the people, and replace them in a by-election. So they were very idealistic. Of course, Preston Manning ran the Reform Party. Pre- ston Manning was the son of Ernest Manning.

Ernest Man- ning was a minister in the government of Bill Aberhart, who was the founder of Social Credit in Canada, which has an illustrious political history, beginning in Alberta. In 1936, the Social Credit Party passed a Recall Act. But the very next year, Bill Aberhart repealed that legislation. Why was that? It was because a petition was circulated in his own riding. So you see, even in idealistic people like Bill Aberhart and Social Credit and Ernest Manning — great people, wonderful people — the tendency to protect yourself from recall is very strong. I’m going to get back to that as we continue to speak.

I want to talk for a moment about the idea of recall in general. Of course, as a former member of the Reform Party of Canada, the ideal of local accountability, the idea that if an MLA does something that’s so outrageous that the people of the constituency do not feel they can wait until a general election to kick out the guy…. They can take action. They can put together a petition. They can ask the Legislature to force a by-election and kick out that MLA. [3:25 p.m.] What constituents are saying in a recall petition is: “Y ou no longer represent us. Y ou no longer reflect our interests.

We disagree with you so profoundly that we’re going to remove you right now and elect someone who will more accurately mirror our interests. ” The first recall legislation in B.C. was brought in, in 1995. They decided to do so — the NDP decided to do so — because they decided to be bound by the 1991 referendum, which was held, by the way, during a general election, when referenda should be held, not in a stand-alone mail-in ballot. The first recall legislation was brought in by the NDP , who declared that they would be bound by the Social Credit ref- erendum of 1991. I think the concept is good.

I would point out that the Reform Party of Canada gathered a lot of NDP votes. A lot of NDPers were excited by the idealism of the Reform Party of Canada, because the NDP tend to be more idealistic some- times, and therefore, they gravitated to the Reform Party of Canada. They helped them bring 52 MPs to parliament in one year. An MLA should not necessarily be safe for four full years. Therefore, recall legislation is an escape valve for constitu- ents. It’s a caution to an MLA, saying: “Y ou can’t be totally safe in your riding. Y ou can’t do anything you want. Y ou have to watch your P’s and Q’s.

Y ou can’t do anything you please between elections, because your job could be in jeopardy, right away, if you do something really bad. ” Within 60 days, a by-election can be generated. Let’s look at what recall actually is. It’s actually a very difficult process, with a very high bar. First, you have to be a registered voter. If you are, after your elected MLA has served for 18 months — they have 18 months, sort of a blackout period — you can petition to remove a sitting member of the Legislative Assembly from office. A voter can only petition to recall the member for the electoral district in which they live.

The voter has to collect signatures from 40 percent of voters eligible to sign the peti- tion in that electoral district, and applications for recall peti- tions cannot be submitted to Elections B.C., as I said, during the 18 months after the member was elected. In Canada, the recall process is unique. There’s no other province and certainly no other federal law like it. It’s a high bar. What would it mean for me, in practical terms? I have about 35,000 voters in my riding.

So a constitu- ent who would want to recall me would have to get 14,000 other constituents to sign a document, and that is from the voters list that was valid 18 months previous to that. As we know, people move. They move in and out of constitu- encies. They move around in constituencies. They change their names sometimes. Voters lists become outdated quite quickly, and that’s why the voters list is renewed every year, and we, as MLAs, get a new voters list every year. The petitioner has to go off the old one of 18 months ago, and that makes it more difficult. There’s a time limit to com- plete a recall petition.

Y ou have exactly 60 days. If you can’t sign up 14,000 people in 60 days, in eight weeks, there will be no recall of the member. Moreover, you’ll have to sign up way more than 14,000, because there will be mistakes. There will be voters who are no longer voters. There needs to be a big margin of error. They would have to gather way more than 14,000 signatures. I don’t know if my constituents are aware of the magnitude and the difficulty of this task. During an election, which is a 28-day period, just half of that time, a politician can get to maybe 3,000, maybe 5,000 homes.

One person, therefore, could never do a recall. This needs to be a concerted effort, a coordinated effort by a large number of people, to go door- to-door, to visit thousands of people, to attend public places, to accost people as they come out of public buildings, to explain the reason for the recall, to get

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20181101pm-Hansard-n176
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20181101pm Hansard n176
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	018212d0ac5f6c0eba7b0161e139be91b4a95cbb

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).