Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, November 23, 2017

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 65

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Hunting and fishing

A. Wilkinson

Premier’s Awards for Aboriginal Youth Excellence in Sport

M. Dean

Sunset Community Centre and seniors groups

M. Lee

Riverside College

B. D’Eith

Community involvement in Cowichan Valley

S. Furstenau

Squamish Nation Training and Trades Centre

B. Ma

Oral Questions

Government housing policy and initiatives

R. Coleman

Hon. J. Horgan

S. Sullivan

Hon. S. Robinson

Government position on Site C power project

S. Furstenau

Hon. M. Mungall

International trade negotiations and Minister of State for Trade

M. Lee

Hon. G. Chow

T. Wat

Hiring process for Assistant Deputy Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation

S. Bond

Hon. S. Fraser

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

J. Thornthwaite

Tabling Documents

Guarantees and indemnities report, fiscal year ended March 31, 2017

Petitions

A. Weaver

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act (continued)

T. Shypitka

D. Clovechok

R. Sultan

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier

Hon. J. Horgan

R. Coleman

C. Oakes

D. Barnett

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2017

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Fleming: It’s my honour to introduce two guests that we have here with us today

in the gallery. The first is Stacey Wakelin, who is the founder of Parents

for Inclusivity. Stacey is a Langley mother of two who, in response to

voices of intolerance in her community targeting the LGBTQ community, has

stood up with other parents to defend safe schools, human rights and

inclusivity.

With her is Mr. Brad Beattie, who is the CEO and executive director of

the ARC Foundation, which is a vital partner with the province of B.C. and

the Ministry of Education, working in collaboration with other community

leaders to create learning environments where all students can develop their

awareness, respect and capacity, of those who are marginalized in society,

be that by sexual orientation, gender identity, ethnicity or economic

background.

These two people have travelled a ways to be here with us in the

Legislature today, and I would ask all members of the House to make them

most welcome here.

S. Furstenau: I’m really delighted to introduce Kayla Brent, who’s been here before,

and Kalyn Cook. Kayla and Kalyn are the Deputy Prime Minister and Prime

Minister of Frances Kelsey Secondary School model parliament, and I’m

delighted to have them here today. They will be joined later today by

teacher Paul Klassen, from Shawnigan Lake School, student Isaac Leroy and

Paige Croft, who are coming together to discuss a joint Model UN approach

for the spring. Please make them feel welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

HUNTING AND FISHING

A. Wilkinson: This coming Sunday will mark the 15th anniversary of The Hunting

and Fishing Heritage Act, which was passed in this Legislature on

November 26, 2002. This is an evolving provincial tradition that arose

when Bill Bennett, the former B.C. Liberal cabinet minister and MLA for

Kootenay East, brought forward the bill, which received royal assent on

that day 15 years ago.

Now, hunting and fishing are an important part of our heritage

throughout this province and form an important part of the culture of

this province. Currently the province has conservation partnerships with

hunters and fishers that cover species from the coastal mountain goat

through to the northern goshawk and right down to the western

rattlesnake and the Vancouver Island marmot — which is, I’m sure, near

and dear to all those NDP members from Vancouver Island. Approximately

90,000 British Columbians and 7,000 visitors purchase a provincial

hunting licence annually.

In the fishing world, collectively, freshwater anglers in B.C. are

on the water 3.8 million times a year and catch about 7½ million fish.

That’s more than one fish for every person in the province, as I’m sure

the Premier is aware. The average angler fishes 13 days a year and

catches, as I said, two fish per day. The freshwater fishing generates

about $1 billion of provincial economic activity annually. This is

activity that is, of course, sustainable, healthy, very family-friendly

and something that I was very pleased to participate in as a kid when I

grew up in Kamloops.

Hunters and fishers are a key part of our provincial economy, and

our rural economy benefits from that activity. They’ve been a pillar of

our conservation efforts for over a century and provide healthy local

food to our communities. I’d invite this House to celebrate the

provincial Hunting and Fishing Heritage Day this Sunday.

[10:10 a.m.]

PREMIER’S AWARDS FOR ABORIGINAL

YOUTH EXCELLENCE IN

SPORT

M. Dean: I was humbled and excited to be invited to attend the 2017

Premier’s Awards for Aboriginal Youth Excellence in Sport for the

Vancouver Island region earlier this month. I was really fortunate to

join a beautiful ceremony and meal hosted by the Tsawout First Nation in

Saanichton, attended by the family and friends of the eight outstanding

Indigenous athletes from the Island.

The Indigenous Sport, Physical Activity and Recreation Council,

ISPARC, in collaboration with the province of B.C., launched the

regional nomination process in August 2017. This is a unique

provincewide award that recognizes a total of 48 recipients who have

been chosen from ISPARC’s six regions and out of 141 nominations from

across the province. The athletes, who are under 25 years of age, are

competing in performance sport and committed to living healthy, active

lifestyles.

Recipients were selected not only for their achievements in

performance sport but also their commitment to pursuing a higher

education, demonstrable leadership qualities, volunteerism and

connection to culture. They include Caleb Sam, age 15, from Songhees

First Nation in my constituency, recognized for his soccer and

rugby.

The evening was full of celebration, including singing, drumming

and, in particular, the speeches made by the young athletes. Their

respect shown for their peers, their family, their coaches and their

community was inspiring. ISPARC’s Vancouver Island regional co-lead

Wally Samuel said: “This unique awards program is a good partnership and

a great way to show how well our young people have done. We’re pleased

to honour their success in sport, in school and in their communities.”

Please join me in congratulating them.

SUNSET COMMUNITY CENTRE

AND SENIORS

GROUPS

M. Lee: If you have visited Vancouver-Langara, as I know that the member

for Vancouver-Fraserview has, you will have noticed that it’s a diverse

community, mirroring the diversity we have across much of our province.

It’s a privilege to have the responsibility of representing this riding,

which is served by vital community organizations that deserve to be

recognized here in the Legislature.

One such organization is the Sunset Indo-Canadian Senior’s

Society. It’s a group with deep roots. Over 70 years ago, some committed

South Vancouver residents saw a need for a safe place where their kids

could gather and spend their recreational time. They had a vision. They

worked hard to make it come true. Ten years ago another group came

forward with a new vision to replace the original centre, and today we

have a beautiful tradition of state-of-the-art community recreation

centres all across our province.

In my riding, the Sunset Community Centre continues to be a

cornerstone, not just of the Punjabi Market but the entire community.

It’s an important gathering place for people of all ages. They’re

addressing a growing need in this province. British Columbia is aging,

and as our parents age and our grandparents do the same, we see the

importance and the benefits of community centres where the elderly can

come together to maintain and grow friendships.

The Sunset seniors groups have worked enthusiastically and

cooperatively for 30 years to bridge gaps between cultures and

generations. The men’s and women’s groups each have about 90 active

members. The seniors society provides a safe environment to gather and

connect. It holds all its meetings and activities at the Sunset

Community Centre, just down the block from my constituency

office.

Over the past year, I’ve had the opportunity to be a guest speaker

at several of their meetings. The discussions about their ideas, the

community and world events are certainly spirited. They know the issues,

and they don’t suffer fools. I enjoy every second of it. In many ways,

it reminds me a little of this Legislature, just a little greyer and a

little wiser. It is an honour to serve as the MLA of a riding where such

community groups thrive.

RIVERSIDE COLLEGE

B. D’Eith: There was a time when a high school education was a clear path to

a well-paying job. Sadly, that’s not the case as often today, but some

institutions in British Columbia are working to equip our high school

graduates with skills that they need to start a career that can sustain

them and their families. One of these is Riverside College in Mission,

British Columbia.

Last week I had the opportunity, along with the member for

Abbotsford-Mission, to meet some of Riverside College’s current

students.

[10:15 a.m.]

What Riverside College does is have a grade 12 intake every year

where students not only are offered their final credits to graduate but

also are provided technical training, apprenticeship and certification

for careers in automotive services, esthetics, hairstyling, carpentry,

plumbing, professional cooking, electrical services and many

others.

Many of the programs at Riverside College actually have waiting

lists. Businesses are waiting to hire these students immediately after

completion of their training because of the high quality of education

that is provided. These students aren’t just going to get minimum-wage

jobs. They’re getting paid good wages to be able to support themselves

and their families.

Now the college also provides adult basic education classes and

continuing ed. In addition to this, Riverside College partners with

other organizations to provide programs for adults, such as the kick

start program with Mission Community Skills Centre Society and the

Canadian Vocational Training Centre. The kick start program actually

provides participants with essential skills needed for success in

today’s workplace, whether they’re new to employment or seeking a

change.

I’m also very excited to share that later this month Riverside

College, with the Canadian Vocational Training Centre, will be launching

a new program for fibre optic technical training and certification, an

area that is actually experiencing a labour shortage in British

Columbia. Students will get hands-on experience by qualified instructors

and meet future employers and members from the industry.

A unique institution in Mission and British Columbia, Riverside

College provides a valuable service to our community, high school

students and adults wanting to get back into the workforce. We’re very

lucky to have it.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

IN COWICHAN

VALLEY

S. Furstenau: Two recent events have left me so proud and inspired by the

amazing community in the Cowichan Valley. One evening in early October,

after a full day at the Legislature, the Minister of Health travelled to

the Cowichan Valley to meet with a group of stakeholders who have been

working collectively for many years to replace our 50-year-old hospital.

The minister heard from these passionate, informed and engaged people,

many of whom are volunteers, who demonstrated beyond any doubt that our

community is committed to seeing a new hospital and, with it, a new

approach to a health care system that is holistic, inclusive and

cooperative.

These stakeholder groups have done so much good work, and the

partnerships between the CVRD, the Cowichan District Hospital

Foundation, Cowichan Tribes, Island Health and health care providers

continue to strengthen. I felt tremendous pride listening to the

passionate people who’ve worked so hard for so long to bring forward a

united vision for our community’s health care future.

Then, one morning in early November, another minister, this time

the Minister of Education, visited Cowichan. He joined school district

superintendent Rod Allen, board chair Candace Spilsbury and the

principal of Cowichan Secondary, Charlie Coleman, for a tour of our

68-year-old high school that has come to the end of its life.

What we witnessed on our tour was inspiring: engaged teenagers who

were learning innovative programs from dedicated teachers who are going

above and beyond in less than ideal conditions. We visited an elementary

school that has been transformed — in some cases, by the students

themselves — into a trades training centre. Here students are learning

everything from welding to hairstyling and completing their high school

credits while achieving certification that prepares them for immediate

employment opportunities right in the community.

We met bright, beaming young people who are clearly thriving in

this environment. Despite the imperfect work space, the experience for

these students and their success rate upon graduation is a testament to

the commitment of teachers and instructors who make these programs

possible.

Our hospital and high school are both in desperate need of

replacement, but what was so evident from these visits is that the

visionaries are investing their time, energy and money into a bright

future for Cowichan.

SQUAMISH NATION

TRAINING AND TRADES

CENTRE

B. Ma: Tucked away under the Second Narrows Bridge in North Vancouver is

the Squamish Nation training and trades centre, a place where futures

are quite literally built. Created in 2004, the Squamish Nation trades

centre trains 150 to 200 Indigenous students each year in various

trades, including carpentry, plumbing, pipefitting, craft working and

general construction safety, while working in partnership with Kwantlen

Polytechnic University, unions and industry.

Their goal is to prepare students with the skills and knowledge

required to transition into either a trades apprenticeship program or

the trade sector for full-time employment. They do this while also

reconnecting their students to their Indigenous culture.

[10:20 a.m.]

Last week I toured this trade centre with Squamish Nation

councillors Carla George and Wilson Williams and met the incredible

students and staff. The students spoke about why the programs at the

trade centre were important to them. The ability to move on to

apprenticeships, earn more money, find stable jobs with benefits and

develop careers will mean the world to their families and community

around them.

Some also shared very personal stories about the challenges that

they’ve had to overcome, with the help of the staff around them, and the

hope that they now have for the future. Poverty, mental health and

addictions are issues that many students at the trades and training

centre face, and the training centre supports them by providing access

to counsellors, peer and elder support, food and passionate staff who

are determined to help them through their challenges.

I was so touched by the hospitality and generosity with which I

was welcomed as the first MLA that they say they’ve ever had visit their

space. It is indeed an incredible community that creates programs like

these, and I look forward to supporting them in their future good work.

Huy chexw a .

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT HOUSING POLICY

AND

INITIATIVES

R. Coleman: Last spring this Premier, during the campaign, made a very

specific commitment to British Columbians. His platform clearly promised

to “build 114,000 new rental and co-op homes and provide renters an

annual rental income credit of $400.” At the time, he said: “This is

realistic and reasonable and completely costed” — full stop.

He committed to build 114,000 units. Those that voted for the NDP,

on the other side at the time, actually believed they would deliver on

this promise. Of course, broken promises are becoming a pattern of this

particular government. Yesterday, after his own minister a week ago had

confessed, the Premier confessed it’s no longer a commitment. It’s now

“aspirational.” So 114,000 units promised by the NDP have evaporated

into the aspirational world.

To the Premier: why have you abandoned the direct and very

specific commitment you made to build 114,000 units?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. Had he been at the scrum, he

would know that the questions were in the context of aspirational and

talking about the announcement yesterday by the federal government, a

welcome announcement here in British Columbia. For the first time in a

generation, the federal government understands we need a national

housing strategy. We on this side of this House support that

initiative.

I will remind the member, if he goes back…. I know he’s acutely

interested in every phrase in our platform. I invite him to go back and

look at it. He’ll note that it says it’s a ten-year plan. It involves

market housing. It involves co-op housing. It involves the whole range,

the whole spectrum of housing that that minister was responsible for,

for a decade and a half and didn’t meet the needs of British

Columbians.

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

supplementary.

R. Coleman: Good dance, Premier. But the reality is it’s just a big whopper,

like the fish you were just showing my colleague on this side of the

House a few minutes ago. The reality is you made a commitment. You’re

breaking the commitment. I know about the national housing strategy

because I chaired the ministers across the country as it was developed,

Premier.

The Premier might note that a big piece of that platform, of the

national housing strategy, is rent assist…

Interjections.

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

R. Coleman: …something that that side of the House has always

opposed.

It’s still 114,000 units — gone into the ether somewhere as an

aspirational goal. Never, at the time when the commitment was made, did

you include market housing. That came later in debates with the minister

and the Premier. Your aspiration is: “I broke my promise.”

To the Premier: will you come clean and admit, at least, to the

people of British Columbia that you’re not going to build 114,000

units?

[10:25 a.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: British Columbians can now mark on the calendar the day that the

Leader of the Opposition embraced the role. He just asked me to come

clean, which is, of course, the hallmark of the Leader of the

Opposition.

Two thousand modular units in the last budget. We have 1,700

affordable housing units, and we’ve only been here for 17 weeks. Sixteen

years and the member on that side could not close the fixed-term-lease

loophole. He promised it time and time and time again. We delivered

it.

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

supplemental.

R. Coleman: We also delivered tens of thousands of units and paid for them and

built them in the last ten years. We have 30,000 people in British

Columbia on rent assistance in the marketplace, a program that you don’t

support. I’m wondering how soon you’re going to evacuate those people

because you don’t support the program.

You actually don’t have a handle on housing, through you, Mr.

Speaker, to the Premier. Aspirational or not, you told somebody you were

going to do something, and you’re not going to do it. It’s clear. You

changed it. You’ve broken the promise. Why don’t you just admit that all

your government is, is a group of people that just continues to break

promises?

Hon. J. Horgan: Those on that side of the House look to municipalities to blame

them. We’re looking to municipalities to work with them so we can bring

on more supply. People on that side of the House starved the residential

tenancy branch because they didn’t want renters to have a voice in

British Columbia. We’re invigorating the residential tenancy

office.

I have to confess to taking great delight in this final statement

to the member of the opposition. This term lasts for four and a half

years. Just watch us.

S. Sullivan: I’d like to follow up with the Minister of Housing on the plan to

build 114,000 units. We’ve heard the government talk about this plan for

homeless, risk of homelessness, co-ops, non-profit housing and specific

targeted low-income groups, all of which are very important.

I was concerned when the minister said: “I want to be very clear

that the 114,000 units is based on the pent-up demand for housing and

forecasting over ten years the demand for affordable housing. That’s

where the number comes from.” There are no definitive allocations, if I

might say, to each of these areas, but we do know that each of these

areas needs attention. Obviously, this is an aspirational goal. This

number, 114,000, sounds very specific. It’s not 100,000 or

150,000.

My question is about the housing affordability for the middle

class, for the great majority of British Columbians who do not fit into

these targeted groups. Will there be any action on housing for the

middle class?

Hon. S. Robinson: While the old government ignored the affordability crisis, the

price of a home in Vancouver shot up by $600,000 in just two years. When

we were on the other side of the House and we asked about this concern,

the current Leader of the Official Opposition said: “I guess some people

just need to get up and whine every day.”

On this side of the House, we are committed to working together

with partners, with the federal government, with the local governments,

with the non-profit sector, with the private sector. The private sector

is very excited to work with us so that all British Columbians can have

the housing that they need.

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

S. Sullivan: I don’t believe the minister actually answered my question. In

opposition, the minister and her colleagues regularly said they would

implement solutions immediately.

[10:30 a.m.]

The Premier was recently quoted as saying: “We’re coming up on

challenges that the solutions we had hoped to implement are not as easy

to do as we had first hoped.” Now, the great majority of middle-class

British Columbians are not looking for the temporary portables and

modular housing that are meant to be temporary. They are looking for

long-term housing solutions. Can the minister explain what she will be

able to do for the middle class of British Columbia?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to point out, as well, that under the previous government,

rents skyrocketed by 45 percent over ten years in Vancouver, while the

people on that side of the House did nothing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may hear the response, please.

Hon. S. Robinson: We are working together with a range of partners and addressing

ways to deliver on our 114,000 units. We are committed to making that

happen. People have been looking for a partner, a partner in their

provincial government, one that has been missing for the last decade and

a half.

GOVERNMENT POSITION ON

SITE C POWER

PROJECT

S. Furstenau: Yesterday my colleague raised the parallels between Site C and

another dam, Muskrat Falls in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the

parallels are unnerving. Their government, too, inherited a doomed

megaproject, billions over budget, behind schedule, exempted from

independent oversight. Does it all sound too familiar? But there is a

significant difference.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may hear the question.

S. Furstenau: The difference is that this government has a pass out of this

mess. The government doesn’t have to be responsible for continuing with

this boondoggle. The previous government’s mishandling of B.C. Hydro has

seen its debt rise from $6 billion to $20 billion. If Site C goes ahead,

we could see a doubling of hydro rates in this province. But this

government has the ability to make a choice to change course…

Interjections.

S. Furstenau: Data is not popular at the moment.

…and protect British Columbians from this.

My question is to the Premier. The previous government left the

mess of Site C as their legacy. You have an opportunity to move forward

and choose a fiscally responsible path. Will you take it?

Hon. M. Mungall: As I mentioned yesterday, this government is very aware of what’s

going on with Muskrat Falls. We’ve been following it very closely. The

member opposite…. Sorry. The House Leader of the Third

Party….

Interjections.

Hon. M. Mungall: Anything seems to be worth a heckle for the B.C. Liberals. I’m

glad they’re paying attention.

To get back to the member’s question, however. When she points out

some of the cost overruns and the financial concerns around Site C, I

think it’s important to state clearly for the record that the current

situation — where Site C is looking at some cost overruns, looking at

potentially not being on time — is a result of things that happened

under the B.C. Liberal watch. I know they don’t like that

fact.

Interjections.

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

Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker.

The first tension crack that happened was in February, under their

watch. The second tension crack that happened was in May, under their

watch. Those are the reasons that B.C. Hydro is now having to look at a

longer period for construction and having to look at extra costs. All of

that happened under the B.C. Liberal watch.

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

S. Furstenau: I thank the minister for her response and point out that without

the independent assessment and a hydrogeological and geological

assessment that should have happened, they might have known about the

tension cracks to come that are causing great problems.

[10:35 a.m.]

Up until now, this has been a B.C. Liberal boondoggle — the cost

overruns, the ballooning debt, the questionable need for such a costly

project. This is the Liberals’ mistake alone. But if this government

decides to continue with Site C, they will become responsible for the

impacts. It will be on the shoulders of this government.

The BCUC report has been clear. We are not past the point of no

return. We have a real and viable suite of alternatives that we can

pursue.

Interjections.

S. Furstenau: The heckling. They really don’t want to hear these kinds of

statements.

The alternatives can produce the power we need at the same price

without the impact to one of the most biodiverse regions of our

province.

My question is to the Premier. The previous government left this

mess of Site C as their legacy, but it does not have to become yours.

Will you make the right decision to cancel Site C and lead us into a

bold, new energy future?

Hon. M. Mungall: No one has ever suggested that this decision would be an easy

decision. In fact, what I find most troubling around what’s happening in

this province and what has been going on for several years in this

province regarding Site C is the division that has happened — that this

project, under the B.C. Liberals, failed to create unity.

I think it’s because it was never about vision. Their decision was

never about vision. I don’t even know if it was about electricity, to be

quite frank. When you have former Premier Christy Clark say that she was

determined to get it past the point of no return, it’s pretty clear that

their decision was more about ego than anything else.

No matter what decision….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Mungall: No matter what happens at the end of the day, British Columbians

are going to have to pay for that ego drive. That wasn’t okay. That was

wrong, and we’re doing our very best to right that wrong.

We know that we need to work in the best interests of British

Columbians. That’s what we’re going to be doing. Unfortunately, that’s

not what happened, but it was what always should have

happened.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS

AND MINISTER OF STATE

FOR TRADE

M. Lee: Yesterday a number of questions were posed to the Minister for

Trade. Topics canvassed included NAFTA, TPP, softwood and free trade

with China. All of these are of great importance to British Columbians.

The Minister for Trade has had 24 hours to ponder his response. I’ll ask

him again, the same question that was posed to him yesterday.

To the Minister for Trade, whether we’re talking about NAFTA or

TPP, could he inform the House of what face-to-face meetings he has had

with federal officials, and what has been the result?

Hon. G. Chow: The member from Langara mentioned my name, that I had visited his

riding. It’s correct. I visited his riding and the Sunset Community

Centre. It’s a beautiful building in Langara. I mention that because the

architect who designed this beautiful structure for the city of

Vancouver was the late Mr. Bing Thom, who passed away last December

while working in Hong Kong.

I asked him: “Why do you still travel around working in Hong Kong

and Washington, D.C., and China?” He said: “Well, there are people who

depend on my association with all these projects, all over the world, in

order to have jobs in B.C.”

[10:40 a.m.]

It’s important to put that in perspective, so I am very happy that

the member asked me what I do as Minister of State for Trade. My mission

is to expand the trade opportunities for British Columbia, to make

prosperity in the province and to create jobs.

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

M. Lee: Well, the Minister for Trade, in his capacity as the member for

Vancouver-Fraserview…. I appreciate the tribute to Bing Thom. I share

the sentiment for Mr. Thom. I would like to go on, though, and say, with

respect, that the Minister for Trade is not answering the questions

we’re asking him.

Let me make it a little more simple. In your role, you are a

minister of the Crown responsible for trade for the province of British

Columbia. Let’s go to the calendar for the Minister for Trade. On

September 1, he met with the delegation from the Panyu district of

Guangzhou, the capital of Guangdong province in southern

China.

I’d like to ask the Minister for Trade.... Can the Minister for

Trade please tell the House who was at the meeting, and what was his

objective?

Hon. G. Chow: I had the opportunity to meet with our staff and also with the

delegation from Panyu, which happens to be my ancestral village. That

delegation came to visit us because it was the previous Minister of

International Trade who made the connection.

We received the delegation. There was a number of people who were

businessmen in Panyu district, which is close to the city of Guangzhou.

They were involved in animation. They were involved in jewelry-making.

They were involved in manufacturing. They were involved in furniture

manufacturing.

For me, trade is not a partisan issue. That delegation was

introduced to us by the previous International Trade Minister. I was

very happy to have received the delegation. We had a very, very good

meeting. When I go to China in January next year, we will renew those

relationships.

T. Wat: Thank you to the minister for hosting the meeting with Panyu. In

fact, Panyu is also my ancestral village, and I wish I was invited to

that meeting as well, since you and I came from that village.

Interjections.

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

T. Wat: We did invite the MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant to all my

legacy initiative projects, just to be on the record. But I wasn’t

invited to the one where the Premier unveiled the plaque in

Victoria.

Yesterday we asked the minister’s role in defending British

Columbia’s economic interests abroad. We have had some trouble getting

answers from him. Right now here with me is the minister’s mandate

letter, signed by the Premier.

This is just a simple question to the minister of state. Can he

tell this House what progress he has made to advance B.C.’s food and

agricultural exports, especially to growing markets in the

Asia-Pacific?

Hon. G. Chow: I would like to inform the member for Richmond North Centre that

the Panyu district visit was started with the previous government, and I

was happy to receive the delegation. We actually were trying to seek out

the previous Minister of International Trade to come to it. She was

away, so I would be the one who would have to do the work. I was happy

to do it, but I thought it would be an example of cooperation between

the old Trade Minister and myself as the Minister of State for

Trade.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may hear the response.

Minister, continue.

Hon. G. Chow: As far as what we’re going to do, we will be visiting China, Japan

and Korea in January. We will explore our potential.

[10:45 a.m.]

We have to expand our market because of what we are seeing here.

Our traditional export market to the U.S. is questionable right now. I

think we’ll get a good settlement, but we want to make sure we expand

our markets. That’s our mission — to go abroad to explore this

market.

Mr. Speaker: Richmond North Centre on a second supplemental.

T. Wat: Just to be on the record, I haven’t received an invitation from

the minister to attend their meeting.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may hear the question.

T. Wat: I did not get an answer from the minister of state on how he

advanced B.C. for agricultural exports to the growing market in Asia. I

did not get an answer. So I look at his calendar. The Minister for Trade

had a meeting with the Bank of China on September 14, a meeting that the

Minister of Jobs did not attend.

Just a simple question. Can the Minister for Trade please tell the

House who was at the meeting, what was the agenda of the

meeting…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may hear the question.

T. Wat: I shall repeat. A simple question. Can the Minister for Trade

please tell the House who was at the meeting, what was the agenda of the

meeting, what was the objective of the meeting, and what was the outcome

of the meeting?

Hon. G. Chow: The member was mentioning the fact that we had a meeting with the

representative from the Bank of China. I was happy to take that on. The

Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology was not available. We work as a

team in our caucus. In that meeting, the member from the Bank of China

expressed dismay at the 15 percent foreign purchaser tax that was

imposed hastily by the previous government.

That was one of the things she said. She is working in Canada. She

has been working in Canada for three years, so she wanted to let me know

what her reaction is to that 15 percent foreign purchaser tax that was

imposed by the previous government very hastily. She also said that in

the future, she would be in a position to look at some of our

infrastructure projects, that maybe the Bank of China could be a lender.

I, of course, just take that under advisement.

It was a very good meeting. That was what went on.

HIRING PROCESS FOR ASSISTANT DEPUTY

MINISTER OF

INDIGENOUS RELATIONS

AND RECONCILIATION

S. Bond: I think that most British Columbians understand that there are two

types of employees that work here in Victoria. There are political

employees, political staff hired to work in minister’s offices, and then

there is the non-partisan public service. In fact, we know that B.C.’s

public service is exceptional. It is respected as one of the top 100

employers in the country, and we are very proud of that.

Last week a new assistant deputy minister was appointed to the

Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. Can the minister

explain the hiring process that was used to fill that senior

position?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks to the member for the question. My deputy minister

identified and vetted Ms. Wood a month ago for a position we’re

creating. It’s a reconciliation transformation strategy division within

the ministry to effect our new relationship with First Nations and

Indigenous peoples in the province. We’re very excited about

that.

[10:50 a.m.]

As the member opposite knows, the deputy minister’s position is

not a political one. He did the identification and vetting, as did the

public service.

I want to congratulate Ms. Wood. I’m sad to see her go, but I know

she’s on for bigger and better things for all of British

Columbia.

S. Bond: I want to just help the minister a little bit with the sequence.

He did fail to mention one point, perhaps the most salient. On September

11, an employee was appointed as a ministerial assistant in the

minister’s office. On October 11, the same employee had the appointment

rescinded and was reappointed as a senior ministerial assistant in the

minister’s office. On November 16, the appointment was rescinded again,

and the employee was appointed as an assistant deputy

minister.

The posting for an assistant deputy minister in this ministry last

year outlines the following qualifications: “Significant senior

progressive executive experience in leading and managing teams in a

highly intense working environment.” Having worked with literally dozens

of exceptional public servants who work in the public service, in their

entire career in government, they may not end up serving as an assistant

deputy minister.

Does the minister believe that moving an employee from a political

role in a minister’s office to a senior role in a non-partisan public

service is appropriate, especially since the transition took only

several months?

Hon. S. Fraser: Thanks again to the member for the supplemental question. She

might want to refer to her colleague from Nechako Lakes, who was the

previous minister. He also had the same deputy minister, who identified

and vetted Ms. Wood for this important position.

I would note that in the previous government, the Liberal

government, only 8.2 percent of senior management were of any visible

minorities. We are changing that. I also note that the public service

brought in a new diversity strategy and plan to increase the diversity

within our public service. I’m so pleased that we can be a big part of

that.

I’m sorry to lose Ms. Wood as my ministerial assistant, but she’s

going to make a great assistant deputy minister in bringing about true

reconciliation in this province.

[End of question period.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Fleming: I seek leave to make an introduction. With us in the gallery — and I

neglected to mention his presence earlier — is Douglas Blair, who is a good

friend, an excellent midfielder and a great teacher in Shawnigan Lake. It’s

nice to see him in the gallery with us today. I would ask the House to make

him most welcome.

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

J. Thornthwaite: I would like to put a point of privilege with the comments that the

member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale…. I actually, personally, have attended

the facility that she mentioned in her statement — that she was the only

MLA. No. I had attended, as have some of my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member. You have reserved your right.

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. James: I rise to present the guarantees and indemnities authorized and issued

report for fiscal year ending March 31, 2017, in accordance with the

Financial Administration Act,

section 72(8).

Petitions

A. Weaver: I rise to submit a petition of 626 names asking the government to

review the Agricultural Land Commission Act to protect farmland from the

development of mega-mansions. In particular, the signatories are asking

government to revise the Agricultural Land Commission Act and enact into law

the Guide for Bylaw Development in Farming Areas as limited — the

limit for residences on ALR land to a maximum of 500 square metres. This

petition was organized by Richmond FarmWatch.

[10:55 a.m.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 6. In

Committee A, I call the estimates for the Office of the Premier.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — ELECTORAL REFORM

REFERENDUM

2018 ACT

(continued)

[L. Reid in the chair.]

T. Shypitka: I’m just going to sum up what I was talking about yesterday on

proportional representation. In brief, I read an

article from an NDP

strategist from the Tyee publication. I’m sure members on the

other side have full subscriptions too.

I spoke about numerous examples of how PR simply does not work

around the world right now. We are currently seeing it in Germany, New

Zealand and the Netherlands, among other countries as well. We see how

it gives great opportunity to fringe parties that simply don’t get that

same opportunity with our current system, and there’s a good reason for

that.

I’ve broken it all down to simple key points in order for those

that support PR to seriously reconsider their decision and remind those

same MLAs on both sides of the House that your first duty is to look

after your constituents first and tow the party line second.

This is a game-changing vote that will affect the very foundation

of our constitution. So it needs a rethink here. I’ve got three

points.

One, if we’re going to have another conversation around electoral

reform in this province, it needs to be driven by the public first, not

elected officials who have vested interest in the system. I think we’ve

seen that through the supply and confidence agreement between the Greens

and the NDP — that this is exactly what is going on right

now.

Two, it needs to feature meaningful review, not just non-binding

consultations. We’ve seen this government right now review everything to

death except for the very essence of what our constitution stands for,

and it’s a little troubling to me.

Three, it needs to have checks and balances ensuring regional

support from different parts of our very diverse province are

represented. I don’t think anybody on either side can argue how diverse

and great this province actually really is.

The process that we see proposed in this bill does none of that.

In short, the benefits of first-past-the-post, the current system we

have right now, are quite simple. I’ve broken it down to five

points.

One, it’s a very easy system to understand, and ballots can be

easily counted and processed.

Two, first-past-the-post, our current system, is an electoral

method that provides the best governance. It trades fairness in

representation for more responsible government. Its tendency to produce

majority rule allows the government to pursue a consistent strategy for

its term in office and to make decisions that may be both correct and

unpopular.

Three, it ensures regional representation. This is the key to our

diverse province. Who can argue with that?

[11:00 a.m.]

Four, other systems give small parties the balance of power and

influence disproportionate to their votes. We’re seeing that right now

as an example.

Five, allowing people into parliament who did not finish first in

their district is filling parliament full of fourth, fifth, sixth,

seventh, eighth choices who no one really wanted but didn’t really

object to either. It basically allows one-issue parties to drive a

single message, which could be good, but most likely could be very, very

dark.

We’re seeing those exact things happening in New Zealand right

now, where the Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister are part

of an extreme-right party that hasn’t won a riding since 2005. It’s

absolutely mind-boggling.

For these reasons, I cannot support this bill as it stands. I

implore my colleagues on both sides of the floor, and those who are

voting British Columbians, to do the exact same.

Deputy Speaker: Recognize the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

[Applause.]

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that resounding applause. My buddy over there.

Cheers.

I’d like to take this opportunity to express the honour and

privilege I feel every time I rise in this House. It is indeed something

very special to stand here representing the people of Columbia

River–Revelstoke who are not only hard-working rural British Columbians

but British Columbians who deeply value the democratic system that we

have here in Canada and British Columbia, a democratic system that has

served us well for the past 150 years.

Our democratic system of government is a proven system of

governance that provides citizens with the most possible personal

freedoms and the most personal opportunity — opportunity to create

prosperity and a good life for their families. It is the most stable

form of government on this planet.

Our democracy empowers us to choose the religion that is most

meaningful to us. It empowers us with the freedom to choose our own

spouse, our own careers. It is a system that enables us to seek the

education that we want. We have the freedom to watch movies. We have the

freedom to choose and listen to any kind of music that we want. Madame

Speaker, could you possibly imagine a world without country music? I

can’t. We are free to read any book without fear of judgment or

reprisal.

Ours is a system that guarantees our mobility and our right to

assemble. We are a mosaic of peoples with a constitution that protects

us against assault and infringement. We are people who have exactly the

same rights to go into politics and influence society as anybody

else.

To that, I am a very proud father of two incredibly intelligent

and beautiful daughters and a grandfather of two amazing granddaughters.

I understand how blessed we are here in this country and in this

province to know that they, as women, have the same constitutional

rights and opportunities as any man. The women in my life, in this

country and in this province know that their father, their brother,

their cousins, their uncle or their husbands have no right to rule over

them. My daughters and all women in this country and this province have

the same rights and freedoms as anyone at any time.

As such, and as British Columbians, as Canadians, we are all equal

before the law. We have the freedom to live without fear of authorities.

As British Columbians and Canadians, each of us has the innate desire

for freedom and security. People move to this country and to this

province from all over the world to experience what we are so blessed to

have — an opportunity and freedom, both of which I believe are worth

fighting for. Therefore, democracy is not only important; it is vital.

We deserve to live in a democracy that works, and we have been blessed

with one for the last 150 years.

The key value that drives our system is freedom, but we always

have to remember that freedom never comes free, nor should it ever be

taken for granted. Life and freedom are never easy, and democracy is not

perfect. We must never forget those who gave their lives so that we

could protect and ultimately benefit from the democratic system that has

served us and continues to serve us well.

[11:05 a.m.]

Above all, in a democracy, every citizen, regardless of interests

and politics, holds office. Every one of us is in a position of

responsibility. In the final analysis, the kind of government that we

will get depends on how we fulfil those responsibilities.

We, the people, are the boss. We will get the political system, be

it good or be it bad, that we demand and deserve. To do anything

contrary would be to disrespect the ultimate sacrifice that has been

made by so many Canadians, by so many British Columbians, so that we

would never lose this freedom.

I stand today in acceptance of my responsibilities as an elected

member of this Legislature — for the people of Columbia River–Revelstoke

and for all British Columbians to speak against this bill, which I

believe is a direct affront on the freedom in our democratic system that

so many people have fought and died for.

You know, my mom and dad taught my brother and myself many things

growing up, teachings that provided the foundations of who we are today

as men. A couple of these teachings come to mind right now. I recall my

dad on a golf course with his two boys, telling us: “Always stay true to

your values.” He told us that in this life, you can compromise on many

things — and you should — but never on your fundamental values, because

if you do, you will get lost in a world that can be very

confusing.

Above all, he taught us to stand for what we believe in with

conviction and resolve. Putting these teachings into political terms

means that good citizenship and defending democracy means living up to

the ideals and values that have and continue to make this province such

an amazing place to live.

With this in mind, we must reject the NDP-Green notion of

proportional representation and reject it with an iron will. Bill 6, in

essence, proposes to change the actual fabric of our democratic system,

endangering the future of our grandchildren and their children. Bill 6

is nothing more than a backhanded attempt of the NDP-Greens to hijack

the political system to meet their own needs, not to serve the needs of

British Columbians, especially not rural British Columbians.

The NDP are an interesting bunch, no matter what political level

you find them on. They’re a crew that makes things up on the run and

that through their actions in this House are clear they are not

interested in real answers to clear questions.

What is clear is that their proposed 50-percent-plus-one platform

for a ranked ballot…. Well, let’s just say that’s about as clear as mud.

It will not come as a shock to this House to know that Bill 6 in itself

is another broken NDP promise. The member for Langford–Juan de

Fuca…

An Hon. Member: The Premier.

D. Clovechok: …the accidental Premier, promised British Columbians that any

referendum question on PR would simply be a yes or no.

Well, that member seems to have the inability to keep his word on

anything. As a matter of fact, and I quote from that member for

Langford–Juan de Fuca when asked: “‘You are going to have 50 percent say

yes or no.’ And you will give them one system to vote on?” His answer?

“Yeah, exactly.” Well, not so exactly.

Instead, the NDP will be stacking the deck against

first-past-the-post. Voters will be choosing from multiple proportional

representation systems. In a ranked ballot form, this means that a

combination of PR options will outrate and outweigh first-past-the-post.

The PR options they offer are a direct assault on the current system

that we have in place, a system that has served this country well for

the last 150 years. First-past-the-post is not favourable under a ranked

ballot vote.

Voters who choose first-past-the-post as their first choice will

have to choose between multiple PR systems for their second and third

choices. If their first-past-the-post doesn’t win on the first ballot,

then a victory is unlikely. Voters are being denied the ability to make

a clear decision by this government.

[11:10 a.m.]

Again, let me remind all that — no surprise here — the member for

Langford–Juan de Fuca has broken his promise yet again. But we should

not have to accept broken promises or botched processes when it comes to

lowering the bar for electoral reform.

If the members of this House don’t believe this process will be

botched, I need only to point your attention to the fact that this

referendum will be orchestrated behind closed doors by this minority

government. Imagine that — a decision behind closed doors to create an

electoral system that will lead to more decisions behind more closed

doors that will potentially lead to the demise of our democratic

process. And they want us to believe that they have a transparent

government — again, as transparent as mud.

Surely, this must be a dream come true for the member for Oak

Bay–Gordon Head. Their partnership enables the Leader of the Greens to

make his continued promises that are irrelevant, to his heart’s content.

So why in the name of all that is good should British Columbians expect

the NDP to pull an about-face and give them a clear yes-or-no question

to vote on?

Again, the member for Langford–Juan de Fuca, has broken his

promise on ride-sharing, 2017. He’s broken his promise on $10-a-day

daycare. Now he’s begging the federal government to bail him out. Broken

promise, seriously. He has broken his promise on the $400 renters

rebate. The broken promises continue to pile up with this government.

The member for Langford–Juan de Fuca obviously does not understand,

along with a few others in this House, that there is absolutely no

honour in men who cannot honour their word — another teaching from my

dad.

His bromance partner from Oak Bay–Gordon Head is no better. I

quote from the Canadian Press, May 18, ’17: “Our position has been that

we would bring in proportional representation without a referendum,” but

we would be open to discussing a referendum afterwards. From Global

News , May 10, ’17, from that member: “In our platform, we said

we would introduce proportional representation, and if we were to have a

referendum, it would be after” that. Say one thing; do another — from

both sides. Broken promises on both sides. There is no greater fraud in

politics than a promise not kept.

These haphazardly broken promises are what is driving this

accidental government in their desperate and self-deserving quest to

hold on to power through Bill 6. Imagine, if you can, a government where

the often-changing whims of the smallest party can change the lives of

millions overnight. Well, that’s exactly what we have in this NDP-Green

supply agreement. Again, the small Green tail continues to wag the

bloated orange dog. Can you say “tyranny of the majority”? That’s

exactly what PR under Bill 6 represents.

This begs the question: is PR what the NDP actually wants? Or is

it just a way to placate their new Green masters? In my humble opinion,

it is the latter. In this NDP proposed system of endless minority

governments, how can any voter expect them to follow through as they go

from backroom deal to backroom deal? They are in denial, as they refuse

to look at the benchmarks from other countries across this globe that

have received a big F on proportional representation.

I’d like to talk a little bit about some of those benchmarks

because we actually look to benchmarks. In Belgium, PR gives voters

nothing more than instability. It took 589 days for voters to get a

government, from 2010 to 2011, after parties were unable to agree on a

coalition. It took six parties almost two years to form a coalition that

only lasted one year.

[11:15 a.m.]

Italy has had as many Prime Ministers since the end of World War

II as Canada has had in its entire history. There are 28 parties forming

six separate alliances, and, if you form government, you have an average

of 21 months to watch your friends and partners force you to break your

promises. Sound promising and democratic? I don’t think so.

In Israel, in relation to proportional representation, one of

their former national security advisers spoke to the effectiveness of

PR. “Under PR, designing policy in Israel is like writing poetry while

standing on a ball.” Sound promising? I don’t think so.

In Germany, the Free Democratic Party has held the balance of

power for the last 45 years, since 1949. As a matter of fact, Germany’s

political wheels just completely fell off last week. They’re looking at

another election. Doesn’t work in Germany.

PR in B.C.? Well, you might as well give the professor from Oak

Bay–Gordon Head permanent tenure at the cabinet table. As much as we

know that the same member would like to play kingmaker forever, this

does not result in stable government. And it won’t help British

Columbians. Speaking of kingmakers, it would seem that we have another

aspiring kingmaker from Maple Ridge–Mission.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

D. Clovechok: The member for Maple Ridge–Mission mentioned in his speech: “In

New Zealand, PR seems to have created a more balanced and diverse

parliament without, I might add, the proliferation of extreme parties as

fearmongers” — referring to us — “on the other side of this House seem

to suggest, and it can be seen” — this is, of course, the member for

Maple Ridge–Mission speaking about PR in New Zealand — “as an example of

how a new system of proportional representation could work in British

Columbia.”

This is an interesting perspective, given that the kingmaker of

this new government in New Zealand was the New Zealand First party, an

extremely nationalist party with an anonymous board of directors at its

helm. One of the first acts of this New Zealand–backed labour government

— big surprise — was to ban foreign home ownership. Sound

familiar?

I don’t understand, frankly, how the member for Maple

Ridge–Mission can confuse fearmongering with protecting British

Columbians from xenophobic nationalists. As a matter of fact, and for

the kingmakers across the aisle, PR actually empowers the extreme far

right. It’s not my doing.

As a matter of fact, in a recent

article by Bill Tieleman in the

Tyee , he writes…. This is the Tyee , the NDP

newsletter. “Adopting a PR system potentially opens the door of this

Legislature to far-right-wing politicians and their abhorrent views.” He

also — and correctly, I might add — states: “The results of PR systems

boosting the far right can be seen in several recent European

elections.”

Let’s look at two examples Mr. Tieleman cites, under PR extreme

right-wing parties where they flourish today. The Freedom Party in

Austria that was “once led by a former Nazi functionary and SS

officer….” Well, they hold seats in that government today. The Party for

Freedom in the Netherlands, led by an extremist who launched his

campaign by denouncing “Moroccan scum who make the streets unsafe” —

they hold seats in that government.

[11:20 a.m.]

Mr. Tieleman also cites Prof. Pippa Norris from Harvard University

who says:”Radical right parties benefit from PR in terms of their share

of seats, which is what matters, after all, for the power, for the

legitimacy, for the status and the resources that flow with elected

office.” Norris, in her research, also found that “radical right-wing

parties were more than twice successful in gaining seats under PR as

under the majority electoral process.” Her words, not mine.

There’s no question that there is an active rise, an active

movement, of extreme right-wing factions across this planet. We know

that as a fact today. All you have to do is look to the

south.

Make no mistake. Those same factions are here in British Columbia.

Yet there is absolutely no reference to the risks and the downsides of a

PR system coming from the NDP or the Greens. I’m not sure why they’re

hiding these facts from British Columbians.

The NDP-Green PR pipedream does not outline for British Columbians

the extreme downside of the realities of PR, which is egregiously

neglectful towards the people of B.C. and the future of our

province.

Yes, in addition, you only need to look at our recent history to

see how far the members from across this aisle have lowered the bar. On

two previous occasions, British Columbians said no to electoral reform.

Each referendum — quite recently, in 2005 and 2009 — had the

requirements for getting a majority vote, 60 percent of the ridings and

60 percent of the total vote.

Does what British Columbians have already stated in those two

referendums not that long ago…? Does what they had to say then mean

nothing to these people now? If it does, it doesn’t show in their

bill.

This referendum actually gives us a preview of what kind of

representation we can expect because the unending desperation — and I

use that word desperation — for the Green Party leader to have

proportional representation is imminently manifest in the crafting of

this bill.

This bill, if successful, will fundamentally set the stage that

will alter the state of our democracy. For us on this side of the House,

that dog does not hunt.

Let’s take a look at what this bill ignores, except to deliver PR

to the doorstep of the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. They have ignored

the Referendum Act. They have ignored the requirement for regional

representation. They have ignored the past use of non-partisan citizens’

assembly, an institution that has been used to wide acclaim in the

previous referenda. They have ignored the fact that instability comes

with PR, will drive investment out of British Columbia at a rate

comparable to the rate that they themselves as a party have done and

continue to do.

The reality is that the NDP aren’t interested in incorporating a

full spectrum of views in B.C. when it comes to changing the way we

vote. Rather, they are driven by appeasement, the appeasement of the

Greens at all costs in order for them to keep their supply agreement

intact and cling to the minority reins of power.

We must ensure that a voting system like PR is not skewed in the

favour of those who live in our concentrated urban centres. Their

numbers alone must never determine the electoral future of British

Columbia.

More than ever, we know that a great variety of geographical

perspectives in our province exist and require input in our politics. We

are a province separated by an ocean, separated by state, separated by

rivers. Shoot, where I live, we are six mountain ranges and a ferry ride

away from this House. We are vast.

We are a province with views that differ from region to region.

There is a uniqueness to British Columbia that we just can never allow

to be removed from our politics — a diverse geography and a diversity of

people, symbiotically connected to each other.

[11:25 a.m.]

However, this bill reinforces, for rural British Columbians

especially, that as far as this government is concerned, there is no

hope for us beyond Hope, both geographically and literally. But there

should be hope, for all British Columbians. It is my goal and the goal

of my colleagues to fight for this hope, to fight with the power of

determination. We know that if you fight with determination, it makes

people unstoppable.

Let’s take a minute to consider some of the politicians that have

arisen through first-past-the-post. The members across the aisle need

only consider the rise of Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan. Tommy Douglas

had to challenge the existing leader of the day as an outsider —

something he was largely capable of because he had a foothold as an

elected member of the federal Parliament.

Do the members opposite think Tommy Douglas would have risen to

the leadership of the Saskatchewan CCF party under a PR system? Would he

have been able to make the jump without a local foothold?

How can we expect individuals like Tommy Douglas, who are capable

of connecting to local communities, to rise to prominence when they are

entirely dependent on being selected off of a party list? This, of

course, is what happens with a PR system. Parties have to keep a list of

candidates and put the cut-off line somewhere, based on their percentage

of vote.

Would Tommy Douglas have made the cut under PR? As an outsider

under the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, highly unlikely. I

wonder where the members opposite think they would fall on their party’s

list? Do the members opposite think that they are No. 5, No. 15, No. 40,

No. 1? It would be awfully tense to find yourself sitting on the

threshold of being chosen to the Legislature by your party’s

leader.

I wonder if the NDP baker’s dozen of a few years ago would have

stayed at the top of the party list for long. I guess we just will never

know, but I’m betting they wouldn’t have.

One thing is for sure: we have seen local leaders earn the trust

of their communities for first-past-the-post. We’ve also seen those

communities revoke the trust they have placed in their elected

representatives when needed. Under first-past-the-post, local leaders

have risen to prominence, and they have been held accountable at a local

level.

I don’t find it shocking that the NDP and Greens want to turn this

system of accountability over to their backroom boardroom, where members

are bumped up and down party slates. First-past-the-post shows us that

accountability can and should happen on the doors of

constituents.

Instead, this government wants to walk away from those doorsteps,

wants to walk away from those communities and walk away from the voters

of British Columbia. This government wants to walk away from rural B.C.

by omitting their representation in this referendum. The government

wants to lead British Columbia down a road of backroom deals and broken

promises.

This government wants to fundamentally alter the fabric of our

democracy, a system that was paid for with blood of our countrymen and

-women. And how? By engineering a referendum without any meaningful

consultation. I say shame.

We must treat this issue with the respect and the gravity that it

deserves. A change of this magnitude should not be this easy, and those

who promote it should, frankly, have more respect for British Columbians

and more respect for Canadians that gave their lives so that we could

enjoy the freedoms that we have earned here today.

Canada’s first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, and

arguably, the architect of our great nation, was also an optimist. He

said: “When fortune empties her chamber pot on your head, smile and say

we’re going to have a summer shower.” He was telling us to be

optimistic. Well, there’s no optimism in Bill 6. In this bill is yet

another projectile that is spewing out of the NDP-Green chamber pot and

onto the heads of British Columbians.

[11:30 a.m.]

Bill 6 is far from a summer shower and represents nothing less

than a political monsoon that will destroy this province. I can tell you

that myself, my colleagues and, most importantly, British Columbians are

not smiling.

The defeat of Bill 6 is a hill British Columbians are willing to

die on. I can tell you, and I can tell you this with certainty: when it

comes to rural British Columbia and comes to where I live and comes to

this battle ahead of us, we’re locked and loaded.

R. Sultan: I welcome this opportunity to comment on Bill 6, the Electoral

Reform Referendum 2018 Act.

Several changes to our electoral system are proposed in this bill.

One of them alters the way we choose members of this Legislature. If it

becomes law, we will take steps to discard our first-past-the-post

system and replace it with proportional representation. How we choose

our political leadership — whether through cronyism, at the point of a

gun or through some democratic process — is pretty fundamental, so Bill

6 strikes at the heart of our political life and our society.

When first elected, I was told I would find in this Legislature a

cross-section of all British Columbians, representing virtually every

point of view, so it has turned out to be. But there are always some who

believe they’ve been left out, persons who feel disenfranchised, since

their particular views don’t get the attention they so obviously

deserve.

In our system, if a politician feels strongly that his or her

particular view has not received sufficient attention, you can fight it

out in caucus or in the media or even start your own political party.

These are the hallmarks of a healthy democracy.

What is not so healthy is when such persons try to rig the voting

system to suppress those they don’t agree with and to almost guarantee

that their own voice will be identifiable as virtually a private brand

in the Legislature.

The idea that every point of view in our society deserves a voice

in the Legislature sounds very noble and very democratic. Indeed, every

point of view, however extreme, should be considered. But how many

thousands and thousands of perspectives could one enumerate among our

population on matters scientific, social, economic and cultural, not to

mention religious or philosophical, before one would realize that,

practically speaking, each of them cannot expect to have their own

specialized seat in parliament — as opposed to being represented by

someone else having more general instincts, to be sensitive to their

concerns but also be dedicated to serving the common good.

Nevertheless, such noble sentiments — that each and every one of

us deserves our unique voice — have driven the adoption of systems of

proportional representation throughout the world. They are not unusual,

and we seriously consider that option from time to time here in British

Columbia. But they are not without their serious flaws.

Within the memory of some in this chamber, there were two prior

referenda on proportional representation, in 2005 and 2009, under the

leadership of Premier Gordon Campbell. These projects considered how we

elect MLAs.

[11:35 a.m.]

They were grounded upon an elaborate citizens’ assembly

consultation process, which took years and millions of dollars to design

and implement. They engaged thousands of people across the province. I

must say the contrast between that very elaborate and broadly based

project, on the one hand, and the narrow — what I would view it as hasty

casualness — and “Don’t worry about it; we’ll look after all the details

for you” spirit which we see in evidence today and as represented in

Bill 6 is, frankly, to me, disquieting.

The earlier examination of the pluses and minuses of proportional

representation was driven by an election promise of our own B.C. Liberal

Party in the ’01 election. Such was public anger against the NDP

government of the day that that election, my first, resulted in a very

lopsided 77-to-2 landslide in our favour. That’s what you might call

sending a message. But it caused even the most partisan of us to wonder

whether this was really a healthy governance outcome.

I might say it also illustrated that a party of two hard-working

women, Jenny and Joy, could hold an entire government to account for

four years. They did very well at that assignment.

So a citizens’ assembly was activated, culminating in a

recommendation for proportional representation and a subsequent testing

of public support in 2005. When that first referendum failed to achieve

the stipulated 60 percent threshold, there was a second referendum, in

A key point deserving attention today is that the design and

development process was provincewide and removed from the hands of

elected politicians — key point. Reading between the lines, you might

say it was acknowledged that politicians…. Each of us have our own

selfish axe to grind, and we are not to be totally trusted.

So the process involved a random selection of citizen volunteers

not directly engaged in politics, equally balanced among each of the

political ridings across the province, whether represented in government

or not, and equally balanced between men and women.

This citizens’ assembly held public hearings, listened to the

experts, expended much time and treasure, and ultimately came up with a

new voting system to be submitted to the people for approval. The first

attempt yielded narrow public support. The second — a decisive judgment

against changing how we elect MLAs. First-past-the-post, or FPP, as it

is known, continued as in the past.

Why politicians should simply stay out of electoral redesign is

obvious when we see what is happening today — a government which did not

even receive the most votes in the last election, pretending to have a

lock on impartiality on matters of great partiality, proposing a

three-pack of clever legislation designed to further its own interests,

creating laws discriminating in favour of itself and maximizing its own

probability of success.

Political science historians will note the stunning contrast

between today and the philosophy of 2005 and ’09.

Today we face legislative uncertainty. We’re asked to approve a

set of statutes of which Bill 6 is but one open-ended, rather loosely

defined component. The particular type of proportional representation

system to be proposed — and there are many to choose from — is

undefined. On that issue, it is simply: “Trust us.”

Perhaps with that criticism in mind, I notice the government is

now going to patch together some sort of a public consultation process.

But at the end of the day, the particular flavour to be presented won’t

be chosen by citizens. It’ll be chosen by cabinet — the big decisions

made behind closed doors.

The ballot question which emerges will be submitted to the

uncertain performance of a struggling Canada Post, which specializes in

delivering to me my neighbour’s mail and will be conditional on a

pitifully low hurdle rate of 50 percent plus one.

[11:40 a.m.]

Bill 6 assumes there will be several options, with a winner chosen

by a ranked ballot, with the losers, second choices, being

redistributed, and so on.

If there’s only one FPP option and more than one proportional

representation option on the ballot, you can do the arithmetic.

Practically speaking, you might say the fix is in — FPP is out. The

member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, the previous speaker, has already

pointed out how this contradicts an assurance given to the Vancouver

Province last May by the current Premier.

It will be multiple choice. As Keith Baldrey, a journalist of some

note in these precincts, has already pointed out, with multiple choice,

the chance that FPP gets 50 percent plus one is remote. Sorry, FPP, you

got your chance at bat, but you struck out.

So we’re left with our own private speculations as to where

cabinet will go next in choosing among many proportional representation

alternatives. I believe, however — putting on my forecaster hat — I can

make a reasonable prediction of the system they will choose.

Ordinarily, one might suppose executive council would sort through

many options, listen to all the experts, do everything, kind of, the

citizens’ assembly did on a broader basis, but I don’t really think

they’ll be burdened with all that fuss and bother. I think executive

council will simply be asked to rubber-stamp a particular model that’s

already been decided.

Why would I think that? Well, partly, it’s natural to find that

the tough, complex and strategic decisions confronting this government —

in fact, confronting any government — are highly centralized in the

Premier’s office. Who’s staffing the Premier’s office? Do any of these

officials have any particular leanings when it comes to the voting

process? Well, as a matter of fact, I think they do.

The city of Vancouver, in recent history, has been described as

governed by a combination of our former NDP colleague Mayor Robertson,

of unmatched personal charm, backed up by the muscular discipline of a

colleague recently elevated to the apex of power in our British Columbia

government as chief of staff to the Premier. So it’d be perfectly

natural, in my view, that this person would have a very significant

voice when it comes to recommending a proportional representation system

to executive council.

Has this chief of staff been associated with any favoured

proportional voting scheme in the past? Certainly, if we go back a few

years. It’s a purely personal speculation on my part, but it’s my

experience that people don’t change much over time. I bump into

classmates from 50 years ago, and they’re still passing judgment on

society — unchanged prejudices — as they did when I first met them. I’m

willing to bet that the viewpoints of our chief of staff were shaped

years ago and haven’t changed much over time.

For example, in earlier life, the chief of staff advocated for the

net fishing industry, and fish farms be damned. This would be consistent

with the government’s condemnation of fish farmers today, no doubt

sanctioned by the corner office.

In an earlier life, he was also a newspaper editor — the journal

of a political party which was advocating for some big, some might say

radical, changes in how we are governed as a matter of class struggle.

Would those views survive until today? Well, I believe, chances are,

they would.

So I suggest to this Legislature that we can gain insights about

the likely leanings on proportional representation within this

government by reading the very articulate, well-composed,

pull-no-punches submission of the Communist Party of Canada to the

special parliamentary committee on electoral reform on October 8, 2016 —

about 12 months ago.

[11:45 a.m.]

This submission, reprinted in the People’s Voice — of

which the chief of staff was formerly the editor; years ago, I grant —

proudly describes itself as the voice of a registered political party

with 95 years of fighting for peace, democracy and socialism and

significantly, it points out, the very first political party in Canada

to call for proportional representation.

This party Brief to the Special Parliamentary Committee on

Electoral Reform maintains that: “Any discussion about

electoral reform should build from the principle of making every vote

count.” Ah, making every vote count. I’ve heard that expression before,

and I’m sure that I will hear it again and again.

The party brief goes on further to describe itself as being: “A

strong champion of electoral reform and replacing first-past-the-post

(FPP) with mixed-member proportional (MMP) representation without

threshold limits.”

The brief goes on to describe MMP with great clarity. I admired

the sheer elegance of the prose. Skipping over some of the

paragraphs:

“Despite misinformation campaigns, the mixed-member proportional

voting system is very clear, involving one ballot with two votes. With

one vote, a local Member of Parliament is elected, and with the second

vote, the people select a party. The Member of Parliament can be with

the party you vote for or not. Local MPs would be elected in exactly the

same way as they are now. The second vote would go toward electing a

Member of Parliament from a party list.

“Today the realities are self-evident that the FPP winner-take-all

system is undemocratic, entrenching the big business parties. A vast and

costly electoral machine is required to win ridings.

“Our party has maintained long-standing and strong support for MMP

because it’s a much-needed, significant reform to the voting system. MMP

would help break the stranglehold of the giant corporations over

politics. It would help counter the trend to squeeze progressive small

parties off the electoral platform altogether.

“The peoples of Canada have waged prolonged campaigns to enlarge

democracy in this country. Historically, this has included revolutionary

struggles to win representative assemblies. Later battles to expand the

franchise have fought against class oppression as well as colonialism,

racism, sexism, ageism and other structural inequalities.

“The campaign for proportional representation is all part of the

struggle, led by groups like Movement pour une démocratie nouvelle and

Fair Vote Canada with support from their allies in labour and the

people’s movements, the Communist Party, the Green Party, the New

Democratic Party, the Bloc Québecois, Québec solidaire and

others.

“By making the composition of the party list a political concern,

MMP could also help to elect more Indigenous candidates, people from

racialized groups, women and trans persons. It will also contribute to

the break up of the dominance of the big parties by fostering coalitions

which are susceptible to public opinion and mass pressure.”

Hmm, mass pressure. Does this mean a little bit of mob

intimidation is part of the package?

So what will be the consequences of electing MLAs in accordance

with this particular model of proportional representation? Well,

political scientists and astute journalists have made the following

points, and many of these points have been made by previous speakers on

this bill.

It can give extreme parties a foothold in Parliament, and the

Weimar Republic and the Bundestag are examples.

The big-tent political model fragments. As the brief I previously

cited points out, proportional representation will: “Contribute to the

break up of the dominance of the big parties.” Vaughn Palmer has

tweeted: “Great moments in proportional representation. Iceland

election, 200K voters, eight parties, 63 seats.”

Negotiating backroom deals replaces public debate. Taxpayer-funded

secretariats may be appointed to broker ongoing deals far from prying

media eyes.

[11:50 a.m.]

Hostage-taking can occur. When the leading party cannot form a

majority without bending to the will of minority interests on issues

contrary to its own election platform, core principles fly out the

window.

Accountability suffers. Coalitions fuzzify who’s actually in

charge.

Some parties develop nine lives, even when shifting political

ties, rendering them zombies whose only important support is to the

taxpayer. Think Parti Québécois in Ottawa.

In it’s most likely application, each provincial riding would

double in size, and half of all MLAs would be appointed by a party and

not necessarily have any connection with the local region. Perhaps the

most dubious consequence of the MMP model would be to delegate MLA

selection to political parties. Lists would be put forward by each

party. Party bosses would choose the MLAs, not citizens. The link

between community and representative is cut in half.

In response to the possibility of party choice replacing citizen

choice, the incredulous member for Skeena asked, in these chambers, a

couple of days ago: “Do we live in Russia?”

Finally, will public cynicism be reduced as advertised? Well, I’d

say not likely.

UVic political scientist Dennis Pilon wrote in the June-September

2010 Canadian Political Science Review that the results of the

’05 and ’09 referenda suggested that elite manipulation of the process

and changing levels of partisan insecurity between the two votes were

more influential in producing different outcomes than any thoughtful

public reaction to the options.

It’s hard for me to conceive how any system of candidate choice

based upon party rather than citizen can be considered democratic. The

inner machinery of any party, and I speak from personal experience, is

seldom transparent. Party lists would be assembled inside the club based

on party service, unthinking loyalty, the trading of future favours,

friendships, and so on. The slogan, “Every vote counts” — remember

hearing that one? — becomes in the real world: “Every party counts.”

Parties get excited, no wonder, over the possibility of MMP. Lips are

smacking.

In closing, let’s look at PR in action. These various examples

from around the world have been belaboured by many of my colleagues, but

let me return, again, to Germany. At this moment, Germany is without a

government. Some might say that without Chancellor Merkel, it is the

western world itself which right now is leaderless.

Six parties are represented in the Bundestag, representing between

40 percent and 9 percent of the popular vote. The leader of the FDP

Party said four days ago, as he walked out declaring, “I’m out of here,”

that while he knew he “could not steer the course of the entire republic

with just 11 percent of the vote, the parties around the table had ‘no

shared vision.’” And four weeks of talks had left them with — get this —

“inconsistencies, unanswered questions and conflicts.” I said to myself:

“Sounds just like a caucus meeting.”

This is inherent in the democratic process, but he found it

intolerable. It was impossible. He couldn’t live with it. He walked out.

Psychologists have a term for individuals who are extremely

self-absorbed and self-centred and for whom “compromise” is a dirty

word. “You other folks be damned. It’s my opinion which is right. Do it

my way, or I’m picking up my baseball, and I’m going home.” Welcome to

proportional representation.

[11:55 a.m.]

I could go on and on, but I see the clock is approaching noon. I

would just like to wind up by saying the present election system is not

without its flaws. Certainly, proportional representation has worked

reasonably well in many other parts of the world. The B.C. Liberal Party

itself openly espoused this option years ago, so we should not be

dismissive of this as a legitimate option for how we choose

MLAs.

I think there are variations on the theme which I, frankly, find

intolerable. Any suggestion that we would revert to that particular

brand of MMP where parties rather than citizens make decisions about who

will become MLAs is totally unacceptable to the democratic history and

traditions of British Columbia.

Noting the hour, I would move adjournment of the

debate.

R. Sultan moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: The House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); N. Simons in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:01 a.m.

On Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $11,011,000.

The Chair: Premier, would you like to make an opening

statement?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’d be delighted to make an opening statement. I’ll make it as

brief as possible, more to introduce those that are with me. I’m joined

by my Deputy Minister, Don Wright, and chief of staff to the Premier,

Geoff Meggs. Tara Richards is going to be here to help us with the

finances, Steve Klak as well. And Shelley Canitz, from the office of the

deputy. The Deputy Minister, Intergovernmental Relations, Okenge Yuma

Morisho, is also here to help the committee get any of the answers they

may need.

Briefly, because I know we are limited in our time this morning, I

wanted to say that it is an honour and a privilege to take this

opportunity to defend the budget and our estimates process — which, as a

longtime opposition member, I can tell you was oftentimes the most

fruitful debate and discussion that we have here at the Legislature. I’m

confident, as I look at the capable, experienced people on the other

side, that the questions will be focused on issues that are important to

the people of British Columbia, and I want to commit to the committee

that I’m going to do my level best to answer the questions in as full

and open a way as possible.

Thank you for that opportunity to have an opening

remark.

R. Coleman: In that vein, to the Premier, I remember doing estimates with him

once when the Premier wasn’t available, so I’ve been on both sides of

this discussion. The Premier did say back a few years ago that it would

be great to have them in the chamber so that people could see it all.

We’re not prime time today, Premier.

I do, though, just want to bring his attention to…. I want to sort

of contextualize how we will approach the estimates of the Premier. The

Premier once said…. I thank the Premier and his staff who are assembled

here today for the next number of hours, as we explore not just, of

course, the budget allocation in the blue book but also look broadly, I

believe, at government policies ahead of the executive council. He went

on to say, basically, that any question was available, which I totally

respect. I think that’s the best way to do it.

I have a number of members that will want to ask the Premier some

specific questions as we go through these discussions. But maybe I could

just start out with some basic questions with regards to the Premier’s

office budget. There are two sets of estimates already produced this

year: one in April by the previous government, of course, and one in

September by the current government. The next few questions will explore

the differences between the two.

In the estimates produced in April, the total budget for Vote 10,

Premier’s office, was $9.011 million. In the estimates produced in

September, that has increased to $11.01 million. What is the 22 percent

increase?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. It is a $2

million lift from February, and much of that can be found by our effort

to have greater transparency on items that were monetary costs that were

incurred by the Premier’s office previously but were paid for by other

ministry budgets.

[11:05 a.m.]

An example of that would be the Pacific Carbon Trust. There was a

$5,000 cost to the Premier’s office that was paid by another ministry

until this year; $96,000 for data operations, which were services that

were used by the Premier’s office that were paid by other ministries.

Postage wasn’t previously paid by the Premier’s office. Those costs were

incurred by the Premier’s office and paid by another

ministry.

R. Coleman: Could the Premier be specific as to which ministry he was

mentioning in the first part of his answer with regards to costs that

were previously paid elsewhere, and why?

Hon. J. Horgan: The bulk of these expenditures, somewhere in the neighbourhood of

$750,000 in non-salary costs, were picked up by the Ministry of

Finance.

R. Coleman: If we look at the group account classification

summary and

supplements, most of the change is captured in salaries and benefits,

specifically for executive operations. How many FTEs had their salary

and benefits captured by executive operations in Vote 10 in the April

estimate, and how many in the September update?

Hon. J. Horgan: I think I’ll start with a broad answer, and you can burrow down.

The $2 million increase is funding ten additional positions.

R. Coleman: What are those ten positions?

Hon. J. Horgan: They’re going to pull out a piece of paper and hand it to me, and

I have to make a correction already. It’s $1.25 million in costs for

salaries. The other $750,000 were expenses incurred and paid elsewhere.

The ten new positions is $1.25 million. That includes, by and large — in

fact, almost entirely — in the deputy minister’s office….

The former government had 26 individuals with a salary of

$2,082,000. The current government has 27 positions. We added one

additional person in the correspondence branch, and the salary increase

would come out as almost net-net. There is one additional person, one

additional salary as a result of the change from February to

September.

R. Coleman: So that’s, obviously, not just all the operations, because that

would mean somebody is getting paid $1.2 million. I don’t think that’s

the case, and if it is, where do I apply?

You have got a pretty capable deputy. I’m well aware of his

capabilities. Maybe you could try and give me a bit more detail on that

rather than just one additional person for $1.2 million.

Hon. J. Horgan: These changing roles are interesting for both the member and

myself.

The one additional is in the basement, and upstairs in the

deputy’s office is where the bulk of the new staff are. It’s an increase

of six from the former government. No. Hang on. Five additional senior

staff in the deputy’s office is where the bulk of the salary increase

goes to, and there are four positions not yet filled. So in terms of the

allocation, where our expectation is, we’re not going to meet that

budget number this year. The public accounts will show that we are well

below that.

R. Coleman: Can you boil down the five positions for me?

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: The focus in the increase in salary and staff in the deputy’s

office consists of an additional ADM from the previous FTE count,

responsible for priorities. As a new government, after a long period of

time of an incumbent government with an ambitious agenda, it was our

view — working together with the chief of staff, the deputy and I — that

it was important that we had a central operation that would have existed

in previous administrations, whether they be Liberal, New Democrat or

Socred

Again, in the interest of transparency, we want to have this

opportunity to debate why we’re putting new additional staff directly

into the Premier’s office, reporting directly to the deputy, so we have

an ADM responsible for priorities, three directors that report to that

ADM, and an executive assistant to make sure it all works.

R. Coleman: Just to be on the record, I’ve only been a member of two of those

three parties over my time involved in and out of politics. Funding for

the Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat has jumped by 11.5 percent,

or $362,000. Presumably, that’s not money for the Third Party

relationship through the secretariat, since they’re not government. So

what is that dollar for?

The Chair: The member is asked to repeat the question.

R. Coleman: I thought that was a brilliant question. Funding for the

Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat has jumped 11.5 percent. That’s

about $362,000. Presumably, that’s not more money for a relationship in

the secretariat with the Green Party, which we will get to in a minute

or two, because they’re not actually government. So what is that

additional 11.5 percent for?

Hon. J. Horgan: The increase in IGR is, again, in an effort to provide more

transparency. PNWER, for example, the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region,

paid for out of a different budget in the past, now is incorporated with

intergovernmental relations. The Pacific Coast Collaborative, another

initiative, again supported by all parties, which had been funded in the

previous government by a different ministry, now is housed within IGR.

These are all increases in budget to demonstrate transparency that

intergovernmental relations, which has been housed in the Premier’s

office, now has responsibility for paying their bills.

R. Coleman: My experience has been that PNWER required some dollars from Vote

1 for members to travel to PNWER conferences, pay for their registration

and travel. An MLA budget was actually applied through Vote 1, through

the MLAs. Can the Premier tell me what the costs of PNWER are, in actual

fact, rather than just the number?

Hon. J. Horgan: Thank you for the question. I’m advised that…. I agree with the

member that Vote 1…. MLAs used their office budgets and their caucus

budgets to participate in PNWER. But there is a membership fee, and that

fee is the number in the blue books. That number is now, rather than

being paid from Finance, being paid through the Premier’s

office.

R. Coleman: Thank you, Premier. You’re also spending an extra $200,000 on

office expenses and information systems. Could you be specific what

that’s for? Is this a one-time increase for new equipment or ongoing

operational costs?

Hon. J. Horgan: The gross number has increased, but it’s a flow-through from other

ministries in a cost recovery to pay for that.

While I’m on my feet, I’ll have to say to the Chair and to other

members of the committee that I have, for many, many years, sat on that

side of the House and wondered just what goes on when the minister or

the Premier turns to get advice. And I’m now reminded of how capable —

and the former ministers will remember this — how capable the people

behind me are. I’m grateful that they’re here to help answer the

detailed questions that the Leader of the Opposition will now continue

to bring forward.

[11:15 a.m.]

R. Coleman: More like an encyclopedia, actually, without Google. Yeah, there

are often times when you do rely on them.

Going forward, do you anticipate that your office budget will

continue at an increase of $2 million a year?

Hon. J. Horgan: We don’t anticipate any further increases beyond this initial,

again, start-up for a new administration — trying to figure out how we

can be as transparent as possible with public dollars, making sure that

if an expenditure is undertaken by the Premier’s office, it’s noted in a

way that can be seen by not just the official opposition and not just by

the Third Party but all British Columbians. That’s the

intent.

We do have, as I said, an increase in resources available to the

deputy minister on the public service side to make sure that we’re

driving the agenda and the priorities of the new cabinet.

R. Coleman: The operations and the ministers’ offices are now located in

Victoria. I’ve always believed we should be in Victoria as often as we

can for staff. I’ve always believed that. But your director of

operations makes $125,000 a year. That’s $20,000 more than the base

salary for an MLA, and the previous occupant of that office made

substantially less than that. What has changed in the job description,

for the description for director of operations, to justify the $40,000

increase?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for the question. We’ve, in essence, eliminated

the position of deputy chief of staff. It’s no longer in our org chart.

That was a salary item of $175,000 in the previous administration. We’ve

also eliminated the executive director for issues management and

communications, which was a $156,000 pay packet. We have communications

requirements, of course, as all governments do, but virtually every

other position, the salary, has remained the same.

The operations, as you say, are now more focused on Victoria. The

responsibilities of the director of operations have increased. They now

have responsibility directly for correspondence. They have

responsibility to make sure that the trains are running on time and

that, in fact, in terms of dollars upstairs and downstairs, there’s

actually a decrease in costs — the same number of FTEs but a decrease in

costs from July 2017 to November 2017.

R. Coleman: I assume that doesn’t include the other five that we were talking

about earlier.

Hon. J. Horgan: No.

R. Coleman: Premier, the word on the street, let’s call it, is that you intend

to put executive assistants in constituency offices — from the

ministers’ offices. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Horgan: That’s correct. It’s our expectation that we’ll be sitting here

more frequently. We want to ensure that we have….

Although we’ve had a fixed calendar since 2001-02, we have not, as

the member will know, always availed ourselves of the opportunity to

gather in the fall. We expect to continue to do that as we have this

fall session. We’ll have a spring and a fall sitting, and that will

require, with the configuration of the Legislature being as tight as it

is, ministers to be in Victoria for more activities than they would have

been otherwise.

Having an assistant in the constituency…. I know for myself, who

lives here on the Island and has enjoyed the benefits of being able to

go home every night, that's a privilege that.... I know very few members

— I look around the room — have that opportunity. I get to be with my

family every evening when the House is sitting, and I know other members

don’t. I am grateful to have an assistant in my constituency. The volume

of work, as the former minister and former Deputy Premier will know, has

gone up exponentially.

[11:20 a.m.]

To have someone assisting my constituency staff — who are not

partisan, as you know, and are there to ensure that services are

provided to constituents and are overwhelmed with protests, advocacy

groups, and so on…. To have someone in the constituency office to

represent the government on my behalf is an asset and a relief for my

CA.

R. Coleman: This is a twist. These people are politically appointed staff

going into non-partisan offices. They will presumably be using the

resources of the $119,500 that constituency offices use, whether it be

space by amount of rent by square footage, whether it be telephone or

fax or scan equipment, whether it be that all of a sudden the office has

turned into a political place to drop by, versus what it is supposed to

be — a non-partisan community office only for the purpose of serving all

constituents in the riding.

These are political appointees. These are political positions. I’d

like to hear his justification as to why, other than what he just said,

they’re putting political people in constituency offices. Are you, when

you do this, paying for the square footage that person uses if they use

an 8-by-12 or 10-by-10 office? Are they going to be paying for their own

telephone, etc., and all the rest of the other things relative to it?

How do you justify taking what has traditionally become the non-partisan

office of people elected to the Legislature…?

I think we’ve all run by this very well for a couple of decades

now or more — that the offices are not partisan. We actually made the

move on the financing and funding for constituency offices so they

wouldn’t be. This is a move to make a portion of them

partisan.

Hon. J. Horgan: I absolutely agree with the member. We are alive to the concern he

raises. We’re making every effort to ensure that executive assistants,

when they are located in constituency offices of ministers, are not

using resources that are paid for through Vote 1. Anything — whether it

be their phone, the paper they use, the computer that they carry — is

provided by the ministry, so there’s no impact on the non-partisan

element of the office. Nor is it our intention to politicize the

office.

The member will know — and others, as I look across at those that

will be potentially asking questions today — that when you are a member

of the executive council, you get an increase in volumes in your office,

whether it be correspondence, phone calls or visitations from those that

are friendly and those that are not.

I have, on my watch as a member of the Legislature for a dozen

years, made every effort to ensure that when people come and want to be

dealing with political issues, that we do not do that in a way that

would make our office appear to be a centre for political activity. It

is a centre to provide services and inform people about programs that

are delivered by the government of British Columbia. And they’ll remain

that way.

R. Coleman: Maybe I should just give the Premier a little history on when

there were executive assistants in the offices back in the days of the

Social Credit government. They were sent over to be in those offices to

actually assist with the operation of the offices. In those days, riding

associations helped to subsidize the rent to those operations and

sometimes the staff, because there wasn’t enough money from the

Legislature to fund them.

We definitively, as a group, back in the ’90s, decided we were

going to de-politicize any operations in our offices — not to say there

were any in the 1990s. It’s just that we said we should formulize the

amount of money that’s paid for the operation of a constituency office,

decide whether rent is paid for from Vote 1, hire the applicable people

to work and run in those offices, and to not put political staff inside

a constituency office.

The reason we did that was because we didn’t want the

politicization. I get the Premier’s context with regards to the

workload, but I did manage for 16 years, on some significant ministries,

not to have to have political staff in my office in Langley. My biggest

concern on this, Premier, is it will cause some politicization, whether

you want to believe it or not.

The first thing is, if you were in my office which I have in

Langley…. If you’re occupying one office and someone is speaking loud

enough on the phone, you can hear the whole conversation. The sadness

about that is now I’m going to have a political staff member in there

where it might get to the point that I should go give this constituency

assistant my opinion on how he or she should handle this

file.

[11:25 a.m.]

That will lead to other things, to where the context of who is

actually in charge in that office will change. When it does change, it

will actually make the operation more political and less

community.

I pride myself, in the 21 years I have been here, that we’ve

always kept that office non-partisan. We’ll take any file. I’ll give you

an example. Last week with Soliris, did I politicize Soliris with the

Health Minister? No. I took the information, met my constituent and, on

a non-partisan basis, took it to the Health Minister to be included in

his stuff relative to his deliberations.

In the context of having somebody in there, the EA would be

running off to the minister saying, “There’s an issue coming out of this

office. You should be ahead of it,” etc. So my big concern is there’s a

confidentiality piece from my constituents when they come into my office

to know they have that. They also need to know that when I come in here,

into my office, it’s non-partisan.

The switch has been…. We did it deliberately in this Legislature a

number of years ago to not have this happen. I can’t see how the Premier

can justify it just on a workload when I know full well that for the

last 16 years — and frankly, I think for the ten years previous —

ministers managed to do their jobs without having EAs in the

constituency offices.

Hon. J. Horgan: The member is quite right in his chronology of the evolution of

funding of constituency offices. Using this as an opportunity to educate

those who are tuning in at home and for members who are new to this

place, as I look around the room, you’re absolutely right.

Our constituency offices used to be extensions of constituency

associations. We moved away from that in the late ’80s, early ’90s, but

there were still executive assistants working for ministers in

constituency offices, I believe, right up to 2001. It was a change made

at a time when the numbers, you’ll remember very well, were 77 to two.

The flexibility of government was different than it is today.

It is not our intention…. I absolutely support the thrust of the

member’s question. I do not want…. In fact, I’ve had my CA express

extreme relief to me because of the volume. I’m now the Premier of

British Columbia. We all knew what we were getting into when I agreed to

take on the role of Leader of the Opposition and run to be

Premier.

My support staff in the constituency, who are friends now…. The

member knows you get very close to your CAs. They are your face in the

community. My face now is not just the member for Langford–Juan de Fuca.

It is now Premier of British Columbia. They are relieved, my two

assistants that do the non-partisan work that the member so ably

discusses. They are inundated with politics.

To have an executive assistant that is available when I’m not

there to push things off to means it’s not being transferred down to the

Premier’s office and getting into a queue that’s already overwhelmed

with additional work, as well, and new people coming in to fill

positions.

If, over time, we discover that the concerns that the member has

raised do emerge, I can assure him that I’ll take steps to resolve that.

But these are not permanent positions in constituency offices. The

intent is to make sure that there’s someone there representing the

government so that it takes pressure off the non-partisan staff that are

there providing services to citizens, making sure that they get timely

access to public information and certainly maintaining their privacy as

well.

R. Coleman: My experience over the years I was…. I had some pretty significant

files and lots of controversy at different times. We managed that, as

the Premier just described, without putting people in constituency

offices and politicizing them. The ability for a constituency assistant

to directly be in contact with an EA within an office was set up across

government for any MLA, not just for government MLAs, to know that was a

contact point who could take care of any issue relative to government

and answer those questions.

The Premier will know that the walk-in traffic in constituency

offices is substantially down from where it was 20 years ago because of

the Internet, email and other opportunities to communicate. I’m still

kind of struggling with how you justify politicizing constituency

offices at the expense of what’s actually working non-partisan for

communities — to put EAs in offices when in today’s environment that

really isn’t necessary. It’s not like the day of the fax and the pager

and what have you. It’s the day of electronics and seamless

communication.

[11:30 a.m.]

My constituency assistants over the years quite managed it without

having to have an EA in the office. When we, frankly, looked at it at

one time, our biggest concern was: how do you breach the confidentiality

side and what’s going on in an office and the interference that comes

just by opinion of an EA that represents a minister?

As an example, you have an EA in the office of one of the

ministers, and they have a file come through. The constituency office is

going to do the file work, the calls, what have you, and somebody else

is listening to the conversation. Oftentimes it’s very confidential —

confidentiality things signed by our constituents to represent them,

whether it be to a doctor or whatever. He then enjoins himself in the

opinion of the conversation, which changes the dynamic of who is

actually working for the constituents and who is responsible.

My concern is that the responsibility will shift. It will become

more and more political. As a result, even comments on such a thing…. I

just recently sent out a newsletter. The newsletter gets put through a

process that’s well established so it’s non-partisan. But to have

somebody in the office say, “Well, let me have a look at that. I’m going

to give you some ideas….” The Premier knows that that could easily

happen.

The problem is that this is the extension of changing what I’ve

always thought was a very important principle of the operation and the

independence of an MLA, no matter whether they’re opposition or

government — that their offices were non-partisan. They were there for

their constituents. They would take the toughest files and concerns,

meet with them, deal with them, be on the phone with them. I can tell

you that I probably can’t find you a constituency office in British

Columbia where the reception desk isn’t probably heard from either an

adjoining office or a boardroom or somewhere else.

That really is not just confidentiality. It’s going to relate to

opinions and appearances. Those parts, I think, change the dynamic and

take away the independence of the offices of MLAs.

Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate the member’s experience, who has been in opposition

and in governments and has seen the evolution of funding for political

activity, funding for community activity, over 20 years of service to

the people of B.C. I value his input on this.

We’re going to monitor this carefully. It is not our intention to

politicize offices. It’s our intention…. We have new ministers in place,

learning the ropes and figuring out how to proceed and where those fine

lines are. We’re going to perhaps run up to them.

We have given direction to those EAs that are in constituency

offices — I’m advised that not all of them are; there are those that are

housed here at the Legislature as well — that this is not about

second-guessing the able work of our constituency assistants. It’s about

trying to relieve the pressure that is now increased on those offices

for the first time now.

I appreciate that the member’s experience allows him to say, over

a broad horizon, he and his staff were able to work out protocols and

procedures. We are new to this. I’m not using that as an excuse. I want

to assure the member that I absolutely understand what he’s saying.

We’re going to take deliberate steps to make sure we don’t politicize

the process.

I know that my constituency staff have worked very, very hard to

maintain relationships with government officials, as well, so that they

can have seamless discussions. It isn’t the day of the fax and the

brick-sized cell phones. I understand that location is no longer as

important as some might think.

For those who are now taking on new responsibilities with a

requirement to be always in the Legislature, this is an initiative that

we’re undertaking. If we do find or the member finds that we have gone

not just to the line but gone past it, I’m hopeful and I’m confident

that he’ll raise that with me again.

R. Coleman: I think you’ve gone across the line, just in my own opinion. The

minute you actually politicize a constituency office…. I know this job

is one of the most remarkable and difficult jobs that everybody does in

government, and they don’t actually realize it, for the most part,

because our front-line people do so much work. They do that work in my

office on the basis of non-partisanship, because I want everybody to be

served.

To enjoin and load down into that office any political person who

has a political, direct connection to a minister is going to cause

difficulties within those offices and definitely will cause difficulties

as far as confidentiality, as far as I’m concerned. The Premier and I

will disagree on this, but I can honestly say to the Premier that this

one thing — if I could give him some advice, which he’s not apt to take

— is a mistake.

[11:35 a.m.]

It’s a mistake because I think we, collectively in this House, in

the last 21 years I’ve been here, worked very hard to make sure that our

offices are not partisan. As a matter of fact, I know that we actually

put in place, over the years, back in the former NDP government,

standards of communication that would be non-partisan — a way for our

offices to be able to have an opinion made about that communication so

they wouldn’t be partisan. We’ve always been pretty disciplined about

it, I think. We need to continue to be that.

When you add a political staffer in there, it’s a bit of a

difficulty. I think the reality is that those calls, for a minister, can

be handled with the right setup of communication without politicizing

constituency offices.

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I appreciate the counsel from the member. I shortchanged

him a year on his time of service. I said 20, but it is 21. You’re

right. You don’t look a day over 20, Member.

R. Coleman: And a half, if you’re counting.

Hon. J. Horgan: It’s 21½. I bet you are counting.

We’ve been working with the Clerk’s office to make sure that we do

not cross that line. There have been recent examples where that has been

the case, not just in minister’s constituency offices but right here at

the Legislature. I won’t get into that, but it’s well known by the

member and other members, and we want to avoid that.

We did not set out to create problems. We’re setting out to try to

resolve problems. Maybe we have over-anticipated in this instance, and

we’ll be monitoring it in the days and weeks ahead. Based on the line of

questioning, I know the Leader of the Opposition will be as well. I

think the public can take great confidence in knowing it is not our

intention to politicize the very good work that our 87…. In fact, the

member in the chair has multiple constituency offices because of the

size of the area they have to cover and the difficulty of ferry routes

and so on.

It is not the intention to politicize those offices. If that

becomes an issue, we’ll address it immediately.

R. Coleman: It’s an interesting parallel you derive with Powell River–Sunshine

Coast. They don’t get an increase in budget, and he’s not a minister.

Yet if somebody was to say that somebody’s got a higher workload for

travel and difficulty getting to their ridings and for communication, it

wouldn’t be a riding in Vancouver that gets an EA. I can tell you that

in most urban, particularly metro, ridings, there’s not that much

activity coming through the door.

To try to justify that, versus where somebody may actually need it

when they’re covering a place bigger than the entire province of Prince

Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia combined…. Maybe the

resources shouldn’t go to the EAs but should actually go to help those

particular ridings take care of the people that they need to the

most.

Of course, that’s not within the Premier’s purview. That’s within

LAMC’s purview. Things that are coming before LAMC today…. You have to

remember that every time we’ve made a change of any type, compensation

or change, it has always gone out to an independent panel, not something

we just decided in committee. We decided to not have that done when we

did the last work with regards to MLAs and costs and other funds,

whether it be to a caucus or whatever the case may be. It’s always been

done independently.

Premier, I will stop now for a minute. My member for Cariboo North

would like to ask you a couple of questions. It’s clarification of

something that’s just happened. Then it will come back to me, if

necessary, after you have dealt with those couple of

questions.

C. Oakes: To the Premier, thank you for this very important opportunity to

ask specific questions around supporting the communities that have been

affected by wildfires. We have certainly canvassed all of the past

ministries about support. I know that at a press conference yesterday,

the Premier talked about the $100 million announcement with the federal

government that would specifically go to small businesses and

individuals.

Can the Premier kindly provide details of how businesses and

individuals will access that money, and is it specifically for

individuals?

R. Coleman: I actually said the wrong riding. It was Cariboo-Chilcotin that

was going to get up, but she capably asked the first question from

Cariboo-Chilcotin. The member will ask that question, and then the

member for Cariboo-Chilcotin will ask the balance.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Opposition again.

I have to say that both members, for Cariboo-Chilcotin and for

Cariboo North, have been working tirelessly for their communities. I’ve

talked to both of them, particularly the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin,

from the early days — prior to the transition, in fact, from the

previous government to the current government. We have done our level

best to meet the needs of the people and to meet the issues that have

been raised by the MLAs, who are working so hard for their

constituents.

What I said yesterday…. I had an opportunity to meet with the

Prime Minister a week ago today, and we’ve develop