Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, October 24, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 167

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)

Indians Abroad for Pluralist India

R. Kahlon

Youth forestry skills program in Lumby

E. Foster

Part-time studies instructors at B.C. Institute of Technology

J. Routledge

Cultus Lake water quality

L. Throness

Vancouver Island economic summit

D. Routley

Salmon run events at Tsútswecw Provincial Park

T. Stone

Oral Questions

Real estate speculation tax

A. Wilkinson

Hon. C. James

P. Milobar

Indigenous children in care and funding for maternity programs

S. Furstenau

Hon. K. Conroy

Community benefits agreement and workers

S. Bond

Hon. C. Trevena

T. Stone

G. Kyllo

Union membership of teachers in independent schools

M. de Jong

Hon. R. Fleming

Community benefits agreement and workers

M. de Jong

Hon. C. Trevena

Petitions

L. Larson

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 40 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018

Amendment Act, 2018 (continued)

On the main motion

M. de Jong

P. Milobar

D. Ashton

J. Rustad

S. Chandra Herbert

B. Stewart

Hon. S. Simpson

D. Davies

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2018

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m sure there’s going to be an introduction of the whole group

shortly by my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education, but I notice

that in the gallery is Shirley Ackland. Shirley is here as part of

delegations for FPSE, Federation of Post-Secondary Educators. She works at

North Island College. She is a resident of Port McNeill. She was, up until

this last weekend, the mayor of Port McNeill. She is an absolutely dedicated

person to her community, whether that’s Port McNeill, the north Island or

the province of British Columbia.

Shirley is, I would say…. I would hope that she recognizes me as a

friend. I recognize her as a friend.

I hope that the House will make her very, very welcome.

Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the members’ gallery this afternoon is His Excellency

Akylbek Kamaldinov, the newly appointed Ambassador of Kazakhstan to Canada.

He is accompanied by his first secretary of the embassy, Mr. Ilyas

Akhmetov.

As some of you may be aware, Kazakhstan is home to the world’s first

and largest space launch facility. In fact, Canadian astronaut David

Saint-Jacques will be part of the crew launching in December from Kazakhstan

for the next expedition to the International Space Station.

I look forward to meeting with His Excellency later this afternoon to

discuss trade and investment relationships between our

jurisdictions.

Would the House please extend a warm welcome to the

ambassador.

Hon. K. Conroy: I’m really pleased to welcome 52 representatives of the Fostering

Change campaign to the Legislature today. These passionate young advocates

have come to Victoria for a youth policy solutions lobby day. They’re

meeting with ministers, with MLAs throughout the day to discuss how our

government can further support youth who are transitioning out of care and

into adulthood or, as they informed me today, transitioning into

community.

Thank you to Dylan Cohen and his colleagues at First Call B.C., who

have organized this day. I thoroughly enjoyed meeting with them this

morning, and I look forward to continuing to work with these amazing young

adults.

S. Bond: It’s always a great pleasure to be able to introduce someone who lives

in Prince George. I’m delighted to see Krystine Iley in the gallery today.

She is a very hard-working young woman. She and her husband, Levon, have two

incredible little children, Scarlett and Lincoln. I’m delighted that she’s

able to be here. Yes, I do admit I’m biased because she also happens to work

in my constituency office, for which I am incredibly grateful, and I’m glad

to see her here today. Please help me make her most welcome.

Hon. C. James: I have a very good friend who’s visiting today. She is an incredible

self-advocate for people with diverse abilities. She is an employee at

Thrifty Foods. She is a Special Olympic athlete and medal winner. She is

also a volunteer extraordinaire, whether it’s at the petting zoo or any

other activities that go on in Victoria. You can always find Sheenagh

Morrison there. She is a frequent visitor to this place. Would the House

please make her very welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: It gives me great pleasure to introduce the president’s council of the

Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of British Columbia. FPSE represents

over 10,000 faculty and staff at 19 private and public post-secondary

institutions from all the regions in our province, including educators,

researchers, librarians, support staff and IT technicians. They’re in the

Legislature this week, meeting with members of the assembly.

I’d like to offer a warm welcome to George Davidson, the president of

FPSE; Terri Van Steinburg, secretary-treasurer; Frank Cosco, first

vice-president; and the 20 representatives from institutions that represent

an important part of our post-secondary ecosystem.

I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming them, but first,

I would like to say welcome to the young people that are here today. You’re

champions, you’re advocates, you’re fierce, and your voice is being heard.

Haawa .

Hon. M. Mungall: I have two guests in the gallery today; they are two of my

constituents. Colleen Driscoll has been a maternity nurse at Kootenay Lake

Hospital for over 30 years. I think everybody here in the House knows how

much I love the maternity ward at Kootenay Lake Hospital. She is with her

husband, Robin Cherbo, who has actually served four terms on Nelson city

council as well. May the House please make them very welcome.

D. Ashton: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce to the House a gentleman

from Penticton, an award-winning reporter with Okanagan Valley Newspaper

Group. He’s a reporter who will give you credit when you deserve it and is

not afraid to criticize when it’s also deserved — the king of freedom of

information, Mr. Joe Fries.

Hon. K. Chen: I would like to take this opportunity to say happy birthday to a

friend and colleague in this chamber who is celebrating her “Xth” happy

birthday. She’s someone who is passionate about children and family

services. I work really closely with her on bringing in the first universal

child care in B.C. She’s so busy today that she doesn’t have time to

celebrate her birthday, so we could only eat cake early in the morning at

8:30, then following with a lot of doughnuts.

I would like to say happy birthday to the Minister of Children and

Family Development. Thank you for your service.

Mr. Speaker: I noticed that you didn’t specify which birthday.

N. Simons: It’s a pleasure to introduce a friend of mine in the House today. It’s

always nice to introduce someone who moved to British Columbia in the ’90s.

Mary moved from Ireland to British Columbia in 1991. She’s a

psychotherapist, with offices in Vancouver and Surrey. She enjoys her visits

to this beautiful city and this place. I’d like to ask everyone to welcome

Mary Smyth to the House.

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce three friends in the gallery

from a labour union, Local 1611 — Bruce Ferguson, who has done such a

wonderful job for the last many, many years, guiding us, providing

leadership; Merrick Walsh, another very dear friend, who has done the same

kind of really enormous job in the labour community; and our friend Mat

McGreish. Please join me to welcome them.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

INDIANS ABROAD FOR PLURALIST INDIA

R. Kahlon: Today I would like to recognize an advocacy group, an organization

that has formed in my community of North Delta, Indians Abroad for

Pluralist India. IAPI gathered and released its policy document at

George Mackie Library in North Delta on September 30. IAPI is a group of

people of Indian origin in B.C. that was established in response to

growing attacks on religious minorities in India.

There is a rising fear amongst many Canadians of Indian descent

that diversity of the Indian society is under threat. This group looks

to explore those fears and highlight the importance of diversity. On

September 30, they formally released their policy document that explains

why Indians who have made Canada their home should continue to speak up

for those in the motherland but at the same time recognize the struggles

of Indigenous and First Nations people here in Canada.

[1:45 p.m.]

At this launch, they highlighted the plight of Indigenous

communities across Canada. The members engaged in dialogue to further

educate themselves on residential schools and the effects still faced

today by Indigenous and First Nations communities. IAPI renewed the

organization’s belief in interculturalism and secularism and vowed to

continue to stand up against bigotry and hate, not only in India but

also here in Canada.

YOUTH FORESTRY SKILLS

PROGRAM IN

LUMBY

E. Foster: Forty-five years ago Hector LeBlanc, a logging contractor in

Lumby, approached Charles Bloom Secondary School with the idea of

running a program to teach young people logging skills.

Fast-forward to 1997. The program was operating, year on year, on

small cutblocks provided by the B.C. Forest Service or the local

licensees. The instructor, Jack Hockey, contacted a local forestry

technician, one Eric Foster, and offered him a job as a field instructor

with the idea of applying for a woodlot licence.

In 2002, with a lot of help from RPF Keith Tucker, CBSS was

allotted woodlot licence No. 1908. Jack and I worked on development of

the woodlot until 2009, when I was elected to the Legislature and Jack

retired.

The program has come a long way. Forestry teacher Martin Tooms has

added new equipment, new courses and, along with the field instructor,

Alan Farrer, has managed to get an expansion to the woodlot, which

increases the allowable annual cut, giving the program more income to

help offset the costs.

The forestry program offers many related courses, such as welding,

heavy-duty-equipment service and maintenance, and all the safety and

first aid courses. The program provides students a broad-based,

practical background in the forest industry and real-life skills. It has

expanded into several applicable trades for skills acquisition and has

added skills exploration 11-12 to add value to the existing forestry

program.

Recently Charles Bloom’s woodlot 1908 was the recipient of the

Minister’s Award for Innovation and Excellence in Woodlot Management for

the whole province. This is a huge honour, and I congratulate the

teacher, Martin Tooms; field instructor and long-time logger, Alan

Farrer; and the students of Charles Bloom Secondary’s forestry program

for their leadership in the industry.

PART-TIME STUDIES INSTRUCTORS AT

B.C. INSTITUTE OF

TECHNOLOGY

J. Routledge: Just recently I met with members of the BCIT Faculty and Staff

Association, and they told me that this week is the Canadian Association

of University Teachers annual Fair Employment Week. This is a campaign

that celebrates the work of academic staff and affirms that all academic

staff should be treated fairly.

Our conversation reminded me how unique BCIT really is, how it not

only leads the way in technology, but it also continues to advance

flexible and accessible learning options for students. Many of those

students need to take part-time courses and programs to meet the

realities of their professional and personal lives.

The instructors with whom I met are key to making education

possible in today’s economy. Instructors in BCIT’s part-time studies

courses are dedicated educators and subject area experts who are

committed to their students. Just this week, at BCIT’s distinguished

alumni awards, BCIT’s FSA celebrated one of their members who teaches in

part-time studies. Tara Wilkie teaches in the forensic science and

technology program and is a practising forensic nurse. Tara was selected

for her knowledge and expertise and her education in the human

trafficking component of forensic nursing.

Tara has made an enormous and unique contribution to the knowledge

base of health care providers, law enforcement and the justice system,

not only in the Lower Mainland but provincially and nationally. She is a

recognized expert in this area, and Tara is just one example of the

incredible asset BCIT has in its part-time studies

instructors.

In celebrating Fair Employment Week, I want to thank the BCIT

part-time studies instructors who shared their stories with me. It was

truly an honour.

CULTUS LAKE WATER QUALITY

L. Throness: Cultus Lake Provincial Park is one of the most popular parks in

B.C. The region welcomes three million visitors per year, and the area

has a growing residential base as well.

[1:50 p.m.]

There is significant aquatic potential in this deep, mountain-fed

lake. It used to be a heavy spawning ground for sockeye salmon but not

anymore. Survival rates for juvenile salmon are dropping because of

rising levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, which are nutrients that feed

the growth of plant life in the lake, starving it of oxygen so that

nothing else can live there. Over time, this will result in a phenomenon

called eutrophication, in which the lake will basically turn green with

algae. This would be a disaster for tourism, local residents and aquatic

life.

There are four main contributors of nutrients to the lake. A

million tourists in provincial parks flush their toilets into septic

fields beside the lake all summer. Runoff from agricultural fertilizer

in nearby Columbia Valley is another contributor. A surprising third

source is waterfowl; 10,000 seagulls spend their nights on the lake in a

giant colony that has become known as Seagull Island. The last major

source is atmospheric. When farmers to the west spread animal waste on

their fields, particles of manure drift into the air and make their way,

on prevailing winds, to the lake.

There are solutions at hand. B.C. Parks has been helpful in

committing, over time, to tie into a state-of-the-art wastewater system.

Government could encourage new technology that injects manure directly

into the ground. Other suggestions have been made.

In

summary, all actors need to work together to prevent the

eutrophication of Cultus Lake and to preserve it as a beautiful, clear,

sapphire jewel nestled in the Cascade Mountains, giving joy to tourists

and residents and providing a healthy home for fish for generations to

come.

VANCOUVER ISLAND ECONOMIC SUMMIT

D. Routley: I’d like to bring to the attention of the members the Vancouver

Island economic summit, which is happening today and tomorrow in

Nanaimo. It’s hosted by the Vancouver Island Economic

Association.

At the summit, they’ll release the fourth report on the state of

the Vancouver Island economy, along with the Island Good campaign

results. The Island Good campaign is a campaign to promote Vancouver

Island–produced food pro­ducts.

George Hanson, president of the association, says the economy on

Vancouver Island is good. But he’s cautious about the future, primarily

due to what’s happening south of the border. Fourteen percent of the

provincial GDP, 20 percent of the province’s population — over 800,000

people, nearly half of those in greater Victoria — make Vancouver Island

very important.

This is truly an intersection of public and private interests,

with the Premier of the province speaking today and tomorrow with

Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the

Canadian Coast Guard, as well as Celeste Haldane, chief commissioner of

the B.C. Treaty Commission, and Katrina Marquez, senior patient service

manager at Tilray, a cannabis producer in Nanaimo.

Diversification and demographics, the skills shortage. We all have

heard those terms, and on Vancouver Island, it’s no less important than

anywhere else. Exacerbated by housing shortages, difficulties acquiring

transit and difficulties acquiring education, these are the challenges

that intersect public policy with private interests in the

economy.

In fact, Island Health is the largest consumer of goods and

services on Vancouver Island. The obvious importance of coordinating our

efforts between the public and the private sectors is so important to

us.

Who would run a business without a business plan? No one. No one

would disagree. We need a public plan, and that’s called a poverty

reduction plan. Together, with all of this consultation and planning, we

will create an overall plan for prosperity for every British

Columbian.

SALMON RUN EVENTS AT

TSÚTSWECW PROVINCIAL

PARK

T. Stone: I rise today well aware of the risk that faces politicians telling

fish stories, but this is no ordinary fish story. Instead, it’s a

tribute to our heritage as British Columbians.

The Secwepemctsin word tsútswecw translates to “many

rivers.” Tsútswecw Provincial Park is the location of the Adams River

sockeye run, one of the largest salmon runs in North America. Every

fourth year is a dominant salmon run, with millions of fish to be seen

from late September through to the end of October.

You still have a few days left to take in this amazing spectacle

of nature, as life and death unfold before us to perpetuate a species so

synonymous with British Col­um­bia. Tsútswecw Park, formerly

known as Roderick Haig-Brown Park, was established in 1977, in part to

conserve and protect the spawning beds used by sockeye, chinook, coho

and pink salmon.

[1:55 p.m.]

This roughly five-week world-famous salmon run at Tsútswecw Park

consists of many events put on by the Adams River Salmon Society,

including the Salute to the Sockeye Celebration. There are also weekly

interpretive walkabouts, the Shuswap Salmon Symposium, not to mention an

artisans market, food vendors, live underwater camera viewing, artisan

demonstrations, Indigenous activities, wild salmon cooking, live music

and even Yoga with the Salmon.

These events attract visitors from around the world. It is a field

trip like no other for thousands of B.C.’s school children every year. I

remember making exactly this trip for the very first time back when I

was 12 years old, which was in 1984. I have visited many times since

with my three daughters.

Visit Tsútswecw within the next few days, and you’ll find trails

that lead to riverside viewing platforms with interpretive signage that

provides information on sockeye salmon, the salmon run and the spawning

process. If you can’t make it this year, this marvel of nature will be

repeated again in 2022.

Oral Questions

REAL ESTATE SPECULATION TAX

A. Wilkinson: We’ve all become aware that in July the city of Nanaimo told the

Finance Minister that they preferred to be exempted from her completely

mislabeled and misleading speculation tax. In fact, they wrote to the

minister to say: “It will drive developers out of the city to nearby

markets not subject to the speculation tax. Reduced developments will

mean loss of vital revenue from development cost charges to the city. It

also means the city could lose out on new, affordable housing

developments built by developers.”

Can the minister explain why the surrounding communities are now

out of her speculation tax zone and Nanaimo is left in the

zone?

Hon. C. James: I certainly understand that the other side isn’t interested in

affordable housing. They’ve made that very clear since the budget came

out. But we are taking this issue very seriously. It is a crisis in

British Columbia. It is an area that the people of this province expect

their government to act on, and that’s exactly what we’re

doing.

I met with the former Nanaimo mayor. I’ll be happy to meet with

the current Nanaimo mayor shortly. I’m sure we will have a good

discussion around affordable housing. I’m looking forward to

it.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: I’m glad to hear that the incoming mayor of Nanaimo and the

Finance Minister are still on speaking terms. Hopefully, it will stay

that way.

Now, it remains unexplained how the boundaries of the tax were

redrawn. In a surprise move in the spring, the Finance Minister ruled

out Parksville, where the retirement home of the Leader of the Third

Party lives. Of course, the Finance Minister is counting on his

support.

Here’s another quote from the city of Nanaimo: “After careful

consideration of the implications of this tax, we conclude that this tax

will hurt our economy. It is unfair and unreasonable.”

Can the Finance Minister explain how Nanaimo is still subject to

this tax when the Third Party Leader’s home is suddenly

exempted?

Hon. C. James: I know the Leader of the Opposition knows that we took a look at

the major urban settings in British Columbia. We took a look at the

vacancy rate, and we took a look at the lack of affordability in those

communities. That determined the areas that we brought forward. We had a

discussion about how to ensure that vacation homes weren’t included, and

that included taking a look at geography or taking a look at price. We

included both in the bill.

I’m very proud of the bill that has come forward. It will act on

affordable housing. It will end speculators. If the other side wants to

continue to stand up for speculation in our market, they should continue

to do so. We’re going to stand up for the people of British

Columbia.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Of course, the Finance Minister is completely dodging the question

of how the Third Party Leader’s house got exempted in some kind of

surprise move this spring, along with a little corner of the Premier’s

riding and another corner of the province which comprises a large part

of the riding of another Green Party member.

[2:00 p.m.]

The question remains: how did the Finance Minister cherry-pick

these things, and what made her change her mind? Was there some dramatic

change in vacancy rates and affordable housing in three different areas

that happened to be held by friendly parties? Perhaps the Finance

Minister can explain how this wonder occurred in the spring, where

suddenly the tax zone was changed overnight.

Hon. C. James: It’s very clear that the Leader of the Opposition would rather

point fingers than look at themselves, who brought nothing forward to

address affordable housing in British Columbia.

I’ve already gone through the process that we went through to make

the determinations. We brought the principles of the tax out in

February, and unlike the other side, we said we were actually going to

talk to people, consult with people and include their views that were

there. We did that. We looked at affordable areas. We looked at the

challenges of vacancy rates. We looked at the major urban settings.

That’s what’s included in the tax, and that’s what we will move on for

affordable housing for British Columbia.

P. Milobar: Hopefully, the incoming mayor of Nanaimo gets clarification if the

upcoming meeting counts as his one meeting a year with the Finance

Minister, before that meeting takes place.

Andrey Pavlov was one of the original architects of what became

the NDP’s so-called speculation tax, but yesterday he said: “What we

proposed is very, very different from what actually got implemented. It

was supposed to be voluntary for municipalities. Instead, what we got is

the provincial government picks and chooses who gets penalized or

not.”

To the minister, why are communities like Nanaimo being

penalized?

Hon. C. James: I will continue to be very proud of the fact that we are a

government that will stand up for the least affordable areas in British

Columbia, the least amount of vacancy rates, and will stand up for the

people in those communities who can’t find affordable housing. We will

continue to do that. It is not an option to pick and choose and say:

“These people are worthy of standing up for affordable housing but not

these people.” We are going to stand up for affordable housing for

British Columbia. We’re going to continue to do that, and that’s what’s

important.

If you take a look, Member, at the speculation tax — the fact that

99 percent of British Columbians are excluded and that people who are

speculating and who own two or three extra homes are being asked to

contribute to the affordable housing in our province — I think the

people of British Columbia have made it clear they support it. We

support it. We’re moving on it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson on a

supplemental.

P. Milobar: It seems the only people the minister doesn’t want to listen to

are her own hand-picked committees that she puts together to bring these

issues forward.

Another quote from Prof. Pavlov. He continues: “It is absolutely

dishonest, because it is labelled speculation tax when it has nothing to

do with speculation. It is absolutely a cash grab, but I think it will

backfire.”

That is exactly what is happening in Nanaimo, where housing starts

are projected to fall by 32 percent. Again, why will this dishonest tax

grab penalize Nanaimo?

Hon. C. James: It’s very clear from the other side that they are taking a look at

leaving the door open to money laundering, to speculators in the housing

market. Well, we aren’t. We’re shutting that door, Member. We are

shutting that door and bringing in approximately $200 million for

affordable housing. We’re dealing with both supply and demand. It’s what

the people of British Columbia expect us to do. They want their

government to stand up for affordable housing.

Not only that…. In fact, the B.C. Business Council, the chambers

of commerce, the Vancouver Board of Trade — what was their number one

issue when it came to recruitment and retention of employees, when it

came to growing a strong economy? Deal with affordable housing. That’s

what we will do.

INDIGENOUS CHILDREN IN CARE AND

FUNDING FOR MATERNITY

PROGRAMS

S. Furstenau: We are in a humanitarian crisis in B.C. Indigenous children are

drastically overrepresented in our child welfare system and, once pulled

into it, are on a path to further hardship and pain.

[2:05 p.m.]

The younger they are when they are taken into care, the longer

they stay in care, the worse their outcomes and the more likely they are

to later lose their own kids to the system. The intergenerational

impacts of the system are severe and tragic. As stated in the recent

MCFD and RCY joint report, 80 percent of the women who access pregnancy

outreach program services have lived in foster care types of

arrangements themselves. We have to break the cycle. We have to stop

separating infants and mothers.

To the Minister of Children and Family Development, does she

recognize that protecting the maternal bond is key to breaking the

apprehension cycle, and if so, where is the funding behind the action

plan?

Hon. K. Conroy: I want to thank the member for this question. I know she’s really

passionate about this issue and really concerned, as am I. I know that

breastfeeding has tremendous benefits for the child’s health and

development and building that bond between mother and child. As a mother

who nursed one of my children and couldn’t nurse the other one, I know

how important the mother-child bonding is, whether you’re breastfeeding

or bottle-feeding.

This spring I spoke to the Representative for Children and Youth

about what more we could do to protect and enhance that mother-baby

bond. I’m pleased to say that we do have this joint report between our

ministry and the representative. We are working on clear and specific

guidelines for social workers to support new moms, and they are working

with them to promote mom-and-baby bonding when they are feeding their

newborn.

There are some fantastic resource models that are already in place

in some communities in B.C., and they do support pregnant and parenting

mothers with substance abuse issues. We’re going to evaluate the

programs that already exist and look at the developing programs in which

mothers and babies at risk can get wraparound services, the support that

they need in a safe and secure setting.

We also know that First Nations and the Métis are very concerned

about this as well. Before we complete our plans for change, we want to

make sure that we consult fully with them and ensure that we bring the

First Nations Leadership Council in on that consultation, and other

communities as well. We’ll be doing just that — seeking their feedback

and ideas. We would welcome a similar opportunity from the member, and

any member in this House who is passionate about this issue.

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

S. Furstenau: There are, indeed, effective programs that exist right now. FIR

Square and Sheway both consider the pregnant mother or the mother and

infant as a team, which I think is the impetus of the MCFD-RCY report on

breastfeeding. It’s saying we can’t just look at the infant as one

individual and the mother as a completely separate entity. Luckily, we

already have very concrete examples of these programs that successfully

embody that approach, and we have many communities that want them

implemented right now.

Unfortunately, the action plan fails to recognize that. Saying

that we’re going to continue to review, develop, research and explore

doesn’t change the lives of these women and their babies right now. With

500 infants apprehended every year, it perpetuates the cycle. We need

urgency that matches the crisis. What was needed in that action plan was

funding and implementation.

To the Minister of Children and Family Development, the concrete

outcomes the minister is trying to achieve, based on what is outlined in

the report, won’t be achieved by this action plan. They will be achieved

by funding the models that work. How, specifically, will she address

this discrepancy?

Hon. K. Conroy: I have visited FIR Square and Sheway. They’re excellent programs.

They provide incredible services to young moms before they give birth

and after they give birth, to ensure that they continue that

mother-child bond, whether they’re breastfeeding or bottle-feeding. It’s

a service that I’d like to see expanded across the province, and it’s

something that communities have come and talked to us about.

At the same time, we need to make sure that we have the

discussions with our Indigenous partners to ensure that communities

across the province also have the involvement in the child welfare

decisions that are being made. To that end, we have signed agreements

with three First Nations — with the Wet’suwet’en, the Secwepemc and the

Métis — to start implementing their jurisdiction over child welfare in

those nations.

I think it’s really important to acknowledge the work that’s being

done by communities right across the province that want to work together

to ensure that we can implement the recommendations that were made by

this excellent report and to ensure that we’re taking into consideration

the concerns — and have the ability to talk to the people that want to

make sure that we’re implementing the right recommendations. I’m looking

forward to doing that.

[2:10 p.m.]

COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT

AND

WORKERS

S. Bond: Dawn Rebelo has worked in the construction industry since she was

17 years old. This is her message to the government: “I don’t want to

change union representation and benefit plans. I take personal offence

to the government forcing me to join unions that I do not

support.”

Why is the minister forcing Dawn Rebelo to join an NDP-approved

union?

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for her question. Again, we’ve canvassed this

quite a lot in the House. I’d like to remind the member that the way

that community benefits agreements have been working is that any

contract, whether union or non-union, can apply for a job and any worker

can go and work on the job site. It is a union job site. They’ll be

asked to join the union while they’re on that job site.

I would just like to remind the members opposite — just a little

trip back to memory lane. They were very excited, earlier last year,

about Ironworkers Local 97 supporting them during the last election.

Former Premier Christy Clark made an announcement with them to show what

a big deal it was. I’d just like to let the member opposite know that

that very same union has some thoughts on community benefits agreements

that she and the people that she’s talking about may want to be aware

of. I quote the business manager….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

The member for Prince George–Valemount on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, we see some improvement here. This minister finally has

admitted the critical point — that, yes, workers can apply. But let’s be

clear. It’s not a matter of whether they want to. It’s not a matter

whether they should consider…. They are required to join one of 19 NDP

handpicked unions if they want to work on the project.

The minister’s colleague is shaking her head. She might want to

read the agreement that points out: “If you want the job, you have to

change your union.” Restricting employment to 15 percent of the

workforce discriminates against workers like Dawn. So here’s what Dawn

says — not our words, Dawn’s words: “I believe that union representation

is important, and it’s beneficial, but I’m very disturbed by the

prospect of the government telling me and my fellow employees that I

have to join a specific union.”

To the minister, why are workers like Dawn being forced — it’s not

an option, Minister — to join NDP-approved unions in order to work on

public projects?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’d obviously like to hear from the member. If she would like to

share with me the details of the people who have been in touch with her,

I’d like to talk with them myself, because there is obviously a

concern.

The opposition doesn’t seem to realize that B.C. is facing a major

skills shortage. It was ignored by their government for years. I’d like

to reference a government report prepared for the member herself, when

she was Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training. It was presented

in 2014 and had some helpful findings on increasing the skilled

workforce in the province and increasing apprenticeship

opportunities.

It recommended that government consider having a minimum number of

apprenticeships on public infrastructure projects, and it noted that

“some private sector unions have very high apprenticeship training

completion success rates.” The B.C. Building Trades apprenticeship

graduation rates are 85 percent on average, the highest completion rates

in the industry.

With community benefits agreements, we are going to train the

apprentices. We’re going to deal with the skills short­ages. We’re

going to help train B.C.’s future workforce, and we are very proud to do

so.

[2:15 p.m.]

T. Stone: Well, in the expansive responses from the minister in her previous

two questions, she refuses to acknowledge that the vast majority of

apprentices that are trained in British Columbia are actually trained in

open shops, and by all kinds of open-shop contracting companies across

British Columbia. That was the case under our former government. That’s

the case today.

Niki Lyons of Mainline Roofing is also very concerned about the

impact of this NDP union-only requirement for major infrastructure

projects. She’s very concerned about the impact it will have on her 20

employees. She says: “If I could talk to the Premier, I would tell him

his community benefits plan isn’t benefiting this community. Our job

opportunities could be reduced by 40 percent to 60 percent as a result

of this new policy.”

My question to the minister is this: why is the minister going to

stand in the way of Mainline Roofing’s employees from working on major

public infrastructure projects simply because they do not want to join

one of the 19 NDP-approved unions?

Hon. C. Trevena: Again, to remind the member, we have canvassed this a

lot.

One of the first objectives in the agreement…. In fact, the very

first objective in the community benefits agreement states — and it’s

1.100(

a) if he wants to refer to it: “To allow any contractor in the

construction industry to bid on and perform project work.” Anyone can

bid.

Yes, we are working on having a union worksite. Any qualified

worker will have the opportunity to apply, whether or not they’re

currently union members. But like any unionized worksite, they will be

expected to join the union when they are on the job.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a

supplemental.

T. Stone: The minister and the government that she’s part of are hardly

working on creating a union-only site. That is the requirement. You have

30 days to join a union — and one of the 19 approved unions — in order

to work on major public infrastructure projects.

That policy is unfair, and it’s discriminatory. It’s going to

result in taxpayers having to pay a heck of a lot more for projects.

These projects are going to have less scope. They’re going to have

inherent delays. It’s going to result in apprentices also earning less

than the minimum wage. And….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, proceed.

T. Stone: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mainline Roofing, which is a second-generation, family-owned

commercial roofing contractor, has operated in Williams Lake for 50

years.

Niki Lyons has more to say: “Mainline Roofing was never consulted.

This was put in place without any construction industry consultation

whatsoever.”

Again to the Minister of Transportation, why is she forcing the

employees of companies like Mainline Roofing to make the very difficult

choice of forcing them either to join one of the NDP’s 19 approved

unions or face the prospect of not being able to work on any public

major infrastructure projects?

Hon. C. Trevena: The member opposite has no foundation on which to criticize us for

how we are spending public money.

This is the member who left us with a billion-dollar hole for

ICBC. He was part of a government that saw massive million-dollar,

hundreds of million-dollar, overruns on B.C. Place, on hydro lines, on

the Port Mann Bridge. Millions after millions after millions of

dollars.

[2:20 p.m.]

This is also a member of a former government who had no investment

in the public good when they were building infrastructure. Not only

massive overruns but, when they were hiring people, hiring foreign

workers. Thirty workers from Costa Rica, when they were working on the

Canada Line, were being paid $4 an hour. That side of the House has

absolutely not a leg to stand on, cannot talk about how we are investing

in the province of British Columbia.

G. Kyllo: Jacob Bros. Construction is a family company with an office in the

Premier’s own riding of Langford. Before the union benefits agreement,

Jacob Bros. would routinely bid and win contracts on public projects,

but not anymore, because their 400 employees are not affiliated with one

of the NDP-approved unions.

Why does the minister think that the workers of Jacob Bros. aren’t

good enough to work on public projects in B.C.?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’ve spoken with Jacob Bros. I’ve spoken with a number of

contractors and continue to do so and explain to them how community

benefits work. Any contractor, whether they’re union or non-union, can

bid. If they are chosen, they can bring their own workers. Those that

are working on the job site will, as in any unionized workplace, be

expected to join the union.

UNION MEMBERSHIP OF

TEACHERS IN INDEPENDENT

SCHOOLS

M. de Jong: The decision to tie one’s ability to work on publicly funded

infrastructure to membership in a certain NDP-approved union is

discriminatory, and it offends the vast majority of British Columbians.

Even more worrisome is the possibility that the NDP is looking at ways

to expand the application of this discriminatory practice into other

publicly funded services.

My question, actually, is for the Minister of Education. I have

received, and notified him of the information I’ve received, from

teachers within the independent school system, who are advising me that

they have been contacted by colleagues in the public school system and

alerted to the fact that there are discussions underway between the

government and the BCTF that would tie an independent school’s ability

to receive provincial funding to the need for every teacher in that

independent school to become a member of the BCTF.

My question for the Minister of Education is: will he stand in the

House today — and I hope he will — and offer specific guarantees that

the government of British Columbia will take no steps to create any hint

of a link between the right of an independent school to receive the

public funding it’s entitled to and the right of its teachers to select

the union they wish to belong to if, indeed, any union at

all?

Hon. R. Fleming: Well, thank you to the member for the question. I received his

letter about five minutes ago. I’m surprised he would bring it up in the

Legislature, because it’s based on absolutely flimsy information that

has no bearing on the truth. No such conversations have taken place. I

don’t know who his sources are.

He could have asked me in the hallway if he wanted to or even….

It’s not something that’s even required to be in a letter, but I’ll let

him decide how he wants to do business. But if he would have even

checked any source, he would have realized that that is unsubstantiated.

It is not true. As I said, no such conversations have occurred between

government and the BCTF.

He could have further checked. The BCTF actually has a policy that

they don’t organize in independent schools. So he’s wrong on every

score. Really, I wish he would ask us more substantial

questions.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.

Interjections.

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

[2:25 p.m.]

COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT

AND

WORKERS

M. de Jong: Well, it was not meant to be a trick question. I’m gratified that

the minister stood up and, I think — besides dismissing the information

— offered some kind of an assurance that the government would not go

down that path. I’m gratified to hear that as well.

Having offered this passionate defence of the right of an

independent teacher in British Columbia to make their own choice about

which union to belong to — if, in fact, any union at all…. My question

goes back to the Minister of Transportation. She’s just heard her

colleague announce how important it is for independent teachers to have

that right. Why is a welder in Surrey a second-class citizen? Why

shouldn’t a welder in Surrey have the same right as an independent

teacher in Surrey?

Hon. C. Trevena: Earlier in question period, I was talking about the opposition’s

support, when they were in government, from the ironworkers union,

Ironworkers Local 97. Christy Clark made a really big deal of being seen

with a hardhat with the members.

Doug Parton, the business manager for the Ironworkers 97, said

about the community benefits agreement: “What’s this about community

benefits being a payoff to unions? Do people not remember that the

ironworkers supported the Liberals in the last election? I may not agree

with everything that government does on one side or the other, but I can

certainly get behind the Premier on this one, because I remember a time

when we were building the Golden Ears Bridge. Those guys” — meaning the

opposition, then government — “brought in temporary foreign workers. My

members, unemployed members, had to bring pizzas down to help support

these people so they could eat and actually go to do a day’s

work.”

We are proud of investing in our infrastructure, in good-paying

jobs, in the people of B.C.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

L. Larson: I have a petition from 500 residents of the South Okanagan asking

government to fulfil the commitment made, when Corrections opened two years

ago, for two more RCMP officers for the Oliver detachment.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 40, the electoral

referendum act.

[2:30 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 40 — ELECTORAL REFORM

REFERENDUM

2018 AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

On the main motion.

M. de Jong: As we continue the discussion, now, back on the main body of work

with respect to Bill 40, I thought it appropriate, and I’m grateful for

the opportunity, to offer some thoughts. Someone observed the other day

that I don’t speak as much as I once did in the House. The pages of

Hansard are laced with my contributions over the

year.

On this matter, I thought it important to offer some views,

thoughts, opinions and a perspective on the import of the matter that is

before the House, both in specific and general terms, and how we find

ourselves at this point in time. I hope the House will allow me to offer

my views, based on some experience over the years with the question of

electoral reform.

I fear that one of the myths or perceptions that has arisen — I

think in part advanced by members of the government and those who are

advancing the notion of this referendum and the electoral reform it

purports to promote — is that the official opposition, people like me,

are opposed to change merely for the reason of wanting to oppose

change.

I can, hopefully, dissuade people of that idea two ways. I can say

unequivocally that that is not so, but perhaps more importantly on the

question of electoral reform, generally or philosophically, I can point

to a proud record of having facilitated and encouraged people to turn

their minds to electoral reform.

We’ve talked, and people who have participated in this debate have

talked, about the referenda that occurred in both 2005 and 2009. But

you, Madame Speaker, are one of the people in this chamber who will

recall that the question of electoral reform dates back at least to

In fact, arguably it dates back much longer than that. This

province has experimented with electoral reform once before, in the

early 1950s. I think it lasted for an election, and we then chose to

return to the system we have in place now.

In 1996, there was an electoral result where a government was

re-elected. They didn’t secure the majority of the vote; they did secure

the majority of the seats. That caused a measure of consternation within

the province and amongst people. It certainly caused a level of

discomfort and frustration on the part of those who represented the

political party that received more votes. Nonetheless, those were the

rules of the day.

But it did prompt a discussion that led to a general interest and

demand for an opportunity to consider the way we elect politicians to

this chamber. Of course, it is well known now and well established that

that formed part of a commitment the party I represent took to the

electorate in 2001, and it was acted upon.

[2:35 p.m.]

In the course of my comments today, I hope it will become apparent

to members and the public that my concern, both with the bill before the

House and the general process being undertaken by the government, has as

much and perhaps more to do with how this is being undertaken than the

what, which is providing people an opportunity to express a view on how

we elect politicians, representatives, to this chamber.

Following 2001, a random selection of citizens was asked to turn

their mind to this and was asked to provide a recommendation. It wasn’t

easy. Anyone that had an opportunity, after the fact, to speak with the

citizens that volunteered for that assembly, the citizens’ assembly —

non-political, non-partisan — will have learned just how difficult the

task was and how much time they spent developing a recommendation to

take to the people. It was well considered and well-thought-out. It was

presented at the time of a provincial election, and it secured a healthy

measure of support — more than 50 percent, in fact.

Of course, there was a threshold on a reported change of this

importance that required in excess of 60 percent, and there was a

geographic component to that. But we shouldn’t underestimate the fact

that with that level of support, there was a fair degree of pressure on

the government of the day, the government that I was a member of, to

provide people with a second opportunity to express their

views.

They did, in the election of 2009. Again the question that was put

to the population, as it was in 2005, was a straightforward one, and

more information was provided in that regard. As people began to turn

their mind to this, they began to ask more questions about how a new

electoral system would operate.

I have heard occasionally but not often enough this admission from

participants in this debate — and I am happy to make it: no system is

perfect. No electoral system is without its benefits, nor is any

electoral system without its flaws. But surely, a prerequisite to having

an informed decision from the electorate, from the citizens, is that

they be in possession of the facts and know the details on how the two

options — and in the case before us now, four options — would

operate.

What I think we gathered from the experience of the early 2000s,

between 2005 and 2009, is that for all of the interest and desire to

explore alternatives…. You know, I understand the appeal of slogans. By

definition, they are meant to be appealing. When you say to someone,

“Don’t you think every vote should count?” I defy you to find someone

who would say: “No.” My entry into this chamber occurred 25 years ago,

in an election where I persevered over opponents by 40-some votes.

Believe me, every vote is counted. Every vote counted in that

election.

When you say that to people, I don’t think most people would nod

in disagreement. Or if you say to someone, “Don’t you think there should

be a better way to do this?” in the abstract and in general, people will

say: “Well, sure. There must be a better way to do

everything.”

[2:40 p.m.]

It is when people are asked to compare on the basis of the

details, when they are asked and provided an opportunity to take what is

most certainly an imperfect present system and compare it to an

operational alternative — not to a slogan, not to some abstract

expression of a principle — that you begin to see people’s views congeal

and reveal themselves in a specific way, and in a meaningful

way.

Of course, that was the experience between 2005 and 2009. In the

abstract, people were very drawn to the idea of experimentation with

something new. When they discovered that they would no longer have a

constituency or a riding, their enthusiasm disappeared. Not completely.

There were still 38 percent, 40 percent of the population that were

prepared to take what has now been described as the leap of faith, but

that was far below what we saw previously.

As information and facts became known about what the alternative

would look like and how it would operate, people’s enthusiasm for that

alternative began to wane. If I have a criticism — I do, and I have

several — of the process we are embarked upon now, it is that there

seems to me to be a deliberate attempt, on the part of the government

and of those advocating for this change, to ensure that people don’t

have the maximum amount of information upon which to base an informed

choice. I think that’s unfortunate.

When I say “deliberate,” I realize that is perhaps a serious

accusation. I have enough respect for the political acumen of the people

that sit on the other side of the House and the government benches today

to know that they, too, study history. They, too, study the phenomenon

of electoral reform and how it has developed and evolved in British

Columbia.

They, too, understand this basic fact that the only difference

between 2005 and 2009 — where the question was the same, where the means

by which the non-partisan, non-political option that was developed was

the same — besides the result, which saw a dramatic drop-off in support,

was that in 2009, people had far more information about how that new

system would operate in their community, in their constituency and,

ultimately, in the province as a whole.

This group, this government and its allies have no interest in

facilitating the flow of that information. How do I know that? I know it

because I have participated in meetings and debates where members of the

government side — and I include the Third Party caucus — have been

present to offer their argument and rationale in support of the proposed

change.

I remember, at one such gathering, confessing to the audience my

amazement that in a forum where people are being asked, where we’re

proponents and detractors, I suppose — on the negative side of the

question, or proponents for the system we presently have — the

spokespeople for the proportional representation options, remarkably,

refused to talk about the options.

It is a conversation that takes place entirely in the abstract and

entirely guided by slogans. As I say, slogans are great, but surely,

when people are being asked to make a decision of this importance, the

people promoting that choice should be in a position, and should be

willing, to discuss in detail the virtues of the options before them. I

know that there has been some speculation about: why are members of the

government unwilling to delve into the details?

[2:45 p.m.]

Why are members of the Third Party unwilling to provide a detailed description and synopsis

of how these options would work? There are two schools of thought. One

is that very few people, including members of the government, people

that are immersed in political life and public affairs…. They are unable

to describe, in any kind of a meaningful way, what dual-member

proportional representation or mixed-member or rural-urban pro-rep are.

They’re simply incapable. I think, in some cases, that’s true, because

they are incredibly complicated.

But I think there is a more insidious reason. I think it is a

purposeful, strategic decision, because the proponents of this shift

understand that as people become more familiar with some of these

questions — and more familiar with all of the variables and the

decisions that have not been made and would not be made until after a

positive result in the referendum — their enthusiasm, as it did in 2009,

will drop off dramatically.

I was at a debate and discussion, and I waited in vain for the

Third Party member for Cowichan Valley…. I thought: “Well, here on this

ballot that people are now receiving is an option to elect people by

something called rural-urban pro-rep.” That member and the members

opposite are enthusiastic advocates for this as one of the options. I

waited in vain for her to explain it to the assembled people. Well, what

is that? How does it work?

I waited for her to explain to people that we would actually have

two very separate and different electoral systems in British Columbia. I

waited in vain for her to describe in detail for the people that, while

there were certainly, arguably — she thought — virtues to the change in

general terms, it would mean that there would be less constituency-level

elected representatives.

There was no indication of how the distinction would be drawn

between rural and urban. People were left completely in the dark. It’s

not as if the member who was advancing the cause for proportional

representation provided a perfunctory description. She didn’t mention

the word. This has been repeated over and over in a campaign built

around slogans and not facts and information.

Imagine 29 different areas. People want to know, in Surrey,

whether they will have 11 — I think it’s 11 — locally elected MLAs. If

you’re someone who believes that this is a change worth pursuing, then

have the courage to stand up and say to the people of Surrey: “Under any

one of the options being advanced here, you will not select 11 MLAs

locally. It is not possible.” Presumably, you would go on to explain

that there are other virtues to the system you’re advancing that would

compensate for that.

The advocates of this change do not want people to know the full

story. I dare say they don’t want people to know the rationale for why

we’re having this conversation in the first place.

[2:50 p.m.]

Unlike nine and 14 years ago, when the motivation derived from the

work of a non-partisan, unbiased citizens’ assembly generating an option

that was put to the people in unbiased and non-partisan terms,

everything about this exercise we are engaged in today derives from a

partisan exercise to secure and cling to power. There is no way that I

can think of to camouflage the fact that, but for a political deal

between two political parties, we would not be having this discussion

today. It was the cost of grabbing power, the objective of grabbing

power and clinging to power. That strikes me as the worst of all

possible reasons for advancing a change, a fundamental change, to one of

the fundamental pillars of our democratic process.

I repeat: the issue here is not whether people should have the

right, from time to time, to express a clear opinion on how they wish to

elect their politicians. We’ve demonstrated — I’ve demonstrated — that

we are wholeheartedly in favour of that. But their involvement in that

exercise should not be manipulated in the way that it is through this

exercise. How else, as I have heard other speakers comment, do you

explain the introduction of this legislation at this time?

The members on the government side, just a moment ago, were

talking about this being the fulfilment of some long-held desire and

pledge. Well, how is it that in the middle of when ballots are being

mailed to people, we find ourselves embroiled in a debate about the

actual exercise? Well, that suggests to me that there is a desire to

manipulate, as opposed to inform.

I have heard all kinds of examples, some of them quite colourful,

about what is happening through this exercise and what the citizens are

being subjected to. But it really does remind me of…. Members will say:

“Well, when was the last time you went to a car lot?” I do not wish to

disparage car dealers. Let me….

Interjection.

M. de Jong: They may be. I remember my last visit to a car lot some 28 years

ago.

You go to the car lot, and the salesperson says to you: “Well,

here’s a car.” You say: “What kind of engine has it got?” The dealer

says: “Don’t worry. You don’t need to know that. It’s better than the

one you’ve got.” “Well, what kind of transmission has it got?” “You

don’t need to know that either. But I guarantee it’s better than the one

you’ve got. Trust me. Trust me.” “Well, what does it cost? What does the

car cost?” “Don’t worry. It’s a better deal than the one you’ve

got.”

That reluctance, that hesitancy — and those are the polite terms —

the refusal to share with people the factual basis, the implications of

this change and how these other systems would operate and what it would

mean for their representation locally…. Hey, I’ve been on both sides of

this in the election I referred to, Madame Speaker. In 1996 — you’ll

appreciate this — the party that I was running with actually pledged to

reduce the number of MLAs. Kind of great in the abstract, until you

actually asked someone whether they wanted to lose their MLA.

People may not have great affection for their politicians, but try

taking one away. Yet that is what this will do. It will

reduce….

[2:55 p.m.]

It must necessarily reduce the ability…. The member from the

Kootenays, who I have some affection for, says that it won’t. Except it

will, in terms of their ability, the imposition of party lists, the

imposition of a leader’s ability to determine those lists.

We can go through…. None of these questions has been settled yet —

29 different variables that the government and proponents of this change

and the Green Party refuse to answer first.

“We didn’t have time.” Now, I don’t know who the “we” refers to in

that sentence, but I’ve heard that. “We didn’t have time.” Well,

actually, British Columbia had all kinds of time. Two political parties

apparently didn’t have time. That, again, is a terrible basis upon which

to manipulate a particular process like this and manipulate a particular

result.

The ability, the desire, the advisability from time to time of

consulting with people about the question of electoral reform is not one

you will get any quarrel from me on. Now, I haven’t spoken at all — nor

will I, given the amount of time — about the virtues of proportional

representation versus what we’ve got. Many other people, particularly in

the Official Opposition, have spoken eloquently about how this province

has been served by this electoral system.

I think people need to be very suspicious of going to the

democratic car lot and being told by the salespeople: “You don’t need to

know. You don’t need to know who’s going to create the lists. You don’t

need to know what will happen to your constituency. You don’t need to

know how many constituencies there will be.” That is something that

every single British Columbian should be worried about, because it goes

to the heart of what is driving this attempt at reform in the first

place.

We will continue to speak out about not just the substance of what

is being promoted, but equally importantly, the manner in which it is

being promoted and the manner in which important and vital information

has been withheld from British Columbians.

I have a prediction. I’ve long ago given up on consulting or

reading polls or relying upon them, so I say this without any regard for

what apparently are public opinion surveys that show a split between

supporters and opponents of what is being advanced here.

I believe this: despite the efforts of the government, despite the

efforts of the Premier, despite the efforts of the Third Party, people

are going to begin to learn more about these three options. Not one, as

was promised, but three — two of which, I’m advised, don’t exist

anywhere else in the world so can’t even be pointed to as an

example.

I believe people are going to learn more about these options. I

believe that despite the efforts of the government to withhold

information from them, they will obtain that information, and they will

inform themselves as to the negative implications of making that change

and what it will mean for democracy in B.C. and local representation

right around the province.

We, on the opposition side, certainly intend to do our part to

facilitate that flow of information. We, in the opposition, certainly

intend to do our part to make sure people have the material and

information they need. Though I will say this. It is difficult to

overcome the obstacles that have been placed in the path of those who

want to make an informed choice. But we will do our best. We will

continue to speak for informed decision-making on the part of the

citizens.

[3:00 p.m.]

This, in my view, does not qualify — this process that has been

unleashed. For that reason, I will be voting with my colleagues strongly

against the provisions of this bill.

P. Milobar: It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 40.

Admittedly, I wish it was on a different topic than this. Just to let

you know, Madame Speaker, I will be our designated speaker for second

reading on this bill.

As I rise to speak to Bill 40…. From the previous speaker, we

heard a lot of the concerns. It strikes me that we’re speaking to Bill

40, a piece of legislation that directly affects people’s

decision-making process, in the middle of a referendum, while they’re

receiving ballots in the mail. It leads one to consider that either this

has been complete, ham-fisted incompetence on the part of the Attorney

General, or it’s been a deliberate attempt to try to sway voters at the

eleventh hour, as the government started to see support start to erode

for this bill and this PR referendum.

Now, I’m still new to this House — relatively new. I’ve heard

nothing but glowing about how bright the Attorney General is. So one

would have to conclude that maybe it’s the former option as to what is

going on and why we’re dealing with Bill 40 today in the middle of a

referendum, as people are trying to make up their minds how to vote, as

they’re receiving their ballots. We are standing in the Legislature

debating legislation that fundamentally changes some people’s

decision-making nature. I have a problem with that.

I have a problem with that because we dealt with this bill, the

broader bill around proportional representation, back in the spring

session. Back then it was a mad rush to get the bill brought forward and

dealt with.

Why was this not dealt with back in the spring? Certainly, the

government was talking about enabling a second vote, two elections past,

if PR passes and goes forward. They were talking about it then. Why was

it not part of the legislation? Why was it not enshrined in legislation

back then? Well, because it was just a loose commitment that was made,

and as the pressure starts to mount, as people start to realize there is

no information and there are no guarantees, we see this last-minute

ditch to circumvent democracy in a pitch to try to tell people that the

new systems would actually be better for democracy.

There’s a big problem with that, and the timelines just don’t add

up. I hazard to say that if the members of government and the Third

Party were on the opposition benches right now and were watching this

debacle of a process unfold, well, the term “lighting your hair on fire”

would be an understatement, I would suggest, for the members opposite,

because there is nothing about this whole process that makes any sense

and that can stand any scrutiny whatsoever.

When you look at the Elections B.C. documents on what this could

mean for us, even Elections B.C. has had to use very loose language to

give the voters an impression of what might happen. But they can’t

actually tell you in their document what will happen. In fact, on this

specific bill, in Elections B.C.’s own handout, although it actually

references that the government has promised a second referendum two

elections after, which Bill 40 speaks to, there is no legislation in

place. That is why the precursory language Elections B.C. has to use is:

“If a proportional representation voting system is adopted, government

has said that after the referendum,” and then it goes on to list some

bullet points.

I have a little bit of time today, so I’ll get into those bullet

points over the next little short time that we have together here. The

interesting piece is that the last bullet point in this particular

section says: “Another referendum will be held after two general

elections to see if B.C. wants to keep the new voting system or go back

to using first-past-the-post.”

[3:05 p.m.]

Now, again, Elections B.C.’s hands are tied pretty hard trying to

create this document, trying to be impartial, unlike the Attorney

General has been, trying to give people some information. But to the

average person who’s not deeply ingrained into the nuances of how

legislation works and things work in this chamber, the fact that half a

page up it says, “government has said,” but then further down it’s

worded as if it’s already happened in legislation…. It really is quite

disturbing that that information was hanging out there and developed. It

would have to have been getting developed months before this bill came

before the House.

The very bill we’re debating is already mentioned in Elections

B.C. and would give the average layperson out there the impression the

government had already dealt with this in the spring when we were

dealing with the legislation — but no. Again, either total ham-fisted

incompetence or an attempt to try to inject the government back into the

referendum by using the full weight of the provincial government behind

them, while we are being told that we can’t do something as simple as a

$5 boost on Facebook to try to inform our constituents around this

issue.

Make no mistake about it. We can see exactly where this goes. If

Bill 40 passes, there will undoubtedly be the avalanche of government

news releases and statements being issued out to the broader media,

using the resources of the government of B.C.’s communications

department to convey what the government has just passed into law. A

bill that they’re passing into law, that they’ve given everybody the

impression, including Elections B.C., was already there.

If it was simply a promise, why do we need this bill? You’re

probably asking yourself. I know I certainly am. Because this bill

cannot bind future legislatures to its action. It simply cannot. And the

government full well knows that. You know how I know that the government

knows that? Because the very piece of legislation this bill would amend

right now was amended to make the other rules for this very

referendum.

The referendum act was amended by this government in the spring to

create the rules that we’re running this current referendum under. So

for anyone to think that this piece of legislation has to be acted on by

a future legislature, let alone two elections down the road…. That’s

disingenuous at best.

It would have actually been, I guess, more forthcoming to people

if the government had just left it as a promise, a vague promise. Now,

we know they’ve walked away from most of their promises when it comes to

this, but they could have left it as a vague promise. At least then we

wouldn’t be standing in this House debating, using up massive amounts of

government resources for the government to be able to promote their

position and try to allay the fears of people that what they’re voting

for is ultimately a massive train wreck.

When we start to look at the systems, there is no information.

What we’re being asked to do is vote for first-past-the-post or an

ideal. That’s your first question on the ballot. Would you like to see

the current first-past-the-post system, or would you like to see the

ideal of proportional representation? You’re not matching system to

system and saying, “Which do you prefer?” to the public. No. You’re

matching an ideal with an actual, tangible system. Not exactly a level

playing field.

Then we move to the second question. There you’re voting for three

different titles, and that’s it. You’re not voting for any structure

behind any of those three systems. You’re not voting for anything that’s

concrete. Why did the government not bring forward that legislation that

would have actually put, in concrete terms, what it would mean with

those three systems? Instead, what they brought forward, as a late piece

of legislation, is Bill 40, which is a blatant way to try to sway people

in the middle of an election.

[3:10 p.m.]

We have three systems to choose from. Ranked ballot. You get to

choose your preference. Unlike yesterday, when we were hearing the

Premier continually say that our leadership race was done under

proportional representation…. It wasn’t done that way. It was done the

exact same way the second question on the ballot is being done. It’s

being done in a way where you rank your preferences, and you move

forward.

We don’t have a leader that suddenly gets to be leader on Sundays

and someone else gets to be leader on Tuesdays and Thursdays. That’s not

what we have. That’s not what our end goal was. That’s not what our end

target was.

For the Premier and others to say that our system of electing a

leader was proportional representation is just flat out wrong. But given

how many over-the-top statements we’ve been hearing from the members

opposite, it’s not surprising. Again, either it’s intentionally trying

to make people have a different opinion of what’s happening, or it’s

just pure incompetence of not understanding what these systems are — yet

you’re championing these systems at the same time.

When you go to the confidence and supply agreement — the

confidence and supply agreement that actually enables the government to

be in power right now — interestingly enough, their number one bullet

was proportional representation. That’s the number one priority between

the NDP and the Green Party in this document. The number one thing they

want to work on.

The interesting thing is…. If you want to talk about broken

promises, it’s all right here in this document. First off…. And they

agreed to this. Both sides agreed to this as a way to govern. “A

referendum on proportional representation will take place in the fall of

2018, concurrent with the next municipal election.” Well, it didn’t take

long for the Attorney General to walk away from that.

It’s interesting, for a government that has no problem shovelling

money off the back of a truck, suddenly the single biggest concern when

it came to how we were going to use our democracy and choose our

democracy moving forward was the cost. That was the excuse for not going

to some form of a general election, which municipal government

elections…. Although they’re not technically a general election, given

that every municipal council and every school district in B.C. has an

election on the same day, one could argue that’s a very close

second.

That promise — out the window and gone. I don’t know what the

point was of even putting it in, if less than a week later, they decided

to walk away from this type of a commitment. How much faith should the

public have with the negotiation document, moving forward, for any

government, if this is how little credibility they put into their own

words in ink in such a short time frame?

“The form of proportional representation approved in the

referendum will be enacted for the next provincial election.” Of course,

that goes on a little bit later on to make sure that the Greens toe the

line with the NDP. That’s only if they actually run out the House and

make it all the way to 2021. They don’t want the public to realize that.

They bury that one a little bit further down the road because, although

they like to say they’re all about open and transparent government,

their actions certainly don’t demonstrate that.

“The parties agree that they will work together in good faith to

consult British Columbians to determine the form of proportional

representation that will be put to a referendum.” The “form” of

proportional representation — not the forms. Either there’s a spelling

error in this document, either someone forgot the “s” or it’s another

broken promise by the same two parties that are saying: “Oh, just take a

leap of faith. Don’t worry about it. Trust us. What could go

wrong?”

Well, plenty could go wrong. If it is so untrustworthy of a

coalition that the public can’t even count on them to stand behind their

own words…. Yes, I use “words” in a plural sense because there’s more

than one on this paper, so if they meant to pluralize forms, they really

need to get somebody that can proofread a little bit better. Believe me,

I’m not that person. My grammar skills are lacking at best.

[3:15 p.m.]

“The parties agree to both campaign actively in support of the

agreed-upon form” — again, singular, so I don’t think it was a spelling

mistake after all — “of proportional representation.” Well, we certainly

saw that last night in all its glory. We haven’t seen a TV debate at

all, but we sure saw the power of the government wanting to make sure

that they were living up to that clause.

That’s part of the problem. We have three systems now on a ballot.

If the government was truly interested in making this even remotely a

fair fight….

I’ll get into the vote thresholds that have been changed and

amended within this same piece of legislation. When people say: “Oh,

don’t worry. Once it’s in legislation, it can’t change….” Yes, it can,

because we’ve seen this government change this legislation

already.

The three forms. If they really wanted to have a fair fight on

this, why not have one simple question? Why not have one preferential

ranked system — second question? Instead of having three systems, why

not add a fourth? Why not add first-past-the-post and ask people to rank

in order what they feel would be the best system of democracy in British

Columbia, one through four, and have them pick that? Instead, what we

have in the first question — and hopefully the member can follow me on

this because it seems to be confusing — compares first-past-the-post

with the ideal of proportional representation, not on the system of

proportional representation.

There are all sorts of people out there — and this is why they’re

not putting all four together — that might think rural-urban is the best

system ever. But if they had to be asked for a second option, it would

be first-past-the-post because they don’t like mixed-member or they

don’t like dual-member. But they’re not being asked to make that direct

comparison of those three systems with first-past-the-post. No, it’s an

ideal of proportional representation versus first-past-the-post. Then we

start to compare systems together.

Again, if it wasn’t trying to be so rigged and so blatant, you

would almost think this was all made up, but it’s not. We’re living it

in real time. So let’s go back to the Voter’s Guide, the guide that

says: “If a proportional representation voting system is adopted, the

government has said that after the referendum, a legislative committee

will determine how some aspects of the new system will work.”

Whenever we point this out, the members opposite and the people

within the pro-PR side of Fair Vote scream and yell that we’re

fearmongering. “Oh, we’re fearmongering. That’s not true. That’s not

true. There’s no way that can be true.” Well, it says it right here. “A

legislative committee will determine how some aspects of the new system

will work.” Yeah, like 29 aspects of how this will work. So no, this

isn’t fearmongering. This is actual black and white, right from

Elections B.C.

An independent Electoral Boundaries Commission will determine the

number and boundaries of the electoral districts and regions represented

in the Legislature. That sounds pretty good. That sounds pretty fair,

actually. And that’s actually what is expected — that the Electoral

Boundaries Commission will do this from time to time. They do

regularly.

The total number of MLAs in the Legislature will be between 87 and

95. Currently there are 87. Now, why is that important? Because the

bullet point right before said that it would be an independent Electoral

Boundaries Commission, and they would determine the number. The

independent Electoral Boundaries Commission will determine the number

and boundaries of the electoral districts and regions represented in the

Legislature, yet here’s the government directing the independent

Electoral Boundaries Commission that they can’t go over the number 95.

That’s the magic number.

It’s not really independent. It sounds kind of like going to the

BCUC and telling them that you’re going to freeze hydro rates and then

finding out you can’t actually do that. Again, totally misleading to the

people about what the overall intentions are.

[3:20 p.m.]

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t tell people that an

independent Electoral Boundaries Commission will determine the number

and size of ridings and then turn around in literally the next sentence

and say: “But by the way, we’re capping that. We’re telling you,

independent Electoral Boundaries Commission, that you’re not really that

independent. We’re telling you that even if you want to have 99 ridings,

if you want to have 105 ridings, you’re not allowed to.”

You’re not independent. You are now being directed by the

government on how many ridings, maximum, you’re allowed. In fact, you’re

also saying there’s the minimum number. You’re saying: “No, you can’t go

below what we currently have either.” Well, how’s that letting them be

independent? I highly doubt they would shrink the number of ridings. But

how is that letting them be independent? It’s not.

Again, it’s another little carrot to try to confuse the voter, to

try to make everyone think that it’s sunshine and roses all the time.

Well, even unicorns give off methane, and people need to understand

that.

Those are some of the problems within the actual “How to Vote,”

because it doesn’t actually have a whole lot. Now, when they go into

that, starting to describe…. Again, these are Elections B.C.’s words.

These are their words put out there, with the contradictions, with the

assumptions that this piece of legislation we’re debating in Bill 40

today was already passed. So there was an oopsie. But maybe it wasn’t

really an oopsie. Maybe it was a preplanned attempt to try to inject

themselves into the middle of a referendum while people are sitting at

home with ballots. Not really sure.

It says, right from the Elections B.C. site, as they’re describing

the systems, how they describe prop rep. Again, when we say this, we get

told we’re fearmongering. These are the actual words from the Elections

B.C. “How to Vote” document — all the information that you need to know.

“Tends to elect candidates from large and small parties and result in

multi-party or coalition governments.”

When we point that out, we’re fearmongering that there’s going to

be smaller parties controlling the coalition, even though it’s actually

happening in real time right in front of our eyes, where you see a party

with three seats controlling what’s happening in this House and propping

up the government and walking away from all sorts of promises they’ve

made even about proportional representation.

The one thing you would think they would actually live up to is

their commitments around proportional representation and how the vote

would unfold, but that just went totally out the window — not even with

an updated addendum, explaining to people: “Well, you know what? We’ve

changed our agreement.” We’ve got a $1 million secretariat. You’d think

they could have figured out a way to pay for the editing of the document

to update it. But no, they didn’t do that. But we’re the fearmongers out

of all of this.

Then you look and you see…. Oh, look at that. Districts under

first-past-the-post…. Again, from Elections B.C.’s own document:

“Districts are smaller than in proportional systems.” Under

first-past-the-post, under our current system, electoral districts are

smaller than under proportional systems. Directly from the Elections

B.C. document.

You don’t get to have it both ways. You don’t get to wrap yourself

in this independent body of Elections B.C. and say, “Oh, well, their

document — see, it’s all right there,” and then whenever we point out

what’s actually in their document, we’re fearmongering. You either

accept their document as accurate, or you don’t. But if it’s accurate,

we’re not fearmongering. If it’s accurate, we’re pointing out the facts,

as spelled out by Elections B.C.

The pro–prop rep people don’t want you to hear any of that. No.

What they would prefer is that you blindly go in and…. What is it

called? Oh, that’s right: a leap of faith. Just take a great leap of

faith with two parties that can’t even live up to basic promises about

how the question would be structured in the referendum. Take a leap of

faith with two parties that have gerrymandered as much as they possibly

could in this process to the point we’re now debating legislation as it

directly affects people’s decision-making abilities in the middle of the

election.

This isn’t even like just pre-writ period. This is the equivalent,

and maybe they’ll wind up doing this…. Because when the House dissolves

for an election in the writ period, we’re no longer MLAs, but the

cabinet still exists. I would fully expect this current crew will

probably call a cabinet meeting mid-election and offer everybody a

chicken in every pot or something like that, just to try to make sure

that everyone understands that they’re listening to them. They’ll call a

cabinet meeting and add to the kitty so that people mid-election will

find out and maybe sway their vote a little bit.

[3:25 p.m.]

That’s what this is the equivalent of. This is trying to interfere

in the middle of an election period by introducing new information, by

introducing new legislation that should have been taken care of. And if

it hadn’t been, they should have remained silent on it, not trying to

pretend that they’re still being neutral in the Attorney General’s

office by bringing this forward. It should have been: “No, we’ll wait

until after.”

That’s why it was so disappointing the hoist motion didn’t move

forward yesterday, as well, because that would have given a six-month

delay in something that isn’t supposed to be triggered for 3½ years

anyway. What difference did the hoist motion make to let it delay for

six months? Oh, because they wouldn’t be able to stand up and say that

they passed legislation, which they know can get repealed anyway, in the

middle of an election.

Let’s look at the three systems. Dual-member proportional. Sounds

wonderful in name. What does it mean? What does dual-member proportional

mean? Oh, strangely enough, dual-member proportional is not currently in

use anywhere in the world, so there’s no actual relevant example you can

point to and at least get an idea of where they may be headed with

this.

No. Dual-member proportional is one of those lovely ideals that

has 29 things that, after you take your leap of faith, the government

will pat you on the head and tell you what’s good for you. What we’ve

seen so far is that the only thing they seem concerned about is figuring

out what’s good for them and their Green partners.

Mixed-member. Mixed-member is in use in parts of the world, and

mixed-member routinely gets rejected when we’ve had independent

citizens’ assemblies look at systems. But at least it’s in use. At least

the Attorney General put one system of the three in the referendum that

actually is in use somewhere in the world.

Again, we’re left to guess. We’re left to guess what the size of

our riding will be. We’re left to guess how many MLAs you will have.

We’re left to guess whether or not there will be geographic restrictions

on how those appointed MLAs come in and out of ridings. We’re left to

guess all of those.

What we hear from people who are pro-PR is: “Don’t worry. Then

I’ll have someone representing me in my area that represents my views.”

Well, there is no guarantee, in my area, if you voted Green, that you’re

getting appointed a Green MLA when they start to balance out where all

the MLAs have to represent. There’s no guarantee, if you voted for the

NDP, that you’re getting an NDP MLA There’s no guarantee you’re getting

another B.C. Liberal MLA. Just that there’ll be a balancing

pool.

That’s all that there will be: a balancing pool. But we don’t know

where they will live, because they can’t tell you that. Again, not

fearmongering, just facts out of the Elections B.C. handbook, plain and

simple, right there in black and white — can’t tell you; doesn’t

exist.

Let’s go to rural-urban, speaking of something that doesn’t exist.

Rural-urban doesn’t exist anywhere. In fact, it’s my understanding that

rural-urban was actually designed by the organization that’s now the

pro-PR champion. Isn’t that convenient?

Talk about a nice, wide separation between the Attorney General

and organizations that are trying to promote PR. What a wonderful thing

that Fair Vote was able to design a system that doesn’t exist anywhere

in the world and have the Attorney General include it in our referendum.

Aren’t we special? Aren’t we so privileged that this has

happened?

Let’s look into the rural-urban a little bit. With rural-urban, if

you’re in the rural, you would elect your members by a mixed-member,

which is also, strangely enough, the second option on the ballot.

Mixed-member, I would point out, was rejected by the all-citizens’

assembly twice as an option for British Columbia. So the rural people,

under rural-urban, will get to be governed under a system that has

actually been rejected twice by a citizens’ assembly in this

province.

But it can’t be all bad, because urban has a different voting

system. Let’s take a look at that system. Well, the urban people will

vote under single transferable vote. Now, does that sound familiar to

you?

[3:30 p.m.]

It should, because single transferable vote was actually what the

citizens’ assembly twice came up with as the most workable proportional

representation system for British Columbia, but the only way it shows up

on this ballot is blended into this rural-urban monstrosity which has

just been a theoretically composed system. It’s never actually been used

anywhere. It hasn’t been attempted to be used anywhere.

Single transferable vote has been rejected by the voters of this

province twice — not once but twice. The much-vaunted rural-urban option

consists of two systems that have been soundly rejected by the populace

of the province.

Now, I recognize that everyone likes to think that where they live

is urban or rural. Depending on what your belief system is, you might

not even want to be thought of as in an urban area. You might take great

pride, and I understand why, in the rural lifestyle — a wonderful

lifestyle.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I come from Kamloops. Most people in Kamloops would consider

Kamloops to be a very urban city. Most people would consider Nanaimo to

be a very urban city. They would consider Prince George a very urban

city. Especially if they live in, say, Barriere, just outside of my

community, they would consider Kamloops to be urban. Kamloops would

consider Barriere to have a much more rural lifestyle — larger lots,

single-family homes, acreages.

I think that’s a fair assessment around the province. I think

people self-identify with what type of community they live in.

Unfortunately, because there is absolutely no information, no one knows

what the legal definition is, under proportional representation, between

rural and urban.

Again, coming from Kamloops, we always just call it Vancouver.

“Where are you going?” “I’m going to Vancouver. I’m going to the coast.

I’m going to the Lower Mainland.” That’s what you say. I’m sure Kelowna

says the same thing. You don’t worry about boundaries. You don’t say:

“Well, I’m specifically going to Richmond, then I’m going to go across

the bridge into Vancouver for an hour, then I’m going to head east and

go over to Burnaby, and then I’m going to move over to Coquitlam.” You

just say you’re going to Vancouver for the weekend, to visit family or

go to a concert.

That’s wonderful, but that doesn’t help you in legal

definitions.

Is Chilliwack rural or urban? Chilliwack’s population is not that far

off from Kamloops these days. Or Prince George? Where is the dividing

line? Abbotsford has seen great growth over the last little while. Is

Abbotsford rural or urban? No one can tell us.

The interesting thing is that if you ask people in Vancouver,

their perception is probably that Chilliwack and Abbotsford would still

be considered somewhat rural. I don’t think many people living in

Abbotsford would consider themselves rural these days. We don’t know,

and that’s the problem.

We’re being asked to vote on three names. You’re not being asked

to vote on three systems that have been defined as to how they’re going

to operate within this province. You don’t know where your ridings are

going to be. You don’t know if everything north of Kamloops, up to the

Yukon border and from the Pacific Ocean over to the Alberta border,

becomes one riding. You don’t know if it becomes two ridings.

We see it with health authorities, where you have competing

interests of similar-sized cities within that same health authority. Can

you only imagine, if it’s not split up right, taking into account those

types of scenarios? Because we don’t know, the only way the Premier can

answer that question — and he said it very clearly at UBCM — is: let’s

take a leap of faith. That’s his new out, his answer, because he can’t

actually answer with any detail whether somebody lives in a rural area

or an urban area.

I would suggest that most people in Surrey, Vancouver and,

probably, the capital regional district can safely assume that they’re

considered urban, but where does the boundary lie? Where does the

boundary lie, even on Vancouver Island? Does it just encompass all the

way up to Nanaimo and cut off there — go up the Malahat from Victoria

and cut off north of Nanaimo and call it a day, and everyone else north

from there is considered rural? Or does it cut off just outside of

Victoria and the capital regional district area, and everything else on

the Island is considered rural?

[3:35 p.m.]

Where and how does Nanaimo fit into this whole scheme of

rural-urban? How does Kamloops? How does Kelowna? Kelowna, I would

guess, would be considered urban. Its population is a little bit larger

than ours. However, a lot of what draws Kelowna’s strength as a regional

base is that they have relatively larger communities — Vernon, Penticton

— about 45 minutes either side of them.

Well, is Vernon going to be considered rural or urban? Is

Penticton rural or urban? What about Salmon Arm? Salmon Arm is 30,000 or

35,000 people. The people who live right inside Salmon Arm probably

think they’re urban. They probably want to be considered

urban.

I know that economic development officers and people that market

areas would want to know what they’re marketing. I can tell you, for a

certain industry, especially if you’re going after high-tech jobs,

especially if you’re trying to get the people that want to work at home

or be innovators and entrepreneurs, it’s a lot easier to advertise

yourself as an urban centre than as a rural centre, because rural comes

with other challenges. It comes with lack of Internet access or

high-speed Internet, or cell service is spotty at times.

That’s what goes into people’s minds. It doesn’t mean it happens

everywhere in a rural area, but that’s the public perception. And

perception is king, which is why the perception around introducing Bill

40 in the middle of a referendum, while people are receiving their

ballots, is horrible. Again, it’s either total incompetence by the

Attorney General, or it’s something much worse than that. If it’s total

incompetence, it’s a little scary that he’s the Attorney

General.

Now, we have heard in this House many times, from the government

and the members of the Third Party propping them up, that Ontario is a

perfect example of what’s wrong with democracy — a perfect example

because of what happened in Ontario in 2018. It’s very interesting when

you want to start looking at election results. It struck me the other

day as I was hearing this. I thought I would actually look into it and

try to get some facts. Again, because they’re facts, I might get accused

of fearmongering, I guess. Nonetheless, we’ll give it a try.

Ontario. Let’s see if this argument is strictly an ideology-driven

argument because the members of this current government are unhappy that

the will of the people in Ontario chose to go in a different direction

for four years, eight years. Who knows? It’s their choice. They live in

Ontario. They get their free will and their free vote.

Ontario election results, 2018: 76 of the 124 seats went to the

governing party. That works out to 61.29 percent of the seats in the

House, and they received 40.5 percent of the vote. It’s not dissimilar

to what we’ve seen in results in this chamber over the years, both when

the NDP were in power by actually winning and when the B.C. Liberals or

Socreds — or any other party name you care to come up with — were

governing.

Then I thought: “Well, it can’t just be that they’re trying to put

this big right-wing conspiracy theory of unfairness out there.” I

thought: “Well, let’s look at what happened next door.” There’s another

NDP government in Canada that’s right next door to us. It’s been in

existence since 2015. I’m thinking: “Well, that must have been a much,

much better result in terms of aligning with the ideals of PR, because

certainly, the government has never once mentioned the worry about the

election results in Alberta.”

Let’s look at those for 2015, the most recent election in Alberta.

Ironically enough, Alberta has 87 seats — that number sounds familiar,

because that’s how many seats we have in this House — and 54 went to the

governing NDP in Alberta. The NDP in Alberta won the majority of seats

and didn’t need to cut a third-party deal to try to be able to govern.

They won. Congratulations to them.

I assumed that it would be closer to PR. They won 62.06 percent of

the seats. Contrast that to Ontario, which was 61.29. So they actually

won more of a percentage of seats than in Ontario. However, in Alberta,

strangely enough, they had 40.57 percent of the vote, almost identical

to what happened in Ontario.

[3:40 p.m.]

Yet we never hear, from the other side, the crying: “How bad it is

for the electorate in Alberta. How horrible the democratic process has

been, because of what happened in Alberta. I can’t believe people in

Alberta have to live with such tyranny, that 40 percent of the vote got

62 percent of the seats.” We never hear that. We never hear that from

the other side. They seem to say it a lot about Ontario, with the exact

same numbers, literally almost rounding-error numbers. But NDP math has

always been a little bit different, so that’s okay. I can understand

that, I guess.

Let’s look at another thing we keep hearing. We keep hearing: “Oh,

you know this would make things much better. People would work across

party lines. People would work together. People would have to work

together.” Well, there’s nothing stopping the Premier and the House

Leader from working with us, nothing whatsoever. Unless I’m unaware of

some piece of legislation that says we can’t work together, there’s

nothing stopping that from happening right now. We don’t need to change

the voting system to have that actually happen.

In fact, when the B.C. Liberals were in government, I seem to

recall — now I wasn’t here but just observing from afar — the occasional

private member’s bill that would get brought forward, and the

government, the B.C. Liberal government, would call it for a vote. In

fact, there was one that the Green Party brought forward just before the

election, and it got brought forward for a vote.

Now, I say that because we keep hearing about this nirvana of PR —

that all of a sudden we’ll start every day by singing kumbaya, and we’ll

have s’mores at the end of every day, and everyone will go home happy

and have a nice cup of hot cocoa, and the world will be wonderful under

PR in this chamber.

That’s not actually stopping it from happening right now. The only

thing stopping it from happening right now is that the Premier refuses

to allow it to happen. The Premier refuses to allow private members’

bills to come forward. Right now, if we go into the orders of the day,

you will see, in black and white, 20. There are 20 outstanding private

members’ bills sitting there.

Not one of them will be called for debate in this House. They’re

all stuck at second reading, which, for the people at home, since I have

a little bit of time, I’ll explain. When it’s stuck in second reading,

the government gets to decide what bills we debate.

Right now we’re debating Bill 40. As we saw earlier, last week,

the government needed to change the order to get a piece of legislation

through, as is their right. They’re totally within their rights to do

that, so that’s what they did. They put Bill 40 on hold while we were

debating it, this bill, and they brought in a different bill that we

started to debate.

They’re totally within their rights to do that. Every government

does it. I don’t take issue with that. I’m just trying to give a little

background to the people listening at home, because they don’t

necessarily follow, day in, day out, the intricacies of how this place

works.

When a bill goes to second reading…. Almost all private members’

bills get the courtesy of second reading. The reason they get that

courtesy is because no debate has actually happened on them yet. A

member stands up, introduces the bill and explains roughly what the bill

is. It gets first reading. It gets second reading, and it gets put on

hold.

Whether or not we debate at second reading, which is what we’re

doing now…. And although we call it a debate, I would suggest, to the

average person at home…. They view this as speeches. It’s not the same

as a television debate. It is speeches, where we’re providing our

opinions, but people don’t stand up and point-counterpoint back and

forth on the fly, not like a television debate would be.

At any rate, you have a private member’s bill. It gets taken to

second reading. But whether or not it gets debated is 100 percent in the

purview of the government. So although the opposition and members of the

Third Party have brought forward 20 private members’ bills that are

sitting right now on second reading, not one of them has been called for

debate. The government could pick any one of those to call for debate.

But the government chooses not to. What the government wants people to

think is that if you vote for PR, that will change.

[3:45 p.m.]

Well, we already have a minority government that’s held up by a

coalition, and it hasn’t changed. So you’re telling me the only way

they’re going to change their ways is if the voting system

changes?

Well, all the voting system change will do is result in a minority

coalition government that will operate under the same rules of the House

that they currently do, which says that they get to decide whether or

not to call a bill for debate. It’s a totally misleading way to try to

frame up to people that somehow PR changes how this House operates

versus how it currently operates.

The only change that’s needed to operate this House differently is

for the leadership within government to actually change how they operate

and allow private members’ bills to be debated. They might not all get

passed. They might get defeated. I think people on opposition sides of

the House would fully expect that.

Given that we know, by way of memos, that there’s no way

government members are going to dissent with each other, we know they’re

voting as a block. We have free votes on our side of the House. I’m not

so sure they do, based on some paperwork, on the other side. The Greens

say that they have free votes, yet they seem to vote pretty much in

unison every single time. So they’re very similar in their

thinking.

Again, right from Elections B.C.: “result in multiparty or

coalition governments.” That’s what PR does. That’s what we have right

now. Yet you’re being told the only way government will actually change

and work differently is if they have a multiparty coalition government.

We have a multiparty coalition government.

They refuse to call private members’ bills for debate. They even

refuse to call private members’ bills of their own minority partner in

this endeavour. I wouldn’t want to own a business with them if I didn’t

have 51 percent of the shares. That’s for sure. Because the government

would sure tell you how things are going to be, because they won’t even

call a junior member’s bill for debate.

There is just so much wrong with Bill 40 being interjected into

the middle of a vote.

Now, we talked about past referendums. We talked about why

information is so vitally important for people, because I have every

faith in the electorate. We saw it play out in municipal elections. We

see it play out time and time again. The electorate pays more attention

when it’s time to pay attention than we give them credit for, and

they’re starting to pay attention. Unfortunately, there is no

information for them to grab on to, and I think that’s why you’re seeing

the government start to panic. That’s why you’re seeing the government

try to introduce Bill 40.

In 2005, after the non-partisan citizens’ assembly of, I believe,

about 160 people came up with a definitive form of proportional

representation to vote for versus first-past-the-post, that was

defeated. In 2009, when a very similar assembly was set up, it was

handily defeated.

Why I say information is very important is that there was

critical, new information added in 2009. People saw riding maps. People

saw what would happen to the area they live in and how they would be

treated under the system. And in 2009, as people gained more

information, they said no in much more significant numbers than the

first time.

Why is that significant? Because the promise by the Greens and the

NDP says that they will put together an agreed-upon form of proportional

representation — not a mixture of three other systems, not a mixture

where two of the three systems have never been tried anywhere else in

the world, not a system where one of the three has been invented by the

very people the government then gave authorization for a half a million

dollars to go out and spend and promote their own system that they

invented.

That’s not what’s in the confidence and supply agreement. They

can’t even live up to their own confidence and supply agreement, and

they expect people to take a leap of faith. They say: “Oh, don’t worry

about it. Afterwards, we’ll operate so much better.” Well, the rules of

this House aren’t changing in this referendum.

[3:50 p.m.]

If the rules in this House aren’t changing and we have a current

coalition minority government — which, in Elections B.C.’s own words,

tends to be elected under proportional representation — and we have zero

of the 20 private members’ bills that have been brought forward up for

debate, I don’t quite understand what’s going to change. Nothing will

change, except for a rigged referendum meant to do nothing more than

serve the political interests of the Green Party.

If you took the percentage of votes from the last election and

looked at what happened in this House, the B.C. Liberals would have 36

seats. The NDP would have 36 seats. Without electing one more member,

the Green Party would have 15. The Green Party would be self-appointing

12 more people without receiving one more vote in the last election,

without winning one more riding in the last election. Our parties would

both drop down to 36 seats each. The only party in this House that would

benefit under the results of the last election in a PR system would be

the Green Party, the same party that is propping up the

government.

Let’s look at what other jurisdictions in Canada…. There is all

this great talk about all these other countries all around the world.

Let’s look at how some other provinces are dealing with a referendum on

electoral reform. Because there is a willingness for people to at least

have the discussion.

Let’s see here. This is from engageyukon.ca.

“We want to improve democracy in Yukon, and we need your help. Here

is the process we’re using to start the conversation about electoral

reform in Yukon.

“Fall 2018. We are here. You share your priorities for electoral

reform with the government of Yukon.

“Spring 2019. The government of Yukon will create an independent

commission on electoral reform and suggest they use your priorities to

guide their work.

“Spring to fall 2019. Based on the priorities of Yukoners, the

independent commission will create recommendations for what the

government of Yukon should do next. They might do research or more

public engagement to make the best possible recommendations. You might

be asked for your input again here, depending on how the commission

decides to do its work.”

Not the Attorney General, no; the independent citizens’

com­mission.

“Fall 2019. The government of Yukon will look at the recommendations

and decide how to proceed.”

Now, that is how you put together a consultation piece around

electoral reform. That’s what we’ve been saying all along. This whole

process is so flawed. This whole process is so fundamentally wrong that

it is now requiring the government, in the middle of it, in the middle

of the actual election…. You can vote. If you have received your package

in the mail today, you are legally allowed to vote. And while you are

legally allowed to vote, we are standing here talking about a piece of

legislation, trying to amend into law, at least for the time being, what

people might be able to base their decision on voting for. It is

wrong.

Bill 40 is fundamentally wrong. Bill 40 should not be in the House

in the middle of a referendum. It’s just not right. It goes against all

forms of proper democratic process. You can’t have an election lawn sign

up within 100 metres of a voting place on election day, but we can stand

in the House during an election day and debate the rules around what

people are going to be voting on? How can you even take that seriously?

It is beyond ridiculous.

Interjection.

P. Milobar: Yeah. That’s the other wonderful thing. While people are going to

cast their ballot, when you’re not allowed to have election signage up

within 100 metres, people from Vote PR were allowed to hand out

literature on the referendum. How does that work? Talk

about….

[3:55 p.m.]

There are even laws and bylaws in place that say if you’re at an

ATM machine, it’s a no-go zone for panhandling because you’re too much

of an easy ask for people. We protect people at the ATM so that they

can’t get panhandled. We protect people driving to the polling station

so that they can’t see an election sign within 100 metres of the polling

station. But it’s somehow okay for proponents of electoral reform, who

are all trying to espouse fairness and wellness on this, to stand there

and hand out their own election literature, harassing people as they’re

trying to go in to vote. And we wonder why sometimes maybe people get a

little hesitant about going to vote.

Let’s look at what the Premier said in this House.

“For four years, I sat on that side of the House offering, I’d like

to think, on occasion, useful suggestions to the government, whether it

be in this place or in the budget estimates that happen annually,

bringing forward ideas from not just myself but from the people that I

represented at that time in Malahat–Juan de Fuca, and I got zero

response from the government.

“They did not receive 50 percent of the votes — far less than that,

in fact — but they had 100 percent of the power and the ability to say

to me, as a member of this place, that my views didn’t matter and that

my constituents’ views didn’t matter because of the banner I carried one

day four years ago. I think that’s wrong.”

These are the Premier’s words. Let’s take a look at those words,

because words do matter in this process. The Premier says: “They did not

receive 50 percent of the votes.” He’s absolutely right. Last I checked,

the NDP did not receive 50 percent of the votes either. “They got 100

percent of the power.” He’s absolutely right about that too. They get to

choose, based on the rules of this House, how this House operates, which

rules are not changing in this referendum. The operational rules of this

House are not changing. Let’s all be really clear about that. The

governing party gets to decide what happens in this House.

He was complaining that he was bringing forward ideas and the

government wasn’t listening. Magically, under PR, the government will —

in a coalition government, which is what we actually have right now,

operating under the same rules of this House that we currently operate

under.

The Premier is complaining that he wasn’t listened to in

opposition. Well, the Premier has the power to change that, and he

doesn’t need PR. The Premier has the power to look at his House Leader

and say: “Mr. House Leader, we have 20 outstanding private members’

bills stuck at second reading. We’re going to do things differently in

this House, and we’re going to debate all 20 of those bills.” The

Premier doesn’t need a positive vote for proportional representation to

do that. The Premier could do that starting tomorrow.

Is the Premier saying that between now and 2021, when the first

proportional representation election, if this referendum passes…? We’d

still be operating under these same rules. He’d still be in a minority

coalition government. Is he saying that he’s still willing, even though

he admits that it’s a frustration for him, to shut out a full 50 percent

of the members of this House from bringing forward ideas?

If it frustrated him as an opposition MLA, and he’s now the man in

charge, I would encourage him to actually change that. He has the power

and the authority to actually change it. But instead of that, he

complains about it. He complains about it as if there’s nothing he can

do, and then he endorses and allows Bill 40 to come forward to try to

circumvent the electoral process of fairness in this system.

In those four years that the Premier was complaining about not

being listened to — man, you’d hate to think what he needs to actually

feel loved — almost $106 million worth of projects in his riding. That,

apparently, is a government that doesn’t listen. That was a government

that didn’t listen. Oh, wait. They did. They provided almost $54 million

to Belmont Secondary. That’s a government, though, that doesn’t listen —

unless you count the almost $7½ million for the extension to the

Westshore Parkway. But he’s probably right. It’s a government that

doesn’t listen, especially if you ignore the $7 million in capital for

the Pacifica Housing Advisory Association.

[4:00 p.m.]

If you go further and want to ignore the $6.3 million in

construction financing, the resurfacing projects to the tune of $6

million in the Sooke area, $5½ million in capital funding to Knox Vision

Society for housing, $5 million to Leigh Road interchange, $4 million to

resurface the West Coast Highway. On and on it goes.

What do we have? We have a Premier complaining that he wasn’t

listened to, when I’m looking at 58 projects over four years. That’s one

a month. That’s over one project a month to his riding, and he has the

audacity to stand here in this House and say he wasn’t listened to. He

has the audacity to stand in this House and say he needs PR so that

members of the opposition can be listened to when, in fact, the rules

governing this House won’t change under PR. He has the ability right now

— today, tomorrow, next week — to actually listen to members of the

opposition and action our private members’ bills, bring them forward,

open them up to free votes in this House.

He doesn’t need PR to do that. He needs to unshackle his own back

benches and his ministers. He needs to allow the Green Party to vote

with their conscience. None of these are confidence matters. None of

them are going to bring the government down. We don’t need PR to change

this. We need the Premier and his House Leader to change how private

members’ bills are handled in this House. Then his complaining about the

last four years he was in would disappear.

Instead of actioning what he actually has the power to do, we get

this sham of a process laid out by the Attorney General that’s built on

nothing but lack of information. The funny thing is that this isn’t even

necessarily misinformation, in all cases. It’s a complete lack and void

of information. There’s literally nothing there when you try digging in

to find what exactly these systems mean.

There’s nothing in there that will explain to you how a

dual-member proportional system will work, let alone how it will work in

Kamloops, how it’ll work in my riding — nothing. Mixed-member is the

only system you have a bit of an idea of how it’ll work. At least that

one is in operation around the world, so you do get a bit of a sense.

But there’s no guarantee.

What the other side doesn’t want to admit or acknowledge is, just

as we’ve seen with the confidence and supply agreement, that’s how

coalition governments work. Again, Elections B.C.’s own words: “result

in multiparty or coalition governments.”

Around the world, those are all held together by documents similar

to the confidence and supply agreement — the confidence and supply

agreement that says: “The parties agree to both campaign actively in

support of the agreed-upon form of proportional representation.” The

confidence and supply agreement — the two parties involved couldn’t even

live up to that basic piece of it.

Now, there are other parts of this that they’ve walked away from

as well. But the fact they’re even walking away from clauses of

proportional representation while trying to convince you proportional

representation is a good thing…. The best they can come up with is “take

a leap of faith.”

Well, I would suggest their actions clearly demonstrate there is

no faith in this process. There is no faith in what they’ve come up

with. There is no faith in any of this. That is why we’re seeing the

Attorney General bring forward amending language in a piece of

legislation, while people are casting their votes, trying to change the

narrative. It is beyond anything I’ve ever seen in my short time on this

earth.

I can’t understand how the Attorney General would think that this

is appropriate. I can’t understand, if we were running this process,

that the Attorney General would be standing here, as a former head of

the B.C. Civil Liberties, and say: “This is a wonderful day for

democracy. You guys are changing the rules in the middle of an election

process. Good for you. That’s the way it should be.”

[4:05 p.m.]

I’m sure that’s what the Attorney General’s speech would be. He’d

be patting us on the back as a government for changing the rules

mid-vote. He’d be standing up and saying, “It’s wonderful that people

basing their votes on a certain set of rules…. You’re changing them,

even as some people have already voted.” I can hear the speech now from

the Attorney General. It would be magnificent.

What’s really magnificent is the total lack of competence that has

been shown with this amending piece. We’re amending a piece of

legislation that the government wants p