Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, May 28, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 142

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

More choice for parents in child care

L. Throness

R. Leonard

Women’s right to choose

M. Dean

D. Barnett

Growing B.C. business

C. Oakes

R. Glumac

Safe environment for students

N. Simons

J. Thornthwaite

Private Members’ Motions

Motion 23 — Process for changes to electoral system

M. Lee

L. Krog

M. Morris

R. Singh

S. Sullivan

B. D’Eith

T. Shypitka

D. Routley

J. Isaacs

J. Routledge

P. Milobar

MONDAY, MAY 28, 2018

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[10:05 a.m.]

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

MORE CHOICE FOR PARENTS

IN CHILD

CARE

L. Throness: Mr. Speaker, I want to stand and talk about child care this

morning, but first I want to send the condolences of all members of this

House to the family from Mission who lost a child while in licensed care

last week. Names have not been released yet, but the family is no doubt

devastated. I’m sure the provider is crushed as well.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Our hearts, our hands and our prayers go out to everyone involved.

This kind of tragedy befalls children several times every year in B.C.,

in any situation of care. They always remind us of our need to be

vigilant. Of course, we look forward to any recommendations the coroner

may have in this regard so that we can avoid this kind of sorrowful

event in the future.

I want to turn now to child care policy, and I’m thinking about

ideals today. To me, the ideal child care system would put parents in

the driver’s seat. It would maximize parental choice, for the simple

reason that the needs of families are diverse. Every child, and every

family, is unique. The principle of parental choice suggests free and

equal choice between various modes of child care — offering a variety of

options to meet family needs, while the state remains neutral with

respect to the mode of child care chosen.

How does current child care policy measure up in this regard? The

present system of child care in B.C. is a kind of hierarchy, like a

ladder with seven rungs, and I simply want to describe it in the next

few minutes.

At the top of the ladder, we have the most preferred model:

non-profit, publicly funded group providers. Since these centres

typically pay higher wages, model centres will attract labour from other

centres in the area, as early childhood educators move to maximize their

earnings. This is already happening, I’m told, with public facilities

around B.C. Federal funding announced in the last budget will establish

prototype or model centres that follow this general pattern, with all

operating costs paid by the federal government.

Down one rung of the ladder, we have licensed not-for-profit day

group daycare providers. These are eligible for major capital grants

plus the highest group care fee reductions and extra child care

operating funds if they opt into the provincial plan now in

place.

The next rung is occupied by licensed market-based group

providers, who are not eligible for major capital grants. But they will

be eligible for full fee reductions and child care operating funds —

again, if they opt into the program. The parents who use this kind of

care will also get the affordable child care benefit.

Next we have licensed market-based providers who decide not to opt

into the ministry program. They will receive child care operating funds

but no fee reductions, although they will receive the affordable child

care benefit.

Next down our ladder is the in-home licensed provider, known as

family child care. The parents who prefer them will get a fee reduction,

but only about half of the reduction of a parent who chooses a group

provider. So it will be harder for the family-class provider to remain

viable, as parents will tend, naturally, to move to the child care

situation where they can maximize their fee reductions.

Allow me to explain. Parents who prefer group care are eligible to

receive up to $350 per month per child, but parents who prefer family

care are eligible for, at most, $200 a month, even though the ministry

has no data on comparative family or group monthly fees and even though

the financial needs of parents may be exactly the same.

Licensed family care fills important niches, providing maximum

flexibility to meet needs like the following — a list which was sent to

me by family care providers: families whose parents work shift work or

weekend work, families who don’t need child care five days a week,

families with children with special care needs or children who are

frequently ill, families who live in small or isolated communities,

families who want two children of different ages to be cared for in the

same situation, families who want a consistent caregiver over a period

of years, or families whose children don’t thrive in larger

daycares.

Let’s continue describing the system, as we move now to unlicensed

or unregulated care. The next rung of the ladder is licence-not-required

care: smaller providers who receive a little training, if they register,

but nothing else unless they want to license. Then they may qualify for

a minor capital grant. Using this kind of care are parents who prefer

child care with a family member, a trusted friend or a neighbour. If

those parents want fee reductions, they’ll have to move their child to

licensed care, where it may be less convenient, less intimate or less

trusted.

[10:10 a.m.]

Finally, at the bottom, the least preferred option in our public

policy is lower-income parents who might prefer to care for their own

child but can’t afford to. While other parents will receive an

affordable child care benefit of up to $1,250 a month, these parents

won’t get anything. If they want that benefit, as well as fee

reductions, they’ll have to go off to work and send their children to

licensed child care. The tax dollars they generate at work will help to

pay someone else to look after their child instead of helping the

parent, financially, to look after his or her own child.

This describes the hierarchy of preferment in child care. The

common denominator is that the state makes the choices of preferment

rather than the parent. It does that by providing or withholding

different levels of assistance to parents or providers. To my mind, we

could be more heedful of parents’ choices. I think that the province

should get in the back seat and put the parent in the driver’s seat by

allowing parents to make the choices they think are best for their

children and family.

When given a dashboard of choices featuring roughly equal

benefits, parents could choose what they really prefer. We might be

surprised at what they might choose. For example, the Childcare Resource

and Research Unit is a policy research institute from Toronto that put

out their major publication just a month ago, a comprehensive

pan-Canadian study called Early Childhood Education and Care in

Canada 2016 . A footnote to table 13 of that study says that

B.C. government officials estimate that 50 percent of the existing child

care subsidy to parents ended up going to unregulated care.

That’s parents making their own choices, expressing a strong

inclination toward unregulated care even though licensed care gets a lot

more in subsidies. It could be that parents chose more unregulated care

because it’s less expensive — or maybe not. We simply don’t

know.

My preference is a system in which parents, who love their

children more than anyone in the world, who bear first responsibility to

raise those children, are presented with a range of equally accessible

choices with regard to their children’s care. Let’s not be afraid of

finding out, of asking parents the question. Let’s find out exactly how

parents want to raise their kids and just help them do it their

way.

R. Leonard: Thank you to the member for Chilliwack-Kent for expressing the

condolences of this House to the family and those affected by the recent

toddler death.

I absolutely agree that we do want good child care choices for

parents. Let’s just talk about the choices that parents didn’t have for

the last 16 years. In all of those years, parents didn’t always have the

choice to return to work if they wanted to — parents like Janet, who

couldn’t resume her career as a nurse because there was no child care

space to be found.

Where does choice go when the cost of child care would eat up most

or all of a parent’s paycheque, making it really no choice about

returning to work — especially for low-wage earners, most likely to be

women? In those 16 years, where was the choice for parents who were

forced to take any spot they could find? We do know the tragic story of

Baby Mac. Having to choose child care that you’re uncomfortable or

unhappy with is not a choice.

In 16 years, parents didn’t always have the choice to have more

children, because they didn’t know how they could manage on one salary

or pay the child care fees for two or more children. I’ve heard the

stories of nurses and other shift workers in my community who’ve had to

decline work and jeopardize their career paths. We’ve heard all kinds of

heartbreaking stories from parents over the lack of options for quality,

affordable child care. Really, parents haven’t been given much choice

over the last 16 years.

Our government is giving them those choices by committing more

than $1 billion over three years to begin to implement a new universal

child care system in B.C., a system that will provide parents with

access to affordable, high-quality child care whenever and wherever they

need it. That’s what choice looks like.

There’s been a lot of unhelpful fearmongering and the spreading of

misinformation, but far from restricting choice, our universal system

will expand those choices. Parents should be able to choose which child

care arrangement works best for them. Whether parents choose a nanny,

family-based care, a child care centre or other options, this new

government’s goal is that when fully implemented, our system will

provide a variety of quality, affordable choices for parents.

Of course, not all parents want or need child care. Those families

will continue to have access to child tax benefits and early learning

programs provided by government, such as StrongStart.

[10:15 a.m.]

We’ve already started giving those choices back to parents by

making child care more affordable. In April, we introduced a child care

fee reduction program, directly reducing fees for licensed child care by

up to $350 per child. The majority of child care providers have opted

in, and we have already put money back into the pockets of

parents.

Since implementing this program, we’ve heard from a mother with

two kids close in age who said that by the time her two kids were five,

they calculated that without the fee reduction, they would be $40,000 in

debt because of child care costs. Our new child care fee reduction

program meant that she would save close to $700 a month, relieving a

huge financial burden on this one family. We’ve also heard from parents

saying that with more affordable child care, they’re now considering

having more children — a joy for these families that you cannot put a

price tag on.

Starting in September, families earning up to $111,000 a year can

also benefit from a new affordable child care benefit. Eligible parents

earning up to $45,000 per year will effectively pay zero for licensed

child care, and parents earning up to $80,000 per year will be paying

$10 a day or less with both programs combined. This is just year 1 of a

ten-year plan.

With 22,000 new spaces over three years, parents will have more

choices and shorter wait-lists. We will be investing in home care and in

private and non-profit child care centres. We will be increasing the

number of trained early childhood educators, expanding the number of

child care spaces and further reducing fees until every parent truly has

a choice of who will care for their child and will not have that choice

made for them due to affordability, lack of spaces or for any other

reason.

L. Throness: Continuing our conversation, I think there would be real value in

the government gathering information, going to B.C. parents and asking

them: what do you really want in terms of child care? I met with

community leaders in Chilliwack who work with child care, and they said:

“Just give parents more choice. That’s what parents want.”

I did a bit more research on this, and here’s what I’ve found. In

2015, Rick August, a social policy analyst with Johnson Shoyama Graduate

School of Public Policy, affiliated with the Universities of Regina and

Saskatchewan, examined this question by looking at three empirical

studies on child care preferences carried out over a period spanning

nearly three decades. They were a 1988 national child care study by

Statistics Canada, a 2001 provincial study conducted by Saskatchewan

social services and a 2013 national poll sponsored by the Institute of

Marriage and Family Canada.

Now, I don’t have time to discuss each one in detail, but Mr.

August notes that parental desires are consistent. The 1988 study,

featuring over 24,000 respondents, said that parental preferences were

very strongly weighted towards home and family, with only about a

quarter indicating a preference for a licensed child care option. In

2001, a study was conducted in Saskatchewan with 1,273 respondents. Over

60 percent preferred in-home or family daycare rather than licensed

daycare.

The Institute of Marriage and Family Canada conducted a poll in

2013 — an expensive, scientifically representative poll with over 2,000

respondents from all across the country, completed by an independent

contractor. It found that ideally, nearly two-thirds of parents of

preschool children would have a parent provide care for their child in

the family home. Of these two-thirds, more than 60 percent would choose

a relative if a parent was not an option.

Here was, to me, Mr. August’s most important conclusion. The three

studies examined in his policy brief suggest that focusing child care

policy on a single model, the state licensed and supervised child care

centre, is substantially at odds with the perspective of most parents of

young children. This has remained the case through a quarter century,

when the licensed daycare industry has dominated public policy discourse

on the subject.

Now, it could be that times have changed. It could be that, with

the passage of time, parents would now prefer more licensed care. And

that would be fine. It could also be that British Columbian parents

differ from other regions of the country and prefer a more group-based

approach to child-raising. And that would be fine too.

My point is this. Current public policy approaches child care

policy from the top down. We have started with what the government wants

instead of starting out with what parents want. In my view, we need to

do a comprehensive survey of parents in B.C. to find out what kind of

child care they want, and then we simply need to follow their

direction.

[10:20 a.m.]

M. Dean: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Dean: We are blessed today to have in the gallery some students from View

Royal Elementary, and they’re joined by their teacher, Sarah Winkler. Would

you please make them very welcome.

Private Members’ Statements

WOMEN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE

M. Dean: Today I’m very proud to stand and talk about women’s right to

choose, especially given the landslide vote in Ireland last

Friday.

For nearly 50 years, Canada has recognized the fundamental right

of women to make their own reproductive choices. It was actually not so

long ago that women were not given a choice about unwanted pregnancies.

The choice was made for them by a government and a society that felt

justified in imposing their ideological beliefs on others. The right of

women to control their own bodies was not given freely. It was fought

for every step of the way.

Abortion and dissemination of information about birth control was

first made illegal in Canada in 1869. Abortion and contraception

remained illegal in Canada until the 1960s, yet an estimated 35,000 to

120,000 illegal abortions took place every year. It was only in 1969

that the federal government decriminalized contraception and allowed

some abortions, though only if a pregnancy would endanger the health or

life of a woman.

In 1969, Dr. Morgentaler defied Canadian law and performed

abortions in his medical practice. In 1970, however, his office was

raided by the police, and he was charged with conspiracy to perform an

abortion.

In 1970, the Vancouver Women’s Caucus, a group of independent

feminists, organized the Abortion Caravan, our first national feminist

protest. Women travelled over 3,000 miles from Vancouver to Ottawa,

growing in number. In Ottawa, the Abortion Caravan, then 500 women

strong, held two days of demonstrations. Thirty women chained themselves

to the parliamentary gallery in the House of Commons, closing parliament

for first time in Canadian history.

The first national group promoting abortion rights in Canada was

the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League, founded in 1974. Over a

decade later, the B.C. Coalition for Abortion Clinics was founded to

establish clinics in B.C.

In January 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada’s

abortion law as unconstitutional. The law was found to infringe upon a

woman’s right to life, liberty and the security of the person. In 1989,

the federal government tried to pass an amendment to the Criminal Code

that would prohibit abortion except where it threatened the woman’s

health. The bill passed in the House of Commons but was narrowly

defeated by the Senate in a tie vote. Since then, abortion has been

treated like any other medical procedure.

I want to thank those advocates and activists who fought for

women’s rights in Canada. We would not have these rights today without

their courage, and we must not take these hard-won rights for granted or

assume that access to abortions and contraception is no longer an issue.

There remains strong and active opposition to women’s right to

choose.

However, even if we were to turn back the clock, women wouldn’t

stop getting abortions. They would do what our parents’ and their

parents’ generations did. They would find a way to end an unwanted

pregnancy, travel to a province or a country where it’s legal or find

someone, anyone, to help, and many of these women would die as a result.

Many women did die from botched abortions in Canada before abortion was

made legal. It’s estimated that between 1926 and 1947, 4,000 to 6,000

Canadian women died as a result of unsafe abortions.

In fact, research shows that highly restrictive laws do not

eliminate the practice of abortion but just make those that do occur

more likely to be unsafe. Unsafe abortion accounts for 14.5 percent of

all maternal deaths globally, and almost all of these deaths occur in

countries with restrictive abortion laws.

[10:25 a.m.]

In many states south of our border, regulations have created

barriers to safe, effective, timely and equitable abortion services. Yet

research has shown that restrictive laws do not improve outcomes and, in

some cases, lead to more hardships, such as delayed abortion care, more

side effects and higher costs for women. Research shows that not only do

restrictions on abortion not decrease the incidents of induced

abortions, but increased access to safe abortions does not increase the

abortion rate.

The call for restrictions on abortions in B.C. and Canada really

have nothing to do with decreasing or eliminating abortions, but they do

have very much to do with women, trans and intersex people, people’s

rights to control their own bodies, make their own reproductive choices

and access safe medical procedures.

The choice, whether to go through with or end a pregnancy, is a

mighty personal one. This choice is a personal right of each and every

woman and should be freely exercised.

D. Barnett: British Columbia is less than 150 years old, but our social

progress in terms of the advancement of women’s rights is nothing less

than remarkable over such a relatively short period of time. Our

achievements are due in large part to the tireless efforts of some

phenomenal female pioneers who left a profound impact on the development

of our province.

Their many achievements are extraordinary and certainly not

limited to the following list: equal rights, suffrage rights,

reproductive rights and employment rights. With respect to suffrage,

2017 marked 100 years since women won the right to vote in British

Columbia. But the suffrage movement in British Columbia really dates

back to the 1870s when the American Susan B. Anthony first visited

Victoria to lecture on the subject. Between 1891 and 1914, there were no

less than 16 suffrage bills introduced and subsequently defeated in this

Legislature.

It was not until a referendum, held in 1916 and passed by a margin

of 65 percent, finally extended the franchise to women on April 5, 1917

that B.C. then became the fourth province in Confederation to

enfranchise women after Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. It was not

until 1918 that Mary Ellen Smith became the first woman, in a Vancouver

by-election, to join our Legislative Assembly.

Mrs. Smith was, in fact, the very first woman in Canada to be

appointed a cabinet minister. She used her influence to advance numerous

women’s issues, including the creation of the first-ever mothers’

pension in 1920. This legislation provided a financial benefit to women

and mothers who lost their spouse or who was physically incapacitated

during World War I.

Mary Ellen Smith also drew attention to wage fairness for women.

This led to the introduction of

an act to fix a minimum wage for women

in 1918 — the first legislation of its kind to review wages paid to

women in different occupations. These statutes would then enforce

minimums where none had previously existed.

Around the same time, Helen Gregory MacGill became the first woman

in British Columbia to serve as a judge in the province, in 1917. Mrs.

MacGill worked tirelessly and was instrumental in the eventual passage

of the Equal Guardianship of Infants Act. This groundbreaking

legislation made British Columbia the first province to grant mothers

the same rights as fathers concerning the care, control and custody of

their children.

Helen Gregory MacGill also championed the efforts of Mabel French

to win her case with the Law Society of British Columbia to become the

first woman admitted to the bar in our province. Following a very

lengthy court battle that French lost, legislation was finally

introduced in 1912 that eventually paved the way for women to practise

law in British Columbia.

The next major milestone came in 1921 with a piece of legislation

entitled

An Act Concerning the Employment of Women Before and After

Childbirth. Known as the Maternity Protection Act, it represented the

first laws designed to protect new mothers. The legislation also imposed

fines on employers for not providing 30 minutes twice each day for a

mother to nurse her infant.

[10:30 a.m.]

While many of these achievements seem basic by today’s standards,

the women behind these initiatives laid the solid groundwork that would

eventually give women choices in life that many take for granted

today.

M. Dean: Thank you to the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin for recognizing

general rights of women, but I notice that no member has stood up to

actually defend women’s rights to choose and to have reproductive

control. It’s really important that women in each and every constituency

of British Columbia are represented by an MLA who unequivocally supports

human rights, including women’s rights to choose, because even in the

21st century, as we’ve seen in Ireland just last week, this is still an

important issue for women facing reproductive choices today.

In my constituency of Esquimalt-Metchosin, the women’s health

clinic offers abortion services and is constantly facing protesters.

They’re within sight of the entrance, holding signs that stigmatize and

intimidate women on their way for services at just the time in the lives

of these women when they’re already facing a critical personal issue and

need urgent support. Even though Deb, for example, is in her 30s, when

she had to use the centre, she wouldn’t even go alone. The exclusion

zone needs to be increased for the comfort of Deb and women like

her.

As legislators in this House, we have a duty to ensure that not

only is women’s right to access safe abortions safeguarded but that all

women in B.C. have access, including women in rural and remote

locations. That’s why I’m really proud that, in January, our government

made the medical abortion pill Mifegymiso universally available at no

cost. By removing this barrier, we’re making sure that everyone can

access this safe and legal option.

This is simply the right thing to do, and it will make access to

this legal, safe health service more equitable for all British

Columbians when and where they need it. The decision to terminate a

pregnancy is up to the patient involved in consultation with their

doctor. This is a deeply personal choice, and our government is doing

what we can to ensure that cost or access to these services does not

affect that choice. Our government will continue to stand up for women

and their right to choose.

GROWING B.C. BUSINESS

C. Oakes: I am pleased this morning to rise and speak about growing British

Columbia’s business. The small business sector represents the backbone

of our provincial economy. More than one million British Columbians work

for a small business in the province, and they account for almost 55

percent of all B.C.’s exports. It is therefore a main policy of the

official opposition to nurture the growth of small business in British

Columbia by removing unnecessary regulatory burdens and all of the

needless red tape that stands in the way of prosperity and job growth in

the province of British Columbia.

A properly streamlined regulatory environment yields many

benefits, including attracting new investment, encouraging economic

growth and innovation, creating new and rewarding employment

opportunities and ensuring the safety of our citizens. As one might

expect, it is necessary to keep up with the highly competitive market

environment. This requires a regular review of existing regulations to

check if they remain adequate or proposing new regulations that are more

appropriate. Our purpose is not to bog down highly innovative players

but rather to enable them to compete at a high level.

One of the most common complaints raised by businesses and

citizens is the amount of complexity of government formalities and

paperwork that they are expected to complete. Citizens and businesses

spend much time and devote significant resources to filling out forms,

applying for permits and licences and reporting business information. In

some cases, practices have become complex and irrelevant.

In survey after survey by the Canadian Federation of Independent

Business, small business owners continue to say that red tape still

remains a significant concern. Small business owners also express

frustration that government is not getting the message.

[10:35 a.m.]

In response, the previous Liberal government adopted the following

statute: the Red Tape Reduction Day Act, 2015. The purpose of this

statute was to clearly establish an ongoing commitment by government, by

all governments, to streamline and modernize the provincial regulatory

framework. This includes managing any risk of regulatory creep on a

consistent basis. In effect, this statute institutionalizes government’s

accountability and requires it to report annually on March 31 of each

year.

The whole intent of institutionalizing an annual review is to

ensure that our regulatory regime is both protecting and enabling, as

well as current, responsive and nimble. It involves using the regulatory

system to meet our critical social aims while enhancing the conditions

for a competitive and innovative economy.

As a business-friendly jurisdiction, we want to set out conditions

that attract investment and skilled workers. It’s about making

regulation as effective as possible and making sure it is never more

complicated or costly than it needs to be. The intent of the Red Tape

Reduction Day Act is to support an effective regulatory system, a system

that is self-renewing, keeps pace with development in technology and

global markets, and that fits with the needs of our citizens.

By way of example, this can include streamlining and modernizing

the building code, creating a single umbrella for natural resource

decisions, modernizing training platforms for commercial trucks,

creating a new system for the employers adviser office, reducing

barriers for apprentices, on-line guide for starting a restaurant in

British Columbia. A simplified two-page request for proposals was

launched in April of 2015 that enables small businesses to acquire

government contracts more easily and with less paperwork.

By all accounts, these innovations have proved highly effective.

However, a recent report by the Conference Board of Canada, entitled the

innovation report card, indicates that British Columbia has

fallen behind drastically in just this last year. We went from a B to a

D grade and dropped from tenth place to 17th out of 26 jurisdictions.

The Conference Board indicates that B.C. has slipped, relative to

international peers, on four key indicators of innovation capacity and

activity, and continues to lag on others.

In particular, our province fell below expectation, especially

with respect to labour productivity and innovation investment. In many

cases, this can be attributed to outdated or unnecessary regulation that

tends to stifle productivity and innovation.

In order to keep British Columbia ahead of the game, government

must recognize that red tape is a huge hidden tax on small business and

a huge job-killer. As a matter of fact, a small business with fewer than

five employees is hardest hit by red tape. Red tape can cost small

businesses as much as $6,744 per employee just to comply with rules and

regulations.

I am, therefore, interested to hear the response by the government

and hear what kinds of actions they have taken since assuming office

since last summer to reduce red tape, assist small businesses and grow

our economy.

R. Glumac: I welcome the opportunity to talk about growing B.C. businesses,

because I think it’s important to recognize that there are many

different approaches to growing business in B.C. There’s the approach,

which has been utilized over the years, of focusing a lot of energy and

time on a single industry, sometimes even a single project. But the

economy is about more than a single project or a single

industry.

[10:40 a.m.]

There’s a different approach that works even better: a diversified

economy with sustainable long-term jobs across the province, growing

business in B.C. across many different sectors. That’s the approach that

this government is taking. Our budget this year demonstrates this

comprehensive approach. We’re investing a record $15.8 billion in

capital investments to build schools, health and transportation

infrastructure throughout the province. We’re helping to address job

recruitment challenges by tackling out-of-control housing costs with a

30-point housing plan.

By looking at the whole province, we will ensure that we have an

economy that is vibrant and resilient. In addition, we are cutting small

business tax by 20 percent and completely eliminating PST for B.C.

businesses by April of next year. That will save businesses across this

province more than $150 million per year.

We’re also going to establish a small business task force to help

to further understand the needs of small businesses so that we can

create the best policies and priorities to help them thrive.

We’re also in the process of creating an emerging economy task

force to find made-in-B.C. solutions for an innovative 21st-century

economy. We’ve created Innovate B.C. with a much broader mandate than

the former Innovation Council to help to grow businesses across the

province.

But there’s more. We’re also making strategic investments to grow

B.C. businesses. One example: our government is investing $22.5 million

Stemcell to build a state-of-the-art manufacturing facility. This new

facility will provide 2,200 new jobs by 2031 and establish B.C. and

Canada as a world leader in regenerative medicine.

I hear a lot lately about how we’re creating uncertainty in the

business community, but in reality, we’re seeing investments from

private companies that demonstrate confidence.

We have 4,000 jobs from Amazon coming to B.C. We have WeWork

moving into the upper floors of the historic Hudson’s Bay building. We

have Microsoft adding 50 new jobs, expanding technology training in high

schools and partnering with BCIT. Facebook has leased 36,000 square feet

at Waterfront Centre. Fortinet is expanding and adding 1,000 new jobs.

Essel Group is establishing its new Zee Studios International in

Vancouver to hire local TV and digital media talent.

It’s not just technology that’s doing well. Major global

retailers, like Muji and Uniqlo, are establishing themselves in B.C. and

expanding. Sumitomo Corp. is purchasing a large stake in a wood pellet

plant in Prince George. DP World Canada is investing $200 million and

expanding its terminal in Prince Rupert, which will boost shipping

capacity by 50 percent.

Ralmax is investing $50 million in a new dry dock in Victoria,

which will add 200 new jobs and expand its ability to service larger

vessels, such as B.C. Ferries. Viking Air is also planning on hiring an

additional 50 people in its new manufacturing program to create

amphibious firefighting aircraft.

The list goes on and on. There’s no question that this government

knows how to grow B.C. businesses across many different sectors while

also addressing long-neglected issues in our public services and making

things more fair and affordable across the province.

C. Oakes: I’d like to thank the hon. member for their contribution to the

debate on growing business in British Columbia. I also look forward, I

guess during estimates, to getting a more fulsome response on where we

are at as far as the regulatory burden count as it pertains to our

statutes and our commitment to a net zero before 2019.

In addition to the regulatory burden, a high tax burden can be one

of the strongest job-killers in the province. Last September I was

pleased that the current government followed through on three major tax

reduction announcements in the 2017 budget by the previous Liberal

government: a phasing out of PST paid by industry on electricity, a

reduction of MSP premiums by 50 percent and a reduction in the small

business tax rate.

[10:45 a.m.]

I heard from the hon. member that this will represent

approximately $150 million per year of savings. Unfortunately, all of

the tax savings that businesses, both small and large, calculated into

their business practices have completely been mitigated by a series of

tax increases that have wiped out any perceived benefits.

I’m speaking specifically to all the tax increases an­nounced by

the current government in less than ten months in office: an increase in

the corporate tax rate from 11 to 12 percent; the abandonment of revenue

neutrality in the carbon tax and a significant hike in carbon tax each

year for the next four years; the adoption of a so-called speculation

tax and an annual school tax; and perhaps the most burdensome of them

all, the employers health tax.

The employer health tax will impose the greatest burden of all on

small businesses. It came as a surprise on budget day. An exasperated

Val Litwin of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce summed it up. “When I look at

the dogpile of increasing corporate tax, increasing minimum wage, loss

of neutrality around the carbon tax, now we get added to that a payroll

tax that’s going to be leaving business by 2021 footing an almost $2

billion bill.”

Small business is not the only target of the employer health tax.

This new tax will also capture local governments, regional health

authorities, school boards, universities, not-for-profit services and

even charities.

Prior to the release of the 2018 provincial budget, B.C. was

ranked as having the sixth-highest marginal effective tax rate for

businesses when compared to 34 OECD countries and jurisdictions and ten

Canadian provinces. Now, with the burden imposed by all of the tax

increases, our reputation as a business-friendly jurisdiction is in

serious jeopardy.

Deputy Speaker: Members, all the statements ought to be non-partisan.

SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR STUDENTS

N. Simons: I appreciate this opportunity. It’s always my role in this chamber

to bring things back to the non-partisan way of communicating. As the

people in the gallery might know, that might not be entirely be

accurate.

However, this morning I’m talking about a subject that I’m sure

all of us are going to agree on, and that’s ensuring that we have safe

communities, safe opportunities for students in schools. Essentially, I

have this opportunity to talk about a safe environment for students, a

broad topic and one that could cover myriad issues. I’m looking forward

to hearing comments from my colleague across the way, who I know is

committed to ensuring that young people and people are looked after.

Mental health is an important issue for her, and I look forward to

talking about this later.

I’m going to speak about this subject in general terms, because,

as we all know, students are never just students. They come with their

own set of unique characteristics. As we know, students can be anyone.

They’re sometimes parents taking night courses, learning a trade or

upgrading their skills. Some are employed. Some live at home. Others

live in residences or shared apartments. They could be learning about

history or politics or science or technology. Some might be studying

caterpillars or butterflies.

Students are everyone. I had an 86-year-old cello student once.

Some students are parents. Some are taking elder college courses.

Students learn in groups, in one-to-one settings or on line or in

classrooms and in every field. Every student should have a safe

environment for learning.

Some students we see in the morning these days with their

overloaded backpacks, making their way to school or the bus stop. For

the purposes of this discussion, I’d like to focus mostly on these

students learning on their way to adulthood. By the way, their

overloaded backpacks aren’t a very good idea. All this is to say that a

safe environment for students is essential, regardless of the student or

the learning situation.

Ultimately, a young person’s sense of safety will come from three

things: being safe at home, being safe in the community and being safe

in school. I’m going to start with safety in the schools and the efforts

made by policy-makers, past and present, to attempt to address this

issue of safety in schools.

[10:50 a.m.]

Government policy has for a long time, and since we’ve become more

aware of these issues, been focused on ensuring that schools are a place

of safe learning and of caring circumstances for students. Safe and

caring school communities is a policy of the provincial government and

one that we support and we hope to enhance, whenever possible, through

learning from people in schools, from administrators, from teachers and

from students themselves.

The policy for safe and caring schools…. I notice that there are

some students in the gallery. My job this morning is to talk about safe

learning environments for students. So if you’re wondering what I’m

talking about, that’s what I’m talking about.

The policy of our province, this entire British Columbia, is that

boards of education are striving to develop positive and inclusive

school cultures and are committed to fostering optimal environments for

learning. In other words, the policy of government is to try to make

sure that the schools that you learn in are safe and are places where

you feel comfortable so that your mind isn’t distracted by things that

are causing you worry. It’s focused on being able to learn and to absorb

things like: “Well, you have got to learn about math, and you’ve got to

learn about spelling, and you’ve got to learn about socials, history,

science.” Those are all things that you learn in school.

You learn that better if our schools are safe for people to learn

in. That means not just safe like, you know, your hallways are safe and

your building is safe so that earthquakes aren’t going to hurt it too

badly.

It’s also about making sure that there are rules in place. Our

government has put forward rules, and we passed them in this chamber.

This is where we pass laws. We’ve said that these are the rules that

school boards have to have. Every school board has to have a code of

conduct, and the code of conduct means a list of things that are

expected for every school in the province of British Columbia, far north

or on the Island or in the Interior or in Victoria or

Vancouver.

The policies have to have certain things in them. The boards of

education have to make sure that every year students know what the rules

are, every teacher knows what the rules are and every employee of the

school districts knows what the rules are. The rules have to include

things about what you’re not allowed to bully each other about — you’re

not allowed bullying at all — and issues like grounds for

discrimination. So why would you discriminate against someone? You would

have rules against discriminating for physical ability or ability,

sexual orientation, bullying. Unacceptable behaviour has to be

identified as what’s acceptable and what’s not acceptable. So bullying,

cyberbullying, harassment, intimidation or threatening or violent

behaviours are not allowed.

The school boards have to also have consequences written down — so

what happens if certain rules are broken. Even though government makes

up the rules and it’s the school boards that write them down and make

them local, it’s the students that follow those rules.

Safe and caring school communities is the government of British

Columbia’s policy. When the opposition was on the government side, they

also made rules and tried to ensure that we got better and better at

making sure that schools were safe.

The next thing that is required to be safe is to have a place

where you live that’s safe. It’s one thing to be safe in school and have

a good learning environment, but that learning environment means that

you should be safe wherever you are. If you’re worried or you’re

stressed out at home because sometimes parents have challenges, have

trouble dealing with things in their life…. That’s normal for a lot of

parents, but sometimes it’s stressful for the young person. So when the

young person is at school, they should feel safe and supported. If

they’ve had problems that they need to talk about, there should be a

place in the school for them to talk about it.

It’s very important that everybody understands that our province

believes in safe places for young people to learn, and I look forward to

hearing comments from my friend who’s from the opposition.

J. Thornthwaite: On May 10, I attended the Ministry of Education’s school community

mental health conference in Richmond. Throughout my tenure as the MLA

for North Vancouver–Seymour, as Parliamentary Secretary for Child Mental

Health and Anti-Bullying, as Chair of the Select Standing Committee on

Children and Youth and now opposition critic for Mental Health and

Addictions, I have long been advocating for better services for children

and youth in the schools, both for prevention and treatment of mental

health issues for our children and youth.

[10:55 a.m.]

In 2014, I first was introduced to Dr. Patricia Peterson — she’s

the co-executive director of the Health and Education Research Group at

the University of New Brunswick — when she presented to a principal and

vice-principal conference on the integrated service delivery model for

child and youth mental health in New Brunswick schools. At the time,

there were 40 percent of the school districts in that province that had

currently implemented it.

Fast-forward to May 2015. I just happened to meet Brian Gallant,

who is the Premier of New Brunswick, at a North Shore waterfront

industries gala. I actually asked him at the time if he was planning on

expanding that model to all school districts in New Brunswick. He said

yes.

I was so impressed with this all-government and all-ministry

approach to mental health that I arranged for Dr. Peterson and Dr.

Davidson to present to the select standing committee during our

deliberations on child and youth mental health. Their one child, one

file model subsequently made it into one of the key recommendations in

our report that was published in January 2016, called Concrete

Actions for Systemic Change . I’m happy to say that our

government did adopt several of the recommendations, including the

one-stop-shop clinics now referred to as Foundry.

I first met Foundry’s founder, now executive director, Dr. Steve

Mathias, in 2014 and asked him to present to the Select Standing

Committee on Children and Youth on his vision for youth mental health

based on the Australian model, Headspace. I introduced Dr. Mathias to

our Minister of Health, then lobbied both our Health Minister and the

Minister of Children and Family Development to embark on a similar plan

in B.C.

I’m proud that not only did our government announce and fund five

Foundry centres in B.C., including North Vancouver; there were another

six promised in our Budget 2017. It is so successful that this current

government is now taking credit for each new Foundry opening, sometimes

in the same breath as wrongly accusing our government of doing nothing

for mental health. Not only is that not true; our government did

introduce many of the recommendations that were outlined in that 2016

Select Standing Committee on Children report.

Moving forward, I would like to see Foundry expanded to every

community in B.C., including all post-secondary institutions. I do hope

that this government continues supporting more Foundrys provincewide, in

addition to connecting them formally with all schools in a model that is

very similar to the integrated service delivery model for child and

youth mental health currently having great success in New

Brunswick.

We are fortunate in North Vancouver to see ground-growing work at

Mountainside Secondary School that already connects their school with

Vancouver Coastal Health. I know that John Barsby Community School in

Nanaimo has also done an excellent job of connecting health authority

services within their school district.

We should see this done throughout British Columbia to help our

children and youth get the help they need in a timely manner. Both these

school teams were presented at the May 10-11 mental health conference.

The North Vancouver school district also implemented Dr. Stan Kutcher’s

mental health literacy curriculum, on which I was happy to see him

report to educators in North Vancouver. He also presented at that

conference.

There are many school districts that are doing it right for mental

health literacy for their children and youth in schools, and I do hope

that this government expands on what school districts are already doing

and gives them the tools and the resources to offer more mental health

services in schools.

N. Simons: Thank you to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour for her

comments on her successes. I think what really we should be talking

about is our ongoing need to continue to strengthen our system of mental

health supports. When I sat in the opposition in the old days — I sat on

that side for 12 years — my job was to try to make government do the

right thing.

For 16 years — well, the 12 years that I was here — we kept

saying: “We need a plan for mental health. We need a plan to reduce

poverty in our province. We need plans to make sure that families are

supported and that they can afford the things that we need in our

communities. We need a plan to make sure that schools have the

appropriate number of support staff, that they have the appropriate

number of teachers, that our system is a good, strong one.” That’s why

we’re doing things on this side of the House, now that we’ve got on to

the government side.

As you take your leave from here this morning, I hope that you had

an opportunity to learn a little bit about this place and what we do in

this place.

[11:00 a.m.]

My job is to continue to advocate for young people who are going

to school to make sure that they learn in a healthy environment, that

they learn in a safe and supportive environment, that they have access

to the ability to learn music or to learn all the things they want to

learn in schools.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Part of my government’s commitment is to make sure that the school

environment and the learning environment for students is a healthy one

and one that we can be proud of as British Columbians.

Thank you very much for this opportunity. With that, I will listen

to the next debate.

Hon. S. Robinson: I call Motion 23, moved by the member for

Vancouver-Langara.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to

proceed with Motion 23 without disturbing the priorities of the motions

proceeding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 23 — PROCESS FOR

CHANGES TO ELECTORAL

SYSTEM

M. Lee: It’s my pleasure to introduce this morning’s motion for debate.

That motion is:

[Be it resolved that this House recognize the importance of a clear,

fair and transparent process for changing our electoral

system.]

As the members of this House know, British Columbia has considered

this twice before with referenda on electoral reform in both 2005 and

2009. So far, it’s very difficult to see how this third referendum in

2018 is anything but a step backwards.

I stepped forward in the May 2017 election so that I could help to

improve the trust and confidence in our government. This is not the way

to do this.

Like most British Columbians, I expected that we would have a

clear, fair and transparent referendum. What we’ve seen so far falls

short on all three criteria, and the way that it is being shaped by the

government is undermining our democratic process.

Changing something as fundamental as an electoral system requires

a clear, undeniable mandate. British Columbians need to have confidence

in the result. We need a clear understanding on what we will be voting

on.

Let’s talk about clarity. It’s hard to be clear when we don’t even

know the question. On Wednesday, the Attorney General is supposed to

finally reveal what British Columbians will be voting on. What took so

long? This government has already used up over ten months. The question

will be revealed just one day before the House is scheduled to rise for

the summer — a single day, at best, to canvass the issue in the people’s

Legislature.

In both 2005 and 2009, the government of the day bent over

backwards to be clear, fair and transparent. The government was neutral.

It convened a citizens’ assembly that reflected the province to consider

electoral reform. It presented British Columbians with a clear question

and a clear choice about a specific form of proportional representation.

It recognized that a fair and special majority was necessary to change

the electoral system for the entire province, and it held the referendum

during a provincial general election, when voters are already engaged

provincially.

Let’s talk about fairness. This referendum needs to be formulated

and conducted by a truly neutral arbiter like Elections B.C. It needs to

be legitimate and meet Canadian and international best standards and

practices for referenda, and it needs to meet the values and principles

of the charter and the constitution.

This referendum, which emerged from the NDP–Green Party agreement,

is a shortsighted and undemocratic at­tempt to rig our voting system.

Political parties themselves should not be gaming a referendum to change

the electoral system for their own agenda and interests. It must not be

biased or even be perceived to be biased.

A bare minimum of 50 percent plus one is not a clear mandate. A

simple majority is not enough to splinter Canada, and it should not be

enough to change the way we vote in B.C.

B.C.’s last four referenda had an average turnout of just over 50

percent. I know every member of this House hopes for greater

participation and voter turnout, but we face the very real possibility

that about a quarter of registered voters could change our entire

system.

[11:05 a.m.]

If this referendum is supported in Metro Vancouver but

overwhelmingly rejected by the rest of the province, is that fair? That

would not be a fair mandate.

Finally, let’s talk about transparency. In previous referenda, the

government of the day worked hard to ensure British Columbians were

consulted over a year-long process. The government established the

Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform to assess models for electing

MLAs and then issue a report. The assembly was painstakingly put

together to reflect the province across gender, generational and

geographic lines. That was then.

In 2018, we got an on-line survey. We have asked repeated

questions in this House about the process, including how much input came

from partisan political staff. The answers were vague and evasive. The

critical elements for this referendum, including the form of

proportional representation and the question to be asked, will be

decided behind closed doors. Is that transparent? I say not.

L. Krog: I’m very pleased to rise this morning. I’ve noted some of the

member for Vancouver-Langara’s words this morning. He said a quarter

could change our entire system. Oh my goodness. Well, I guess that’s

possible; the sky could fall tomorrow too. If women got the vote, for

heaven’s sakes, we knew that civilization would collapse in the western

world. If we extended the vote to people of anything other than

Caucasian origin, that would destroy democracy as well.

With the greatest respect to the member, I appreciate his passion

this morning, but it’s just a little over the top for what’s being

proposed for British Columbia. If he wants to talk about the will of

democracy, ask all those tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of

British Columbians in 2005 who voted for some party other than the B.C.

Liberals and ended up with two seats out of 77. And then they had the

temerity to turn around and not even recognize the two members as the

official opposition.

I must ask: what is this member afraid of? The vast majority of

British Columbians, in the last provincial election, cast their ballots

for parties that supported proportional representation. That’s why we’re

over here and, perhaps, why they’re over there.

He says we don’t know the question. “What took so long?” Then he

talks about a clear question, a choice, in 2005. A clear question. My

goodness, I couldn’t understand what the proposed voting system that

they employ in Ireland and Malta was, and that’s what was put before

British Columbians. If you want to talk about clear questions, that was

the unclearest question that’s been put to referenda, I would suggest,

in British Columbia’s history.

The member’s concerns remind me of the dinner guest who comes at

5:30 when you’ve asked them to come at six. It’s just a little

premature, and it kind of spoils the evening and gets you off on the

wrong track. We are six months out from a vote on this, and this member

is already screaming to high heaven that the world is going to

collapse.

It’s about trust and confidence in our government. That’s what he

said he ran on last time. Well, trust and confidence in his government?

I guess the people cast their ballots, and they changed their minds.

They didn’t have any trust and confidence in that government. Why should

they? After they figured out that they were going to lose the confidence

of the House, they changed their views on proportional representation

anyway. You want to talk about trust and confidence and consistency? I’d

like to see some of that from those members over there.

We don’t know the question. The question will be clear for British

Columbians, and they will have a right to vote on it.

M. Lee: When?

L. Krog: The member says when. He’s not only a premature guest; he’s a

hungry guest.

Interjections.

L. Krog: Patience, my friends. A little patience is a good thing in a

democratic system.

Countries that have employed proportional representation or some

form of it have not collapsed. If it’s taken some time for them to form

governments, again, those systems have carried on. The roads have

continued to be paved. Children have continued to go to school. Health

care has continued to be delivered. Let us not exaggerate what this is

all about. This is an improvement to our democratic process, and it has

been a long time in coming. Many other democracies around the world have

functioned under a system or similar system as discussed for

years.

Interjection.

L. Krog: My friend points to Italy. I just was talking to someone this

morning who is going to Italy for a holiday. I’m thrilled for them. If

the member had ever been to Italy, he’d know why it’s such a wonderful

country. I don’t know why he’s so critical of the Italians. They were

the founders, in some respects, of many of our democratic principles.

But that’s aside for the moment.

[11:10 a.m.]

The good people of New Zealand had an opportunity for proportional

representation. They voted for it, they approved it and they approved it

again when it was put to them a second time. I say to the members

opposite: get on the right side of history on this issue. Get on the

right side of history for a change.

I appreciate that the role of opposition is to be critical of

everything the government does, regardless of whether it’s common sense

or makes no sense at all. I understand that. But in this particular

case, an opportunity for British Columbians who have seen the effects of

the worst aspects of our first-past-the-post system in the 2001

election…. British Columbians now want an opportunity to try a new

system. They’re going to get that opportunity. They’re going to have an

opportunity to vote on it.

The member criticizes that it’s not going to be debated in this

Legislature. No, because it’s going to be debated in the households and

the kitchens and the town halls and in the streets and the cafes and

restaurants and pubs of British Columbia over the next many months,

where British Columbians can come to their own conclusion, instead of

having something imposed upon them by legislators who were elected under

the system now, which every member in this House knows. Where else does

it make sense that you get 40 percent of the vote over 50 percent of the

seats and 100 percent of the power? It doesn’t make sense

anymore.

M. Morris: I listened to the member opposite pontificate about the virtues of

proportional representation. We’re looking today at a clear, fair and

transparent process to get there, if we ever get there. I just want to

comment on that.

The electoral reform proposed by government must conform to the

Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution Act, 1982, for

Canada. It needs to recognize that the regional populations in British

Columbia require the same considerations as the more urbanized parts of

the province.

I’m going to focus a little bit on the Charter and the

requirements to have a fair and transparent process. Under

section 3 of

the Charter, it says that “every citizen of Canada has the right to vote

in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative

assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.”

A pretty broad statement, but it has been refined and defined by

the courts several times. In fact, the first case that was brought to

bear against

section 3 of the Charter and the constitutionality of the

electoral process was in this province in 1989. It was heard by Chief

Justice Beverley McLachlin, and she was the chief of the B.C. Court of

Appeal at that particular time. In that, there were a number of factors

that came into play to bring transparency and to bring to bear equal

votes right across British Columbia. In that decision….

I’ve got a copy of the decision here, but I think it’s worthwhile

that members, if they have access to a computer, look that up. Under the

Supreme Court of Canada website, they can get various decisions that

relate to the Dixon decision from 1989. In that decision, she identifies

that there were ten core values or rights that make up

section 3 of the

Charter, of the guarantee of the right to vote.

The first one is: “The right not to be denied the franchise on the

grounds of race, sex, education, qualifications or unjustifiable

criteria.” It makes a lot of sense. “The right to be presented with a

choice of candidates…. The right to a secret ballot. The right to have

one’s vote counted. The right to have one’s vote count for the same as

other valid votes cast in a district.” There’s been a lot of definition

around that.

“The right to sufficient information about public policies to

permit an informed decision.” I want to emphasize that. Here we don’t

even have the question yet. We’ve got a referendum coming up in November

some time, and I question the validity of the referendum based upon the

Constitution Act of 1982. But the right for sufficient information — the

public has the right to get all the information necessary so that they

can make an informed decision on the referendum.

“The right to be represented by a candidate with at least a

plurality of votes…. The right to vote in periodic elections. The right

to cast one’s vote in an electoral system which has not been

‘gerrymandered….’” Hmm. I think that one needs to be closely examined

with respect to how this referendum is playing out and how the question

is going to be written.

[11:15 a.m.]

McLachlin also adds a tenth core value to it. “I would add this to

the list as a tenth precept.”

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

M. Morris: “It cannot be denied that equality of voting power is fundamental

to the Canadian concept of democracy. The claim of our forefathers to

representation by population…preceded Confederation and was confirmed by

Confederation.”

That means that we need to take into consideration the regional

areas of British Columbia. We have some vast areas of British Columbia

here that are populated by very few people, who have different values

and different understandings of what this whole system is about. Their

value is worth just as much as the value of a vote in the capital

regional district of British Columbia, for an example.

The capital regional district of B.C. has more people than the

northern 80 percent of the province. That’s why those regional things

need to be taken into consideration. The people in rural British

Columbia — their votes are worth as much as anybody’s within the capital

regional district or the GVRD. Between the GVRD and the capital regional

district, we’ve got 60 percent of the province on 0.53 percent of the

land base of British Columbia. So regional disparities needs to be taken

into consideration.

R. Singh: It’s my honour today to speak on this motion. As we know,

proportional representation is the most widely used system in the world,

and we need to improve and modernize the way we vote in B.C. so

everyone’s vote counts.

That’s the reason — and I’m very happy about it — that our

government believes that British Columbia should have a voting system

that puts people first, a system where every person’s vote counts, not

just the people at the top. Proportional representation will mean

governments that work for people on the issues they care about,

improving services that matter to people, like education and health,

making life more affordable and creating good jobs for British

Columbians.

From 1928 to 2017, there has only been one general election in

B.C. where a single party received over 50 percent of the vote. That’s

what our current system gets you — 100 percent of the power with less

than 50 percent of the vote. That’s why we are letting the majority of

voters determine whether we bring in a fairer and more democratic system

that works for people.

It’s very sad that the members on the opposite side are the main

people speaking out against proportional representation. That’s because

they know they can’t get a majority government with a minority of voters

ever again, as they have many times.

We know the only reason the members opposite are defending

first-past-the-post is because they have been the beneficiaries for

years and years. They don’t want to have a conversation about what’s a

fair electoral system, about whether our current system works or whether

it is broken. They just want to talk about the process. They don’t want

to be seen defending a blatantly unfair system where 100 percent of the

power is given to a party that gets a minority of the votes.

It’s time to make every vote count. It’s about basic fairness and

democratic principles. It is about modernizing our democracy, and it is

about giving people the power to decide.

S. Sullivan: The decision on how to choose our government is critical to the

quality of life for our citizens. The way we choose this system is

absolutely important, and we need to get it right. The government says

that it wants a fair vote. It wants proportional representation so it

can have a fair vote, but it is willing to get that fair vote by an

unfair vote, a referendum that is unfair.

The B.C. Liberal Party is not against change. It’s not against

electoral change. In fact, we put forward, twice, to the citizens a

referendum, but those referendums were done well. They had a citizens’

assembly that spent a year deliberating. This was a totally independent

body that came up with the solution that they recommended. That was a

fair vote.

[11:20 a.m.]

There is growing international literature on how to make

constitutional change. A little while ago I presented to the House a

book by Christopher Zurn, who has done an international study on this.

He’s put forward six principles that we need to adhere to, to have a

fair referendum, and this government has violated every one of

them.

The government talks about its public process. It’s reached out to

the public and actually asked for advice, but the legislation that they

passed, which actually determined some of the most important parts of

that process, was passed before the results were in. How many critical

decisions were made before the public process was actually

completed?

There were four experts that were brought in to examine and

oversee the process. They have given indications that they are

uncomfortable with what has happened, but they cannot speak to the

public. They are muzzled. I would ask that the government permit these

four experts to speak honestly and openly about what they think of the

process that this government is giving us.

We have international literature that is available now on how to

do a referendum correctly. For example, the United Kingdom has

legislation that would make this process illegal. It requires that a

multiparty committee be established, that all stakeholders are able to

present to those people and that that committee would then come up with

a question.

This has nothing to do with a multiparty committee. This has

violated a very fundamental principle of making change in a government.

The European Union has very strong guidelines about how to make a

referendum, how to bring about change. This process violates those

principles. This would not be allowed in many of the most advanced

democracies of the world.

We want a fair referendum. If we want to get a good government, if

we want to get a good outcome, we need to do it well. We need to do it

fairly.

The only credible group that can put this together and make this

happen and develop a process is Elections B.C. A recent poll determined

that 86 percent of all British Columbians, when asked who they think

should be creating this process…. Should it be the NDP cabinet or

Elections B.C.? Almost nine out of ten British Columbians believe this

should be done by Elections B.C. We need to ask Elections B.C. to bring

us a good process and to let them decide how it is done.

This is the way things happen in proper democracies. We are not

going to get a good outcome. There is no such thing as

first-past-the-post versus proportional representation. There are 100

varieties of proportional representation, and we need to do it

right.

B. D’Eith: I don’t want to admit that the B.C. Liberals are experts at

something, but they are experts at failed referenda. That’s for sure.

They failed with the treaty negotiation referendum, with their double

negatives. They failed with two proportional representation referendums.

And they failed the TransLink referendum. They create referenda that

have “no” baked into them.

Contrast that with the HST referendum that was brought by the

people of British Columbia. That referendum was successful because it

allowed the people of British Columbia to speak. That is what we are

allowing it to do. That is what we’re doing. It’s all about

democracy.

[11:25 a.m.]

What is it for the B.C. Liberals? It’s about power. That’s it.

They want to hang on to an outdated system that allows less than 50

percent of the voters to give a party 100 percent of the power in

British Columbia. Without that, they can’t continue to only represent

the top 2 percent of this province. In fact, the Leader of the

Opposition said, in his leadership race, that his number one priority is

to defeat proportional representation. He told the B.C. Liberals that

we’re in the fight for our lives on proportional

representation.

Now, did he say that his number one priority was to help the

people of British Columbia? No. Did he say that housing or health care

or education or mental health was his number one priority? No. What he

said was defeating proportional representation was his number one

priority. The people of this province deserve better. Our democracy

deserves better, and every vote should count. The majority of democratic

countries in this world recognize this and have some form of

proportional representation.

It’s time that B.C. consider moving to a more progressive and

modern form of voting that truly reflects our diversity and the

diversity of views held by the residents of this amazing province. This

government actually promised a referendum on proportional

representation, and — part of the 75 percent of promises fulfilled so

far in only ten months — this government will have a PR referendum by

November 30.

We created a fair and transparent process for this referendum that

will ensure that the majority of B.C.’ers will determine whether we

should move to a new form of election. The Attorney General, acting

independently from government caucus and cabinet, has been tasked to

carry out a public consultation and recommend the referendum date, the

questions, the ballot, the manner the referendum is carried out and how

it’s financed, and post-referendum actions.

The question that the member across brought forward is: “What took

so long?” In the word of the Attorney General, we’ve just concluded the

largest engagement in British Columbia history. We have staff that

compiled the submissions of literally tens of thousands of British

Columbians, in multiple languages, in a report that will be released to

the public. It will have recommendations to cabinet about the rules that

should be around the referendum and what the ballot should

be.

The largest public engagement in British Columbia’s history. A

report and recommendations that will be made public. It sounds clear,

open and transparent to me. It sounds like a process that will result in

a well-informed and balanced recommendation.

As far as the joint recommendation that our caucus made with the

Green caucus, that was only one of 30 recommendations from all sorts of

organizations from all over the country. I believe that the AG is going

to find a way to take a lot of the ideas from these submissions and the

88,000 questionnaires from British Columbians to formulate a fair

question, or questions, and a fair process.

The B.C. Liberals keep talking about the question, the form of PR,

and the process as if it’s determined. The fearmongering is based on

supposition and speculation. Everything is about a question. Where’s the

question?

Interjection.

B. D’Eith: That’s the point, isn’t it? Wait and see. It’s coming. But the

point is that everything, all the fearmongering, is speculation and

fearmongering and supposition. It’s all supposition. It’s made up. Fake

news.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, through the Chair.

B. D’Eith: The report coming out will describe how the AG took that, and the

input that it took to come to this fair decision.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Langara, through the Chair.

B. D’Eith: It will also say the question or questions on the ballot, and it

will give British Columbians at least six months — time to debate and

really consider this course.

Interjections.

B. D’Eith: Okay. It’s going to be months and months. In the end, Member, it

won’t be the NDP, it won’t be the Greens, it won’t be the B.C.

Conservatives, and it won’t be the B.C. Liberals. It’s going to be the

people of British Columbia who make the decision, not you guys. The B.C.

Liberals are the main people…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

B. D’Eith: …speaking out against proportional representation, and that’s

because they know that they can’t get a majority government with a

minority of the vote, as they have said it so many times.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

B. D’Eith: They know it’s unfair. We know this is fair…

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

B. D’Eith: …and we’re going to let it go to the people of British

Columbia.

T. Shypitka: I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on this motion

which recognizes the importance of a clear, transparent and fair process

for changing our electoral system. I’m less pleased, however, to say

that we’ve seen anything but, as far as clarity and fairness and

transparency go, so far.

It’s particularly shocking because of the importance of what we

are doing here. We’re talking about changing the way B.C. voters elect

their representatives, their voice to Victoria, who help shape the

policies that impact their everyday lives. Indeed, electoral reform is a

big deal.

[11:30 a.m.]

If we’re going to ask the people to go through an exercise that’s

going to change the only voting system they’ve ever known, for well over

100 years, we need to do it right. I don’t think that anybody in the

House here could contest that. Yet what we’ve seen so far, from my

constituents’ eye, is very concerning.

We’ve seen the Premier appoint the Attorney General as the neutral

arbiter of this significant process, which has a lot of people shaking

their heads. We all known that this member is anything but impartial

when it comes to this issue. Last fall columnist Vaughn Palmer noted in

one of his columns that “the pose of neutrality comes a little late in

the day.”

He said that for a reason. He said that because the Attorney

General “ran in the election as a leading light in a party that promised

to fight for proportional representation.” He’s rightfully pointed out

the Attorney General can hardly act as an independent official on this

issue.

Above all that, we’ve seen many broken promises along the way. The

same columnist recently pointed out that the now Premier “in the last

election campaign promised a simple ballot question and a yes-or-no vote

on one system.” That has fallen by the wayside in favour of a question

or questions. Gone, too, any suggestion of regional thresholds for

approval of the electoral switchover.

What we’re seeing now is a sharp contrast to what we saw the last

two times B.C. went through this process, in 2005 and 2009. Yes, indeed,

here we are at it a third time. This time around, though, there is no

impartial citizens’ assembly to guide the process and ensure British

Columbians are well informed, well ahead of the vote.

Here we are just months before the referendum, and British

Columbians are still in the dark about a number of important aspects.

What type of system will be proposed? We don’t know. Will voters

consider multiple options of proportional representation or just one

option? No clue. Will there be a yes-or-no question for our current

system, first-past-the-post? That has not been identified. How will we

ensure that rural voices are safeguarded and not drowned out by the

multitudes in the Lower Mainland? This is blank as well.

To put things in perspective, the city of Burnaby, for example,

has a population of approximately 225,000 people. The city of Burnaby

has roughly the same population as all of the East Kootenay, where I

reside, the Central Kootenay, where the minister resides on the other

side, Columbia-Shuswap, where my colleague beside me sits, and the North

Okanagan, where another MLA sits.

All those jurisdictions have the same population as Burnaby.

Burnaby is approximately 0.1 percent of the combined land mass of all

those four districts. That’s about 98 square kilometres versus 8,800

square kilometres. Yet under a PR system, that one city has the

potential to outweigh the combined voices of all four

districts.

Those regions are represented, as I said, by four different MLAs.

There are so many unknowns, and this government doesn’t seem to be too

concerned with filling in the blanks. British Columbians deserve an

appropriate length of time to consider the consequences of PR, but

they’re being denied that opportunity.

The actions we are seeing from this government are nothing more

than stacking the deck against fairness. I want to be clear. I and the

members on this side of the House are not opposed to electoral reform.

I’ve always told my constituents that I embrace any changes they see

fit, as long as they completely understand what they’re voting for.

Unfortunately, this government is making that task near

impossible.

Members on this side of the House just want British Columbians to

have a clear picture of what they’re getting into before they vote on

something that would disrupt 150 years of good governance. I don’t

believe that’s too much to ask.

The member from Nanaimo suggested to try a new system. That sounds

to me like trying a new Coke, and we all know how that turned out. This

is much more important and should be treated as such, with fairness,

clarity and transparency.

D. Routley: It gives me real pleasure and it is an honour to stand and speak

in support of proportional representation in this province and this

motion that we have a clear and transparent process, which we

do.

It is amazing to stand here all these many years and listen to a

group of people who have…. I would never assert that they’ve been

hypocritical. Well, actually, I would. But it’s been difficult in

opposition to listen to them impose policies that were hypocrisy even to

their name — Liberals. Just this morning we heard one of the reasons

that we need proportional representation.

[11:35 a.m.]

We see the coalition on the other side representing religious

conservatives through to federal Liberals. We heard, this morning,

members debating a motion on a woman’s right to choose. The party that

calls itself Liberal put up speakers who tried to deflect that debate

towards a woman’s right to vote.

Now, in a proportional representation system, the members who

perhaps hold views that would deny a woman the right to choose would not

have to hide. They could in fact have their own representation. They

could in fact represent the views that they appear to be hiding

from.

In the last election, approximately 60 percent of people voted for

the two parties who support and were promising to fight for proportional

representation. Those people deserve to have their voices heard, and

they will, with the referendum that we are bringing forward.

The only people in the province who seem to be opposed to this are

the B.C. Liberals, as has been pointed out. They will fail in their

existential pursuit of protecting the 2 percent if their coalition

happens to fracture under a proportional representation system. The

group who, all these many years, have held 100 percent of the power with

about 40 percent of the vote now stand opposed to a referendum that

would require 50 percent plus one.

This is quite an amazing hypocrisy. On the one hand, they’ve

governed with 40 percent of the vote. On the other hand, they refuse to

accept the will of 50 percent plus one. It’s shocking.

There are many reasons that we should be suspect of the B.C.

Liberal record around referenda. The No. 1 reason for most British

Columbians, I would think, after reviewing the list of failures, would

be the referendum on First Nations rights and title. To put the rights

of minority people to a referendum that was also a mailout ballot was

wrong, was disgraceful. It was condemned by the United Nations, was

condemned by people throughout the world, led people who are leaders in

this province around civil rights and the rights of Indigenous people to

make expressions like “burning their ballots.”

That’s the record of the B.C. Liberals when it comes to referenda.

It’s a poor record, and it was insulting.

It asks questions:

“Private property should not be expropriated for treaty

settlements? Yes/No.”

“Hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities on Crown lands

should be ensured for all British Columbians? Yes/No.”

“The existing tax exemptions for Aboriginal people should be

phased out? Yes/No.”

What a ridiculous thing to ask. When those rights are established

as rights of Indigenous people — that the government of British

Columbia, at any time in its history but particularly in its modern

history, would put to vote the rights of people…. It’s not surprising

that the B.C. Liberals are confused. It’s really unfortunate.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, through the Chair.

Please continue.

D. Routley: It is disturbing, and it’s not surprising that they would be a

little bit confused, because when they were desperate to hold on to

their power…. Their No. 1 reason that their leader says they need that

power is to defeat the voice of the people, to defeat proportional

representation. It’s not about providing services or rights. It’s not

about elevating the standard of living or the quality of life in British

Columbia. It’s about their political skin, to them.

So it’s not surprising that they would be confused. After all

they’ve been through…. In the clone speech, they said they were for

it.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

D. Routley: So thank you to the leadership candidate who was for

it.

Deputy Speaker: Members, when the Chair asks you to take your seat, please do

so.

[11:40 a.m.]

J. Isaacs: I rise today to speak to this motion. There are grave concerns

surrounding the mechanics of this bill, and for good reason, because

changing a well-established, functioning electoral system cannot be done

without unintended consequences. Changing our current system of voting

will fundamentally change our political system and affect British

Columbians across the province for generations to come, and it will

hardly be fair.

Democracy is sometimes referred to as the rule of the majority. It

is a system where all views can be represented. It’s a system of

processing conflicts and differences, putting forward ideas and policies

that benefit the majority. Most importantly, democracy assures society

that no single party or combination of parties that do not reflect the

sentiment, values or principles of the majority end up having control

over public policy, where the outcomes of such policies can negatively

affect the majority.

PR provides a platform where a single-issue party, either on their

own or by combining their ranking with another party, can gain power as

a special interest group for personal gain, monetary gain or the gain of

an affluent position.

Let’s take a look back at the 2005 and 2009 referendums. The

differences between the two previous referendums and the process we see

today are profound and should be alarming to anyone who honestly

believes that the process should be trustworthy. The process for both

previous referendums was handed over to the public and not the

government.

The B.C. Citizens’ Assembly consisted of a 161-member panel and

was established in an effort to determine both what kinds of

improvements could be made and how the referendum question would be

proposed. British Columbians from every corner of the province were

consulted, and the process was universally lauded for its independence.

In 2009 the Citizens’ Assembly recommended a referendum on the single

transferable vote model of PR, and a simple yes-or-no ballot question

was put to British Columbians.

In this case, it is the Attorney General and his personal staff

who will formulate the question. The public will have to trust the NDP

Attorney General, a member of the governing party who has a stake in the

outcome, to formulate an unbiased ballot question.

Also disturbing is the level of voter approval needed for the

referendum result to be binding on government. Previously, the level of

voter approval needed was set at a minimum of 60 percent. The NDP and

Greens have dropped the minimum threshold from 60 percent to 50 percent

plus one, and the regional threshold of at least 51 of the province’s 85

electoral districts has been eliminated. That means that the most

significant vote in front of British Columbians today, a vote that

affects every British Columbian across the province, doesn’t even

require a minimum threshold.

The absence of a minimum threshold should be concerning to anyone

who believes in the fundamentals of democracy, as the majority will not

rule on this matter. In fact, Vancouver’s population alone will decide

for the rest of the province if British Columbia will change its

electoral system, redesigning the way that we determine and measure

accountability of our elected officials and government and one that will

seriously impact how public policies will be made.

We have seen PR around the world delay government’s ability to

govern. Fringe parties, who do not represent the values of the majority,

gain power. The upsurge of government costs and the increase in the

frequency of elections…. There is little ability for voters to un-elect

parties that clearly undermine and manipulate government policy to

advance their agenda. PR is complicated and confusing and gives smaller

parties disproportional power in government.

I’ve identified the problematic mechanics of this proposed

referendum: flawed process, skewed ballot question, no minimum

threshold, disproportional votes across the province and no government

accountability.

J. Routledge: Thank you to the mover of this motion. To anyone observing these

proceedings for the first time, this motion seems pretty innocuous. On

the surface, it seems like an expression of solidarity on the part of

the opposition: “Be it resolved that this House recognize the importance

of a clear, fair and transparent process for changing our electoral

system.”

[11:45 a.m.]

Who could disagree with that? Fair, open, transparent are

hallmarks of healthy democracy. Of course, the process is going to be

open, fair and transparent. What’s to debate here?

Well, I’ve been an MLA for about a year now. A year of the

opposition resisting progress and refusing to work with us to build a

better B.C. Why, all of a sudden, would they decide to use private

members’ time to be cooperative, to seek opportunities, to build

consensus? Are we witnessing a breakthrough over there? Is this motion

offered in the spirit of democratic reform? Are they trying out the kind

of cooperative governance that they’ve been observing on this side of

the House, on this side of the aisle?

Wouldn’t that make this a significant moment? But no. I’ve been

listening to this debate for almost an hour. And what I hear from them

is same old, same old. First, they started out by planting seeds of

fear. They don’t even know what the question is yet, but they’re already

calling it rigged and gamed.

Then they proceeded to lecture us about what clear, fair and

transparent means. So in light of what we’ve been hearing from the

members opposite, and with respect to the mover of the motion, one has

to conclude that the arguments in defence of their motion are nothing

short of Orwellian doublespeak.

The B.C. Liberals are old hands at doublespeak. Remember Christy

Clark in her pink hardhat talking about “Debt-free B.C.,” while in

reality, the B.C. Liberals were racking up an additional $21.5 billion

in debt, the biggest increase in B.C. history?

Or what about GP for Me? That was the slogan they used for five

years to trick voters into thinking that the family doctor

shortage…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

J. Routledge: …would be solved by 2015. But by 2015, the shortage had only

gotten worse. Their Health Minister admitted that GP for Me was an empty

promise that they had no intentions of fulfilling.

Let’s not forget the fake Comeback Kid — paid ads dressed up to

look like newspaper covers to fool people into thinking that Christy

Clark had won the debate. Talk about fake news.

Christy Clark may be gone, but her party’s propensity to say one

thing and mean something else lives on. They speak in code. There is a

long history of parties, like the B.C. Liberals, using propaganda to

trick working families into believing that what’s good for the elite is

good for them.

There’s even a word for it. It’s called cultural hegemony. I’m

reminded today that this motion is classic in the theory of Edward

Bernays, the pioneer in public relations and propaganda, the

self-proclaimed Father of Spin.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, through the Chair.

J. Routledge: I know they don’t want to hear this.

He was famous in 1929 for an ad campaign designed to get women to

smoke by branding cigarettes “torches of freedom.”

Is this debate a dress rehearsal for the forces of no, who will

try to manipulate the public discourse during the referendum campaign?

What I want to do is urge voters to beware of sheep in wolves’ clothing.

I would urge voters to ask themselves: who really benefits from the

status quo? Who really wins when the party who earns less than 50

percent of the votes captures 100 percent of the power? I would urge

voters to ask themselves: has the current electoral system brought their

families and themselves the economic security they were

promised?

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

J. Routledge: One that does that is what’s fair, clear and

transparent.

Deputy Speaker: Member, thank you.

P. Milobar: I don’t know where to begin after that.

[11:50 a.m.]

Unfortunately, I was not around in 1929 to get the relevance of

that quote. But it’s interesting how far back the government seems to

want to go to try to justify the process that this motion is seeking to

remedy. And this motion is simply saying that we want to have a fair,

open and transparent referendum process.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The staggering thing to me after sitting here, as well, for almost

an hour is the fact that instead of embracing the language in the

motion, the government seems to be doing everything they can do to try

to walk away from the language of the motion saying that there should be

a fair and open and transparent referendum.

That’s the scary part to me. There seems to be an unwillingness by

the government…. I think everyone should be very nervous when any

government of any political stripe chooses to ignore language around

something as fundamental as changing our democratic way that we elect a

government — not wanting to see that be open and fair and transparent —

and tries to deflect and distract, for their five-minute speeches,

around everything but that.

We just heard the last speaker going back to marketing campaigns

from 1929. I mean, it’s unbelievable to me that the government, when

they could be standing up and saying, “Yes, absolutely, we guarantee

this will be free and open and a fair and transparent process,” is

instead trying to defend the fact that the vast majority of people out

there actually do not see this process to this point as fair, open and

transparent.

I keep hearing that we are the only people out there, that only

the B.C. Liberals are opposed to this. Well, there’s a large body of

people out there that are independent, that are very clearly opposed to

this, that are very well known as B.C. NDP members, as federal NDP

members, as Green Party members. There’s a wide political stripe, and it

does a very big disservice when the government tries to stand up and

make this about the B.C. Liberals versus the NDP. That is not what this

is about.

This is about a referendum that we recognize is going to happen.

The motion isn’t saying to not have a referendum. The motion is saying

it should be a fair referendum — that the question should be fair, that

it should be done fairly and openly and transparently — and we have not

been seeing that.

For the last hour, we’ve heard the government try to defend and

deflect against everything that is not open, fair and transparent. That

is the problem. That is what the public should really be raising alarm

bells around out of this whole process.

It’s that we have a government that is bent on making sure that

this is run in the most disingenuous way possible to try to seek an

outcome that they very openly campaigned on and cut an agreement, if you

want to talk about a power grab, with the Green Party to do exactly

that. And 100 percent of the votes in this House so far have been

supported by both the government and the Green Party, regardless of

whether it’s a confidence vote or not.

If you want to talk about open and fair and transparent and trying

to get a referendum question that doesn’t seem to be swayed by

government, this is anything but. In fact, the government and the Green

Party cannot even keep themselves from publicly commenting in a public

comment period. They had to make sure they had their own submission in,

which very clearly would put all of the power back into the hands of a

closed cabinet room to make a final decision of what type of

proportional representation we would actually see.

By any measure, this is a flawed process. This is a process that

will be unfolding, and people will be expected to try to pay attention

to it while they’re trying to pay attention to which mayors and councils

they’re going to be electing at the exact same time. This comes on the

heels…. It’ll be about a month after the municipal election, a municipal

election where we see in the Lower Mainland…. I believe we’re up to nine

or ten mayors of the largest cities of this province.

There’s going to be huge attention paid to those municipal

elections and rightfully so. So there won’t be as much attention, there

won’t be as much time, given to the referendum by a lot of people, and I

think the government knows that. I think the government knows that, and

they’re going about this in a totally underhanded way to try to get a

result that they want, not the result of the people.

To hear the members of the government speak, if the result is not

for proportional representation, I assume they’re going to all resign,

because they could not stand to govern under the rules we currently

have.

P. Milobar moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2018: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada