Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 174

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Statements

Dyslexia awareness

Hon. J. Horgan

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

James Liu

A. Kang

Merritt Country Christmas Parade

J. Tegart

Cycling initiative and safety advocacy by North Shore HUB group

B. Ma

Paul Bennett

S. Cadieux

Early childhood education work of Kate Toye

J. Rice

Oral Questions

Community benefits agreement and workers

A. Wilkinson

Hon. C. Trevena

M. Polak

Electric vehicle charging stations and manufacturing

A. Weaver

Hon. J. Horgan

Community benefits agreement and workers

J. Isaacs

Hon. C. Trevena

G. Kyllo

Hon. J. Horgan

J. Johal

S. Bond

Petitions

Hon. M. Mungall

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 41 — Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act

Hon. M. Mark

S. Cadieux

A. Weaver

Hon. M. Mark

Bill 40 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018 (continued)

On the main motion

S. Cadieux

C. Oakes

N. Letnick

J. Tegart

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 36 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2018

Bill 37 — Land Statutes Amendment Act, 2018

Bill 38 — Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act

Bill 42 — Assessment Amendment Act, 2018

Bill 43 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2018

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 40 — Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018 (continued)

J. Tegart

M. Bernier

M. Stilwell

J. Sturdy

J. Yap

D. Clovechok

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2018

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Statements

DYSLEXIA AWARENESS

Hon. J. Horgan: About a year ago…. Pardon me. About a week ago, I received a

letter from an 11-year-old student — it seems like a year ago — from

Shawnigan Lake. She wrote me because she’s making a presentation. She’s

just discovered that she has dyslexia, and that’s a challenge for her in

reading, writing, math and spelling.

Unfortunately, I am not able to attend her presentation today,

because I’m with all of you here in Legislature. But I wanted to just

say that I admire her leadership in bringing this initiative forward in

her community to raise awareness about dyslexia and disabilities in

classrooms and how important it is for all of us to work

together.

Even with disabilities, good things can happen. I’m sure all

members here know that Albert Einstein was dyslexic, and look at all of

the things he was able to accomplish.

For the many British Columbians out there who are struggling with

dyslexia or any other learning disabilities, know that the people in

this Legislature and the people of British Columbia stand with you and

will do our level best to make your life a little bit better and make

your disabilities a little bit less unfortunate in the classroom. In

fact, we’ll celebrate those disabilities and make sure your education is

complete.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

For those at Shawnigan Lake elementary in the Cowichan Valley:

have a great presentation about the importance of working

together.

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. Eby: I’m very pleased to introduce a special visitor in the gallery here

today. Dr. Tilman Ruff is here from Australia. He’s the founding chair of

the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, also known as ICAN.

ICAN was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017. He’s the president of the

International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, and he is

speaking this evening at the Royal Jubilee Hospital at 5 p.m.

He’s joined by Dr. Jonathan Down, a developmental pediatrician here in

Victoria, who is the president-elect of the Canadian affiliate of the

International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. Will the House

please join me in making both of these guests feel welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

JAMES LIU

A. Kang: Art has the power to transform, to heal, to educate, to motivate

and to inspire. I rise today to pay tribute in this House to Master

James Liu, Liu Chang Fu Lao Shi, who passed away on October 20, 2018,

but left us with the most beautiful gift of all: his masterpieces, his

passion, his teachings, both of art and life.

Master Liu is a renowned Taiwanese-Canadian artist of our time who

has drawn inspiration from Canada’s nature. He has exhibited his art

from coast to coast and helped children and adult students find their

interest in painting. My daughter Elizabeth-Anne and I are lucky to have

been able to study with Master Liu.

When Master Liu first came to B.C., he was inspired by the beauty

of our province, the breathtaking awesomeness of nature, our snow-capped

mountains, our meandering rivers and our relationship with the First

Nations. He wanted to depict the underlying stories of our beautiful

province through his art. He spent time travelling through the forests

and wilderness of northern Canada to find inspiration, and I had the

honour of displaying his northern Canada collection in my office last

year. He also loved to travel to different islands and coastal

communities, the most recent being Galiano Island and

Gibsons.

His art is a true appreciation for the land that we currently

stand on and reflects our values as British Columbians. As I continue my

commitment in public service, I will never forget Master Liu’s teaching:

the importance of the arts and understanding ourselves better, our

inherent nature in treating our neighbours with love and respect, our

moral imperative in protecting our surroundings and our duty to inspire

others.

Thank you, Master Liu, Liu Chang Fu Lao Shi, for painting this one

last picture for us. You will be missed.

MERRITT COUNTRY CHRISTMAS PARADE

J. Tegart: Although today is all about ghosts and goblins — Happy Halloween,

everyone — I would like to talk about a special event that happens in

the community of Merritt and kicks off their Christmas

season.

[1:40 p.m.]

I’ve had the honour of participating in Merritt’s annual Country

Christmas Parade for the past five years. I want you to get a sense of

the magic of an evening parade. It’s a dark night. The weather is cold

and crisp. Families line the parade route. Everyone is excited about the

coming holiday season, and people come from all over to experience the

twinkling lights on over 60 floats in an incredible Country Christmas

Parade. There are cement trucks lit up to look like snowmen; floats with

Christmas trees; bonfires; Christmas carols; elves; and, of course, the

very special man himself, Santa Claus.

It’s hard to describe the excitement and anticipation in the

little ones’ eyes, the feeling of coming together as families and

community, the appreciation of all the effort that makes this event so

special. It truly is a wonderful way to kick off the holiday

season.

The Merritt Country Christmas Parade happens this year on Friday,

November 23. I would like to invite all members in this House to

experience this incredible kickoff to the holiday season. Bring your

families, your grandchildren, your friends, because once you’ve seen it,

you’ll want to be there every year.

CYCLING INITIATIVE AND SAFETY

ADVOCACY BY NORTH SHORE

HUB GROUP

B. Ma: It’s GoByBike Weeks in B.C., and all across the province,

thousands of people are riding hundreds of thousands of kilometres to

and fro, on their bikes. Right here in Victoria, the New Democrat caucus

has organized a team every year for staff and MLAs since

What does it take to commute to work by bike? Not much. A little

confidence; a basic level of fitness; a bit of planning, for sure — oh

yes, and a sense of safety. While cycling to work won’t work for

everyone in every situation — for instance, I personally find it quite

difficult to ride my road bike to work in a pencil skirt; not for lack

of trying, mind you — many people opt not to cycle to work simply

because of safety concerns.

Insufficient safe cycling infrastructure, aggressive drivers, a

general disregard for the vulnerability of people on bikes. I have

personally experienced several close calls commuting on a bike. And

before you ask, yes, I was paying attention; yes, I had lights; yes, I

was obeying the rules of the road; yes, I had my helmet on — yes, yes,

yes, like so many people on bikes who have had close calls, been injured

or even killed just travelling to or from work. People like Lucas Drake,

whose last breath I witnessed on Keith Road in North Vancouver last

year.

That’s why I’m so grateful for the work that Heather Drugge, Tony

Valente, Antje Wahl, Don Piercy, Peter Scholefield, Fiona Walsh, Dianne

Murray, Don McPherson, Dave Perfitt, Martyn Schmoll and Paul Stott do

through HUB North Shore, an advocacy group for better roads and

connections, protected bike lanes and better rules, laws and education

to make cycling safer and more accessible throughout the

region.

Certainly, there is a lot more work to be done on those fronts by

all levels of government.

PAUL BENNETT

S. Cadieux: Crime is down in Surrey. Property crime is down 16 percent, auto

theft is down 39 percent, and there is 7 percent less violent crime over

last year. That’s really good news, but the reality remains that when

violent crime does occur, real people get hurt or die.

Paul Bennett was a husband, a father and a friend. He was an

emergency room nurse at Peace Arch Hospital in White Rock. He was a

coach for an atom hockey team in Cloverdale. On June 23, Paul Bennett

tragically lost his life when he was shot on the driveway of his

Cloverdale home.

Initially police believed it was a targeted shooting. The homicide

investigators would quickly conclude that Paul was an innocent victim of

mistaken identity.

[1:45 p.m.]

He leaves behind a family — Darlene Robinson and two sons, Owen

and Adam. No one could have imagined that Paul Bennett would die in such

a senseless and violent way, and our community is still mourning his

death.

My husband knew Paul — not well, but they’d met a few times at the

rink over a men’s game. By all accounts, Paul was a great guy, the kind

of person that was always thinking of others, from his work as a nurse

to his coaching of kids.

On October 13, the Cloverdale Minor Hockey Association announced

three tributes to Paul Bennett. Firstly, a tournament has been renamed

the Paul Bennet Atom C Blast Tournament. Players are going to wear

special PB stickers on their helmets this season. A new Paul Bennet Love

of Hockey Bursary has been established. These initiatives honour his

memory, but a devastated family must grieve.

The homicide of Paul Bennett remains an active and ongoing IHIT

investigation. The family is appealing to the public for information

that could help to solve Paul’s murder. Tips can be left by phone or

email and can be made anonymously through Crime Stoppers.

The violence is senseless. It will take all of us to stand

together against it. So from this House to Paul Bennett’s family and

friends, our deepest condolences.

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

WORK OF KATE

TOYE

J. Rice: Kate Toye is a champion of early childhood education in Prince

Rupert, and her work in building a family-friendly community is worth

recognizing.

I recall participating in a community walk in Prince Rupert as a

newly elected politician a few years ago. Kate walked beside me the

entire time and feverishly chatted my head off about the importance of

the early years of a child’s life. Now, I know this would annoy most

politicians, but her passion was so infectious. I was captivated the

whole time, and I learned a tremendous amount about the importance of

early child development during that community walk.

Kate organizes activities like the annual Children’s Day in the

Park, which includes culture, literacy, nutrition, child care and

children’s play. She works with local First Nations of Lax Kw’alaams,

Gitxaala and the Gitga’at. Through these partnerships, members have

taken

part in workshops, dancing, crafts, community dinners, festivals

and literacy initiatives.

She’s a mother of three who cares about the education of our

children in Prince Rupert and the surrounding areas. By working in early

childhood development for the past seven years, Kate has been

instrumental in all aspects of early childhood development. I

particularly like her advocacy in letting children be children and

building resiliency within kids and their families.

I’d like to congratulate Kate Toye on being elected by the voters

of school district 52. Her years of work and dedication were reflected

in her recent landslide win of trustee. No doubt she will continue to

advocate for kids and hold my, and government’s, feet to the fire. I

know she will do well for the students and families of Prince Rupert and

the areas around, and I wish her all the best in her new

endeavours.

Kate truly is a very positive person and an amazing role

model.

Thank you, Kate.

Oral Questions

COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT

AND

WORKERS

A. Wilkinson: The British Columbia Construction Association represents thousands

of employers. They’ve been a respected, non-partisan voice in British

Columbia for 50 years. The association president, Chris Atchison, is

here in the gallery today, because he’s deeply concerned about the NDP

union benefits agreement that was announced in July.

This is starting to hit home, because contractors are having

trouble putting together bids for public sector projects. He says: “The

community benefits agreement is a Jekyll-and-Hyde document. It pretends

to prioritize local equity hires but conscripts to a union

instead.”

To the Minister of Transportation, why is she forcing workers to

join unions they do not want to join?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition, who

obviously wasn’t really paying attention yesterday when we were talking

about this.

We did canvass this very fully, that the community benefits

agreement has a union workforce. There are 19 building trades unions

involved in this, and they are the same 19 building trades unions that

were involved in Allied Hydro projects going back to W.A.C. Bennett, up

to the Waneta dam and finally, SNC-Lavalin on the John Hart

dam.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, having lived in Campbell River myself, I would have thought

the member was more aware of what was going on in her backyard. The John

Hart dam was an open-tendered project. The winning bid happened to use

the building trades. The other bids did not. It was up to the bidder,

the company, the employer to decide whether to unionize.

Instead, what we have is the Minister of Transportation claiming,

on behalf of the NDP government, that there is only one true faith, the

19 NDP handpicked trade unions. And thou shalt join or be

unemployed.

This is completely ridiculous. Let’s listen to the B.C.

Construction Association board. What they say is that this is the most

dangerous and disruptive industrial policy to be introduced by any

government in recent memory. “Whether you are a union or an open-shop

employer, your basic rights and freedoms as Canadians are being

blatantly disregarded.”

Chris Atchison is here. Will the minister tell him why she

continues to maintain this fiction that people have freedom of choice in

the workplace when she has required every worker on these projects to

join one of 19 NDP-chosen unions, who happen to be the biggest donor

base of the NDP for the last decade?

Hon. C. Trevena: Really, I’m very surprised by the Leader of the Opposition, who

clearly does not understand what is happening in this

province.

What is happening in this province is there is a massive skills

shortage, and the community benefits agreement is one way that we are

going to be dealing with the skills shortage. We’re going to be hiring

people through the building trades, as the opposition did when they were

in government.

Waneta dam, other projects, other Allied Hydro projects — all

through the same building trades unions. You know why? Because the

building trades unions have a record of being the best private sector

unions to get apprenticeships working. That’s what we need in this

province. We need women working. We need Indigenous people working. We

need that skills gap filled, and we’re very proud of the community

benefits agreements as one way of making sure that skills gap is

filled.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: It’s really indicative that the B.C. Construction Association held

town hall meetings all across the province over the summer. The minister

was invited to attend every one of them — did not appear. No

representative showed up. The minister ignored them.

Here are some of the comments the minister missed at those

meetings. “Union conscription is against my principles, and I will not

bid.” Two: “This is an ideological policy that is not rooted in any

logic.” Three: “Eighty percent of employers are going to sit on the

sidelines.”

Why is the minister restricting employment on public projects by

forcing members, the workers, to join unions which are handpicked by the

NDP as the payback to the union bosses for donating to the NDP for the

last decade?

Hon. C. Trevena: I do realize that the Leader of the Opposition has his own

approach, but we actually are the side, as government, that took big

money out of politics.

[1:55 p.m.]

The continued description of this as the NDP union really belies

belief when they are the same unions used when that side of the House

happened to be in government. They would be, at that time, equally the

handpicked unions of the B.C. Liberals.

M. Polak: When the minister uses those examples, she knows she’s wrong. She

knows she’s wrong because at the end of the day, they weren’t agreements

between government and unions. They were agreements between those who

had been successful bidders and happened to have affiliations. She knows

that. But there’s only one reason why she’s trotting out that example

now. It’s because for weeks and weeks, she didn’t have any good answers,

and she’s trying desperately to find one.

Well, Minister, this isn’t one.

When she chooses to ignore the British Columbia Construction

Association, she’s choosing to ignore 250,000-plus workers. By the way,

that is larger than the population of Burnaby. This is no small

organization. They speak for workers who deserve to be heard, and here’s

what they’re saying. The workers are saying: “We believe this CBA

amounts to conscription of B.C.’s construction workforce into a

designated union.”

Will the minister finally listen to these workers and rethink her

policy of forcing workers to join unions they don’t want to

join?

Hon. C. Trevena: We are very proud of the community benefits agreement. The

community benefits agreement approach is on some of our major projects.

We are open to any…. Any contractor can bid on them, and I anticipate a

number will, because we are investing $15 billion in infrastructure

across this province.

When you get to the worksite, it’s a unionized worksite. If the

member opposite remembers from when she was in government and maybe

talking to some of her colleagues and some people in her constituency,

many workers in the construction industry hold a number of union cards.

We’re not forcing anyone to join any union. But this is a unionized

worksite.

We anticipate that they are going to be joining B.C. Building

Trades, because the B.C. Building Trades, as I have said before — the

member may not have been listening, but I have addressed this a number

of times in this House — has a great record in dealing with

apprenticeships and making sure that we are filling that skills gap that

our province needs in a way that is helping the people of British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the official opposition on a second

supplemental.

M. Polak: Well, the minister is dancing around what she really wants to say.

She’s trying to be careful not to say what I’m going to reveal, but it’s

clear from her answer.

She actually believes that other unions in British Colum­bia

somehow do not come up to the standard of the Building Trades. That is

what she is dancing around and not saying. It’s why they have changed

the way things operate with this agreement.

It used to be that a company bids on the project, they win the

bid, and if they have an affiliation, then the workers have that

affiliation. It goes through the employers. Now it is the government

that decrees beforehand that the only unions that are good enough to

work on that project are their handpicked 19 unions.

Here’s what the B.C. Construction Association had to say about

that. “The B.C. CBA undermines the role of all employers in our

industry, regardless of their labour affiliation, and will discourage

contractors from bidding on public projects.”

Will the minister stop with this shameful preference for one union

over another and admit that workers across British Columbia have the

right to bid on projects without having to join a union they don’t want

to join?

Hon. C. Trevena: Again, I’m surprised by the line of questioning from the

opposition, whose record when it comes to construction of public

infrastructure is quite amazing. I mean, let’s look at….

[2:00 p.m.]

When the Leader of the Opposition was a deputy minister, the

Vancouver Convention Centre was $335 million over budget. The B.C. Place

roof, $149 million over budget. The opposition, when they were in

government, was irresponsible in building infrastructure. We are working

to build the real infrastructure of B.C. — not just the bridges and the

highways and the hospitals and the schools, as so desperately needed,

but the people. We’re investing in the people of British Columbia, and

I’m proud of that.

ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS

AND

MANUFACTURING

A. Weaver: We’ve talked about the last 16 years. We’ve talked about the

1990s. Let’s talk about the future now. In the second quarter of 2018,

British Columbians bought 2,564 electric vehicles, more than three times

the amount bought in the previous year. Across our province, dealerships

can’t keep EVs on their lots. Backlogs and waiting lists vary from three

months to a year, even up to 18 months, and the clean growth strategy to

be released later this fall will bring in an aggressive ZEV standard to

B.C.

Charging infrastructure remains a barrier for widespread EV

adoption, and B.C. Hydro, which has installed a few fast-chargers

recently, has done so by giving away the electricity for free. This has

led to large lineups as locals get electricity for free while those who

need it and those who want to pay for it have to wait in line, hoping to

get a charge at some point down the road.

B.C. manufacturing companies like Electra Meccanica, Envirotech

Electric Vehicles and Zero Nox Inc. are looking to set up here in

British Columbia, manufacturing facilities that want to grow our economy

and meet global demand.

My question is to the Premier. What is his government doing to

encourage private investment in electric vehicle charging infrastructure

and EV manufacturing in B.C.?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Third Party for the question. It’s nice

to have forward-looking questions on how we’re going to build a better,

stronger British Columbia, how we’re going to meet our objectives with

respect to climate action, and I appreciate the question.

First of all, British Columbia does lead the country in charging

stations, some 1,500. Now you can travel from Golden…. The member from

Golden can travel all the way to Tofino in his electric vehicle and not

have to stop and charge. As the member quite rightly says, though, we do

have some challenges.

That’s why the B.C. Utilities Commission has opened up a review on

their own initiative to ensure that we find a way to get electricity

into electric vehicles in a way that’s cost-effective, a way that’s fair

to the travelling public and allows us to build even more capacity going

forward.

Lastly, I would say, with respect to electric vehicle uptake in

the economy, we had to increase…. The Minister of Finance found an

additional $10 million to put into the clean energy vehicle program in

September because it was already oversubscribed from February. That

speaks to demand in the economy. That speaks to a responsive government

that’s listening to people and putting in place programs and services

that will help them and help all of us meet our climate change

objectives.

A. Weaver: As the Premier mentioned, obviously there are nearly 1,500 EV

charging stations in British Columbia. Almost all of them give away

electricity for free. Some are private; most are not. The free model is

rapidly becoming unsustainable as more and more British Columbians move

towards EVs.

To sell someone electricity in this province, you must be

registered as a public utility unless you get some very-difficult-to-get

exemption. Oregon, California, Washington, Ontario, New York and a

number of other U.S. states have already exempted EV charging from

energy regulation. Resale of electricity is permitted, like a gas

station, without prior approval, and prices are set by the market. Of

course, safety, consumer protection and other considerations are indeed

regulated.

My question, then, to the minister is this. The type of approach

that encourages private investment in vehicle-charging infrastructure in

British Columbia is exactly the direction we want to go. Will the

Premier commit his government to updating B.C.’s regulatory environment

for EV charging stations immediately after receiving the recommendations

from the B.C. Utilities Commission report he referred to?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I thank the member for his interest and passion on this

subject. I also want to say that we are utilizing the B.C. Utilities

Commission, unlike the previous government that sidelined this very

useful regulatory body. We’re using the B.C. Utilities Commission to

determine the best way forward.

[2:05 p.m.]

The member is quite correct. He has looked into this diligently.

We do have some challenges with respect to giving away energy in some

places and overcharging in others, and a regulatory framework that meets

the needs of the travelling public and allows us to meet our climate

objectives over time is the right way forward. I look forward — as all

members, I’m sure, do — to the Utilities Commission reporting back in

the next number of weeks, I expect, on their proposals going

forward.

I also want to touch on another component of the question that the

member asked, and that is: how can we incent and attract the

development, the creation, the construction and the implementation of a

program that has a clean, green, innovative hinge to it? That would be

left to the member for Surrey-Whalley, the Minister of Jobs, Training

and Technology, who appointed the first innovation commissioner in

B.C.’s history so that we can have an economy that works for everybody

and looks forward — not backward, like the people on the other

side.

COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT

AND

WORKERS

J. Isaacs: Control Solutions Ltd. has been an important local employer in

Coquitlam for 25 years. Claude Nobauer and his 70 employees can’t work

on public projects simply because they don’t want to belong to one of

the minister’s handpicked unions.

Why are Claude and the 70 employees of Control Solutions not good

enough for the minister? Why is she forcing them to join a union they

don’t want to join?

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for her question. I’d like to remind the member

that — she was not part of the former government — the former government

did get a report about the skills shortage. And I’d have thought that

they would have understood then, as government, and now, as opposition,

that we do have a skills shortage.

That report actually talks about project labour agreements, such

as the community benefits agreement, being an excellent way to deal with

that skills shortage so we can train Indigenous people and we can train

women. We can train those people who don’t usually get opportunities to

get into the trades, to get into the trades.

We are allowing any contractor to bid on community benefit

agreement projects. When people get to work on community benefit

agreement projects, as has been the case in hydro projects in the past….

There are 19 unions which people will become the members of, as has been

the case since W.A.C. Bennett through to the present day. That’s what

we’re doing, and we’re very proud of that.

Mr. Speaker: Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on a supplemental.

J. Isaacs: Well, the minister can keep trying to pretend that her scheme

isn’t new and there is nothing to see here, but clearly, that’s not the

case. Thousands of construction workers, industry groups and labour

unions are telling the minister that this is not the same as the past

agreement and that discrimination is unacceptable.

In my community, those voices include Claude Nobauer and the 70

employees of Control Solutions. Why can’t Claude and his employees keep

working on public projects without being forced to join unions that they

don’t want to join?

Hon. C. Trevena: As I have mentioned before and will mention again, any contractor

can bid on the project. When they get the project, if people are working

there for more than 30 days, they’ll be asked to join a

union.

It’s common in building trades to have union workplaces. It’s

common that people hold a number of union cards if they’re moving from

place to place. It is common to work in building trades, who are the

best placed to be training apprentices. The opposition did it when they

were in government. We’re doing it. We’re using those 19 unions as part

of our agreement because we know that they will help us build the

infrastructure of B.C., invest in the people of B.C. — investing in

women in trades, investing in Indigenous people in the trades and

investing in our future.

G. Kyllo: To the minister, to somehow think that the only apprentices that

are actually trained in this province are those with the Building Trades

is absolutely so wrong.

[2:10 p.m.]

Yesterday I had the opportunity to meet with a

heavy-duty-equipment operator by the name of Ed Lehn. Ed’s a big, strong

guy. He’s been working in the private sector for the last ten years —

the last two years, actually, as a member of CLAC. What Ed said to me

is: “I have no interest in joining the BTU unions. I am happy with my

representation.”

Ed wants know why he is being discriminated against and being

forced to join a union to which he does not want to belong.

Hon. J. Horgan: I just want to recap here. I think the opposition doesn’t like the

fact that we, on this side of the House, are making choices for British

Columbians that will help build capacity for the future, that will

invest in local communities and that will put people in local

communities at the front of the line.

This notion that it’s a payoff to unions…. I need to quote a

friend of the member, Doug Parton of the Ironworkers Local 97, who said:

“What’s this b.s. about community benefits being a payoff to unions? Do

people not remember that ironworkers supported the Liberals in the last

election?”

This should not be about partisanship. I realize that the pool is

shallow on that side for good, solid questions about what the government

is doing because we’re doing such a darned good job.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Shuswap on a supplemental.

G. Kyllo: Doug Parton with the Ironworkers is a close friend, and I was very

proud when he came out and supported the B.C. Liberals in the last

election. But the fact of the matter remains that the building trades

are not the only unions that actually provide training. The private

sector provides a ton of apprenticeship training programs all across

British Columbia.

Going back to my friend Ed, who I met yesterday. Ed said: “I

should be able to choose which union to join through a secret ballot,

not have the decision imposed upon me by the government through a

backroom political deal.”

With 30 years of experience in the construction industry, why

can’t Ed choose for himself which union he wants to belong

to?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’d like to keep with the member’s old friend Doug Parton, because

he had a lot to say about community benefit agreements, and he had a lot

to say about the need to put the partisanship aside and focus on workers

and training and building a better British Columbia.

With respect to the approach of the previous government, Doug had

this to say: “I remember when they were building the Golden Ears Bridge.

Those guys brought in temporary foreign workers, and my unemployed

members,” ironworkers, “had to bring pizzas down to help support those

guys. They didn’t have enough to eat because they weren’t getting an

honest day’s pay. They didn’t get the nutrition because they didn’t get

the pay they needed.”

That was Doug Parton — not a supporter of mine, not a supporter of

this party but a supporter of that party. He also said, with respect to

community benefits agreements: “Where was the training at Golden Ears

for the next generation of ironworkers, labourers, carpenters or

whatever?”

This program will build a better B.C. It’s forward-looking. I

don’t know why you guys don’t like it. You should find another line of

questioning, because this one’s going nowhere.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Johal: Cam Reid is a proud member of the Canada West Construction Union

in Sooke. Cam says: “I don’t think it’s fair that as a CWU member I

cannot work on public projects under my union when my tax dollars help

pay for them.”

Will the minister allow workers like Cam to choose his union or

force him to join a union he doesn’t want to join?

Hon. J. Horgan: It feels a bit like Groundhog Day here — same question,

different questioner. I’m delighted to hear that members on that side of

the House have found some friends recently, and they want to stand and

offer up the opinions of those friends in the Legislature. That’s good

news. Apparently, making friends is difficult for some and, apparently,

not so much for the last questioner.

[2:15 p.m.]

Here are the issues before us. British Columbians support a

community benefits agreement because it puts local people first. It puts

training at the top of the line. It allows women, Indigenous people and

other underrepresented people in the community to get access to the

training they need to build a better B.C., which should be in the

interest of all members of this House.

Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.

J. Johal: The Premier can be dismissive, but we’re talking about real people

here — 250,000 people.

Here’s another example. Franklin Howe is a proud member of the

Kinetic Employees Association, from the Premier’s riding. Franklin wants

to know: “Why should I be forced to join and pay dues to a union I have

never chosen in order to work on public projects that are being paid for

by my own tax dollars? This discriminatory policy is deeply

unfair.”

Why does Franklin have to pay for a project he can’t work on

unless he joins a union he doesn’t want to join?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, Franklin in my constituency is probably pretty busy, because

it’s the fastest-growing community in the south Island. Construction is

going off the charts.

We currently have two projects that have community benefits

agreements. One is the Pattullo Bridge in New Westminster, which is a

good distance away, at least a ferry ride away, from Langford. We’re

going to be hiring local people to build that — local British

Columbians, not temporary foreign workers but people who want to put

down roots in British Columbia so that their families and generations of

British Columbians can benefit from developing public

infrastructure.

I appreciate that on that side of the House, it was just about

building something. The audacity of the Leader of the Opposition to say

we’re paying off friends…. When I look at all of the contracts that were

given to supporters of the B.C. Liberal Party, it is ludicrous,

particularly with our good friend Doug Parton as an example of our

approach to this.

I don’t care if Doug Parton supports me or not. I want Doug

Parton’s members and all British Columbians to benefit from public

investments when we make them in infrastructure right across the

province. Community benefits agreements will do that. It was good enough

for W.A.C. Bennett, but the free enterprisers on the other side reject

that.

S. Bond: Well, that was a very loud answer on behalf of the Premier. You

know what’s ironic? Yesterday this Premier didn’t have the moxie to

stand up and look those workers in the eye and say exactly what he said

today. In fact, let’s be clear. We didn’t ask….

Interjections.

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

S. Bond: In fact, this Premier just stood in the House and told everyone

that he wants the benefits to be for all British Columbians. Then I

suggest that he get his minister in a room and tell her to change the

agreement that requires people to belong to a union they don’t want to

belong to.

So nice speech. It does not benefit all British Columbians. It

benefits some British Columbians. In fact, to the Premier, there are

thousands and thousands of British Columbians being left out of this

agreement.

Will the minister, maybe directed by the Premier, eliminate the

requirement that workers, who apparently aren’t good enough for that

side of the House, actually have to join a union they don’t want to

join?

Hon. J. Horgan: I have before me a final report that was presented to the then

Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training, that person who just

asked me the question. The foundation of that report said that one of

the challenges for apprenticeships is on-the-job training. Apprentices

coming out of classrooms do not have jobs to train on. So one of the

recommendations was that “government should consider having a minimum

number of apprentices on public infrastructure projects.”

That’s exactly what we’re doing. If only the member had read the

report and implemented these programs, perhaps we wouldn’t have a skills

shortage. Perhaps we wouldn’t have those people sitting on that side of

the House. But I’ve got to tell you that it looks good on

you.

[End of question period.]

S. Gibson: I’d like to request leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the member for

Abbotsford-Mission.

Introductions by Members

S. Gibson: I’d like to introduce members of the B.C. Federation of Students who

are in the gallery. It’s a group of highly engaged, enthusiastic individuals

who work hard to represent post-secondary students provincewide. Would the

House please give them a tri-partisan welcome.

[2:20 p.m.]

Petitions

Hon. M. Mungall: I rise to present a petition. The petition of the undersigned, Jean A.

Gardiner of the city of Nelson, states that the use of solitary confinement,

seclusion, as treatment in mental health should be abolished. Solitary

confinement is a violation of human rights, both internationally and at

home. There are 154 people who have signed this petition.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 41, the Advanced Education Statute Repeal

Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 41 — ADVANCED EDUCATION

STATUTE REPEAL

ACT

Hon. M. Mark: I’d like to begin by acknowledging we’re on the territory of the

Lekwungen-speaking people, members of the Songhees and Esquimalt First

Nations.

It is my honour to move that Bill 41, the Advanced Education

Statute Repeal Act, now be read a second time. This bill will repeal the

Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act in its entirety. Portions of

this act were struck down by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in

2011. However, those court decisions just dealt with the K-to-12

sector.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Sections of the act that relate to the post-secondary system are

still on the books. Repealing this act now will remove the remaining

sections of the act. These sections allow public colleges and institutes

the right to dictate class size, working hours, the number and length of

semesters, professional development time and vacation time, and to make

faculty teach distance learning courses. Here’s the catch: these

elements can override other acts or collective bargaining agreements

that have been negotiated in good faith.

Both B.C.’s highest court and Canada’s highest court rejected

these rights at the K-to-12 level. If challenged, this act almost

certainly would be found unconstitutional. Fair, equal collective

bargaining is good public policy. With parts of the act still left on

the books, it prevents each side from coming to the table to bargain in

good faith. In fact, it could put government in a precarious situation —

the same situation the Ministry of Education was in when challenged in

court in 2016.

Removing this likely unconstitutional act also reduces the risk of

potentially expensive legal action. Without this unfair and unused act,

bargaining can move forward with existing laws and with policies and

procedures already in place — most importantly, in good

faith.

S. Cadieux: I take my place as the opposition critic for Advanced Education in

the second reading of Bill 41. I certainly understand the purpose of the

act and the purpose of the repeal. The content is the same as was

previously deemed to be unconstitutional by the courts. I certainly

respect that and understand it, and the opposition will be supportive of

the act.

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in the debate on Bill 41, Advanced

Education Statute Repeal Act.

[2:25 p.m.]

As the minister mentioned, this act repeals the Public Education

Flexibility and Choice Act that was brought in under the previous

government in 2002. Within the language of that bill brought in, in

2002, restrictions were removed — in particular, the clause:

“Despite any other Act or a collective agreement, an institution has

the right to (

a) establish the size of its classes, the number of

students who may be enrolled in or assigned to a class and the total

number of students who may be assigned to a faculty member in a

semester, a term or an academic year, (

b) assign faculty members to

instruct courses using distributed learning, (

c) determine its hours of

operation and the number and duration of terms or semesters during which

instruction is offered to students, (

d) allocate professional

development time and vacation time to facilitate its organization of

instruction, and (

e) provide support for faculty members, including, but

not limited to, teaching assistants, senior students, contractors and

support staff members.”

This legislation, brought to 2002, was fortunately never actually

challenged and never actually used, because universities and colleges

recognize that the governance style within these academic post-secondary

institutions is more of a collegial form of governance, one in which an

academic environment is governed by the senate, where there is input

from faculty and staff and students in terms of the academic direction

of an institution.

What was very troubling, of course, is that when this act was

introduced, it also amended sections of the School Act, which stripped

teachers’ bargaining rights — or when the prior act was a similar thing

— related to class size and composition.

Remember the infamous Health and Social Services Delivery

Improvement Act, which started major labour disputes in our province

with health care workers. Again, that was also implemented at the same

time. It was rather a classic example of a pendulum that swings, when we

have governments shift from one to the other side of the political

spectrum.

If ever there was a compelling testimony as to why proportional

representation is important, it’s that it limits these kinds of pendulum

swings because of the fact that we typically don’t go from one extreme

to the other. In this example, we’re going back to legislation coming

in, being repealed. Of course, this should never have been brought in,

in the first place.

With the B.C. Teachers Federation, of the examples I just raised,

that dispute lasted for a decade and a half. How much money, how many

hours lost, how much stress put on teachers, how much education was not

delivered because of time being put to this because of, frankly,

punitive measures that were brought forward by the previous government

to the employees within the education sector, whether it be K-to-12 or

post-secondary institutions?

The amendments to the School Act that were brought in with the

Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act were poorly thought out. It

was legislation that caused, as I mentioned, a decade of turmoil,

including the longest strike in BCTF’s history, in 2014, when I was

sitting on the other side there. It was based, frankly, on ideology that

the government of the day doubled down on as it lost decision after

decision, until it went to the Supreme Court, which, only for a few

minutes, deliberated before they ruled unanimously on the direction that

this should take.

I remember, frankly, three years ago standing in this House and

speaking about the approach of the previous government towards

education. At that time, I said that moving the relationship forward

between the BCTF and the government would require trust — mutual trust.

It was easy, of course, for me to see why the BCTF and other

stakeholders in public education were leery to trust the direction of

the previous government.

At the time, I was arguing that the Education Statutes Amendment

Act, 2015, was a classic example of putting the cart before the horse.

Rather than engaging education stakeholders in meaningful dialogue, the

government was providing itself with rather sweeping powers to appoint

special advisers and issue administrative directives. Needless to say,

that was not building trust. It was a classic example of the previous

government’s approach.

Instead of working to build trust, the previous administration

spent years fighting the BCTF — and countless dollars in doing so —

creating labour disputes, court battles and strikes until finally the

Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of the BCTF.

[2:30 p.m.]

They won their challenge because the legislative changes infringed

on B.C. teachers’ freedom of association, guaranteed under the Canadian

Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I use this example because the Public

Education Flexibility and Choice Act that this bill is repealing here

today — that is, Bill 41, Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act — has

very similar language, which I read out earlier, very similar language

in it, which, in theory, could render key sections in collective

agreements with post-secondary educators void.

Coming to a specific example in the previous bill, the Public

Education Flexibility and Choice Act, which is being repealed, it states

here, as well: “Despite any other Act or collective agreement, an

institution has the right to…assign faculty members to instruct courses

using distributed learning,” and to establish class sizes and “the

number of students who may be enrolled in or assigned to a class and the

total number of students who may be assigned to a faculty

member….”

The total number of students who may be assigned to a faculty

member — this shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of how

universities operate.

I taught at a university for 25 years before coming here. I had

PhD students and master’s students. To think, here, that somehow

government was enabling that my institution could tell me how many PhD

students I could supervise…. Who’s going to pay them? We have

departmental policy that requires us to find money to pay our students.

What about if I was no longer active in research, and on and on. It just

showed such a fundamental misunderstanding.

But in fact, in 2007, the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators

noted this, and they stated that this act overruled provisions of their

collective agreements that dealt with class size. At the same time,

their statement read as follows. This is the statement that they read:

“Although we have succeeded in preventing post-secondary employers from

using the legislation, today’s decision adds to our case that the

legislation should be scrapped all together.” That was with respect to a

ruling, one of the many rulings, that came in the BCTF’s

favour.

The Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act has still not been

used to this day, thank goodness. But if it were to be used, I cringe to

think of the disputes it would cause, and the subsequent legal

challenges that could arise.

Now, I recognize that this legislation, which is still on the

books, is a blight on the previous government, is a blight on the

official opposition, which is why it seems that there are no speakers to

this at second reading, and that they’ll accept it, and quickly, apart

from one just saying, in a matter of moments, that they’ll accept

it.

We’re not getting a detailed discussion and rationale on why this

was brought in, in the first place. Why was this brought in, in the

first place? We have members sitting opposite who’ve been in the B.C.

Legislature since 2002, when, in fact, this legislation was brought.

Rather than simply giving us a history, rather than telling us why it

was brought in and why they’re now supporting it, all they say, in

essence, is “we support repealing it.”

I recognize this is a blight. It’s a shameful blight on 16 years

of actually not putting education as a priority in this province. This

bill before us today is seeking to remove the controversial piece of

legislation, which, fortunately, has never been used before, and,

frankly, if it were, would almost certainly have triggered legal

challenges to the Supreme Court of Canada, where, once again, it

would’ve been deemed unconstitutional and a violation of the Canadian

Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is the legacy that the new government has to deal with. It is

repealing legislation that, yet again, would almost certainly have been

unconstitutional. My caucus and I are 100 percent behind this bill, and

with that, I thank you for your attention.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. M. Mark: I move second reading of Bill 41.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Mark: I move that Bill 41 be referred to a Committee of the Whole to be

considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 41, Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Mark: I call Bill 40.

[2:35 p.m.]

BILL 40 — ELECTORAL REFORM

REFERENDUM

2018 AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

On the main motion.

S. Cadieux: I am pleased to take my place to speak to Bill 40.

Bill 40 is just a blatant and unfair interference with the

referendum campaign. There was to be a “yes” committee and a “no”

committee and rules about funding, but in the middle of the referendum

campaign, the government chose to introduce a bill that is clearly

designed to get a “yes” vote. But I think that the referendum, frankly,

is asking the impossible of voters.

There are 29 things that have to be decided after the referendum.

We’re not voting on first-past-the-post versus something else; we’re

voting on first-past-the-post or something else to be determined later.

I just don’t think that that’s the best way or an informed way to make a

decision about something as fundamental as electoral reform.

I absolutely believe that it is fine to ask voters to vote on a

potential change if that potential change is defined, factual and

clearly articulated. But every day I am continuing to see inaccurate

information being thrown around by citizens. It makes me concerned that,

indeed, not enough education has been done and not enough facts are

available to those voters. People are continuing to say — including

members of this House — that under proportional representation, you as a

citizen get to vote for your MLA and that there won’t be lists. But that

is not true.

The Attorney General’s own recommendations to cabinet, if you read

them, lay out that two of the proposed systems would contain lists. The

dual-member proportional and the mixed-member proportional

representation would have party lists. I don’t think that that makes for

a more democratic system. Now, of course, that is my personal opinion,

but I can’t understand how people can suggest that it leads to better

representation of the voter.

The current system allows voters in any particular area to vote

for or against a particular candidate. So if someone is elected, even if

that person is elected and it is the choice of that voter, by the next

election, if individuals feel that that person has not represented them

well, they can not re-elect that person. That is that direct

accountability available to voters.

When the Premier says, “Take a leap of faith with us,” I just

think that’s insulting. If the government thinks that PR is the right

thing for B.C., then why does the Attorney General say: “Well, if you

don’t have enough information, just vote to keep the

first-past-the-post”? Why not, instead, provide the information? But no,

because we have a flawed process, a flawed referendum and a flawed

ballot question. I just think that with a razor-thin minority

government, through a minority coalition…. The reality is that I think

that we should be a little more careful about a big decision like this,

and we should take the time necessary to make this decision in a way

where voters can make an informed decision.

We have a referendum question with no clarity, no certainty, a

significant lack of detail and a Premier saying: “Take a leap of faith.

Trust us to tell you later what you voted for.”

We’re debating legislation here to amend the legislation that this

minority coalition government pushed through in the spring to meet the

obligations of their agreement to maintain that coalition. The

legislation itself that enables the referendum was rushed through in the

spring. Now we’ve got an insurance policy coming forward on behalf of

the government to the voters to suggest that it’s okay, it doesn’t

matter if you don’t know what you’re voting for, because later you can

change your mind.

If that was the intent…. We’re told it was, in fact. Clearly,

government intended this long ago. What we’re debating now — the

potential to have a second referendum after a change to the voting

system many years from now — is already referenced as a done deal in

what are supposed to be non-partisan Elections B.C. voter packages

explaining the referendum. And if that’s the case, then the government

told Elections B.C. months ago that the legislation that we’re debating

here today, which has not been passed by this House, is a done

deal.

[2:40 p.m.]

Now, I understand that the government feels that is the case, and

I understand that they feel they have the support of their coalition

members in forcing this legislation through so that Elections B.C.

information is, in fact, correct in the future. But it’s not correct

today, yet it’s been printed, presupposing the outcome of the

legislation that we’re debating.

I think that is presumptuous. I think it is calculated to give the

government cover on this very flawed process.

By even presenting Bill 40, the government is suggesting, to me,

that voters are not supportive of a change to proportional

representation under the rules, processes and information that have been

set out to date. So they have to make some changes to entice voters into

taking that great leap of faith.

Why else would this happen now? It was only six months ago that

the referendum act was passed. The government is telling me that they

were so poorly prepared for that legislation that they forgot to include

this big issue of a second referendum, so they need a do-over already,

before we even have the referendum. It’s insulting.

Changing our voting system is a major decision, and it is the

right of the people. It’s a major decision for the electorate to make,

and it’s their right to make that change should they wish. But the

electorate is being told by this government that we should take a leap

of faith, vote on hypotheticals and vague promises, and I do not believe

that is so.

The government has bungled this from the beginning. They’ve been

rushing from the beginning. We can’t have maps because it’ll take too

much time. We can’t have details. It can be worked out later. Don’t

worry about it. We can’t have a citizens’ assembly. That’ll take too

much time. But this is a fundamental change to our democratic

institution. If the Premier believes it’s the right thing to do, if the

Attorney General believes it’s the right thing to do, then they should

have the class and the integrity to present their case, to defend it,

holes and all, with its vague promises, with their Green Party deals.

They should present it all to the public.

And they — wow — miraculously are going to do that in a debate

next week, after the majority of the ballots will have already been sent

back to Elections B.C. People will have already made their choice, based

on all that flawed information.

This is not something that should be lesser than an election. This

is not something that should be given less attention than a general

election. This is, in fact, in some ways, more important. But government

is trying to slide it past the voters, hopeful many will ignore a

mail-in ballot, which they will. We’re already seeing evidence of that

in apartment recycling bins.

We have to ask, I think, the Attorney General, who’s now

suggesting that if people don’t have enough information, they should

vote to keep the system we already have. And I agree; they should. But

isn’t that just an admission by the Attorney General that, in fact, this

whole referendum process is flawed and, in fact, there isn’t enough

information? Otherwise, he should be defending the systems he’s put

forward. But the details aren’t there to support.

Frankly, I think the translucence from the Premier on this

referendum is obvious. I would support a referendum where citizens could

make a truly informed decision, but many people aren’t informed. They

can’t get the information they need to make that decision, and many are

making their decision with incorrect and misleading

information.

My colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie has pointed out that

this referendum may be unconstitutional, and he’s laid out his reasons.

The pro-PR folks have presented that as a myth, but it’s actually a very

reasonable concern and a question.

Now, there is nothing unconstitutional about changing our voting

system, provided — and I stress “provided” — that the change we make

must be in keeping with the Canadian constitution and the Charter. There

is a valid argument that some of the proposed proportional

representation systems do not.

There are a lot of myths out there, and there are a lot of things

being presented as facts. Depending on which side of the argument is

leading the discussion, you may find you don’t agree with either a myth

or a fact. But there are a few that I read on line the other day that I

am really concerned about.

[2:45 p.m.]

The pro-PR side is putting forward as a myth that prop rep is a

risky unknown. They say that’s false, and they present as a fact that

more than 90 percent of the world’s democracies use prop rep and that

only four countries use first-past-the-post — the U.K., the United

States, Canada and India. But that statement is fundamentally false. The

actual number of countries that use proportional representation and

first-past-the-post are approximately even in support.

The fact that people suggest it’s risky…. Well, it is risky,

because two of the three options on our ballot are not used anywhere

else in the world. They are hypothetical. And the third is only used in

seven of the countries that use proportional representation. So I’d say

there is a significant degree of risk that we don’t know how those

systems would work here.

There’s another myth that the prop rep side is trying to put down.

They say that there’s a myth out there that prop rep will result in

fringe parties. They say that’s false. They put forward that to win a

seat under prop rep, a party must win 5 percent of the vote. In their

minds, political parties will need substantial support, so then they

couldn’t be fringe.

Holy moly, all one has to do is look through the news articles of

the day to see what’s happening in Sweden, New Zealand and other

countries. There are fringe parties in every legislature that uses

proportional representation, and many of them are there with less than 4

percent of the vote. Some are on the far right; some are on the far

left. Some can’t be classified as left or right. They’re just one-issue

parties. Meanwhile, few, if any, of the first-past-the-post legislatures

or systems have any fringe parties represented.

Now, I love this one. The pro-PR folks are telling people that

it’s a myth that if we change the system, we’re stuck with it. And

they’re presenting as a fact that B.C. will hold a second referendum

after two elections and that we can go back to our first-past-the-post

if we change and we don’t like it. By the way, no country has ever gone

back after adopting prop rep.

The reality is that the legislation we’re debating says that if we

switch to prop rep, then we will have it for eight years, or two

elections past the switch. But it won’t be until after the 2021

election, so it’s more likely 12 years from now. And the structures that

underlie our election system — the number of parties, the number of

MLAs, the number of ridings and the election rules — will all have

changed in that time to suit proportional representation. So it’s not

like throwing a switch.

Referendums are expensive. The changes that would be required if

we choose to switch will be even more expensive. The promise of a second

referendum is an empty one. It’s offered as an insurance policy. I

understand that from the perspective of government, but I believe firmly

that if we switch, that’s it. No do-overs.

Best of all is something the member for North

Vancouver–​Lonsdale alluded to in a very impassioned speech — that

somehow proportional representation democracies are kinder, gentler

democracies. How so? Canada is consistently rated one of the best, most

democratic and free countries in the world, one of the best places to

live, one of the places most people would choose to move to if they

could. Why? How about the fact that the election system we have now has

produced one of the kindest, gentlest, least corrupt, prosperous and

free democracies on earth?

Why do we need to switch? This system isn’t perfect. Every member

of this House and every voter doesn’t get their way on everything.

That’s because we don’t all see eye to eye. Every citizen has different

priorities and thinks government should, of course, adopt theirs. As a

member of a cabinet for a number of years, I didn’t always get my way,

because there are competing priorities for governments to grapple

with.

[2:50 p.m.]

This new government is not delivering on every promise they

promised to voters. Why? Because they can’t do it all at once, and there

are competing priorities. Right now some of those competing priorities

are with their coalition partners saying: “You can’t do that, or we

won’t support you.” This is how our democracy works. Whether it’s

first-past-the-post or proportional representation, the reality is no

one will always get all of their own way.

But this first-past-the-post system has given us one of the best

places to live in the world. This has given us a stable, free place to

live. Regardless of the fact that at this moment in time, my chosen

political party does not govern our House or our province, that doesn’t

mean I think we should switch the system. This is okay. This has given

us good government and a good place to live for a long time, and I don’t

see the need to rush to change.

Again, I will say: if citizens are demanding this change, then why

are we rushing? If citizens are demanding this change, then let’s have

that citizens’ assembly. Let’s let the citizens tell us how they want to

elect their representatives. Then let’s have a referendum based on those

preferences versus first-past-the-post, like as has been done in the

past. Because this matters.

If proportional representation is supposed to cure all the ills of

voter disillusionment and drive up participation rates, then why are we

seeing so many discarded ballots in recycle bins right now for this

referendum? If this is going to drive up participation rates and this is

going to cure all the ills of our parliamentary system, then why has no

threshold been set for voter turnout?

How is it we’re being asked to presuppose the outcomes of this

rigged referendum and vote on a piece of legislation to amend the

legislation that allows that same referendum to take place, to bind a

future government to hold another referendum, to check if people like

the decision that they made?

I don’t support the referendum in its current form. I don’t

support this bill to amend that legislation. I don’t believe that the

people of British Columbia will agree either.

C. Oakes: It truly is my pleasure to rise today to add my comments to the

discussion, and I appreciate all of the members of this House and what

they have contributed. I appreciate all of the contributions that

members of both sides of the House have made in this debate.

I think it’s important today that I take a few moments…. I speak

to my constituents in Cariboo North, who have been asking incredibly

valid questions that they are seeking answers to. What I have been

saying is…. I direct my constituents to Elections B.C. to find out

further information about what the three options for proportional

representation look like.

Here are the types of questions that my constituents are asking.

And the reason why we have taken a very thoughtful approach to ensure

that in this House, we are asking legitimate questions that we are

hearing from the constituents — the very nature of what our jobs are as

MLAs…. When I have been home in my riding, somebody can come up to me in

the grocery store and ask me a question such as: “What will the riding

look like?”

[2:55 p.m.]

At the gas pump, somebody can stop me and ask me specific

questions, which I think really speaks to the heart of what it means

under the first-past-the-post to have an elected representative in our

riding that you can reach out to and you can ask questions of and you

can make sure that you’re holding them accountable.

Sometimes lost in this whole discussion…. Sometimes the

discussions in this Legislature in general really only speak to the

element of an election. I was reviewing what the Premier said in his

response to Bill 40, and it really was focused on the idea about the

time of an election and making sure at an election time that you had a

representative. That is why, you know, “Take this leap of faith” — and

all of these elements that are out there on why this is such an

opportunity.

I think what sometimes is lost and, I feel, may have been lost in

the comments around proportional representation is the fact that as

MLAs, our job is to listen to our constituents not just at election

time. Our job is to be listening consistently to our constituents and to

be bringing those voices forward and reflecting on them. So when we

speak in this House and we talk about what we have heard out in our

communities, it is because we have access.

As many of us have said in this House before…. I represent a

riding that’s over 38,000 square kilometres. My riding is larger than

Vancouver Island. I work diligently with an amazing team of individuals

to make sure that we are out consistently on the road, listening,

holding mobile offices. And the number one concern that we are hearing

from my constituents is: what will these maps look like? What is our

riding going to look like? We certainly understand, and you read through

the math, that there has been a set number of how many seats this House

can hold, so the fears are that ridings like Cariboo North will be

lost.

We have a population of just over 28,000, and we already struggle

with the threshold that is necessary through Elections B.C. But there is

a geographic element that has always been acknowledged within the

constitution, as my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie has talked

about, and there are real fears that that regional imbalance of what

potentially we may see may be reflected in this. In back and forth with

emails that I’ve had with my constituents….

Currently it takes about six hours to go from one part of my

riding to another, and for many of my constituents, it’s a three-hour

drive into my office to meet with me. We do our best. You know, it is

difficult in rural ridings. How do I go now to my constituents and say:

“Well, if we get amalgamated or eliminated, we now may become part of a

mega-riding”? Where now, all of a sudden, to that senior who desperately

needs assistance or desperately wants their ideas reflected here in

Victoria…. They want to raise those concerns to me. They’re now told:

“Well, your MLA is ten hours away.” Or maybe it’s 12 hours away. What is

the workability of that going to look like in our communities? These are

questions that just have not been answered through this

process.

Some of the other questions that have been asked, that they

mention, will be post-referendum decisions — the total number of MLAs in

the province, either a specific number or range, up to a maximum of 95.

So who is going to lose their riding? Is it going to be in an urban

setting? Are we going to see ridings lost in Surrey? Are we going to see

ridings that may be amalgamated in Burnaby, perhaps?

Is there going to be a geographic focus on what we’re looking at?

For northern British Columbia, are we going to see the entire north

amalgamated, and then are we going to see a party choose what that

representation will look like in our communities? That is very

concerning, and it should be concerning to all members of this House —

whether to use a reserve seat allocation method and, if so, for what

percentage of seats.

[3:00 p.m.]

We also don’t know the number and configuration of single-member

districts, what that may look like, or the configuration of two-member

districts. And if you have a two-member district, how is the workability

with constituency offices? Do we now, all of a sudden, see a community

have multiple constituency offices in it? If so, what does the budget

allocation mean through the Legislature to make sure those are

staffed?

We look at other questions under the MMP decisions for the

Legislature — the total number of MLAs in the province, exact ratio of

first-past-the-post seats to the list of PR seats, up to a maximum of 40

percent list of PR seats, ballot options for the list of PRs to vote. Is

it a closed list? The order of candidates is determined by the

party.

I’ve heard in this House many times…. I’m incredibly proud to be

the first female MLA elected in my region, and it’s difficult. There are

a lot of challenges, when we look at how we encourage women to get

engaged, how we get millennials engaged. How do we get young people

engaged?

I look at a system of…. If it’s a closed list and it’s determined

by the party, how are we going to ensure that people who maybe are, for

their first time, taking a foray into politics, those millennials that

are engaged and excited and passionate about this option, and want them

to consider…? If it’s a party list, and you’re competing with a very

senior individual who has been represented in this House for many years

and has significant experience, how are we going to allow access to

ensure that millennials and women and other populations will have the

same opportunities? I’m incredibly concerned about that, and that is a

question that has not been answered.

If it’s an open list and voters vote for specific candidates, my

question for this is…. I come from a riding that has also had an

independent member in this House, and I think it’s a relevant question.

We’ve had independent members who have served very well in this House.

They’ve brought forward very relevant, important information in this

House. If it’s under a closed party system, if we look at some of the

options that are being proposed, and it’s based off of a party list, how

does an independent have the opportunity to serve in this House if

they’re an independent and don’t belong to a party?

Isn’t that, by the very nature of democracy and everything that we

represent in this House — so that people have the option to raise their

concerns and to be democratically free to do that — an important

element? I think it is. I think questions such as open and closed lists

and if it’s a party that determines that…. I think it’s

important.

The other side of the argument will say: “Well, there will also

be, in some of the options, an elected opportunity.” Again, I look at an

individual that may come from a community in Quesnel that decides to run

as an independent, and our riding becomes amalgamated with all of the

north. Perhaps we get amalgamated or dissolved, and we become part of

this super mega-riding that includes larger populations. Maybe it’s a

Prince George, or maybe it’s a Kamloops. How does an individual in a

smaller community with a smaller population base have the same

opportunities to really be represented or to have their voices heard? I

think it becomes much more difficult.

The other questions I’ve heard in my communities are: one vote

which counts for both the local candidate and the list of PR seat

allocation; two votes — one for the local candidate and one for the list

of seat allocation; whether candidates for the local first-past-the-post

seat may be on the party’s list for the regional list under PR seats;

the method of determining the order in which the list of PR seats are

allo­cated; whether to permit overhung seats — that is, to have a

fixed number of total seats in the Legislative Assembly; potentially

added seats to compensate if any party wins greater than the share of

the first-past-the-post seats than its overall vote share would be

entitled to.

[3:05 p.m.]

I raise this because these are legitimate questions that people

are raising in our constituencies. To suggest…. First of all, to go out

on a referendum with so many unanswered questions and put all of us, as

MLAs, in a situation where…. I was certainly not raised to suggest to

somebody who is an intelligent, articulate individual just to take a

leap of faith. I am going to propose something to you, and you just need

to trust me. The very element of being in politics often…. It is

incredibly difficult to assure citizens that there is that high level of

trust.

When we, in some respects, do not respect the intelligence of our

citizens by providing them with accurate information, dismissing them

and suggesting that they take a leap of faith, I think it is very

discouraging. I certainly have felt that on the doorsteps in my

community.

Other questions that have come forward are whether the order of

candidates on the list of PR ballots should be randomized or not. What

is the method for filling in the single-member districts and the list-PR

seat vacancies? What happens if we have a by-election — similar to what

it is currently or will be called — in an area? And then post

referendum, other decisions around the Electoral Boundaries Commission —

the number and configuration of regions, the number and configuration of

first-past-the-post districts in each region, the number of list seats

in each region. There are so many unanswered questions.

Again, I think to go out and to suggest to people now: “Well,

yeah, I know that there are a lot of unanswered questions, so that’s why

we’re proposing we do a do-over….” I’ve gone on to Elections B.C. We are

still debating this bill. We are still in debate of this bill, yet on

Elections B.C., it is mentioning that you can have a do-over.

I think that there has to be a level of confidence that our

citizens have in us that we follow a process and a procedure. Quite

frankly, we come here to debate. We come here to have honest

dialogue.

I would like to read a comment that the Premier made. I think it’s

important to put on this record. “I hear it every day as I travel around

British Columbia. I hear from people who are saying: ‘I’m really glad

you guys are working together.’” If we’re working together, why then the

presumption that having dialogue and having the ability to raise

questions may not…? It could formulate a different answer.

If the Premier is suggesting that everything is all working well

and everybody is cooperating, why, then, wouldn’t we wait till after the

vote is called before we actually institute and put something into the

referendum — information that, perhaps, in many respects, is very

misleading to constituencies and to people in communities?

The Premier goes on to say: “I’m really happy to see that. I like

the idea that you’re cooperating. You’re putting aside your personal

differences, and you’re working in the best interests of British

Columbians. I hear it over and over again.”

He goes on, and I think he was being a little flippant: “Of

course, when you’re in government, you have an opportunity to travel

around and talk directly to people. When you’re in opposition, you’re

looking for a parade to lead, and I’m certain that someday a parade will

come by that the member for Cariboo North can join into. But for now,

the question before us is Bill 40 and the opportunity to say to British

Columbians: ‘You can embrace a change in our electoral process this

fall, and if you don’t like it, two elections hence you’ll have an

opportunity to vote against it.’”

He says: “Take a leap of faith.” He acknowledges: “Well, yeah, I

know. As I’ve been travelling around British Colum­bia,” which he

acknowledged in his response, “people are asking a lot of

questions.”

[3:10 p.m.]

People are legitimately asking honest questions to the Premier,

and he has admitted this in his Bill 40. He knows that when he travels,

people are asking: “Show me a map. Show me what the riding will look

like.”

I think it was also interesting that he was a little disrespectful

to the constituents in Cariboo North, which I probably should read into

the record so my constituents have the opportunity to understand how

collegial this House can be. “That’s why proportional representation’s

time has come. The fear should stop.” Let’s not provide information,

just have a leap of faith. “The practical understanding…. You don’t need

a degree in statistics.” Obviously, you don’t need a degree in political

science either. That’s my own quote.

“You don’t have to be…exercising your franchise by putting an X

beside the person that best reflects your values. After you do that, you

can say with absolute certainty that your values will be reflected in

this place.”

Now, you may not get represented, because again, it might be ten

hours away where your MLA is, but your values will be represented. Lord

help you if you run into any problems, and you’re in a crisis, and you

actually need an MLA to help you. You may not have somebody around your

area. My constituents who are affected by wildfires or floods or

landslides may now have to travel significantly farther.

But I digress. “That, again, as they say in the business, is a

good thing.” The Premier goes on: “Maybe not in Cariboo North, but

everywhere else, that’s the case.” Maybe he was referring to Cariboo

North because, as I have mentioned before, we’ve had an independent in

our community. Maybe what the Premier is saying is: “Well, now we’ve

just eliminated the ability, through this process, to ever have an

independent sit in this House.” Maybe that’s a good thing.

Maybe that’s the whole intent of the Premier — to make sure that

independents don’t have the ability to sit in this House and that it’s

directed clearly by parties. I don’t know. I’m just reading what he said

in Hansard on Bill 40. But I think, again, these are very valid

concerns that people have brought forward in our communities.

I’d also like to talk a little bit about the workability, or how

this Legislature works. If I look at select standing committees, which

we have various of, I can never speak to…. It’s unparliamentary to ever

say who may or may not be attending certain meetings. I can tell you

that there are very good records that are kept by our incredible staff

here through the Legislature and that important work is done through

these standing committees and the different offices that

happen.

I can tell you that if you look at the attendance…. The Finance

Committee has just finished travelling the province, listening to

citizens and taking very important information back. All of the parties

in this House have participation in that. I will say that it was

discouraging to look at the attendance, perhaps, of the membership, and

I encourage citizens to look.

If you start having…. I think you need to pay attention, when

there are critically important standing committee meetings that are

happening, to who is attending and who is not attending.

D. Routley: I seek advice from the Speaker as to whether it’s appropriate to

refer in any way to attendance at committees. I sit on a committee with

the member speaking and can tell the member that in 14 years, I’ve

missed fewer than 12 days in this Legislature. I don’t know who she was

referring to, but I question the appropriateness of that.

Deputy Speaker: The ruling has always, in the past, applied to the attendance

within this chamber.

Please proceed.

C. Oakes: I would say that I appreciate the member’s comments. I’ve sat on a

committee with the individual and felt it was a very rewarding committee

that we sat on. I felt that incredible work was done. I raised that

because I was very proud of the work that we achieved.

[3:15 p.m.]

My concern is that, on some of the committees that we currently

have, there may…. I would also suggest that it is not the party of the

individual who rose — that perhaps the attendance is not in question.

There is a party where, I would suggest, attendance needs to be looked

at.

The challenge is, if you have three or four people, how do you

possibly ensure that all of the workings of this House — of the standing

committees, of all of the work that happens within this Legislature —

gets achieved?

Those are some of the elements of the workability factor around

proportional representation that I don’t believe have been addressed.

And how, if you look at the standing orders, there probably has been…. I

would hope that there has been work done on looking at how the standing

orders will be reflected, with such significant change as what we are

looking at with proportional representation. I think those are critical

elements to that.

Going back to the idea of a do-over, I so respect the work that is

done in this House and by every single member in this Legislature. I

know that all of us come with the absolute heart and soul of making sure

that we are listening to citizens and doing the elements of the

work.

I cannot imagine that, with the number of unanswered questions

that we have…. We look at how special standing committees will work, and

even Finance, and all of the operational elements of what happens in

this House — the type of damage that can come by choosing a decision

without having all of the information prepared in advance is incredibly

concerning. Or I think of the idea of the incredible cost to taxpayers

by not having specific questions answered.

And the idea of: are we going to be setting up constituency

offices in every single community in British Columbia? Again, coming

from a rural community, I often hear about…. There is so much, even

through Elections B.C. Everything is built around this idea that British

Columbia has this level of connectivity that we are all so blessed to

have.

Again, in my communities, my 38,000 square kilometres, I can go

ten kilometres any given way and not have cell service, or not have

connectivity options. Or if we do, it’s satellite, and it’s so

incredibly expensive that not everyone in our rural communities has

access to that type of connectivity.

So if the idea is that we are moving away, which I think will be

an element of proportional representation — you move away from having

that direct contact with an elected MLA in your communities or your

region, and move more to utilizing technology. Where will those

investment dollars go to ensure that every citizen has the equal and

same opportunity for information and support?

You know, currently, I believe, it may be 80 percent of the

population that is connected. But it’s not 80 percent of the province of

British Columbia. Anyone who has had the privilege to travel throughout

this amazing province of British Columbia can tell you that there are

still significant gaps in last-mile connectivity. So I raise that as a

concern of how our constituents will have access to us.

I think that instead of voting…. We are voting more on a concept.

I understand that there may be people out there that are comfortable

with the idea of moving forward on a concept. Within the walls of this

House, we certainly have a process — and I would never dream of bringing

forward, you know, a concept.

[3:20 p.m.]

As a former minister, you need to do your briefings, you need to

have your information, and you need to have all of those pieces in line

before you would ever come to this House to present something. What we

are asking our citizens to do is in exact contrast to what we in this

House do — by nature of making sure that we’re prepared, that we do our

briefings and that we have the information prepared for us.

We’re being asked to vote on systems that have not even been used

anywhere else in the world, yet government is choosing to not even

provide, as I’ve said, the maps of the electoral districts or even the

number of electoral districts and how many representatives each would

have. Local representation does matter. The information we haven’t said

is that political parties will choose your representative. Again, I come

from a part of the world where we’re pretty independent. We like to

ensure that we have the same opportunities, perhaps, as in the urban

ridings.

In dual-member proportional representation, you are given two

options appointed by political parties. All losing votes are distributed

to parties to allow them to appoint candidates elsewhere — which, of

course, is what could allow some of the examples that have been used in

other countries that have been brought forward.

Then you get to mixed-member proportional. This is the only

proportional system on the ballot that’s actually used anywhere in the

world. I will be honest: when I’m doing my absolute best to present

information to my constituents — I think it’s important that we do that

— I’ll often refer to this one because I think it’s the most notable or

the one that is the easiest, probably, with the most information to

define.

In this system, again, we have drastically few details about how

the political parties would choose 40 percent of the MLAs. Again, my

concern, as a female representative, is: how will we be supporting young

people, millennials, to ensure that they have the same opportunities to

get elected into this House?

You have the rural-urban, a two-tiered mix of the STV system that

British Columbians have rejected, as we’ve mentioned, twice before, in

2005 and 2009; and the MMP, which is also on the ballot. Whether a

riding is rural or urban…. I know I had talked about this earlier. I

guess my constituents in Quesnel are wondering: “Are we urban? Are we

rural? If we end up with Prince George or Kamloops, what does that look

like? How will that change?” Whether you’re in a health district…. Your

health authority — how does that change in your region? There is a lot

of those types of elements that I think are concerning. People need to

ask, and are asking, those questions in my constituency.

I see that my time is just about up. Just again, with all respect

to all of the members in this House, it is truly a privilege to serve.

We all work very hard to support our constituents, and it has been very

disheartening to go home and to have my constituents ask specific

questions — questions that I cannot answer.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Kelowna–​Lake Country.

[Applause.]

N. Letnick: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and thanks to my colleagues for that warm

welcome. It’s indeed a pleasure to get up and address this issue on

behalf of the constituents for Kelowna–Lake Country.

We are both an urban and a rural centre — Kelowna, of course,

being quite urban in many ways. My riding actually starts from Highway

33 and goes north to Oyama. Therefore, two-thirds of my constituents

live in the urban centre of Kelowna, and one-third of my constituents

live in Lake Country, which is a vastly less urban location. Both have

interesting priorities. For the most part, their priorities are similar:

good health care. Good education. Safe and efficient transportation.

Affordable housing, of course. Taking care of those that fall between

the cracks.

[3:25 p.m.]

Mental health and addictions. Investment in our post-secondary

education institutions, both capital and operating. Also, investment in

our K-to-12 infrastructure, in particular the need to replace Rutland

Middle School. We have many, many issues that are compatible between

Kelowna and Lake Country. It has been for ten years now — I’m in my

tenth year — that I’ve had the privilege of representing

them.

But none of those ten years has ever seen me stand up and actually

discuss a bill like Bill 40, which is deciding how future MLAs…. Maybe

me, but over the course of time, someone will follow me. So this is

about the future MLAs, not for me in particular, who will be decided by

those constituents that live in the general area of Kelowna–Lake Country

— because as we know, with some of these options, we’re talking about

larger ridings, so it’s hard to specifically pinpoint Kelowna–Lake

Country — and how they will be selected to represent them.

The whole basis of my thesis here, and I know it’s an interesting

word for this, is that we need local representation. We need to make

sure that we elect local people that represent local issues to this

place so that they can fight for those local issues.

What I’m going to do over the next 25 minutes is talk a little bit

about why we’re here; some of the opinions that have been registered on

this bill so far; what the government has said they were going to do and

what they’ve actually done; how in the past, over two referendums, we’ve

actually had an example of how the process should work and the results

of that. Then I will finish off at the end with a little bit of why I

believe, in

summary, we should continue to go with first-past-the-post

to elect our representatives here in this chamber.

First of all, why are we here? Well, today in the Glacier Media

outlet, the headline is: “Former NDP Premier Clark” — and that is not

Christy; that is Glen — “Votes No on Electoral Reform.” You add that to

the list. That’s Glen Clark, and now we have former NDP Premier Ujjal

Dosanjh, who also votes no to electoral reform.

Interjections.

N. Letnick: I never thought, mentioning those two names, that I would actually

get a round of applause. Let me say it again: the former NDP Premiers

Glen Clark and Ujjal Dosanjh vote no.

Interjections.

N. Letnick: That’s very funny.

Interjection.

N. Letnick: Yes, the members are throwing me off my list. I might actually

have to go for 35 minutes, Madame Chair, with your

permission.

But anyway, Mr. Clark said, and I am paraphrasing from the

article, that the situation has become a political one driven by the

B.C. Green Party shoring up Premier John Horgan’s government. That’s why

we’re here. It’s very simple. It is all because of the confidence and

supply agreement, the coalition agreement between the Greens and the

NDP.

As we all know from the polling and the discussions in our

ridings, this is not falling directly on party lines. There are many

people in the B.C. Liberal Party that want to look at PR as an option.

There are many people in the NDP that want to keep first-past-the-post.

I also understand there are some in the Green Party that want to keep

first-past-the-post.

There are differences of opinion, and I really would encourage all

people in British Columbia to go to the Elections B.C. website and get

the information that they require so that they can make an intelligent

choice on their ballot. I would encourage all British Columbians to vote

on this important referendum once they’ve had the information that they

require.

So that’s why we’re here. Clark has voted against PR in the

current referendum campaign. He’s already voted, just like I have. Full

disclosure: I voted. I voted against PR. I’ll tell you why through this

discussion. He says: “I don’t like proportional representation.” Clark

was Premier from ’96 to ’99.

[3:30 p.m.]

He said he’s not a fan of any system where he would be voting for

someone whose name is on a party list — one of the proposals in the

current referendum, the mixed-member option. “I like to vote for the

person who represents me. I want to vote for someone who’s going to be

accountable. If you really want to get more representation, get more

seats.”

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

He obviously has his opinion, and he’s not shy about making it

known. Neither is former Premier Ujjal Dosanjh, who came out loudly

against proportional representation.

We also have some members of the media — I think their statements

have already been on the record, but I’ll add them again today — who are

not attached to any particular party. Actually, they have fun taking all

political parties to task. In this case, they’ve taken this referendum

to task.

Gary Mason, of the Globe and Mail , said: “I think there

are better voting systems to ensure everyone’s vote counts, as opposed

to the winner-take-all approach we have now. However, I could not

support reform based on the way in which this referendum is being

conducted. It is just so badly flawed, so poorly conceived, any outcome

will be rendered defective and in violation of the fundamental tenets of

democracy.” What a scathing indictment of this whole process by Mr.

Mason.

Just like the Premier said — I think it was the Premier: “If you

don’t have enough information, vote for first-past-the-post.” So I’m

thinking that Gary Mason is going to be voting for first-past-the-post,

based on what he said there. And he’s encouraging people to do the same

— not to throw out their ballot, not to the tear it up, not it put it at

the bottom of their condos so that somebody puts it through the recycle

bin, but to vote for the current system because that’s the right thing

to do, according to the two former NDP Premiers and Mr.

Mason.

Other quotes. “The biggest problem with the latest electoral

reform referendum is how badly the NDP has handled the issue and how

partisan the process has become.” That’s the Vancouver Sun

editorial board.

I also understand the Vancouver paper editorial board came out and

told people, or suggested to people, that they should not vote for any

of the PR options, that they should keep first-past-the-post. But to

keep first-past-the-post, they need to vote for it. They can’t just

assume that by not voting at all, they will be able to retain their

current system, because there are a lot of motivated people out there,

for good political reasons, that are very engaged in this process to

support the PR option, and they will, en masse, be voting for

PR.

So for the silent majority out there, I’m calling on you to go and

get informed, look at what these pundits have to say, look at what the

former leaders of the NDP have to say — not the current one — look at

what Elections B.C. offers in non-partisan information, and then vote

accordingly.

Vaughn Palmer, who also, of course, is a very respected columnist

in our province says: “It’s very hard to explain to people how this is

going to work because the Attorney General has engineered it so we won’t

know until after the vote is over.” He said that to Shane Woodford on

October 5, 2018.

When Premier Horgan calls on voters to take a “leap of

faith….”

Deputy Speaker: Member, no names.

N. Letnick: Oh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will remove the notation to his

name.

“When the Premier calls on voters to take a leap of faith with him

on proportional representation, he means ‘leap in the dark’” — Vaughn

Palmer.

You’d think after ten years, I would have marked that off

already.

“The NDP, unlike previous attempts to change our voting system,

has set the bar pretty low.” That’s Jon McComb at CKNW.

Mike Smyth on CKNW said: “They are setting the bar as low as

possible for this referendum to succeed.”

Keith Baldrey said, on Global: “This is a nanny state approach to

governing gone rogue.”

We also have Kirk LaPointe in Business in Vancouver , who

says: “We are lurching, wobbling, staggering, somewhat blindly and quite

deafly, into the fog of confusion and consensus and deliberate

under-information that calls itself the 2018 referendum on electoral

reform.”

Bill Good said, in June: “It appears they are determined to

manipulate the process.”

[3:35 p.m.]

The list goes on and on. All these pundits, these people that are

not affiliated with any particular party, have logged into the debate

and said, quite frankly, the process is flawed. It’s not fair. It

doesn’t follow what the Premier promised the process would be, and it

nowhere comes near to the level of impartiality that was offered in the

last two referendums.

You know, the Premier said in the past that the referendum would

be a yes-no vote. “You’re going to have 50 percent say yes or no.” The

reporter, Shaw, said: “So you give them one system to vote on?” The

Premier said: “Yeah, exactly.” This is in the Province , in May

of 2017.

Instead of a yes-no ballot for PR, voters will likely have to

choose between multiple PR options against first-past-the-post. Since

the multiple PR options are not clearly defined, it really is comparing

apples to watermelons.

The Premier also promised an all-party committee to engage the

public on changing our electoral system. “Set up an all-party committee

to hear from citizens and formulate a referendum question at the

conclusion of that process.” He said that on April 10, 2017. Instead, a

single cabinet minister is in charge of the engagement process. I’m

pretty sure everyone knows all the quotes from the media as far as how

that particular minister is not an impartial arbiter, by any

stretch.

The regional threshold. The Premier promised to have a strong

regional threshold for a referendum on electoral reform, similar to the

Canadian constitution. He said: “The amending formula for our

constitution…requires approval by seven provinces with 50 percent of

Canada’s population. So it is an absolute 50 percent, but it has to

include seven provinces…. This amending formula is similar to the kind

of formula we’d need for a plebiscite on changing how we elect people in

B.C.” He said that in April 2017.

Again, not exactly what we have. We have the 50 percent plus one,

but we don’t have that regional threshold like we do in the Canadian

constitution.

It really is a challenge as a politician to trust what the Premier

has said when key parts of the referendum that he promised we would have

— a simple yes-no, all-party committees, a regional threshold — have

been broken.

How should it be done? Well, it just so happens there is a report

— back in 2014, I think it was — by the commission that looked at the

previous referendum. I think it’s important to get that on the record as

to what they did.

Now, their mandate, their terms of reference, was: “The citizens’

assembly must assess models for electing Members of the Legislative

Assembly and issue a report recommending whether the current model for

these elections should be retained or another model should be adopted.

In carrying out the assessment…the citizens’ assembly must consult with

British Columbians and provide British Columbians with the opportunity

to make submissions to the citizens’ assembly in writing, and orally at

public meetings.”

Now, that didn’t happen. We didn’t have a citizens’ assembly. What

we had was politicians directing the making of the question. Actually,

it was done in cabinet.

We’ve all heard the story from the weekend of how certain cabinet

ministers might not be able to explain the particular proportional

representation votes. But you know what? I don’t think cabinet ministers

are alone. You ask most people in this Legislature and, I would say,

most people around the province to try to explain the different forms of

PR that cabinet has come up with, and I think most people would be at a

loss to describe them.

“If the citizens’ assembly recommends, under

section 1, the

adoption of a model” — so if they recommend it for Members of the

Legislative Assembly — “(

a) the model must be consistent with both the

constitution of Canada and the Westminster parliamentary system; and (

b) the model must be described clearly and in detail” — which, again, we

don’t have.

“The assessment described in

section 1 must…be limited to the

manner by which voters’ ballots are translated into elected members

and…take into account the potential effect of its recommended model on

the government, the Legislative Assembly and the political parties.”

Again, we did not get that.

“The citizens’ assembly must present its final version of the

report…. On presentation of the final version of the report to the

Attorney General, the chair may arrange for the publication of the

report.”

[3:40 p.m.]

How did that work? Well, the first thing they did is they had the

selection of who was going to be on the assembly. The members of the

citizens’ assembly were chosen at random, not appointed by the Premier

to cabinet. They were chosen at random from the province’s 79, in those

days, electoral districts. The process began with Elections B.C., a

non-partisan office of the Legislature, updating the B.C. voters list in

late summer, 2003. So first they updated the list, before they appointed

people to the citizens’ assembly.

From that list, Elections B.C. drew a random 200 names from each

electoral area — 100 males and 100 females — and they were also grouped

by age and gender to produce a representative sample of the

province.

In 2003, the assembly staff sent an initial letter to 15,800

British Columbians that were randomly selected. This letter explained

the purposes and went on to a second set of 200 randomly selected names

for districts, which were… Not enough responses were received to

represent the districts. So they made sure that we had a representative

sample.

The pool of names provided the basis for invitations to one of 27

selection meetings held at various locations around the province. They

really went the extra mile to make this a broad consultation, a broad

group of people, a broad group of citizens that would have input in the

process, and not only the process, but making sure that the different PR

options that they examined and made recommendations on at the end, which

they did — we all know they made a recommendation for one — would be

complete. People of British Columbia would have a complete idea of what

they were voting on, whether it was first-past-the-post, with all its

benefits and drawbacks, or a particular proportional representation

option, with all its benefits and drawbacks. That, again, is not what we

have here.

After they put together the group, they went through phase 2, a

learning phase, and the members of the citizens’ assembly presented a

wide variety of backgrounds. They reflected the diversity of the

province, and they went through six weekend sessions, held between

January 11 and March 26 of 2004. The sessions were conducted at Simon

Fraser University, and they had a lot of experts helping them through

those sessions. But at the end of the day, it wasn’t the experts that

made the decisions. It was the citizens’ assembly.

Assembly members also learned how to work together. They developed

a set of shared values. It culminated in the preliminary statement to

the people of British Columbia, outlining: respect; challenge ideas, not

people; listen to understand; commitment to the process; focus on the

mandate; make sure it’s simple, clear and concise in communication; have

a positive attitude and, above all, integrity. Don’t promise something

you don’t deliver on.

They went through a public hearings phase, and 50 public hearings

were organized throughout the province during the months of May and

June, 2004 — 50 public hearings, all around the province. In the course

of the public hearings, approximately 3,000 British Columbians attended

presentations given by 383 people. This is the way it should happen, not

in the back rooms between the Greens and the NDP.

Other significant opportunities for public participation were

through written submissions. Over 1,400 individuals with 1,600

submissions were made. Research staff looked through the submissions. At

the conclusion of the public hearings, the assembly met in Prince George

to review what they had heard and read.

Then we have stage 4 — the deliberation phase. The deliberation

phase brought the assembly’s work to a conclusion. During the phase,

they met at the Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue in Vancouver. I’m

sure many people are familiar with that. It’s quite an amazing place.

Together, they framed their discussions within a well-defined set of

democratic values.

The members then moved from discussion of fundamental principles

to the examination of what a new system would look like, and they

selected the single transferable vote as the way forward, as the option

for British Columbians to review.

So what happened? Well, BCSTV was proposed as the voting system by

the citizens’ assembly on electoral reform, in October 2004, for use by

British Columbians, and belongs to the single transferable vote family

of voting systems. The BCSTV was supported by a majority — 57.7 percent

of voters — in a referendum held in 2005, along with the general

election. But the government had legislated that it would not be bound

by any vote less than 60 percent in favour.

[3:45 p.m.]

Because of the strong support for BCSTV, the government of the day

elected to stage a second referendum in 2009. This one had increased

public funding for information campaigns to better inform the electorate

about the differences between the existing and proposed system. The

leadership of both the yes and no sides were assigned by the government.

The proposal was then rejected by 60.9 percent voting against it — more

than had voted for it the first time — versus 39.1 in favour in the 2009

vote, again, as part of a general election.

I think being part of a general election is key, because that

encourages voter participation. It not only encourages people to come

out and vote for their MLAs, but it also encourages people to research

the topic, understand what the choices are and then make an informed

decision when they go cast their ballot. Again, we don’t have that now

with the mail-in ballot. A lot of people are looking at the information

and are asking us: “What does it all mean?” Some of us can answer

that.

A previous referendum suggested that BCSTV was not an option in

this referendum. It’s not an option in this referendum because of the

three samples that the cabinet has come up with. Two, of course, we’ve

heard many times, over and over again, have not been used anywhere else.

The one is really devoid of a lot of clarity.

For example, the mixed-member proportional — the one that’s most

likely supportable, from my understanding, in the polls of the three PR

systems — is missing a lot of details. For example, riding sizes for the

55 new ridings — what are they going to be? What are the boundaries

going to be? We have no idea.

No maps were produced. Fortunately, in the last referendum, people

had maps. They had a clear idea of what the boundaries were. The 87

constituency MLAs apparently will be reduced to around 55. Constituency

MLAs have a non-partisan role in their communities and a political one

in Victoria, but which MLAs would get ditched in the process?

I know some people have asked me, because I run under the B.C.

Liberal Party banner in Kelowna–Lake Country, if I represent everybody.

Of course I represent everybody. I represent whatever they voted for. Or

even if they didn’t vote for…. I have about 60,000 people in my riding.

When somebody calls me or contacts me or my office for help, no matter

which party they supported, no matter whether they voted or not, I’m

there to help them achieve their goals.

Whether it’s better health care, whether they’re having trouble

with ICBC or having trouble with MSP or WorkSafeBC, whether they want

new roads or a new school — it doesn’t matter. I’m here to advocate on

their behalf. I find it quite offensive that some people would say that

because I’m with the B.C. Liberal Party, I only support those people

that come supporting the B.C. Liberal Party. That’s totally untrue.

Actually, I would say everyone in this House, all MLAs in this House,

have the same attitude — that no matter who voted for them or even if

anybody didn’t vote at all, they still will go the tenth mile, the extra

mile, to make sure that that person, their constituent, is dealt with

appropriately by the government of the day.

Voters will have one vote for a candidate and party combined on

MMP. So is this two separate votes? We don’t know. Voters will be asked

to vote for a party list. Will it be a provincewide list created by the

party big shots, the leaders? Or will it be multiple lists? Will it be

open or closed? Will people actually be able to put down who they want

to be on the list, or will the list be proposed to them as a fait

accompli? We don’t know that.

How do you get a plum spot near the top of your party list? That’s

a million-dollar question, of course. I would imagine that the party

leader would be No. 1. So if the party leader is No. 1 on MMP and they

have more than 5 percent of the vote — which is another issue I want to

talk about — and they get one person or two people but they’ve done a

really lousy job in their last term in office, how do you get rid of

them? You can’t. They wouldn’t put themselves down at the bottom and

say: “Okay. You know what? I didn’t do a good job as an MLA. Therefore,

I’m going to put myself, as party leader, fourth or fifth down the list

and let other people who do better jobs representing their

constituencies go at the top of the list.”

That’s pure nonsense. It’s going to be impossible to get rid of

MLAs, the way this thing is designed — or not designed, actually,

because we don’t know what the answers are to these

questions.

[3:50 p.m.]

Quite frankly, it’s idiotic to go and ask voters in British

Columbia to vote on something when you haven’t given them all the

answers. I think it’s totally unfair and totally undemocratic to do

that. I hope that people realize that before they vote when they do

vote.

The other thing about the 5 percent…. “Oh, it’s limited to 5

percent. Don’t worry. It’ll be okay. Only the more reputable,

centre-leaning parties will be the ones that are elected because only

those will be able to get 5 percent around the province.” Well, we saw

how that worked right after the last election. The Green Party had three

members. It took four members to be an official party in this place.

What’s the first thing the Green Party demanded of the NDP so they would

support the NDP in government? “We need to reduce from four, for party

status, down to two, so we can have party status.” What happened? They

did exactly that.

So I can tell you exactly what’ll happen after this referendum is

passed, if it’s passed. The government will say to the parties that got

5.1 percent of the vote: “So 5.1 percent of the vote — you know what? If

we’re going to support you in government, we better reduce that, because

in the next election, you might only get 4.9 percent of the vote.” And

that’s exactly what will happen. They’ll negotiate that threshold down —

down to 4 percent, down to 3 percent, down to 2 percent — so that they

can get enough people to support them to form government.

I’m not saying it’s going to be them. I’m just saying it’ll be

whoever wants to form that coalition government. They will see that 5

percent gone faster than a chicken at my house. I tell you: it’s just

going to be bye-bye. We love chicken. If you bring chicken to the house

and mashed potatoes, it’s just an amazing thing to see how fast it

goes.

How will a small party’s MLA be assigned? Party list MLAs — what

will their job be exactly? Who will they represent? How much more will

all these extra party-list, non-constituency MLAs cost? These are all

questions that should be answered prior to the referendum being held,

like they were answered the last time we did this particular

exercise.

I can go on for hours. I’ll skip all this other stuff. I had some

great material on the other forms of PR and how they are trying to pull

the wool over the eyes of British Columbians as well. But let me finish

with this.

Over the last 20 years in municipal and provincial government —

I’ve done nine years in municipal and now finished nine and am in my

tenth year in provincial — I’ve knocked on tens of thousands of doors.

Working hard, I’ve tried to find out what my consumer wants, what my

constituencies want. Then I put together my platform for their

priorities.

I come here every time, and I put on my wall in my office a list

of my platform priorities that they told me they want me to fight for.

And I go and fight for those priorities. I keep them top of mind. Voters

then can hold me accountable. Then in the next election, if I don’t

deliver on their priorities, they are free to replace me with someone

who’s going to work harder for them, based on their constituency

needs.

How can you ever do that with PR? How can you ever tell someone

who is appointed by a party list: “Sorry, we don’t want you in the next

election, because you didn’t work hard enough on the local

constituency.” It’s not going to happen.

So I believe that if we want to have MLAs that are clearly elected

by the community, for their community and accountable to their

community, which is the great strength of our current system, we have to

continue with first-past-the-post. And if we are going to do PR and look

at PR in the future, we’ve got to do it honestly, which is not happening

now, and fairly, by making sure all aspects of the proposed system are

there for people to look at and choose from when they’re comparing the

status quo against the new proposal.

J. Tegart: I rise today to speak to Bill 40 and the great number of concerns

my constituents are raising regarding the Referendum on Electoral

Reform. I share their concerns and worry that the way this process has

unfolded will have numerous consequences for my constituents but also

for our democracy.

British Columbians are being asked again to consider a significant

change to the way their provincial representatives are elected. It’s a

serious matter — one that requires proper consultation and information

and an appropriate length of time to undertake those activities. The

process for a vote that could result in a fundamental change to our

democracy shouldn’t be rushed or plowed through, but sadly, that is

exactly what is happening.

[3:55 p.m.]

The process around this referendum has been flawed from the very

beginning. We saw the removal of the 60-percent-plus-one provincewide

approval threshold, not to mention the regional threshold that required

50 percent of all B.C. electoral districts to approve any change to our

system.

That move in particular is one that has really irked people in

rural communities, including my riding of Fraser-Nicola. That regional

threshold took into account B.C.’s unique geography and the voices and

perspectives of people living in rural and remote areas. Removing this

threshold gives more decision-making power to urban centres and

diminishes those rural voices.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Not only that, I would say that the dual threshold requirement was

important for another reason. It was stringent, and it was rigorous. It

recognized the importance of the issue at hand: the significant decision

British Columbians are considering and the impact that decision would

have on our province and on our democracy. But now it’s gone, and that’s

not the only concern that my people have had with the referendum

process.

The people of British Columbia were promised a simple yes-or-no

ballot question. Instead, they’re getting a multiquestion ballot that is

more complex and confusing than what they were told to expect. And

they’re getting that ballot by mail, which might result in a low voter

turnout.

I should mention that, also, there’s no minimum voter turnout

requirement, meaning an incredibly small group of people could be

responsible for drastically changing our electoral system. Meanwhile,

British Columbians were also told that an all-party committee of the

Legislature would iron out the referendum details, but we know that

hasn’t happened.

What we see is a pattern of promises made, promises broken, when

it comes to this referendum. One has to wonder why. It’s not like we

haven’t done this before. Electoral reform has been explored in the past

in British Columbia. But those previous exp