Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, October 16, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 158

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 44 — Budget Measures Implementation (Employer Health Tax) Act, 2018

Bill 45 — Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018

Hon. C. James

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

McMillan Arts Centre in Parksville

M. Stilwell

Library Month

A. Kang

Pat Wallace

P. Milobar

Sherman Jen Building at Royal Roads University

M. Dean

Gene Greczmiel

J. Yap

Alouette River Management Society

B. D’Eith

Oral Questions

Real estate speculation tax

A. Wilkinson

Hon. C. James

S. Bond

LNG Canada project investment

A. Weaver

Hon. M. Mungall

Government housing policy and rental housing supply

M. Stilwell

Hon. C. James

Hon. S. Robinson

P. Milobar

Impact of government housing policy on housing starts and supply

J. Johal

Hon. C. James

T. Stone

L. Throness

Hon. S. Robinson

Standing Order 35

Request to debate a matter of urgent public importance — response to climate change report

A. Weaver

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. Polak

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, Understanding Tax Expenditures , October

Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for B.C., annual report, 2017-18

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, annual report, 2017-18

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

D. Barnett

Hon. S. Robinson

R. Sultan

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2018

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the members’ gallery this morning is Minister Akio

Isomata, who is the deputy head of mission at the Embassy of Japan in

Ottawa. It’s a pleasure to welcome Minister Isomata to British Columbia. He

will be meeting with myself and a number of ministers throughout the day.

Would the House please make him feel welcome.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds to introduce a very famous police

officer.

R. Chouhan: It’s a very special introduction indeed.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce Staff Sgt. Major John Buis,

who has been a member of the RCMP for 42 years, with the majority of his

service in British Columbia. He has served at Burnaby detachment for 26-plus

years, having been posted there on three occasions. He first came to Burnaby

detachment on April 20, 1977, on his posting from Depot, and his latest

service at Burnaby detachment began on September 4, 2004, and I met him at

that time.

Staff Sergeant Major Buis has also served at White Rock detachment, E

division headquarters, Richmond detachment and Vancouver International

Airport. He also served on two United Nations peacekeeping missions — the

first in the former Yugoslavia in 1994, and in East Timor in 2003 and

’04.

Staff Sergeant Major Buis’s duties over the past 42 years have

included uniformed general duty, plainclothes general investigation,

administrative reviewer, analyst, police policy writer, emergency response

team member, technical troop member, federal police investigator,

plainclothes and general duty supervisor — phew, it’s a long list; oh my

goodness — media relations specialist, firearms and police and public safety

instructor, VIP security specialist, UN police monitor, watch commander,

district commander and is now the executive NCO to the police office in

charge of Burnaby detachment.

Apart from his excellent service over the years, what I like most

about John is his commitment to Burnaby, to keep it a very safe community,

and his legendary moustache.

John enjoys physical fitness activities, particularly running,

walking, swimming and cycling. He has been married to his wife, Kellie, a

school teacher, for 41 years. They have three grown children, one of whom is

a member of the RCMP, now serving in northern British Columbia. In the next

few weeks he will be retiring from his active duties in the RCMP.

On behalf of everyone in the House and particularly the citizens of

Burnaby, wishing you happy retirement, and thank you for all the work you

have done.

[10:10 a.m.]

L. Reid: I rise today to wish my husband the happiest of birthdays. We also

celebrated our anniversary this month, and I tell you we’ve been married

more than 20 years. He continues to tell everyone it’s only ten years, since

I’m away half the time.

Happy birthday, my love.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 44 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION (EMPLOYER

HEALTH TAX) ACT, 2018

Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Budget Measures Implementation

(Employer Health Tax) Act, 2018.

Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce the Budget Measures Implementation

(Employer Health Tax) Act, 2018. This bill enacts the employer health

tax, as was announced in Budget 2018.

B.C. is the only province in Canada with medical service premiums

that have been rising, costing families hundreds of thousands of dollars

a year. As we announced in the February budget, we believe it’s time for

a different approach. So we are delivering on our commitment to the

people of B.C. and giving them the break they need.

We’re moving forward with eliminating costly medical service

premiums and introducing the employer health tax. Together, these

measures will reduce taxes by approximately $800 million per year, one

of the largest tax cuts for people in this province’s history. By 2020,

individuals will save $900 a year and families up to $1,800 a year. The

employer health tax will generate revenue to partially replace medical

services premium revenues to support the crucial health services that

people rely on.

This bill enacts an annual tax, just as other provinces have done,

effective for 2019 and subsequent calendar years, based on an employer’s

B.C. remuneration. We’re also protecting small businesses that are the

cornerstone of our communities and sustainable economy.

Employers with B.C. payrolls under $500,000 will not be required

to pay this tax. Employers with B.C. payrolls between $500,000 and $1.5

million will have their rate phased in. Employers with B.C. payrolls

greater than $1.5 million will pay the 1.95 percent of their total B.C.

remuneration. With this tax, B.C. will be tied with Ontario for the

lowest payroll tax in the country.

This bill also recognizes the unique role of charities and

not-for-profits. Similar to other provinces, charities and

not-for-profits with multiple locations will be eligible for an

exemption at each location. Charities and not-for-profit organizations

also will benefit from a higher exemption amount. This bill also

establishes how the tax will be administered and enforced.

The administration of MSP was inefficient and costly, and the

transition to the employer health tax will save more than $50 million.

Today I’m proud to say that this legislation sets the stage for January

1, 2020, when medical service premiums will be eliminated in this

province.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 44, Budget Measures Implementation (Employer Health Tax) Act,

2018, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

BILL 45 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION (SPECULATION

AND

VACANCY TAX) ACT, 2018

Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Budget Measures Implementation

(Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018.

Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

This bill enacts the speculation and vacancy tax, as was first

announced in Budget 2018. This tax is a critical component of the

government’s 30-point housing plan to improve housing affordability in

this province.

Our province is facing a housing crisis that’s hurting people,

communities and our economy. Prices have skyrocketed out of reach of

local incomes as outside money has flooded into our major cities. We

have a crisis, where hard-working British Columbians are being shut out

of the housing market.

[10:15 a.m.]

We’ve seen examples of families being forced to live in tents,

workers and seniors living in their cars and young professionals leaving

this province. As a result, businesses can’t find the workers they need

to keep our economy growing.

As a government, we have a responsibility to act, to make sure

that people can afford a home in the communities where they live and

work. The speculation and vacancy tax is a critical piece if we want to

moderate our overheated housing market. The tax creates a strong

incentive for out-of-province real estate speculators and people who are

sitting on empty second and third homes to make them available for rent

or put them on the market.

The tax will, in turn, turn underutilized homes into homes for

renters who are struggling with near-zero vacancy rates. The tax also

will provide revenues to fund affordable housing initiatives in the

areas most affected by the housing crisis.

This bill implements an annual tax, effective 2018 and subsequent

calendar years, in the province’s core urban centres, where housing

affordability is most acute. The tax is calculated at the rate of 0.5

percent, 1 percent or 2 percent of the assessed value of the property,

with the highest rate applied to foreign owners and satellite families

to ensure that they are paying their fair share of taxes.

This bill provides principal residence and rental exemptions and

also special circumstance exemptions, including exemptions for people

seeking medical treatment, people with disabilities and property that is

being developed.

Mr. Speaker, we’re tackling the housing crisis head-on, and the

speculation and vacancy tax is an essential piece in this

plan.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 45, Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax)

Act, 2018, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

M c MILLAN ARTS CENTRE IN

PARKSVILLE

M. Stilwell: Arts and culture help make communities vibrant. In my constituency

of Parksville-Qualicum, we’re lucky to have a wide range of talented

artists, venues and events to showcase them. This summer I had a chance

to explore Parksville’s McMillan Arts Centre, a wonderful space that

offers the chance to see, celebrate and experience the arts. My visit

took me on a tour of Monet Revisited, an exhibit by renowned local glass

artist Robert Held. It certainly did not disappoint.

In 2013, Robert Held closed the doors of his Vancouver studio and

moved to Parksville, intending to retire, but it wasn’t long before he

reopened Robert Held Art Glass. The work of this longtime glass blower

is featured in galleries and gift shops all over North America, Europe

and Japan, and a commissioned piece now sits in Her Majesty’s Royal

Collection.

With his exhibit, Robert wanted to create an experience. The

result was an homage to Impressionist painter Claude Monet. It was

revealed this summer with Lieutenant-Governor of B.C. Janet Austin in

attendance. Beautiful glass art rested on pedestals. A pond and a

bridge, reminiscent of Monet’s garden, sat in the middle of the room,

and the windows were covered with paintings that kept people submerged

in the artist’s world. It was an engaging and unique

experience.

Thank you to Robert Held and all the other artists who have helped

arts and culture flourish in the community. Thank you to Jennifer Bate,

the executive director of the McMillan Arts Centre, for the tour of a

terrific venue that puts arts in the community in the

spotlight.

I invite residents and tourists all around to explore all the

wonderful opportunities to see the arts in my constituency, whether it’s

at the Village Theatre or the Old School House Arts Centre in Qualicum,

the McMillan Arts Centre or maybe a studio tour in Nanoose Bay. Let’s

show our support and enjoyment for these talented artists that are

making our communities beautiful, engaging and fun places to live, work

and play.

LIBRARY MONTH

A. Kang: As a proud school teacher and a former library trustee, I’m proud

to recognize October as Library Month in the province of B.C.

Public libraries are an integral part of our government’s vision

for a province that works for everyone. They contribute to the

government’s goals for making life more affordable, improving services

and building a strong, sustainable and innovative economy.

[10:20 a.m.]

Across the 247 public library service points serving B.C.,

libraries are making a difference to social and economic development and

individual well-being through poverty reduction, rural development, and

truth and reconciliation, which all play a vital role in helping our

citizens.

Our public libraries are free, accessible and unique community

spaces where people can explore ideas, create, make friends and gain new

skills. Libraries work with communities outside the library walls, too.

This summer I got to see something really cool: the Burnaby pedal

library, which is a book bike that takes library services out into the

community. Library Month also includes the opportunity to promote

reading, school libraries and librarians.

I would like to use this very special opportunity to recognize

three of my many favourite librarians. Thank you to Edel Toner-Rogala

for inspiring me to love libraries beyond its books and walls. Edel’s

parents instilled in her the notion that she could do anything if she

could read, and Edel eventually became chief librarian in two different

communities. Thanks to Diana Zimmerschied, for showing me that every

book has its own unique flavour and personality, and to Beth Davies,

Burnaby’s chief librarian, for her dedication and passion to leadership

and to deliver people-centred library services.

Libraries are more than just books; public libraries are about

people. Libraries remain relevant because hard-working staff and

trustees are keenly aware of the community’s needs and strive to serve

them.

Happy Library Month, everyone.

PAT WALLACE

P. Milobar: Today in the ridings of Kamloops–North Thompson and Kamloops–South

Thompson, a special person will be attending her last city council

meeting as an elected official. For 31 years, Pat Wallace has served as

a city councillor in Kamloops. Pat’s contributions to Kamloops and the

surrounding area are immeasurable. She has not only been a city

councillor. She was the first female chair of the Thompson-Nicola

regional district.

In addition to her elected roles, Pat was also a president of UBCM

and for six years was the vice-chair of the green municipal fund of the

FCM. She was a provincial returning officer for four elections, and

chair of the library board. She was on the Royal Inland Hospital board

for 12 years and the Kamloops AIDS Society board for three years. She’s

a recipient of the Queen’s Silver Jubilee Medal and was the Kamloops

United Way fundraising chair. There’s too much more to keep

listing.

Pat has always been known to speak her mind. Unwavering in her

convictions, you always knew where you stood. As witnessed by the long

list of associations she worked with, Pat is always looking for ways to

improve people’s lives. I was fortunate to know Pat as a family friend,

and when I sought elected office, Pat was generous with her time, giving

me advice and background on issues important to Kamloops. Her ability to

recall the history of issues and projects would provide much-needed

depth and context in many council debates.

If you were not sure what the proper protocol was for a visiting

dignitary or city event, Pat was always the go-to person to make sure

that things were done properly. From visiting royalty to a neighbourhood

association meeting, you checked with Pat. In true proper protocol

fashion, on election night in 2002, when we realized that we’d both been

elected, Pat looked me straight in the eyes and said: “We’re colleagues

now. Stop calling me Mrs. Wallace. It’s Pat from now on.”

There is no doubt that Kamloops is the community that it is today

in large part due to the contributions of Pat Wallace. I am honoured and

proud to not only have worked with Pat but to stand here today and call

her a friend.

I’ll end today with a piece of advice Pat shared with me years

ago. I always remember it, and I think it would serve all members of

this House well some days. Early in my career, Pat once again looked at

me and said: “Just remember, Peter, all fish die by the

mouth.”

Thank you for this time today.

SHERMAN JEN BUILDING

AT ROYAL ROADS

UNIVERSITY

M. Dean: Early last month I was honoured to join the Minister of Advanced

Education at the official opening of the new Sherman Jen Building on the

Royal Roads campus in Colwood.

It’s a remarkable facility. This near-$25-million project included

major renovations and upgrades to the heritage Mews Building. The

province contributed $9.3 million, the federal government contributed

$5.7 million, and philanthropist Sherman Jen donated more than $7

million.

More than half of the new Sherman Jen Building is renovated space,

and there’s a 2,000-square-metre addition. There are environmental

science teaching labs, wet labs, and academic support and integrated

student service space. This modern facility will help students and

researchers discover new ways to protect our environment and cement

long-lasting international partnerships.

Royal Roads University is truly a unique place to study. Students

come here from all around the world. Many are mid-career and want to

tackle problems they’ve seen firsthand in their lives. They want to take

what they learn here at Royal Roads and apply it to real-world

sustainability problems.

[10:25 a.m.]

In the next ten years, there’ll be more than 900,000 job openings

around B.C., including more than 150,000 jobs in the Vancouver Island

and coast region. Most of these jobs will need post-secondary education.

Our workforce will need people that are passionate and informed about

the environment and can find new innovative ways to be

sustainable.

These new modern facilities will equip students with the education

they need to thrive in B.C.’s growing economy. I’m here today to say

congratulations to Royal Roads University president Allan Cahoon and his

amazing team that have brought this vision to reality.

GENE GRECZMIEL

J. Yap: About two months ago, Richmond lost a true pillar of the

community, Gene Greczmiel. Gene was well known for his business smarts,

moving from a stint as a dairy farmer to a career in home-building and

land development.

He formed E.H. Greczmiel Construction and Conway Richmond Estates,

which became Conway Richmond in 1983. Some of his notable developments

in the city of Richmond include Maple Lane, Westwind, and Terra Nova. He

also developed and owned commercial real estate properties, including

Blundell Centre, the highly popular neighbourhood shopping mall in west

Richmond. Gene Greczmiel, born and raised in Richmond, was truly a local

success story.

In addition to achieving big dreams, he also had a big and

generous heart. He supported numerous organizations, big and small, in

our community and beyond. Gene assisted the Richmond Hospital

Foundation, the Richmond Food Bank and the Richmond working poor fund as

well as organizations like B.C. Children’s Hospital and Covenant House

in Vancouver.

On behalf of all members of this House, I offer our condolences to

his family — Barbara, mother of his two daughters, Michele and Lisa; his

seven grandchildren; and three great-grandchildren.

In business, Gene Greczmiel will be remembered for his keen eye

for cutting-edge home design and style, his ability to ask the right

questions and his desire to learn from everyone and everything around

him. In life, Gene will be remembered as a generous, caring contributor

to our community — and, as his family adds, an incredible teacher and

storyteller.

Rest well, Gene Greczmiel, and thank you for your service, your

achievements in and your kindness to Richmond. You will be

missed.

ALOUETTE RIVER MANAGEMENT SOCIETY

B. D’Eith: The Alouette River Management Society, or ARMS, was formed in

1993. At the time, its focus was to negotiate with B.C. Hydro to

increase the river flow on the Alouette from the Alouette dam and to

revive the river’s ecosystem. In only three years they achieved their

goal with the river flow, increasing it by fivefold.

Just three short years later, in 1999, ARMS completed the

beautiful Rivers Heritage Centre, which is located in my riding of Maple

Ridge–Mission. It plays host to many events, including the annual Ridge

Meadows Rivers Day education seminars. It sits right above the Allco

Hatchery operated by B.C. Corrections. This hatchery is a wonderful

opportunity for female prison inmates from the Fraser Regional

Correction Centre to be involved in a very positive

experience.

Since its inception, ARMS has become involved in nearly all

aspects of watershed stewardship, including education, inventory and

monitoring, habitat restoration and lobbying for protection of aquatic

habitat. Currently ARMS is working on the restoration and return of

native fish to Alouette Lake.

This year ARMS celebrated its 25th anniversary. Last month they

held a celebration on Rivers Day, which no amount of rain could keep

people away from. I was happy to meet many of the longtime advocates and

supporters of ARMS. There was a small ceremony where founders Jeff

Clayton, Gord Robson and Tom Cadieux, along with local community

partners, were recognized for their work along the Alouette rivershed.

There was also recognition for B.C. Corrections and the Allco Hatchery

for their amazing work on the river.

I want to congratulate and thank ARMS — the staff, the board and

the numerous dedicated volunteers. I’ve witnessed, both as a citizen of

Maple Ridge and as an MLA, ARMS’ dedication to their goals and vision to

protect and enhance the Alouette watershed not just for our community

today but for generations to come.

[10:30 a.m.]

Oral Questions

REAL ESTATE SPECULATION TAX

A. Wilkinson: Today we saw the introduction of the new NDP phony speculation

tax, which has nothing to do with speculation. It’s a misconceived

policy that’s already causing damage to local economies.

Four days ago the mayor of Langford wrote a letter to the Premier:

“The tax is already impacting our economy with cancelled real estate

investments, deferred construction and delayed purchases. One Langford

developer has recently laid off 30 employees as a direct result of the

speculation tax.” The upshot is reduced housing construction, layoffs,

unemployment — all because of the NDP’s speculation tax.

Will the Finance Minister read the letter from Mayor Young in

Langford, listen to the mayors of British Columbia and repeal this tax

before it comes into effect?

Hon. C. James: I suppose I should not be surprised, once again, to hear from the

other side a complete lack of interest in dealing with the crisis we

have in housing in British Columbia. I would suggest the Leader of the

Opposition take a look at the UBC report that came out last week that,

in fact, interviewed and talked to people who are, including the family,

living in a tent because of the lack of affordable housing. No vacancies

available for tenants, no houses available for people to

address.

We are addressing it. Is it going to be easy? No. Are we going to

fix the mess that you left overnight? No. But we’re going to get

started, because people deserve that in British Columbia.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: This is the height of NDP arrogance and hypocrisy. “Let’s put

people out of work. Let’s reduce the housing supply.”

Interjections.

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

you.

A. Wilkinson: “Let’s reduce the supply of housing. Let’s put people out of work.

Let’s go against the will of all of the mayors in British Columbia” —

all because of an ideological commitment to penalize people who want

retirement homes. It has nothing to do with speculation. These empty

statements from the Finance Minister about people living in tents have

nothing to do with this tax.

Will the Finance Minister please reply to the mayor of Langford?

He said: “Importantly, the proposed speculation tax does nothing to

increase the supply of housing or grow the economy. In fact, it actually

undermines Langford’s approach.” Will the Finance Minister come to her

senses and at least have the courtesy to reply to these

mayors?

Hon. C. James: Who did nothing? The other side did nothing for housing here in

British Columbia.

I spent time at the Union of B.C. Municipalities, listened to the

debate on the floor, and have met with the mayors in the communities. It

is our responsibility as government to address the biggest crisis facing

the public in this province.

If you talk to people across this province, they will tell you

that housing affordability is at a crisis, and a government should react

to the issues that are facing people in our province. Unlike the other

side, we are going to do that. We are going to make sure that we address

this crisis for the people of British Columbia.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: The Finance Minister seems to forget that during the Liberal

tenure, close to one million people moved to British Columbia and found

housing because we provided an environment where people could build

houses and be successful. Now we have a Finance Minister who says she’s

going to solve the housing problem by destroying value, unemploying

builders, antagonizing mayors and creating no housing whatsoever for the

sake of a revenue grab.

[10:35 a.m.]

Will the Finance Minister please have the courtesy to reply to the

mayor of Kelowna when he says that this proposed tax will not have the

desired outcome and will have negative effects in our communities? When

is the Finance Minister going to come to her senses and give up the

premise that this has anything to do with speculation?

Hon. C. James: Central 1 Credit Union: “B.C. Housing starts rose for a second

straight month in August,” up 8 percent from July’s number and 28

percent up over the year before. The B.C. government is making record

investments in affordable housing — $7 billion over ten years to build

114,000 affordable units of housing. And Kelowna. The member mentioned

Kelowna. Luke Turri, VP of development at Mission Group in Kelowna says

the speculation tax hasn’t had a negative impact on their 25-storey

Brooklyn tower project in Kelowna.

We are supporting a strong economy. We are supporting businesses

who can’t find employees because they can’t afford housing. We are

addressing the crisis for the families in British Columbia. That is our

job as government, and we are going to get it done.

S. Bond: Mayor Stew Young writes: “Parksville, Qualicum, the Gulf Islands

and Juan de Fuca were in, but now they’re out. Whistler and Squamish,

despite their high housing prices, have never been in. Communities like

Langford, Nanaimo and West Kelowna have their concerns go on deaf ears.

And during all this time, the province has not actually facilitated

meaningful dialogue with any of the communities affected.” Not our words

but the words of elected leaders across British Columbia.

Can the minister explain to Mayor Young, other elected officials

and this House how she forgot to meaningfully consult with them and why

she simply refuses to listen to communities who don’t want her

tax?

Hon. C. James: In fact, I have not only talked; I have met with almost all of the

mayors in the impacted areas. Almost all who were available and wanted

to meet have had the opportunity to meet. I have had the chance to be

able to listen at UBCM to the debate on the floor. But when the province

is facing a crisis, when the people of British Columbia are facing a

crisis, when our economy is facing a crisis because of the lack of

affordable housing, it is the responsibility of the provincial

government to act.

When we take a look at the urban settings that are part of the

speculation tax, we see the crisis that’s there. Kelowna has a 0.2

vacancy rate. Nanaimo’s vacancy rate is 1.6 percent. Langford has a

vacancy rate of zero percent for homes with three bedrooms or more, for

families. Rents climb by 5 percent when it comes to cost.

We are going to address this issue. I will continue to work with

the mayors. I will continue to listen to them. But it is the

responsibility of government to address the biggest crisis facing the

people in British Columbia, and that is the issue of unaffordable

housing.

Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.

S. Bond: Not our words. The words of elected officials. “The province has

not actually facilitated meaningful dialogue.” Words matter.

On February 23, the Premier said — perhaps those words matter to

the Finance Minister: “If you pay tax in B.C., you are not speculating

from outside of B.C.” A pretty straightforward principle that the

majority of British Columbians would agree with. But this minister

brought in a half-baked speculation tax that has no relationship

whatever to speculation in our real estate market. In fact, despite the

words of the Premier, the vast majority of those forced to pay the

speculation tax — surprise! — are British Columbians.

When will this minister heed the words that the Premier said to

British Columbians and end the unfair tax on British Columbians who are

simply not speculators?

[10:40 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I just tabled the bill, so I know the member and other members

will have the opportunity to go through the bill, see the specifics, be

able to see the opportunity for people to be able to get the tax credit.

I think that it’s important to note, again, that British Columbians have

been clear. They want action. Over 70 percent of British Columbians

support the speculation tax and the direction we’re taking to address

affordable housing, because they know how tough it is for British

Columbians.

The B.C. Real Estate Association reports that the average MLS

price has eased by 1.1 percent from last year, and Sotheby’s says the

speculation tax is already lowering the price of housing, including

condos.

We’re focused on affordable housing. The other side may want to

stand up for foreign speculation, for two or three or four extra houses

left sitting vacant. We are going to make sure that we’re addressing

affordable housing for the people of this province.

LNG CANADA PROJECT INVESTMENT

A. Weaver: Two weeks ago the province issued a press release heralding a $40

billion investment by LNG Canada. However, the government’s release

provided no clarity about whether this investment was for the full

plant, the full buildout, or just phase 1, consisting of two trains. In

contrast, LNG Canada’s release on the same day clarified that the final

investment decision was only for two trains but made no claim whatsoever

about the size of the investment that’s represented.

To the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, can the

minister please clarify, for the record, whether the investment that

government was celebrating in its press release constituted two or four

trains, and if it is only for two, whether a separate FID process would

play out for additional trains at a later date?

Hon. M. Mungall: I was very proud to be in attendance at the announcement two weeks

ago. I think this historic event of a $40 billion investment in British

Columbia and Canada is actually a very non-partisan event.

I was happy to see members from the other side who were also

there, because British Columbians — whether in my riding or in that of

the member from Aldergrove–Fort Langley, the member for

Parksville-Qualicum or the member for Peace River North — are all going

to be able to benefit from this, because $23 billion of revenue is going

to be coming back to British Columbia to fund child care, to fund

education, to fund post-secondary education and to be able to fund our

climate goals.

Now, I know members of the B.C. Liberal Party have

mischaracterized our position for many, many years. That was to their

benefit to do so. It was to their benefit to do so, but let’s put

partisan politics aside, if they can.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Mungall: I know that’s hard for them, but if they could, we could

acknowledge that that $40 billion investment, that historic investment

for this country, for this province, is an FID — to answer the member’s

question — for the entire project. That project, like I said, is going

to be beneficial to British Columbians — 10,000 jobs during the

construction phase, 950 jobs in northern British Columbia. First Nations

are benefiting; local communities are benefiting. That is good for

B.C.

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

A. Weaver: Well, thank you, Minister. That was a very simple question, and I

can take it, from that answer, that the minister actually doesn’t know,

which is quite shocking.

I’d like to dig a little deeper into the $40 billion investment

rhetoric. The federal environmental assessment application shows low and

high estimates of $25 billion and $40 billion for the project. However,

according to this application, these estimates are for both phases of

the LNG project for Kitimat. That’s four trains, not two

trains.

When we turn to the provincial government’s own environmental

assessment report, we find that the investment for phase 1 — that’s the

two trains — is projected to be $13 billion to $21 billion, or half the

number that the government highlighted in its press release.

[10:45 a.m.]

Furthermore, it gets worse. In the assessment report of the B.C.

government, it points out that for phase 1 costs, only about 20 percent

of that will actually be spent in B.C. That would bring the number down

to $2½ billion to $4.1 billion, a far cry from the $40 billion touted in

the media.

To the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, how do

we reconcile the headlines in the government’s own press release with

the environmental assessment reports that underpin the project, given

that the minister has, I think, sort of clarified that the $40 billion

is for four trains as opposed to two? It has to be, based on her own

documents. Finally, after years of listening to the B.C. NDP criticize

the B.C. Liberals for using over-the-top exaggerations and hyperbolic

language when referring to LNG, does the minister not see the hypocrisy

unfolding before us?

Hon. M. Mungall: As I said, this was a historic day two weeks ago. People all over

British Columbia were celebrating it, particularly people in the north.

The mayor of Kitimat, who is ecstatic to see the potential of 950

permanent jobs in his community, was there. The chief councillor for the

Haisla Nation, Crystal Smith, was there. She saw how important this is

for her community, as does the member from Kitimat.

He knows very well how important this is. He has spent many, many

years working on this project and knows exactly the benefits that are

going to be going to his community as well as throughout British

Columbia, particularly in the north. This government was proud to be

there two weeks ago and to be working with LNG Canada to get that

FID.

GOVERNMENT HOUSING POLICY

AND RENTAL HOUSING

SUPPLY

M. Stilwell: In response to the Minister of Finance’s failing housing policies,

the CEO of Redbrick Properties announced last month: “We have now halted

plans for hundreds of new purpose-built rental units.”

To the Minister of Housing, why are her policies killing rental

units?

Hon. C. James: Again, I would suggest that the members take a look at the

speculation tax and take a look at the bill. They will see that rental

housing is exempt from the speculation tax. In fact, we are putting a

major investment towards rental housing, towards building housing in

British Columbia. Unlike the other side, we feel it’s important to focus

on all British Columbians, not just the ones at the top that the other

side has worked for.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.

M. Stilwell: Back in March, the minister was all smiles for a photo with Aly

and Abdul Jiwan from Redbrick Properties when there was a groundbreaking

for rental developments in Coquitlam, but what a difference six months

makes. To quote Abdul Jiwan: “What a disaster. Developers who have been

trying to make new rental housing work just can’t do it now.”

How many units of rental housing does this minister intend to

kill?

Hon. S. Robinson: We are in a crisis. It seems that the people on the other side

haven’t realized that yet. We’ve had 1½ million renters who have been

squeezed and squeezed because the old government refused to actually

address what was going on for renters in this province.

We took action. We made sure that we had an annual allowance cap

that was reasonable, that met the opportunities for landlords to invest

in their properties if they need to. We’ve capped it at 2 percent for

this upcoming, just at CPI. We’ve eliminated the 2 percent plus CPI. We

felt that that was inappropriate. It was squeezing and squeezing

renters.

So 34 percent has been the increase in rents over nine years

because the old government refused to listen to renters. We listened to

renters, and we’ve listened to landlords. We made sure of that. We have

more recommendations coming from the Rental Housing Task Force. Together

we can address this housing affordability crisis.

[10:50 a.m.]

P. Milobar: Six months ago the minister posed with Jiwan and said that this

company was a great example of market-based solutions to make housing

more affordable. But in direct response to the minister’s policies,

Jiwan now says: “We have now halted plans for hundreds of new

purpose-built rental units. Government opposition to purpose-built

rental business is stifling much-needed rental housing

supply.”

Why is the minister stifling the very rental developments that she

is claiming to be advocating for?

Hon. S. Robinson: You know, I’ve spent the last year in this file, talking with many

developers and many landlords and trying to identify what were some of

the barriers. The two biggest barriers for them were land costs — that

was a significant challenge — and the development approval

process.

We took some significant steps, some bold steps. We brought in

rental-only zoning that would help manage some of those costs, and we’ve

committed, at the UBCM, to take a look at the development approval

process, to overhaul a process that is decades old so that we can make

it more streamlined and make it work better for everybody — ideally, for

the people of British Columbia so that they can find the housing that

they desperately need.

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

supplemental.

P. Milobar: Let’s try this again. The Jiwans aren’t alone. Albert Huang is a

non-market housing developer from Terra Housing, who is active with

Abundant Housing in Vancouver. He says that the minister’s policies

place redevelopment pressure on the older rental stock that is generally

affordable. In other words, the minister’s policies will turn existing

affordable rentals into high-end condos.

Will the minister explain why her policies are removing affordable

rental units instead of creating affordable rental units?

Hon. S. Robinson: Perhaps the members on the other side don’t understand what it

means to take bold steps in order to address the housing

crisis.

This rental-only zoning — we have two local governments who have

already expressed significant interest in that — is making sure that

rental-only zoning means that you can build only rental. Remember, we

have a million and a half renters in this province, and we need to make

sure that there’s opportunity for purpose-built rental.

The other thing that I think is really, really critical…. Again

and again, we heard from the other side complaints, when they were on

this side of the House — all the complaints that they had for local

government, the complaints about how long it was taking to get projects

moved through the system.

Well, I listened. I was listening to the members opposite, when

they were on this side, what they were saying, so we’re taking the

steps. They could do all the complaining that they wanted when they were

here, but they did nothing.

We are taking significant steps to address the development

approval process so that it is a shorter amount of time, so that it’s

more affordable for the developers to deliver on affordable housing for

British Columbians.

IMPACT OF GOVERNMENT HOUSING POLICY

ON HOUSING STARTS

AND SUPPLY

J. Johal: A report by UBC and the Union Gospel Mission confirms this

government’s housing taxes aren’t addressing affordability. Housing

affordability is getting worse while NDP taxes drive investment away

from new construction.

A question to the Minister of Housing: why are housing starts

down?

Hon. C. James: Well, it’s pretty clear the other side just can’t make up their

mind about anything.

We are standing up for affordable housing. We are making sure that

those who are speculating in the market are being addressed and are

going to have to contribute to be able to provide housing for

individuals in our province who are struggling.

That’s the challenge we face when it comes to the economy. It’s

the biggest challenge that came forward from business. The other side

can ignore that all they want, but in fact, if you talk to the Vancouver

Board of Trade, the chambers of commerce — over and over again, the

issue of affordable housing is in a crisis. We are going to address it,

and this is one more measure to do that.

Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.

[10:55 a.m.]

J. Johal: Housing starts have dropped 43 percent, September to September,

according to CMHC. Housing market activity is falling while the NDP pile

on dubious taxes and affordability continues to get worse. UBC and the

Union Gospel Mission report that affordability continues to worsen under

this minister.

Will she reverse course before more housing units are

lost?

Hon. C. James: Well, unfortunately, after 16 years of neglect by the other side,

it’s going to take some time to try and address it.

We continue to see housing starts at record levels. There is no

question in British Columbia that we have to address the housing crisis.

We have a 30-point plan, a comprehensive plan to try and address it, and

with the mess that they’ve left us, yes, it will take some time. Yes, it

will be difficult. But does that mean we shouldn’t get started? No. We

are acting now.

T. Stone: The fact of the matter is this: every single initiative of this

government has contributed to a significant decrease in housing supply

in this province. This government is killing housing construction.

They’re driving investment out of British Columbia. Every single measure

is reducing supply. Not only have housing starts plunged 43 percent year

over year, but housing construction is also predicted to drop a further

20 percent next year.

My question is this. Can the minister explain how a further 20

percent drop in housing starts will address housing

affordability?

Hon. C. James: I would say to the member that if he talked to construction firms,

they would say, as they have to us on this side of the House, that one

of the biggest challenges they face are workers — getting workers to be

able to live in the community that they’re going to work in, because

they can’t afford housing. That’s part of the challenge.

The member talks about the economy. Well, let’s look at some

statistics for the economy. Retail sales up 3.6 percent. Exports up 6.9

percent. Manufacturing shipments up 9.5 percent. Growing a strong

economy needs to make sure that housing is there. That’s what we’re

doing through our 30-point plan, and we are going to continue to address

this issue.

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental.

T. Stone: This government is not addressing housing affordability. They’re

actually making it worse. Lots of good-paying jobs for British

Columbians are now in jeopardy because of this government’s actions,

which have only served to dramatically reduce housing starts. According

to the Canadian Home Builders Association: “Contracts continue to be

cancelled across the province, and each contract makes a difference for

local businesses and their workers.”

Again to the minister, how does driving away housing construction,

resulting in less housing supply, do anything to address housing

affordability in British Columbia?

Hon. C. James: The B.C. Real Estate Association: the average MLS price has eased

by 1.1 percent from last year. Sotheby’s says the speculation tax is

lowering the price of housing, including condos. We are making, as a

government, record investments in affordable housing — $7 billion over

ten years to build 114,000 affordable homes in this province. That’s an

investment that British Columbians can be proud of.

L. Throness: Well, the government is still enjoying the benefits of a strong

B.C. Liberal economy, but there are ominous signs ahead. Residential

sales are down 40 percent in Vancouver. In Chilliwack, they’re down 53

percent. There’s a domino effect in the housing market, and that means

eventual layoffs for workers. This last week I heard about a drywaller

in Chilliwack who has no work. Other tradespeople can’t be far

behind.

Can the Minister of Housing explain how a projected 20 percent

decline in housing starts in 2019 will help maintain the jobs tied to

new construction projects?

[11:00 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to remind the members opposite that when the housing

crisis was starting to be felt by British Columbians — and let’s be

really clear, many British Columbians have been feeling it for a very,

very long time — their response was that people should just stop

whining. That was their response.

Our government has taken significant steps to address the housing

affordability crisis. I’m proud of every single one in our 30-point

plan. We should be very proud of the work that we’ve done, and I’m not

going to take any instructions from the people on the other side of the

House on how to address this problem.

[End of question period.]

Standing Order 35

REQUEST TO DEBATE A MATTER OF

URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE REPORT

A. Weaver: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 35 to make the following motion.

By leave, I move that this House do now adjourn to discuss a matter of

urgent public importance — namely, that in light of the recent IPCC

special report on global warming and in light of the federal emergency

debate on this subject which occurred yesterday, whether we as

legislators are acting with sufficient urgency and demonstrating the

appropriate leadership on preparing for and mitigating the escalating

impacts of climate change on our province.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand the member’s issue and the concern about wanting an

emergency debate under Standing Order 35. Standing Order 35 is

traditionally — and the practice is in this House — to be used for

issues of great importance that don’t have an opportunity for canvassing

or debate. I know the general issue of climate change has been one that

has been raised many, many times in this House during question

period.

However, I am also aware that the report yesterday did receive an

emergency debate, that the federal government did agree to do that. I am

open to us having an emergency debate, but I would ask the Chair that it

would be appropriate for the Government House Leader to meet with the

Third Party House Leader and to discuss with the Official Opposition

House Leader as to what the appropriate time for such a debate to take

place would be.

As you know, that would be an hour-long debate that would take

place in this chamber, and of course, there would be no vote.

M. Polak: Certainly, the opposition side stands interested in seeing the

arguments being made and considering what relevance they may have to our

current sitting.

I will say, though, that I really was astonished to find that

something like this hadn’t been dealt with at the appropriate level —

you would think at the secretariat. I am sure members will agree that we

are currently debating some rather important matters. But I will say

that if the coalition partners can’t find their way to agreement, we’re

certainly willing to step in and assist.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Members. I will reserve my decision subsequent to

hearing the deliberations from your meetings regarding specific timing

for this debate.

Hon. C. Trevena: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Trevena: Mr. Speaker, a group of students from North Island College, which has

campuses both in Campbell River as well as Courtenay, was in the gallery

until just a moment ago. They listened to the whole of question period,

which is rare for students, so I hope they’re engaged. I understand they’re

going to be visiting your office in a short while. I hope that you will make

sure that these students from the two campuses will be really well engaged

and have a good tour. I hope the House will make them very

welcome.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the following reports

intituled Understanding Tax Expenditures from the Office of the

Auditor General, Annual Report 2017-18 from the Office of the

Registrar of Lobbyists for British Columbia and Annual Report

2017-2018 from the Office of the Information and Privacy

Commissioner for British Columbia.

[11:05 a.m.]

Orders of the Day

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

Referendum 2018 Amendment Act, 2018.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 40 — ELECTORAL REFORM

REFERENDUM

2018 AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

D. Barnett: Bill 40. This is a referendum that is very concerning to me, to

many of my colleagues and to many of my constituents. Let’s go back to

the referendum that is going to be voted on by the people of British

Columbia in the not-too-distant future. Citizens of British Columbia are

totally confused — a great job by the opposition on confusing the voters

of this province.

I have many people in my constituency who continuously — doesn’t

matter whether I’m at the gas station, in the Superstore, wherever I am

— say to me: “What is this about?” It is as clear as mud. What is the

question, really, and what is the answer?

The government of the day is saying: “Trust me. Just vote the way

I want, and I’ll tell you what’s going to happen later.” And then they

turn around and say: “Well, if you don’t really like it, in four or

eight or 12 years from now, we’ll give you another referendum. You can

think about what kind of a mess we made before, and maybe we’ll convert

it back again.” The NDP and the Green partners are essentially asking

British Columbians to buy now and see a return on your investment later.

Except in this case, there is no buyer’s remorse. This referendum is

legally binding.

With 29 different factors that won’t be considered until after the

referendum, how are voters expected to make an educated choice when they

aren’t being offered any of the relevant information? First of all, how

many MLAs? Is that a difficult question?

The size of ridings. Is that a difficult question? What

constitutes a rural riding or an urban riding? Is that

difficult?

Whether we use a closed or open list or even whether we use a list

at all. Will your MLA be appointed? Will your MLA be elected? Why do we

not have clean, concise, clear answers?

Let’s go back in history. We had a lot of history last night by a

lot of good speakers proud of the democratic system in Canada and in

British Columbia. Why do you want to change that system? And it is quite

clear why: because those in power want to make sure they stay in power.

They’ve come to the conclusion that power is more important than

people.

[11:10 a.m.]

I’ve been in my riding for over 50 years, and I’ve had the

privilege of serving in public office for almost 30 years, 17 as a mayor

of a local community. I’ve sat on regional districts, hospital

districts, social development programs…. I worked with constituents for

all these times, and to me, people are the most important of my

constituency.

The opposition over there says that this mean group on this side

of the table does not listen and does not care. Well, believe you me, I

have never heard anything said in a worse way than what the opposition

is saying today about this side of the House.

I’ve been through some devastating times the last couple of years.

I had the privilege last week — it was just amazing — to go to the

Chilcotin where we celebrated a brand-new house that was burnt during

the fire. The people had no insurance — no fault of theirs. If you live

in rural British Columbia, your insurance may be $12,000 or $14,000 a

year, if you can get it. They didn’t have any.

But with the help of their neighbours, myself and my colleagues

here looking for funds — which we found, not from government — and the

great people of the Mennonite relief association, we celebrated a

beautiful, beautiful day in a brand-new house. That is what caring and

sharing…. That is about what a constituency is about: working together,

knowing who needs help, knowing when they need help and being there for

them.

Now, they want — because I don’t really know the answers, as none

of us do — maybe, if this referendum goes through, the original

referendum, to appoint an MLA from who knows where to care about these

people in the Chilcotin. And wouldn’t they just know what the issues

are? No.

This is one of the most important times in British Columbia, and

our system is great. Our system of democracy has worked

forever.

You talk about history and the people before us who went to the

First World War, the Second World War and built this country, what it is

today, and built it because we have a system that works.

But our colleagues across the floor want to change it. Change it

to what? We’ve had two referendums. Yesterday I heard from some of my

opposition colleagues that this side of the floor said: “Well, maybe

we’ll have a third referendum.” There’s nothing wrong with having a

third referendum, but let’s make it clear. Let’s make it so that there

are thresholds, not where 5 percent of the population of this province

can determine the future of the people of the province of British

Columbia. That is not democracy.

Let’s have a threshold, like we had in the last two referendums.

Let’s take a look. Let’s be honest with ourselves. Is this fair? Is it?

No, it is not fair.

You know, the government had many different options to choose

from. What did they do? Did they have a citizens’ assembly go out and

talk to people? No. “We’ll go on line. We’ve had 90,000 hits on line;

90,000 people telling us how they’d like this done and how they’d like

that done.”

That is not democracy. Talking to people, going around the

province, talking to people one-on-one — that is what needs to be

done.

Many people who go on line — great. What are the results? What

were the questions they put in? Have we seen any of that? If we have,

I’ve missed it.

They can laugh over there all they want. It is not a laughing

matter. This is about the future of British Columbia. This is about the

next generation and the next generation. This is about leaving a legacy

to our future generations. This is about respecting the people of

British Columbia. This is about caring how this province was

built.

[11:15 a.m.]

Let’s not forget the past, and let’s look forward to a future that

is bright, that is with hope — not with fear, as this is. Come on out

and talk to the people in rural British Columbia and answer their

questions.

You can sit over there and laugh and smile and think this is just

another one of those things. “Oh, we’re going to have what we want. We

don’t really care what you people think across the aisle. We don’t care

what your constituents think. We’re just going to do this because we

have a coalition. We have the power.”

That is not what British Columbians are asking for. That is not

what people in rural British Columbia are asking for. What does the word

“proportional” really mean to the people across there? That hasn’t been

explained yet either. Does it mean people or geography? I don’t think

they know either.

Maybe they should come and take a drive around some of our rural

ridings. Maybe there isn’t that many people, but every one of those

people deserves to be heard. Every one of those people needs a fair vote

and a fair choice. With what has been put on the table here, that is not

fairness. It is not equal, and it is not democracy.

This is a significant change if it is approved for the people of

this province. And to put a second referendum on the table before the

first referendum has been passed sure shows how much confidence they’ve

got that what they’re putting out in the first place is going to be a

real good and democratic process.

I cannot support Bill 40. I hope that most of the people in this

House that have an opportunity to rethink the future of the next

generation and the next generation will think hard and strong before

they make any more decisions.

This is not something about power and control, folks. This is

about the future — the future of this size. This is about caring about

what democracy is about. This is about the whole province of British

Columbia, each and every single constituent. I say think, and think

hard. Think about equality and fairness. Think about what the future of

this province will look like if we are unfortunate enough to have this

new PR system in place.

I have a letter here from a constituent that is going in my local

newspaper. I will not mention his name. You can look in my local

newspaper and read it. He’s a dual citizen of Canada and New Zealand. In

New Zealand, they have a PR system.

He says: “In the last New Zealand election by a caucus vote, the

Labour Party ejected its leader and appointed Jacinda Ardern. As a

result, Jacinda negotiated with NZ First Winston Peters to form a

majority coalition. Deputy Prime Minister was the deciding favour to

Winston.”

So for six weeks, while Jacinda was on maternity leave, the

country was run by an appointed leader of a five-seat party, all in the

name of power. An unelected, appointed person became the Deputy Premier,

and while the Premier was away, took over and made decisions for the

people of New Zealand. That is democracy in their minds. That is not

democracy.

[11:20 a.m.]

When I go to the poll to vote…. Fortunately, in this country, we

do have that privilege. Many countries don’t have the same freedom and

rights that we have. I never miss a vote, and I never intend to as long

as I can. But I know who I am voting for, and I know why I am

voting.

Under some of these proposed systems, you can go and vote for a

party, but you don’t have a clue who you’re voting for. Many people vote

for a person nowadays, not a party.

Why would good people put their names forward? Because at the end

of the day, under some of these PR systems, you wouldn’t be elected

anyway. You’d just be out there trying to work hard for your

communities, put your name forward. But at the end of the day, some

party that’s got all these votes because of a great population in

another part of the province may become the government, and they will

appoint your MLA.

I encourage each and every one of us in this House to look at our

conscience, to look at what is being proposed. Let us remember the word

“democracy” in every sense. Let us remember our path. Let us remember

our future generations, and let us give them the same opportunities of

freedom of speech and freedom of choice that we had during our time

here.

Hon. S. Robinson: To be clear, I move the second reading of Bill 40. That’s what’s

being discussed here on the floor this morning.

I had the opportunity to hear the members opposite speak about

some values, values that I believe members in this House do share. But I

find it very fascinating when I think about the values of fairness and

equality, about what that means and what that means to British

Columbians.

When I think about how we vote currently under our

first-past-the-post system…. It’s one of those exercises where you go

and you vote, but you can have a situation that we’re seeing over and

over playing out — whether it’s in the United States in a president or

whether you have the current party in, for example, Ontario, or even the

previous government — where they get lower than 50 percent of the

support of the residents of the defined area, and they get 100 percent

of the power.

So when I think about fair, about what fair looks like, the

question becomes: is that fair? Is it fair that 36 or 37 percent of the

population can put their voice forward and have 100 percent of the power

from the people that they voted for? What happens to everybody else, the

other 60-some-odd percent? Their voice is not represented in a

meaningful way.

You could argue that: “Well, that’s what you sit on the other side

for, and that’s what their job is.” But those ideas don’t get filtered

in, because of this oppositional system that we have in a

first-past-the-post model.

When you take a look around the world, there are dozens and dozens

of countries that have found a better system, a system where every vote

counts. So you can be in a riding and support a different party.

Especially in a riding…. I think about where there’s a safe-seat riding,

and there are people who say: “Well, I don’t agree with the person who

keeps getting elected and elected and elected and elected. I have a

different voice. I want a different representation.” But they don’t get

it. It doesn’t happen. It just doesn’t happen.

When I think about fairness and equality, it’s that that I think

of. Because I believe, fundamentally, that everyone, every British

Columbian, deserves to have their voice heard. They absolutely deserve

that. Under the current system, that cannot happen. So really, this is

about going back to this idea of fairness and equality. It’s also about,

I think, respecting all the voices.

[11:25 a.m.]

Now, when I think about how that plays out and what that looks

like once you have a PR system, I think about the work that I did on

Coquitlam council. It’s a slightly different model, but I think about

the collaboration that happened among nine different voices. Because,

you see, in order to get anything to pass, you only needed to have five.

If you take a look at the voting records, there was sort of a

mix-and-match that would often happen. Because in order to get to five,

we had to work together. We had to find the common themes, the common

threads.

I think that there are people in this House who’ve done that.

They’ve worked in local government, and we’ve had to work together to

find the best ideas and move them forward for our

constituents.

That’s what a PR system allows us to do. Rather than being

beholden to a certain sort of framework, it allows us to find ways to

get the people that we represent, if you’re not in the majority, like we

have in the current system…. You can find ways to get good ideas

forward, move forward, so that really, at the end of the day, it’s about

the people of British Columbia benefiting from better

democracy.

It’s not about no democracy. The previous speaker was talking

about people who fought for democracy. Of course, they fought for

democracy, because democracy is fabulous. But there are different ways

to deliver democracy, and proportional representation is yet another way

to deliver democracy. It’s better democracy, because that’s what British

Columbians deserve. They deserve the best democracy.

They deserve us to be working together, on our best behaviour,

with our best ideas, so that British Columbians can have the best of 87

voices. But the current first-past-the-post system doesn’t foster

that.

But a proportional representation system will force all of us to

pay closer attention to our relationships as people, to the ideas that

matter, to the people that we represent and to make sure that we’re

delivering good governance. I think it’s absolutely

important.

The other thing, I think, that’s really important to point out —

and I know that everybody in this House is concerned about it — is that

voter turnout is a challenge. Voter turnout is frightening, because

we’re having 40 or 50 percent of the population determining who’s

representing them, who’s making significant decisions on their behalf.

Then, when you take a look, if you break the numbers down more and if

only 37 or 38 percent of those with support form a majority government

in first-past-the-post, it’s actually not a lot of people who are behind

the democracy that we hold so precious.

I think one of the reasons that people are not voting, choosing to

stay at home or not engaged, is because they don’t feel like their voice

matters. They just don’t feel like their vote will count, especially in

ridings that are considered safe seats — and I air quote safe — because

one could argue that there is no such thing. But we have seen in this

House where year after year, it’s the same party that gets elected

because it’s a safe seat.

But what about those other people in those communities that have a

different perspective? Where are their voices in this chamber? I’ve

heard some of the arguments that, well, it’s our job as MLAs to

represent everybody. I’d like to believe that we all do that. We make

sure that they get the same service. Do they get the same

policies?

Because that’s what our job is. I campaign on a particular set of

policies that sits with my values in terms of who I am as a person and

how I believe we need to move forward as a British Columbian. The people

opposite have a different perspective. But there are people who support

other parties in this House — the Third Party as well. Where are their

voices in this?

Right now, I’m very proud of the fact that we’re working very

closely with the Third Party members. We have lots of opportunities.

They have opportunities to provide some good ideas, and we get to work

together. I think that really demonstrates what we all want at the end

of the day. We want a functioning government that brings forward the

best.

I think that when people see us, the 87 of us working together,

they will have more confidence in voting. They will feel that their

voices matter and their voices can make a difference.

[11:30 a.m.]

Let’s take a look at Ontario, for just an example, where Doug Ford

ran a divisive Trump-style campaign. He won 40 percent of the votes and

now has 100 percent of the power. I talk to friends and family in

Ontario who are devastated about what’s happening there. They’re

horrified. But hey, that’s first-past-the-post. That is how that system

works. He doesn’t have to work with anyone, and his decisions are

hurting so many people in that province.

In election after election, we are seeing this across the

province. We’ve seen this in Ontario, and we’ve certainly seen this in

the United States.

What’s really interesting, as well, about this particular bill

that we’re debating…. I was listening to the member opposite from

Chilcotin a little while ago, and I don’t know if she understands what’s

in this bill.

I think it’s really important to recognize that this bill that

we’re debating right now is actually not about the vote for PR or not or

staying with first-past-the-post. It’s actually a completely different

bill that says that after two elections, there’s the opportunity to have

another referendum: do we keep a new system, or do we go back to

first-past-the-post?

Now, I heard the words “buyer’s remorse,” and I thought: “Well,

that’s an interesting choice of words.” But it does provide a sense of:

this is new for us. New things are hard, absolutely. Change is hard.

Sometimes it can be scary, because you don’t always know exactly how

it’s going to play out. But you know what? Doing the same thing over and

over again and expecting a different result is the definition of

insanity.

To say that what we have is working when we all know it’s not

working is a bit of what I would call crazy-making. It’s time for a

change. It is absolutely time for a change. It’s time to have a

different system of voting so that people can have their voices heard,

regardless of where they live.

I heard the member opposite talking about rural British Columbia,

and she kept insisting that somehow it all has to be different — that

people in rural British Columbia are very, very different from the

people in the southern part of the province. People are people, and

people want to have their voices heard, whether they live in cities or

towns or villages or whether they live in the bush or in highrise

towers. People want to have their voices heard, and they want their vote

to count.

Here we have a bill before us that says that we’re going to try

proportional representation for two election cycles so that we can have

a sense of what it means to have a government that works better, that

works collaboratively, that takes the best ideas from everybody in this

House. I bet there are fabulous ideas around this chamber, and when we

have a proportional representation system, we’ll be able to make sure

that those voices are at the table to help make the decisions that

British Columbians count on us to make. They count on us to do

that.

With the passage of Bill 40, what it says to British Columbians is

that we’ll have the opportunity to try a new system — a system that

works better for British Columbians. It works better, I think, for

government. It works better for having the policies that make life and

provide opportunities for British Columbians that they need. And after

two cycles, if the system is not working, if it’s not what British

Columbians had wanted, then we can go back to

first-past-the-post.

Now, again, I’m thinking of what the previous speaker had said

about democracy and about the fact that 90,000 people made a point of

reaching out, of going to their computers, of logging in and of sharing

their desires to change the system of voting in our province. I think

that takes some considerable effort. Hearing from 90,000 people — it’s a

significant number. I think that the fact that they’ve made sure that

their voices were heard on this tells us that they are looking for

change, that they are looking to have a voice — a voice that

matters.

[11:35 a.m.]

I think, in going forward, proportional representation will

strengthen the voices of people from every region of the province,

because every vote will count, and MLAs won’t be able to ignore voters

anymore. If you’re in a safe seat, you don’t have to go out on the

doorstep. You don’t have to pay attention to all the diversity of voices

in your community. It will force parties to work together. Imagine that.

Working together — it’s what British Columbians want. It’s what they

expect. It also forces all of us to be more accountable.

We’ve heard from members on the other side that they’re not

interested in supporting this bill so far. I hope that we’re able to

change their minds, although I suspect that’s rather unlikely. But they

have a lot at stake, because this system has worked very well for them

for a very long time, where they can make a point of having less than 50

percent of the support, the popular vote, but have 100 percent of the

power. That’s been a model that’s worked well for them.

When the previous member was talking about how this is about

power, I’d actually argue with her that the no side…. No to proportional

representation is about hanging on to power, doing their best to hang on

to power, because that’s what’s important to those folks on the other

side.

It’s really important that we make sure that British Columbians

have a government that they have confidence in and a government that

will work together to deliver for British Columbians, a diverse British

Columbia, and a diverse British Columbia needs to have a diversity of

voices. Proportional representation is the model that will deliver just

that.

Supporting Bill 40 makes a point of saying we’re going to try this

system because it’s an opportunity to deliver the kind of democracy that

people really want and that people really deserve. If it is unworkable

after two elections, if we can’t figure out how to make that work for

people — at the end of the day, it really is about them — then we have

the opportunity to have another referendum to go back to

first-past-the-post.

I suspect that with a proportional representation kind of

democracy…. I think people will be happier. They’ll vote more, and

they’ll feel like they have a government that speaks for them with a

better voice.

R. Sultan: I would like to thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

Housing for a thoughtful, temperate, well-argued case. But my remarks

are going to plumb the opposite end of the scale from members on the

opposite side of this aisle.

I’m not sure if I’m up to the task of wading knee-deep through the

tide of unctuous sludge left behind on the floor of these chambers last

night by that academic who, yesterday evening, delivered a torrent of

insults, abuse, directed at me and my colleagues in a manner which was

angry, calculated to offend and invariably disconnected from history,

facts or an understanding of the democratic process.

Some of the words which come to mind would include: belching,

blathering, buffoonery, and bullying, bilious, belligerent, bombastic

and another popular expression which begins with B, which I’m not

allowed to say in these chambers.

If you can think of any other unflattering words beginning with

“b,” I would welcome your contribution. However, enough of the flattery.

I wish to speak in more detail about Bill 40, the Electoral Reform

Referendum 2018 Amendment Act.

[11:40 a.m.]

It is sort of a built-in recall act for those desperate British

Columbians — who, in future times, may have, as the minister just

pointed out, to use the expression “buyers’ remorse” — after they

accepted the results of the first referendum. British Columbians in

every corner of this province are scratching their heads in confusion as

they try to decide what this second referendum is all about when they

really don’t have any real understanding of the first

referendum.

I quote the member for Surrey–White Rock, who said: “Try using the

algorithm from dual-member proportion, calculating the seats based on

the largest remainder method and a Hare quota…. If you figure it out,

let me know.” The member for Surrey–White Rock was the CEO of a rather

large credit union. If she can’t figure out the arithmetic which

underlines the voting schemes, I’m not sure we can expect many others to

figure it out either.

I must confess that as someone with a PhD in mathematical

economics from Harvard, I have rarely seen equations of such opacity and

complexity. I defy anyone on the benches opposite to stand up and

explain to this House the Droop formula. I’ll be glad to sit down and

give them the floor right now. I see no one over there rising to the

occasion to take advantage of my offer. Small wonder.

NDP wise man Bill Tieleman was on the radio the other day — CKNW,

I believe — with Irene Lanzinger, who heads the B.C. Federation of

Labour, debating proportional representation. Bill told Irene: “Well,

Irene, we still have half an hour left on this radio show. So could you

please explain the three referendum options to the audience?” Irene

declined the offer.

It’s not simply the bewildering complexity of the voting method.

There is the blatant unfairness of how we are asked to approve it. I

find it hard to imagine hurdles set so low in the referendum process,

which is culminating a few days from now. Short deadlines. Not much

information. No money. Trolls working overtime.

Then we should consider the idiocy of this bill itself that we are

debating, passing legislation promising a second referendum to be

carried out if the first referendum passes, if there isn’t an election

between now and 2021.

The whole concept around No. 2 bill is, in my mind, out of order.

It will not bind anyone. All of us gathered here should know by now the

fundamentals of this place. We cannot limit the powers of those who come

after us. We cannot outlaw our successors from passing or repealing any

legislation they see fit. But that is exactly the promise of this

bill.

I call it silly, shameful, amateurish, wishful thinking, a

meaningless election gimmick. Why don’t we, as an alternative, pass a

bill right now with a great big tax cut for 2050? Now, that would be, I

think, politically popular and would have about the same meaning as Bill

40 that we are debating today.

The philosophy behind this legislation imagines that somehow, in

two or possibly three elections from now or maybe even four, the

government of the day, elected under proportional representation, would

be bound to hold a referendum on a possible return to

first-past-the-post. I say two or three elections hence, because as we

are well aware, any snap election held before the fall of 2021 would be

held under the current election system.

[11:45 a.m.]

If British Columbians take what has already been called a leap of

faith by the Premier — what I would characterize as a plunge into the

darkness — and vote to change our voting system to PR, selecting one of

the three options — two of which seem to have been dreamed up some

afternoon in some cabinet member’s office, I suppose, since they’ve

never been used anywhere else in the world before — this bill presents

them with an even larger leap of faith because what they are voting on

is undefined. It’s simply another slogan, like the first slogan we are

asked to approve in referendum. The details will all be worked out later

by the NDP-Green alliance after the slogan is approved. Just like the

first.

We are asked to deal with a bill today that has no substance,

bereft of any connection to future reality. Imagine for a second that

British Columbians have just concluded a second election based on one of

the PR systems, going to mail-in vote in a few days. There’ll be a new

government after that second PR election. It’ll be made up of some

amalgam of parties. Some of the parties will be new, I’m sure. Some may

be represented in this House.

Others may be fringe parties, representing what one journalist

called the fractured Bavarian election just concluding two days ago,

shards of opinions. Shards. Shattered glass. Shards on the ground. Some

of these shards will be populated by MLAs chosen not by the voters but

by the power brokers and the party insiders who draw up party lists.

They could even, theoretically, I suppose, all come from Victoria, even

though they might be asked to nominally represent people from the rural

areas.

The government they form will be based on a backroom deal hammered

out in coalition bargaining after the people of the province have voted,

perhaps more than 600 days, close to two years, after the election

itself, if what happened recently in Northern Ireland is any case

example.

We can rest assured that the deal that is delivered in this

hypothetical future will not be based upon delivery of promises made in

election platforms. Rather, the new coalition will be stitched together

for the sole purposes of building a coalition which can secure power,

pulling pieces of platforms from here and there or dreaming up new

arrangements on the fly after the election.

Principles proclaimed during the election will be set aside.

Cabinet seats will be offered, I’m sure. It will be necessary to swallow

hard and accept some of the ideas of the fringe within the coalition,

however unpalatable some of those ideas may be.

For example, the leader of the anti-immigrant New Zealand First

party…. New Zealand has, in recent times, been held up as this paragon

of virtue, an ideal democracy. Somebody paid the lady to come up here

and extol the virtues of proportional representation as she has

personally experienced it. The leader of this anti-immigrant New Zealand

First party failed to win his own seat in parliament, couldn’t even

personally get elected. Well, we have to be a bit careful with that

example because we’ve seen that experience ourselves. I see the

Solicitor General smiling grimly at me.

In this case, the New Zealand First party won only 7 percent of

the vote, but he was able to leverage. This has got to go down in

history as one of the great political manoeuvring accomplishments of all

time. From that unelected 7 percent base, they leveraged it into

something like 20 percent of the cabinet members. He became Deputy Prime

Minister, and when the Prime Minister went on maternity leave, for a

period of time he in fact became de facto the Prime Minister of the

country. Not bad. Unelected 7 percent vaulting into total management of

the whole country. But this is proportional representation. Everything’s

fair and square. We’ve been told so endlessly by the folks on the other

side.

[11:50 a.m.]

Back to my hypothetical future. It’s a safe bet many of the people

making up that new government are unlikely to have gotten there through

first-past-the-post, and they might owe their seat to the Droop formula.

“We must rally around and defend the Droop,” would be the orders of the

day.

I’m almost finished with my remarks, House Leader.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This bill asks us to believe in some future time in a galaxy far

and far away, a patchwork coalition government, born of the backroom

deals and the Droop formula, will somehow gather and say: “You know

what? Almost a decade ago the government of that day made a promise, and

we are now going to keep it. We will not change one word of that

original law. By golly, a promise made” — by some other government years

ago, by strangers belonging to parties we can’t totally recall — “is a

promise kept.”

How real is that picture? Well, I wouldn’t bet on it, folks. We

will be reminding that this bill promising British Columbians of some

future hypothetical era a revote on the issues of today is, frankly,

ridiculous, deceitful and antidemocratic. I certainly shall not support

it.

R. Sultan moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2018: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada