Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, May 31, 2018

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 147

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Community law clinic at Thompson Rivers

University

T. Stone

Eileen Dailly Pool

J. Routledge

Response to flooding in Boundary-Similkameen

area

L. Larson

Indigenous education and accomplishments of

students

B. D’Eith

Collaboration by MLAs

A. Weaver

West End community

S. Chandra Herbert

Oral Questions

Referendum on electoral reform

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

M. Polak

Hon. D. Eby

Support for workers with job-related mental health

issues

A. Weaver

Hon. H. Bains

Executive assistants in constituency offices

R. Coleman

Hon. J. Horgan

J. Johal

P. Milobar

Youth overdose deaths and Safe Care Act

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. J. Darcy

Tabling Documents

Gaming policy and enforcement branch, annual report 2017-18

Petitions

Hon. D. Eby

Tabling Documents

WorkSafeBC, 2017 annual report and 2018-2020 service plan

Petitions

Hon. H. Bains

Hon. K. Conroy

S. Furstenau

A. Olsen

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

Referendum on electoral reform

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

S. Furstenau

S. Bond

Hon. R. Fleming

M. Lee

M. Polak

THURSDAY, MAY 31, 2018

The House met at 10:01 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

N. Letnick: As frequently happens in this wonderful place, we have a group of school

students from afar that have come to visit and witness what’s probably going to be

a historic day in our Legislature history. They lucked into that. So did we, I

guess.

Could the members of all parties please welcome the students from Aberdeen

Hall. We have 37 visitors — 33 grade 6 students and four adults. I would just like

to make them feel really welcome. I don’t see them there, but they must be up

there.

L. Reid: I have two lovely guests to welcome to the House today: Mr. Robert Boyd of

Orcas Island, Washington state, and, certainly, Marc Gage of journalistic fame.

I’d ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. C. Trevena: Yesterday I let the House know that I’m sadly going to lose two of my

administrative staff, who have made sure that I have been in the right place at

the right time, who have supported me — making sure I have all the right

information to be in the right place at the right time — and who have given great

support to me and my colleagues.

I know that the former Minister of Transportation will recognize and be

very sad to hear that Jacqueline Chapotelle, who was his administrative assistant

as well, will be leaving the ministry later this summer. She is going to study

nursing in Victoria, and I wish her well. I think she’s going to make a great

nurse. My administrative coordinator, who joined us last fall, is moving on to

self-employment and new challenges there, and he’s very excited for those new

challenges.

I hope the House will thank them on my behalf — I thank them every day —

but also make them feel very welcome in this, their last opportunity to be in

question period.

S. Bond: It’s a great pleasure today to welcome special guests to British Columbia,

a visiting delegation from the National Assembly of the Parliament of the

Cooperative Republic of Guyana.

[10:05 a.m.]

In 2017, our Legislative Assembly signed a partnership agreement to

facilitate and enhance parliamentary and professional development between the

National Assembly of the Parliament of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana and our

assembly.

Earlier this morning I, along with other members of the Public Accounts

Committee, had the honour of meeting with the delegation. Today I’m very pleased

to share the introductions with the Deputy Chair.

I would like to welcome His Excellency, Dr. Barton Scotland, Speaker of the

National Assembly; the Hon. Winston Felix, MP and Minister of Citizenship; Mr.

Clement Rohee, MP; Mr. Sherlock Isaacs, the Clerk of the National Assembly,

Secretary-General; and Ms. Jocette Bacchus, Clerk of Committees and personal

assistant to the Speaker of the National Assembly.

Would the House please join me in making these guests most

welcome.

M. Dean: It is my pleasure to add to the welcome from the member for Prince

George–Valemount in welcoming these special guests to British Columbia into our

House from the visiting delegation of the National Assembly of the Parliament of

the Cooperative Government of Guyana.

I’m very pleased to also introduce our esteemed colleagues Ms. Keshanna

Murledhar, Assistant Clerk of Committees, liaison officer; Ms. Carleen Langford,

foreign policy and diplomacy officer at the Canadian high commission to Guyana;

Mr. Leslie James, assistant commissioner of police, Guyana police force; and Mr.

Ashley Hinds, IT project officer.

Accompanying the delegation are staff from the Parliament of Canada,

including Ms. Nancy Anctil, protocol officer from the Parliament of Canada, and

Ms. Caroline Massicotte, parliamentary exchanges officer.

Would the House join me in making these special guests very

welcome.

Hon. S. Fraser: On this last day of our school, I’ve got a class coming in from John Howitt

School from Port Alberni with 47 students, two teachers and chaperones. They’ll be

visiting in the precinct today to join us on our last day of school. Please join

me in making them feel very, very welcome.

L. Krog: I’d ask the House to assist me in welcoming an old friend of mine, a

leading criminal counsel from Nanaimo, Jim Wright, who is with us this

morning.

A. Olsen: Today we have in our audience Kait Burgan, community relations director for

SeaLegacy. She works directly with SeaLegacy founders, conservation photographer

Cristina Mittermeier, National Geographic photographer Paul Nicklen and

other organizations such as Wild First and Pacific Wild. Kait is here to see the

petition urging the end of fish farms tabled in the House today. Please make Kait

very welcome.

Hon. S. Simpson: I just want to acknowledge in the gallery today some officials from my

ministry side who have just been incredibly helpful to me in my time in this

ministry. I’m very grateful for their efforts: Adriana Torres-Bonnet, Karen

MacMillan, Stacey McGaghey Jones, Elaine Galbraith, Lisa Cottier and Greg Visco.

Please thank them for the work they do for everybody in British Columbia through

this ministry.

T. Stone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome Louise Denis, who is here

in the gallery. Louise served the former government very, very well in terms of

putting on events. As a former minister, when I would find out that Louise was the

person in charge of the event in question, I always knew that it was going to be

done really well. The details would be taken care of. She’s also a person of great

humour and a warm, infectious personality.

I am wondering if the House could join me in saying: “It’s great to see

you, Louise. Thank you for your service to British Columbia.”

[10:10 a.m.]

S. Furstenau: I’m absolutely delighted to introduce a group of grade 8 students here

today.

Simon Minkow got in touch with me a couple of weeks ago because he had been

putting a petition together to lower the voting age to 16 in B.C. I went to his

school last week and met a number of students. Several of them are here today:

Simon Minkow, Liam Kletky, Lexy Lazenby, Lucy Tweet, Mona Johnson and Nolan

Thomas; and from their Quamichan school, the principal, Nicole Boucher; and

Simon’s parents, David Minkow and Cara Pike. Please make them all feel

welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

COMMUNITY LAW CLINIC AT

THOMPSON RIVERS

UNIVERSITY

T. Stone: Chances are that some of the members of this House at one point or

another in our lives have required some sort of legal counsel. Some of us have

been legal counsel. A few members in this House have even been given the

prestigious title of Queen’s Counsel. However, for many British Columbians,

legal counsel is not something that is easily or affordably accessible. That’s

why I’m so proud to highlight a tremendous legal initiative that’s happening up

in Kamloops.

The TRU Community Legal Clinic, or CLC, as it’s known, is based out of

Thompson Rivers University and is designed to help those who fall through the

cracks in the legal system and to assist in the skills development of budding

lawyers-to-be. The CLC recently announced that they will be opening a new space

and expanding their hours in downtown Kamloops to better serve more

constituents.

TRU faculty of law students work at this clinic and provide a variety of

services under the direction of staff lawyers. This program enables these

future lawyers to put what they have learned into practice, all the while

helping those who face challenges accessing affordable legal counsel in a

timely fashion.

The clinic particularly serves those out of work, seniors, students and

minimum-wage earners with a variety of issues that often involve cases and

processes that are convoluted and complex, including but not limited to

residential tenancy and housing, employment standards, small claims, civil

resolution tribunal claims, human rights claims, wills, powers of attorney and

representation agreements.

In 2017, the CLC supported almost 200 files over three semesters. This

year they ambitiously aim to handle 350 files. That’s 350 people and families

that this progressive initiative will help. We are so fortunate to have engaged

community groups like the TRU Community Legal Clinic stepping up to help those

who need the help the most.

EILEEN DAILLY POOL

J. Routledge: This year Eileen Dailly turns 25 — the swimming pool, that is. It’s a

Burnaby jewel. Located beside Confederation Park, it’s part of a recreation hub

that includes the McGill Library, a seniors centre and a youth clubhouse. One

of the features that makes Eileen Dailly pool so unique is the two-storey-high

window wall which brings in an abundance of natural light and lets us look out

over the North Shore Mountains while we swim, soak in the hot tub or chat with

our neighbours while our kids are taking swimming lessons.

This pool is an important gathering place. From early morning aquafit to

friendships forged among regular attendees in the gym or while easing aching

joints in the whirlpool and catching up on local news, Eileen Dailly not only

keeps our bodies strong; it keeps our hearts and minds nourished.

A couple weeks ago I was visited here in the Legislature by two grade 5

classes. I asked them if they’d ever gone swimming at Eileen Dailly. Almost

every hand went up. I asked them if they knew who Eileen Dailly was. Almost

every hand went down. So I told them about her.

Eileen Dailly was an educator and a political figure. She was a school

trustee and chaired the Burnaby school board. She went on to represent Burnaby

North in the Legislature for 20 years, and she was a New Democrat. During the

Dave Barrett government, Dailly served as Deputy Premier and Minister of

Education. Eileen Dailly is perhaps best known for banning the strap in schools

— that was the piece of information that most impressed those grade 5s — but

let’s not forget that she also introduced mandatory kindergarten and created

the first First Nations school board in the province.

Celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Eileen Dailly Pool is a fitting

way to remember this remarkable woman in whose honour it’s named. As the

current MLA for Burnaby North, I strive to live up to her memory.

[10:15 a.m.]

RESPONSE TO FLOODING IN

BOUNDARY-SIMILKAMEEN

AREA

L. Larson: Water has not been the friend of the Boundary-Similkameen over the last

eight weeks or so. The impact of floods has affected almost everyone in my

riding. The entire riding has been under a declared state of emergency, which

includes evacuation alerts and evacuation orders. Through it all, and as it

continues, very capable people with EMBC and the regional district of

Okanagan-Similkameen and the regional district of Kootenay-Boundary have worked

around the clock to respond to the immediate needs of those

impacted.

Help always comes from volunteers first, but the RDOS EOC centre, under

the management of Paul Edmonds, and the RDKB EOC, with Chris Marsh at the helm,

balanced flooding issues from dozens of different locations without dropping

the ball on any of them. They used the resources readily at hand and then

called on every available government agency to fill the everyday growing

need.

Last year there was considerable flooding in my region and certainly

some anticipation that this year could see flood issues again. However,

personally, I don’t believe that mitigation efforts between last year and this

year could have either lessened or prevented the catastrophic events of this

spring. It would not have been possible to build the banks of streams high

enough to handle the volume of water experienced this year.

When the bulk of the work on this year’s flooding is over, there is an

opportunity to have very frank discussions with the local people who have a

history in these critical areas. They need to be at the table with all

government agencies. Twin Lakes and the Kettle River have active local groups

or societies that have spent years on flood mitigation plans for their

respective areas. We need to listen to them.

In conclusion, I want to personally thank the parliamentary secretary

responsible for EMBC and the Solicitor General for their immediate response and

ongoing support for the riding of Boundary-Similkameen.

INDIGENOUS EDUCATION AND

ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF

STUDENTS

B. D’Eith: As we come to the end of this session, we’re also coming to the end of

the school year. I want to congratulate all of the graduates from my riding and

thank the teachers and staff from school districts 42 and 75 for the work they

do every day to help students reach this milestone.

In fact, it’s one of the key challenges facing many schools — to ensure

that graduation rates are high. This is particularly challenging for many

Indigenous children. Mission school district 75 is engaging students and

Indigenous youth by teaching the local First Nations dialect. This endangered

dialect of Halq’eméylem has been spoken by the Stó:lo people for millennia but

is now being taught to students in Mission.

Last month the students from Mission competed in the Halq’eméylem

language contest at Seabird Island. They competed against 23 teams and 131

competitors to show off their skills in this upriver dialect. I’m very pleased

to recognize that they took home the championship. I want to congratulate

Shayla Seymour, Daemon Cooper, Hayden Berg, Sheridan Conlin and Damien Letkeman

and their teacher Rachel Silver on their success, as well as all the staff for

all of their support of the students.

Now, on the other side of my riding, in Maple Ridge, in school district

42, they just held their 11th annual Aboriginal education achievements award.

The purpose of this is to really celebrate all of the Aboriginal students from

grades 8 to 12 and honour the grads.

I want to congratulate all of the winners, these Indigenous students,

and of course, the teachers and staff who have supported these students towards

graduation — and actually keeping their percentage of graduation rates higher

than the provincial average. I’m very proud of that. I’m also proud of the

commitment to Indigenous youth that the school teachers and staff have made

throughout my riding.

Finally, I’m really proud that the government is truly invested in truth

and reconciliation and has made education for Indigenous students a priority,

especially with the $50 million investment in Indigenous languages, more

support for friendship centres and supporting education upgrades and trades

training. That’s wonderful.

COLLABORATION BY MLA s

A. Weaver: As we reach the end of the session, I’d like to take a moment to reflect

upon this past spring and the work that we’ve collectively accomplished. This

session has offered a unique opportunity for members from each political party

to come together around shared values to work tirelessly for the betterment of

all British Columbians across our vibrant and diverse province.

Collaboration and communication are always key. Collaboration isn’t just

limited to one side of this chamber; it involves all members from all parties.

I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge the work of each and every member in

this chamber and to highlight just a few of the many examples where government

of any stripe has improved the lives of British Columbians.

[10:20 a.m.]

In Saanich, immersion students are reconnecting with their language and

culture through a commitment to increased investment in Indigenous language

programs. We’re already witnessing positive impacts on the ground. The MLA for

Saanich North and the Islands and the MLA for North Vancouver–Lonsdale both

rose during members’ statements to share their testimonies as to the importance

of language and preserving culture.

The MLA for Cowichan Valley noted the example of a single mother fleeing

domestic violence who was able, with the support of the provincial domestic

violence plan, to find shelter, stable housing and post-secondary

enrolment.

A few weeks ago the MLA for Peace River South discussed ministry work on

seismic upgrades while he was Minister of Education. He expressed enthusiasm

for continued funding to support the upgrading of additional

schools.

When floods swept the Interior earlier this month, all parties came

together to tour and support the affected areas.

I’d like to offer my own personal thanks to the member for Prince

George–Valemount. Whether it be regulations to ban employers from requiring

employees to wear high heels, working to bring an engineering program to the

University of Northern British Columbia or the world-class glacier destination

ski resort to Valemount or advocating for realtors struggling with imminent yet

still-changing rules governing their profession or the Borealis geothermal

energy project near Valemount, you have been gracious and generous in your

willingness to work together.

This is the message that I’d like to share today. We do our best when we

collaborate with one another and other British Columbians, when we are

creative, innovative and forward-looking. Despite our differences, this session

has provided numerous examples of how we can better the lives of British

Columbians when we are working together.

I’m encouraged by our session and look forward to further collaboration.

Thank you to each and every MLA in this chamber for your dedication to your

communities. And to the member for Prince George–Valemount, we still need to

get that physiotherapy program at the University of British

Columbia.

WEST END COMMUNITY

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I wonder if members would consider what you would get if you took

12-by-12 city blocks and jammed 45,000 people into those blocks. Would you get

chaos? Would you get gridlock? Would you be unable to move? Would it be a

horrible place to live? No. You’d have the West End. You would have one of the

most livable communities in the world.

Now, how did that happen? Well, at one time, it was known to be

congested, to have gridlock and to have real traffic problems, as people ducked

in and out of side streets to try and get to the North Shore and so forth. But

that changed because residents said: “No. This is our community. This is our

neighbourhood, and it should be treated that way — not as a place to duck

through to get to somewhere else.”

Back in the 1970s — and I want to acknowledge a specific constituent of

mine, Anne Gregory — they took action. They said: “Our streets are our streets

for community, for walking, for playing, for gardening, for talking to

neighbours, for all of those kinds of things.” You can’t do that if you’re

having to duck traffic speeding by you all the time.

They installed, at the time — the first, I’m told, in North America —

traffic-calming measures. These things, if you come to the West End, are

annoying to anybody from outside, because they don’t know how to work through

our little labyrinth of mazes, but sure as heck work for our community. They

have, then, continued throughout the neighbourhood to calm the traffic and

bring back community.

They’re now filled with trees, gardens, art, sculptures, community

events, notice boards, restaurants, and it goes on. You know, our community is

the most walkable, I would argue, at least, in B.C. Although, hey, let’s have

that fight. We need more walkable communities. So let’s all compete for that

distinction.

Seventy percent of my constituents bus, bike or walk to work. That also

speaks to the need for dense urban communities to have good access to transit,

good access to jobs, safe bike lanes and safe walkable streets, and that’s why

we’re celebrating.

This Saturday, June 16, from noon to seven o’clock, we’re celebrating

West End Car Free Day. I want to invite everybody to join us. We’re shutting

down Denman Street. It’ll be completely car free. We’re going to have a party

to celebrate how far we’ve come and to look forward at how we make our

community even more welcoming for everybody to enjoy each and every square inch

of that pavement — with a car, without it, and ideally, walking or biking or

cycling or taking a bus to get where they need to go.

Happy West End Car Free Day.

[10:25 a.m.]

Oral Questions

REFERENDUM ON ELECTORAL REFORM

A. Wilkinson: Yesterday British Columbians were presented with a confusing set of

questions that could fundamentally change our electoral process. It’s a

confusing ballot designed to allow a small percentage of eligible voters to

determine the future of our democracy and the function of this chamber. The

Premier shamelessly defends this manipulative process but refuses to give

voters something as basic as a map of the new electoral boundaries. This was

done in previous attempts of electoral reform, but somehow it’s deemed to be

unimportant by this government.

Why is the Premier afraid to tell people the riding in which they’ll be

voting?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question and his continued interest in

electoral reform, an issue that we discussed during the election campaign, as

did the members in the Green Party. When we formed a government, we made a

commitment to ask British Columbians whether they wanted to keep the system

that we have or opt for a proportional system. That’s what we laid out through

the Attorney General yesterday, and that’s what we’ll be campaigning on in the

fall.

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

A. Wilkinson: Well, that answer demonstrates just how shamelessly this government is

trying to manipulate the process. The Premier promised a yes-no question during

the election. He just gave us a yes-no question, but that’s not what’s on the

ballot. The ballot lays out a confusing series of options, two of which have

never been heard of before and are not used anywhere in the world. And this

Premier shamelessly stands up in this chamber and says: “Oh, it’s an easy

yes-no question.”

Well, Premier, lay the truth on the table for us. Why don’t you

acknowledge what your Attorney General said yesterday? It’s a confusing mess

designed to confuse voters.

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I appreciate that the members on the other side of the House like

things the way they were. They liked the fact that they could go to their

corporate backers, a handful of people, and get all of the money that they

needed. British Columbians rejected that. We have eliminated big money in

politics, and now voters are back at the centre of our politics.

In addition to that, we want to ask British Columbians to make an

informed choice. They’re going to be able to look at a range of options, and

they’re going to be able to decide. I appreciate the status quo party on the

other side, who has liked things the way they were for decade after decade

after decade, does not want to even expect the public to have the right to make

a change.

Well, we have confidence in the people of British Columbia. We know that

British Columbians will look thoughtfully at the options available to them, as

they do during election campaigns. In this instance, there will be a pro side

and a con side. I’ve got a hunch that the Leader of the Opposition is going to

be on the con side.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, the Premier reluctantly says: “Gee, there’s going to be a range of

options. It won’t just be a yes-no question, like I promised during the

election.” But the range of options doesn’t include knowing where you’ll be

voting. There’s no option to know what your riding will be.

How is it going to be that I will be electing my representative? Well,

here’s a bunch of machinery with confusing acronyms associated, but I don’t

know which riding I’m voting in.

Premier, why don’t you tell us which ridings we will be voting

in?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m surprised that many members on that side of the House, who have been

through successive redistributions when maps are drawn and then redrawn…. There

are public hearings. There’s an independent panel that determines what the maps

are — an independent panel driven by Elections B.C. There couldn’t be anything

more transparent than inviting the public to talk about how they vote, where

they vote and who they want to vote for.

I don’t know why democracy frightens the Leader of the Opposition. It

probably has something to do with the fact that over the past ten months, those

on this side of the House have been able to make massive changes in the lives

of people. We’ve been able to implement a child care program that’s putting

money back in the pockets of families and giving them confidence that they will

have affordable, accessible child care, not just now but well into the

future.

By working together, we have been able, on this side of the House, to

establish an innovation commission with a commissioner to kick-start the tech

sector and create jobs right across British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Premier.

Hon. J. Horgan: I wish that I could say more, but I appreciate that I’ve run out of

time.

[10:30 a.m.]

M. Polak: One need only look back to the previous referenda to find out that what

the Premier just said in the last answer is wrong. In the last referenda that

we had….

Interjection.

M. Polak: There were two of them — plural, referenda. In the last two referenda,

maps were produced. In fact, British Columbians were able to look at the maps

and were able to see what would happen to their local riding.

There’s a reason they don’t want to produce the maps. It’s because when

people looked at them, they found out that, in some cases, their local riding

would be merged together to form ridings that would be larger than some

European countries. No wonder that British Columbians voted against

that.

Will the Premier commit to…?

Interjections.

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

M. Polak: Will the Premier commit to at least providing British Columbians with

the maps to show the impact to their communities of the choices they’re being

asked to make?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m grateful to the member for the question. I was very honoured to hear

from British Columbians from across the province about how they wanted the

referendum to roll out. I was also pleased to hear from members opposite about

the concerns that they had about ensuring rural representation and ensuring

that regions maintained their voice, maintaining local voice. It was one of the

key principles in the report.

One of my recommendations to government was to ensure that the systems

that went forward did not result in a net loss of MLAs in any region of the

province. I listened to the members from the opposition. I listened to my

colleagues from the NDP, from the Green Party. I did not accept their

submission as they put it forward. It was modified.

There was a clear question in the beginning — “Do you want to keep the

system we have, or do you want a new system?” — and then three specific systems

going forward, based on submissions from British Columbians across the

province.

I thank the members for their participation in the debate and their

submissions in that manner, my colleagues in the Green Party for their

submissions and all British Columbians for their submissions that were the

basis of the report and the recommendations that are going forward to

cabinet.

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

M. Polak: The fact remains that two of the systems being proposed have never been

used anywhere in the world. British Columbians are being asked to go blindly

into this, and — a big difference from the last time around — they’re not being

given all the information they need before they’re being asked to vote. If the

Premier really does trust British Columbians, why not take the time to give

them the maps and see then how they feel about the change in their

representation?

Hon. D. Eby: There is not one, but there are actually three systems on the ballot

that British Columbians will be able to rank. The member correctly raises that

two of them are new systems that are put forward. They’re put forward, based on

recommendations that came through the consultation process, to ensure that the

values that the members opposite actually raised about ensuring that rural

communities saw representation….

I hear the member would have liked for me to draw maps, but I can assure

you that had I done that, the members opposite would have said that the maps

were a problem. That is why we have an independent Electoral Boundaries

Commission that accepts submissions from the public and will do that

work.

If people vote to move to PR, they’ll accept submissions from the

opposition. They’ll accept submissions from the NDP, from the Green Party, from

people across B.C. about where the boundaries should be, and they’ll do the

work they’ve always done for British Columbians and draw appropriate boundaries

to ensure fairness in our province.

SUPPORT FOR WORKERS WITH

JOB-RELATED MENTAL HEALTH

ISSUES

A. Weaver: Mental disorders incurred from job-related trauma are serious injuries

that can be debilitating. This government recently introduced protections by

adding a presumptive clause for this kind of workplace injury. Now certain

first responders are supported for injuries that can arise from the important

work that they do.

While I’m pleased that B.C. is extending protection for some workers,

I’m concerned that others who suffer mental disorders on the job are being left

out. Particularly, I’m profoundly troubled that professions such as nursing,

teaching and social work — professions that employ disproportionate numbers of

women compared to men — are being left out.

When I raised this issue earlier this year, the Minister of Labour

stated that he shared my concern and was committed to every worker getting the

help and safety protection they need. What has the minister done to deliver on

this commitment?

[10:35 a.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: On the last day of the session, I’m the last one to get a question, and

I just want to tell you how thrilled I am to get that question. I want to thank

the member for asking this question and giving me the opportunity to talk about

the health and safety of workers in this province.

I share your passion about the health and safety of the workers in this

province, Member. That’s why my goal is to make workplaces in British Columbia

the safest in the country. You do that by having a strong preventative and

training program so that we prevent injuries from happening in the first place

and that, for those who are injured or sick at a workplace, we treat them with

respect and dignity and give them care and support when they need it so that

they are able to go back to their pre-injury work as soon as they can. That’s

why we brought in Bill 9: to give protections to those workers who are first on

the scene at a very dangerous and challenging situation.

The first responders have been asking for these changes for a long time,

and their requests have been ignored time and again. Well, we’re going to

change that. I am considering expanding presumption to other groups of people.

As a result, I have been meeting with those groups — like nurses, CUPE, the

dispatchers who are represented by CUPE, and other workers — and with the

member that asked this question so that we can continue to work to enhance and

provide better working conditions for the working people of this

province.

I believe — and I know everyone in this House believes — that every

worker deserves to go home healthy and safe at the end of their shift or their

work. Anything less is unacceptable, and I do….

Interjections.

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

A. Weaver: I’m beginning to regret asking these questions these last few days. A

yet more pent-up answer looking for a question to deliver to.

I do have a supplemental. The supplemental is this. The Canadian

Institute for Public Safety Research and Treatment at the University of Regina

undertook research that found that the percentage of 911 operators and

dispatchers who suffer from post-traumatic disorder as a result of their work

is comparable to those for police officers. But in B.C., affected 911 operators

and dispatchers continue to fight for treatment and compensation while

struggling with work-related mental health disorders. We now have the tools to

ensure that they get the coverage they need.

To the Minister of Labour: briefly, what concrete steps has the minister

taken to expand the support we now offer to other first responders? What steps

are those now being applied to 911 dispatchers and call receivers?

Hon. H. Bains: Mr. Speaker, you can never be brief when you’re talking about the health

and safety of working people in this province. The member knows that I’ve been

discussing with him and other members of this House and all those workers who

need better protection when they go to work and who need protection when they

are injured or sick at workplaces.

First responders have been asking for these changes for a long time. In

fact, my colleague, now the Minister of Social Development and Poverty

Reduction, has put private members’ bills in this House just asking for those

changes, which were ignored by the previous government.

The UBCM in 2016 passed a similar resolution that was ignored by this

government. It doesn’t surprise me, Member. If you’ve watched for the last 16

years, the only time the members of that government stood up in this House to

talk about workers was when they were ripping up their collective agreements,

when they were eliminating injured workers’ benefits or when they were gutting

their health and safety protections.

[10:40 a.m.]

We said that we will do things differently. Workers know now that they

have a government that respects them, a government that values their work. We

have taken some steps. More is coming.

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANTS IN

CONSTITUENCY

OFFICES

R. Coleman: Last year the Premier made a decision to embed NDP political staff in

non-partisan constituency offices. When I challenged the Premier during

estimates last year to explain the decision, he told me that it was due to an

increase of casework in those offices. He made a very clear assertion to me at

the time: “It is not the intention to politicize these offices. If that becomes

an issue, we’ll address it immediately.”

Does the Premier stand by his word to me last fall?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question and the follow-up. I had anticipated

that, as the budget estimates process for my office has begun. I can speak for

the executive assistant that works for me in my Langford office. We have gone

to great pains to ensure that the constituency operations remain separate and

distinct from any government role that my executive assistant would have in my

office. I can say, with absolute assurance: in my case, that is operating quite

smoothly.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Langley East on a supplemental.

R. Coleman: Well, that’s interesting, Mr. Premier, because I have here emails from

the Premier’s chief of staff, who sat beside the Premier last year when I asked

these questions, which completely contradict the Premier’s assurance that he

would not politicize constituency offices. In a September 6 email exchange, the

Premier’s chief of staff made clear his expectations for political staff in

constituency offices. “The idea was to put someone out there to work on

politics, not casework.” The evidence that’s here is unambiguous.

Will the Premier admit he knew constituency offices were going to be

politicized?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m not aware of the email the member refers to. I’m certain he’ll be

providing it to me before the day is done, and I’ll look into it. I can tell

him, as I did in my first answer, that in my office, the work of my executive

assistants is to ensure that the work of government can be run smoothly within

my office, which is seeing a significant increase in traffic because of the

role I now fill in government.

Rather than have my constituency office staff — and all of us have

constituency office staff — inundated by people from across the province, we

have a government employee in my office to address government work. I think

that’s appropriate, and it’s been working in my case very smoothly.

I’ll take a look at the email from September, and I’ll get back to the

member.

J. Johal: Let there be no doubt. This is a scheme to have partisan NDP hacks

misuse public funds. On September 5, the Premier’s chief of staff wrote: “There

are questions in some quarters about whether or not executive assistants should

work in constituency offices. We believe they can and should.” The next day, in

the same email thread, he wrote: “The idea was to put someone out there to work

on politics, not casework.”

How can the Premier possibly justify this scheme to funnel public money

through constituency offices for political activities?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, when the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Langley

East, asked me the question, it was sometime at the end of November. He’s

referring to an email from September.

I can assure the member who just asked the question that after the

estimates last year, I went back to my office and ensured that in my

constituency office, my staff that were employed by the Legislative Assembly

were doing the constituency casework they were advised to do and that my

executive assistant was dealing with issues affecting the

government.

That’s what we’re doing. If the member on the other side doesn’t like

it, I’m sorry about that.

[10:45 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.

J. Johal: When questioned last fall, the Premier talked about an increase in

correspondence, phone calls and visits and went on to say that it is “not our

intention to politicize offices…. It’s about trying to relieve the

pressure.”

Interjections.

J. Johal: That’s not going to help.

The Premier’s chief of staff was clear, in internal emails, about the

real intention behind the decision. He wrote: “The idea was to put someone out

there to work on politics, not casework.”

Why did the Premier cover up the use of public funds for partisan

political ends?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I regret that the members have their questions written up days in

advance, and they have to stick to the form. I was asked a question, and I said

that the reason I put an executive assistant in my constituency office is

because of the increase in traffic coming through the office that was not

related to my constituency. I said that two minutes ago. The member just read

it aloud. I don’t know what the inconsistency is, but there’s no “gotcha”

here.

We have an executive assistant in my office to deal with the increased

volume of traffic because of my role as Premier of British Columbia. I’m proud

of the work my constituency office does, and I know all the members are as

well.

P. Milobar: Let’s get this right. The Premier stood…

Interjections.

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

P. Milobar: …in this House, accompanied by his chief of staff, and said that

constituency offices wouldn’t be politicized. He was asked this question after

his chief of staff had already sent out an email to the staff saying the exact

opposite in internal emails. The chief of staff said: “You are to work on

politics, not casework.” This is a clear-cut partisan activity in non-partisan

offices.

Will the Premier direct the B.C. NDP to reimburse taxpayers for this

misuse of public funds?

Hon. J. Horgan: I can assure the member that my executive assistant is buying his own

lunch, if that’s a concern for him. I can also assure him that the objective is

to take the politics out of my constituency office because of the increase in

volume.

Members might remember…. I know the member who just asked the question

is new to the place, but other members will know that when you have the

responsibility of being a member of executive council, people phone you, and

they send you emails. We’re separating that out so that my constituency staff

are not dragged into politics and the running of government. It was

straightforward then; it’s straightforward now.

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

P. Milobar: Well, the fact of the matter is that we have partisan NDP hacks

dispatched to non-partisan offices with instructions right from the chief of

staff to work on politics and not casework. As of December 4, 2017, there were

19 executive assistants operating out of the constituency offices.

Now, I know the Premier doesn’t seem concerned about taxpayers’ funds,

but the cost to taxpayers for these salaries is more than $1

million.

Interjections.

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

you.

P. Milobar: Again, the cost to the taxpayers for these salaries — these 19 executive

assistants — is more than $1 million.

Will the Premier direct the B.C. NDP to not only stop this practice but

to reimburse taxpayers for the more than $1 million in public funds that have

been misused for partisan activity?

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate that the opposition thinks this might be a quick win for

them today, on the last day of the session. I know this is an elevation up the

speaking order for the member from Kamloops. He’s no longer talking about

grilled cheese sandwiches. He’s now talking about people working in

constituency offices for the people of British Columbia.

I’m proud to say that we’re able to talk, in my constituency, about the

great things we’ve done over the past number of years. For example, primary

care facilities right across the province are changing the model for the

delivery of health care, which atrophied on the other side when you were in

government. Increased MRIs we can talk about because of the work of this side

of the House.

We’ve been doing work for the past ten months making life better for

British Columbians. I appreciate that just sounds like a grilled cheese

sandwich to that member. No quick wins here. We’re focused on people. Maybe you

should do that too.

YOUTH OVERDOSE DEATHS

AND SAFE CARE ACT

J. Thornthwaite: There has been no decline in the number of illicit drug overdose deaths

this spring, and tragically, those dying still include children. This February

I reintroduced the Safe Care Act. I asked the Minister of Mental Health and

Addictions about the status of the bill again last month, but this government

has yet to bring it forward for debate.

To the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, will she commit today

to bring the Safe Care Act forward this fall as a government bill?

Hon. J. Darcy: Thank you to the member for her question. I think everyone in this House

is heartbroken about every death that we hear of in the province of British

Columbia. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts…. I want to pay tribute to

all of the people on the front lines of the overdose crisis — the first

responders, the people who work in the harm reduction sites, the people who

work in our emergency rooms and our community agencies and all the families and

volunteers — because they are going above and beyond every single day. There is

an untold story about the thousands of lives that they have actually saved in

the last few years, and we owe them a great debt of gratitude.

Having said that, we are working overtime every day. We are escalating

our response every month, every week, every single day, finding more ways to

connect people, to save lives and to connect them to treatment and recovery as

soon as possible. We will be bringing forward, as we have committed, this fall

a plan for child and youth mental health really focusing on early

interventions, starting with our kids, starting with mild and moderate mental

health issues before they become severe and before they turn to substance

use.

As part of bringing forward that plan, we will be looking very closely

at all of the policies of government, all of the existing legislation and all

the existing proposed legislation to see if there’s anything that we need to

change in order to keep our children and our youth safe. We will change

whatever it is we need to do, based on the evidence, to protect our young

people.

Mr. Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: Brock Eurchuk, whose teenage son tragically died of a drug overdose last

month, has been emphatic about the need for reforms to the current system. To

quote Mr. Eurchuk: “Until this legislation is amended, additional, preventable

youth deaths will occur.”

Again, in the interest of saving children’s lives, will the minister

adopt the Safe Care Act as a government bill and bring it forward at the

earliest possibility?

Hon. J. Darcy: As the member knows, as soon as we heard about this tragic story, about

Elliot’s death, my office reached out to Elliot’s parents, and I met them that

very week.

[10:55 a.m.]

They shared with me their story. They shared with me their perspective

on the Safe Care Act — absolutely. They also shared their thoughts on the

Infants Act. Other parents have shared their thoughts on the Mental Health Act.

What Elliot’s parents’ shared with me, which is universal….

There are differences of opinion amongst parents. There are differences

of opinion of families with lived experience about what the best solutions are.

But what every single parent that I’ve spoken with and every single family

member who has lost a loved one to overdose shares with me is that their child

or their brother or their sister or their parent faced doors that were closed,

every step along the way, as they searched desperately for ways to keep their

loved ones alive.

Our focus is on building that better system for mental health and

addictions, on building that better system for child and youth mental health,

so that every door is the right door and you ask once and you get help fast.

That includes looking at legislation, but it means looking at the whole range

of options to keep our loved ones safe.

[End of question period.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Horgan: I have two introductions to make. One is the introduction of my friend Kody

Bell, who will be known to the member for Richmond South Centre as the visitor who

often comes in and puts on the Speaker’s hat. The current Speaker should be wary

of that. Kody is rambling around the halls today and may be dropping in on

anybody’s office. Be at the ready. Hold onto your phone.

The other introduction I’d like to make is a very dear friend of mine. It’s

someone who’s been working on NDP election campaigns since back when Tommy Douglas

was in short pants. That’s Pat Portsmouth, from Nanaimo. She’s here somewhere in

the building. She’s joined by two very dear friends, Sandra Zuccolini-Larocque and

Mike Larocque.

Pat mentored me when I was younger. She is an extra­ordinary individual,

someone who has put her entire life into making life better for people. Pat is

here somewhere in the Legislature. She can’t hear very well; she can’t see very

well. But I know that she can sense that someone is talking about her.

Would you please make Pat very, very welcome.

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Eby: I have the honour of rising to table two matters.

First is tabling, before the Legislative Assembly, the 2017-18 annual

report on the operations of the gaming policy and enforcement branch. This annual

report has been submitted to me by the general manager of the gaming policy and

enforcement branch. I’m tabling this report before the Legislative Assembly, as

required under

section 29 of the Gaming Control Act.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

Hon. D. Eby: I also have a petition to table from the Trial Lawyers Association of

British Columbia, their ROAD organization, in opposition to the government’s

reforms related to ICBC.

Tabling Documents

Hon. H. Bains: I have the honour to present the WorkSafeBC 2017 Annual Report and

2018-2020 Service Plan .

Petitions

Hon. H. Bains: I also have a petition presented to us by the B.C. Human Rights

Organization, of Surrey.

Hon. K. Conroy: I, too, have a petition to present, with over 7,897 signatures calling on

the government to preserve in perpetuity the area known as the Selkirk Mountain

Caribou Park proposal as a B.C. provincial park.

S. Furstenau: I have a petition to present as well, initiated by 14-year-old Simon Minkow

— 483 signatures to reduce the voting age in B.C. and Canada to 16.

A. Olsen: I rise to present a petition on behalf of over 770 British Columbians who

want fish farms out of B.C. waters. It’s been organized by SeaLegacy, based out of

Qualicum Beach.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, further to the agreement announced yesterday and pursuant to the

provisions of Standing Order 35, I call debate on the matter regarding the report and

recommendations of the Attorney General on the 2018 electoral reform

referendum.

[11:00 a.m.]

Motions Without Notice

REFERENDUM ON ELECTORAL REFORM

A. Wilkinson: By leave, I move:

[That the Attorney General’s Report and Recommendations on the 2018

Electoral Reform Referendum be referred to a parliamentary committee on or

before October 1, 2018.]

Now, the reason for this debate to occur is that yesterday the Attorney

General revealed a report on electoral reform that was developed entirely in

secret. It goes to the basis….

Mr. Speaker: May I interrupt you, please? You had requested leave.

Leave granted.

A. Wilkinson: The basis for this is electoral reform, and that goes to the very heart

of this institution — the room we sit in, which has endured for 120 years in

this room and, before that, for another 40 years in the Birdcages around the

corner. That has been the essence of governing British Columbia — electoral

democracy. The fundamental basis of it could be changed by this report and the

referendum to be counted on November 30 this year.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

This process occurred in secret. The Attorney General has absented

himself from the room now. He is the man who orchestrated this.

Deputy Speaker: The absence or presence of members is not commented upon.

A. Wilkinson: I appreciate that, Madame Speaker.

The Attorney General said moments ago that he rejected the Green-NDP

submission to his office on electoral reform. This appears to be a one-man

show. The Attorney General is deciding these matters in private.

The academics who are involved in consultations with the Attorney

General, we have found out, wrote to the Attorney General’s office on November

17 of last year and said: “Will there be a citizens’ assembly?” The response

was: “There’s no time.” There’s only a year before the vote, but there’s no

time for a citizens’ assembly.

The role of the Legislature has been completely dismissed. There has

been no opportunity for debate until this was forced upon the government

yesterday, hence the call for a parliamentary committee to review this in

public.

Why do we have a legislature? It’s to scrutinize legislation, the

process of government, the spending endorsed by government — as this government

takes on the role of spending about 20 percent of the GDP of this province.

That’s a big, major, important role. The whole process for bringing us here is

now being questioned and subject to change, and this Legislature has been cut

out of the process.

There’s a critically important factor here that’s often ignored, and

that’s the role of the media. The Victoria-based media gallery has shrunk in

recent years. Their budgets are smaller. We all know this. They don’t get the

chance to travel, so they depend upon us, the elected members convening here

and being subject to questions. The experts in this field are in the media

gallery.

This attempt yesterday to simply put out this report and then we all

disperse from this place 24 hours later is an attempt to evade media scrutiny.

I do hope that it will not work, because it is the media who will hold this

government to account. The activities in this chamber get limited coverage,

limited exposure — there are few people in the gallery — so we count upon media

exposure to get the message out. What this government is cynically and

cunningly doing is trying to avoid media scrutiny.

The questions that have been developed are not simple. They are

extraordinarily complicated, advocating two brand-new systems that aren’t used

anywhere in the world, that were apparently gathered and concocted and mixed

together for the purpose of a manipulative referendum question. These are

entirely unknown systems that haven’t been used anywhere in the world. The

third one is so complicated that it was rejected completely by the Citizens’

Assembly in 2004.

Yet this government shamelessly puts these three options on the table

and says: “Don’t worry about it. The public will learn about it, but you won’t,

because you folks in the Legislature won’t have a chance to scrutinize

it.”

This is a sad day when we have to force debate on the government about a

fundamental issue in the operation of our democracy. It flies in the face of

why we come to this chamber to deliberate the matters of state in this

province.

This government seeks to evade legislative scrutiny. It seeks to evade

media scrutiny. It seeks to evade public scrutiny by launching this just before

the summer holidays when the public will not be paying attention. This is an

entirely cynical effort, and the fact that this government is not prepared to

tell people what riding they’ll be voting in speaks volumes about just how

cynical and manipulative this government has become in a very short

time.

[11:05 a.m.]

It took an emergency debate request to the Speaker — a request for a

ruling — before this government capitulated and said: “Okay. It’s all right to

talk about it for an hour, and that’s all.”

This goes to the fundamental essence of our democracy. It’s time for

this government to accept that public scrutiny is what this institution exists

for. I would be deeply disappointed if they do not acknowledge the need for a

parliamentary committee on this before the vote occurs.

Hon. J. Horgan: It is a pleasure and privilege to rise and participate in this debate

that was agreed to by all members, all three parties in the Legislature. It’s

an opportunity for us to have a discussion of a report that was tabled just

yesterday, a report that will allow British Columbians to have a say in how

their democracy works.

I don’t know what could be more open and transparent than saying to

citizens, saying to British Columbians: “Do you want to keep the system you

have, or do you want to opt for a proportional system? Yes or no is the answer

to the first question. If you say yes, which of these options would you

prefer?” I believe that’s clear. It’s open. It’s plain. It’s simple for people

to understand. I believe that British Columbians will support that.

We have had for too long an outdated system that has served the

interests of the minority, not the interests of the majority. It’s time we

changed that. We campaigned on that matter. We’re putting it before the

Legislature. We did put it before the Legislature. Cabinet now has a report

prepared by the Attorney General with the largest opportunity for people to

participate ever in terms of those who engaged with the website, those who

engaged directly with the Attorney General and his staff to put in place the

report that we have before us today.

Now, I appreciate that those on the other side of the House like what

we’ve got. It’s worked well for them. Since Confederation, only one time has a

majority of voters voted for the government in power — only once in that time.

I believe that’s not a very decent batting average. A better course of action

for the citizens of British Columbia, to ensure that we all work together

cooperatively after the campaign is over, is to have a proportional system

where the ideas in the marketplace out there in the province can be reflected

and represented here evenly and equally so that debate can be honest, sincere

and genuine, as I believe all members want it to be.

At the end of the day, it will be the citizens of British Columbia who

make the decision on whether they keep what they have or opt for something

else. Now, I know members on the other side…. The Leader of the Opposition just

said we couldn’t possibly contemplate something new. That would be bad.

Something that has been untried — that would be bad.

That’s his opinion, and he’ll be able to exercise that opinion in a

ballot this fall. I think that’s appropriate. Citizens will also have that

opportunity. They may differ from the Leader of the Opposition; they may differ

from me and my colleagues. I believe that’s democracy. It’s open, it’s

transparent and it’s right out there for people to make those

choices.

I want to touch briefly on the notion of maps, because that seems to be

something that the opposition has glommed onto. I was elected in 2005 in a

place called Malahat–Juan de Fuca. There was a map before the election so

citizens knew where they lived and where they were going to vote. A whole

infrastructure gets put in place on election day. People get cards in the mail

saying: “You vote here. This is the place that you live. This is your electoral

boundary for the coming election.” It’s not carved in stone for all time. It is

for that election.

If the citizens of British Columbia decide to change their electoral

system, there will be a redistribution committee established. It will be

independent. It will hear submissions from citizens, members on that side of

the House, members on this side of the House. People from all over B.C. are

entitled to participate in the formulation of the maps that govern where they

vote and who they want to vote for.

It happens all the time. In fact, it’s happened three times since I was

first elected. I was secondarily elected in a place called Juan de Fuca, which

didn’t resemble Malahat–Juan de Fuca any way at all, except for the name Juan

de Fuca. Then, in the last election, there was another redistribution, a new

map, and people discovered that they were voting somewhere else. They were no

longer voting for Langford–Juan de Fuca; they were voting for

Esquimalt-Metchosin.

It happens all the time. New maps are created, and the public engages in

that process. If they don’t like where the lines are drawn by the independent

panel, they can make submissions, and if the submissions are compelling, the

maps are changed. That’s what we’ve been doing in British Columbia for a long,

long time. That’s what we’ll be doing in this instance. It’s pretty

straightforward. I don’t understand why the members on that side of the House

don’t get it.

However, the member for Langley…. Fort Langley? Just Langley?

Interjections.

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Because they change all the time, Member. That’s why.

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for making my point. We have two

very capable members in this place, one from Langley and one from Langley East.

They have represented different constituencies in the time I’ve been colleagues

with them. It is what we do when population grows and population

decreases.

In this report, the Attorney General listened to second reading debate

from members on that side of the House. He has ensured in the report that

regional representation is maintained. There is not a diminishment of seats in

rural British Columbia. In fact, there’s an opportunity to grow that. That

means that people will be represented, as they are now, with one unique

difference. If they choose a proportional representation system, they will know

with absolute certainty that when they cast their ballot it will mean something

in this Legislature. It will mean something. It’s not a thrown-away vote as it

is now, after first-past-the-post.

I will have ample opportunity to speak about this issue over the coming

months. I know other members want to have their say. I will conclude by saying

that we campaigned to give people a clear choice, to keep what they have or opt

for something different, potentially something new. Imagine that. How

revolutionary is that — saying to the public: “Do you want to try something

new”?

It will improve the outcomes in this place, as we’ve demonstrated by

having a coalition in a minority parliament for the first time in generations.

It’s working effectively. It’s stable, and it’s providing good government for

British Columbians. That’s what we’re all wanting to see here, on both sides of

the House. I believe what we’ve done and what’s before the public, before this

House, will make that a certainty going forward.

S. Furstenau: I’m very happy to take my place in this critical debate about our

democracy. In just less than six months, British Columbians will be asked

whether they believe we should modernize the way we elect MLAs to office in our

province. They will be asked to consider whether we want to keep our

single-member-plurality system, better known as first-past-the-post, or whether

we want to join the majority of western democracies around the world and start

using a system of proportional representation.

For me, the choice is clear. I want every vote to count for more than

they do in our current system. I want to end the practice of governments

getting 100 percent of the power with only 40 percent of the vote. More than

anything, I want to end the exhausting practice of strategic voting that we are

forced to go through every election.

I want citizens to be empowered to vote for what they actually want, not

against what they don’t want. The process that will play out this fall will

give every voter in British Columbia the chance to ask themselves similar

questions about what they value in their democracy, to ask themselves what they

want their government to look like.

The Attorney General’s recommendations have started this process. And

91,725 surveys were filled out on line, 1,101 additional questionnaires by

selected panel, 208 written submissions from individuals, and another 46 from

organizations. I’m hoping I got the numbers right with the Attorney

General.

The cynics will cry: “It is not enough.” Yet the truth is that this is

the most engagement that a government consultation has ever received on any

issue. And we should be proud of that. We should be happy that the citizens of

B.C. care this much about their democracy. It’s a sign of healthy

democracy.

The Attorney General and his staff should be commended for the work they

have done. They have taken an immense volume of feedback and ideas and thoughts

from British Columbians and what they have wanted their referendum to look

like, and they have struck a balance in their recommendations.

We have a report that addresses the fundamental values that people

wanted to see in a referendum, reflecting both the distinct nature of B.C. and

its different regions and the core values that we all share across this

province.

I’m a historian. As a history teacher, it is interesting to note the

history of electoral system change in our province. Our system has actually

changed twice, including when we switched to the system that we use now. In

both instances, there was no referendum. There were no choices put before B.C.

voters. The system was imposed on citizens in back rooms, based purely on

political calculation.

[11:15 a.m.]

By contrast, the referendum we have in the fall offers a truly novel

opportunity for British Columbians to shape their system, and indeed, it is a

very rare opportunity for any citizen in any country to be asked to have a say

in the future of their electoral systems.

I fully believe in British Columbians’ ability to look at the choices in

front of them and to tell their politicians what they want. It is no greater a

challenge than what plays out every election, when voters have to decide what

their parties stand for and which one has earned their vote.

There are few conversations that are more important than those about our

democratic institutions, because the way we shape them affects every issue in

our lives. Thinking about and engaging in our democracy is vital to ensuring

the health of it.

In this conversation, more than most, truth and honesty will be

critical. No matter what side of the issue you fall on, whether you want to

keep our existing first-past-the-post system or whether you favour updating our

system to a form of proportional representation, we owe it to voters to base

our arguments for and against in fact, not fiction. If we use fear and

conspiracy theories to advance our case, we cheapen the discussion and risk

lasting damage to voters faith in our democratic institutions.

The reliance on fear-based rhetoric is actually the primary reason I

want to see British Columbia lead Canada in modernizing our electoral system,

adopting a form of proportional representation. I believe that our current

system of first-past-the-post is a big part of what drives this fear-based

rhetoric.

In our system, you can receive 100 percent of the power with a small

percentage of the vote. Parties are pushed to escalate their rhetoric and

launch accusations of others, because the goal isn’t to appeal to the most

people possible. It incentivizes us to appeal to the minimum number that we

need to win a seat and to win the minimum number of seats to win a

majority.

It creates a winner-take-all mentality, because after most elections

with less than the majority of votes, what generally happens is the winner does

take all. Majoritarian governments are able to pass any legislation without the

need for support from any other parties in the House, and ultimately, the

disconnect from the other parties can also become a disconnect from the

citizens we are here to represent.

If politics is a numbers game about winning a few swing ridings in order

to have all the power, we lose sight of our higher purpose here. We forget that

we owe future generations a debt. Minority governments force us to do what the

rest of the world must do as a matter of course. They force us to find

agreement, to overcome conflict, to work from a place of common values, to

listen, to recognize that no one party, no one person has all the answers, and

this is a good thing.

Voters can see this, and it drives the disengagement and the downward

trend of voter turnout when we force our parties to work in a fear-based,

winner-take-all system. It also breeds cynicism, which is so detrimental to

democracy. Elections are often reduced to exercises of strategic voting, as we

try to figure out who is most likely to beat our least favourite choice, rather

than who we actually think deserves to be elected.

I believe that proportional representation offers our province a very

different future for our democracy. As I said last fall, imagine an election

campaign where ideas and policy are what we’re debating, rather than who the

strategic vote is in your area. Imagine an election campaign where parties put

forward their vision for the future, rather than putting out attack ads against

each other’s leaders.

So let’s get to work and have an honest and open conversation with

British Columbians about this referendum. Let’s raise the level of debate in a

way that recognizes the importance of what we are discussing. The best outcomes

will come from honest debate.

The Attorney General has provided us with his recommendation. Government

needs to adopt these as quickly as possible, and British Columbians will

ultimately be the ones making the decision. I look forward to this important

conversation in the months ahead.

S. Bond: I want to begin by thanking the three House Leaders for the cooperative

approach that allowed this brief but critically important debate to take place.

Having said that, I also want to express my disappointment that a matter of

this significance required a request for an extraordinary debate to be squeezed

into the final hours of this session.

[11:20 a.m.]

I want to thank my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to speak,

knowing full well that every single one of them wants to rise in this House and

speak on behalf of the constituents that sent them here.

Any discussion about electoral reform will likely elicit strong personal

and emotional reactions. That’s exactly how I react, and I make no apologies

for that. There are few things more important than the right to participate in

the democratic process.

Yesterday we were provided with the recommendations that the government

will consider as they finalize the process that has the potential to change the

electoral process for today and for years to come. As I started to grapple with

the contents of 100-plus-page report and the recommendations provided by the

Attorney General, I simply could not dismiss a comment that, in my view,

characterizes the attitude and the approach that this government has taken with

regard to this process from the very beginning.

“Let them draw their own maps,” they said. I admit that my response to

that comment was and remains an emotional and a personal one. You see, I

represent a riding that is about 31,467 kilometres or so. It is a provincial

electoral district that is larger than Belgium, represented by a single MLA,

and there are ridings in this House that are substantially larger than

mine.

I take the responsibility to represent my constituents very seriously.

To serve them effectively, I need to know each and every one of my communities.

I need to build relationships with communities, whether they have 50 people,

500 people or 75,000 people. I think about my constituency — Dunster, Dome

Creek, Crescent Spur, McBride, Valemount, Prince George — and I want their

voices to be heard in this referendum and in this Legislature.

Why did I have such an immediate and strong reaction to a comment about

maps that might seem trivial to some? Because any outcome in the upcoming

referendum that has the potential to diminish the ability for a constituent to

be properly served by their elected representative or for an MLA to effectively

represent the people who elected them is simply unacceptable.

It is not British Columbians’ responsibility to do the basic work that

is essential when making a decision of this magnitude. My constituents deserve

to know if the boundaries of our riding will change. In fact, every single

riding should know whether they will be impacted by boundary changes. That

responsibility lies squarely with the government.

To be told that there simply wasn’t enough time speaks volumes about the

process and about the outcomes it will generate. It also reflects a basic lack

of understanding about the things that matter to my constituents and many

others in this province.

That’s not the only way that some British Columbians will be unfairly

impacted. With the elimination of a regional threshold, the outcome of this

referendum could be determined by Metro Vancouver. Just do the math. The

painful irony of that circumstance is that the premise being used to sell the

referendum is that we need to make sure that every vote counts. Well, for my

constituents and others who live in the rest of British Columbia, apparently

their vote counts less than others.

This government made the conscious decision to remove the regional

threshold, sending a clear message to those of us who choose to live outside of

the Lower Mainland that our electoral future will be decided beyond where we

live. By any measure, how can that be considered fair?

During previous discussion in this House, I asked both the Attorney

General and the Premier about the importance of a threshold related to voter

participation in the referendum. In both cases, there was little concern

expressed, and my concerns were simply dismissed.

I would challenge the Attorney General and the Premier today to provide

an example, some example, where decisions as significant as this one would be

considered valid if supported by 10 percent or 15 percent or even 20 percent of

eligible voters. It simply wouldn’t happen.

In recent responses in the House, the Attorney General cited the example

of Prince Edward Island and their experience with electoral reform. I think he

forgot to mention the fact that low voter turnout was a significant

factor.

[11:25 a.m.]

In fact, it caused Premier Wade MacLauchlan to say that the poor showing

at the polls, when compared with the 80 percent turnout recorded in nine of the

ten last provincial elections, meant there was no real mandate for

change.

It is inconceivable that this government would not set a threshold that

would provide a legitimate mandate for any contemplated changes. So today

British Columbians have no idea whether their electoral boundaries will change.

There are no thresholds for regions or voter participation, and the cabinet has

yet to make the final decision about the questions. Gone is the promise of a

truly independent process, with the government again making the claim there

simply wasn’t enough time to engage properly with citizens.

Perhaps my greatest concern is the fact that this government abandoned a

critical promise to British Columbians. When asked about the ballot question

and the format, the Premier said it would be a yes-or-no proposition, simple,

straightforward. Instead, what do we have? We have a two-ballot question with

three models of proportional representation being considered, two of which are

not in place anywhere in the world. Yes, you heard that right. They just made

it up.

How could this have become so complicated and confusing? The most

disrespectful part? We are just months away from this referendum, and citizens

are somehow expected to educate themselves. So today I want to ask the Premier

to demonstrate the kind of leadership that British Columbians expect from a

Premier. He continually repeats in this chamber that he trusts British

Columbians to do the right thing. Well, today he has the opportunity to

demonstrate that they can trust him to do the right thing.

He promised a simple, straightforward process. No one in this House can

argue, with an ounce of credibility, that the recommendations reflect that

commitment. He promised to engage British Columbians and ensure that there was

an independent process. I’m not sure how any member of the government can make

that claim when the cabinet will determine the question. No wonder the

editorial in the Prince George Citizen today reads: “The NDP Brings

Gerrymandering to British Columbians.” That’s how my constituents

feel.

Gone is the promise of a truly independent process. The excuse offered

by the government is that there simply wasn’t time to engage properly. The

Premier has shown little concern about the lack of regional thresholds or about

our electoral future being decided by a very small number of British

Columbians. Despite the belief that boundary changes are technical matters and

that they can draw their own maps, British Columbians have no idea how the

proposed models will impact their electoral boundaries. And from the comments

of the Attorney General, he has no intention of providing them with that

information.

I can only imagine what British Columbians will think when they discover

that their votes won’t be the end of the process. No, because, in fact, there

are still design decisions to be made after the fact, without the involvement

of citizens. Simply put, this process has been designed to deliver a particular

outcome that has little to do with my constituents or British Columbians. It’s

time to set aside the promise made to the Green Party through the confidence

and supply agreement and put the interests of British Columbians

first.

If the Premier insists on proceeding with this referendum, my question

is: what’s the hurry? The only deadlines that have driven this flawed and

unfair process that have emerged are those set by the government itself. My

constituents deserve better than this. British Columbians deserve better than

this. It is time for the Premier to admit the process is flawed and unfair and

needs to change to have any semblance of credibility.

The question remains. Will the Premier do the right thing and keep his

promises to British Columbians on a matter as fundamental as this? My

constituents and I certainly hope so.

Hon. R. Fleming: My thanks to the Attorney General for his thoughtful, considered work

engaging British Columbians about their voting system. He delivered a

comprehensive report yesterday that was informed by national and provincial

experts and, most importantly, ordinary British Columbians in large numbers —

90,000 participants in the consultation on the future of British Columbia’s

voting system, the largest public engagement ever conducted in the history of

British Columbia and, in this case, about the future of our

democracy.

[11:30 a.m.]

Politicians in this chamber extensively debated legislation on the

referendum last year. You wouldn’t know it by what you hear from the opposition

today. But the vastly most important part of the debate on what our voting

system looks like in British Columbia is yet to come, and it will occur over an

unprecedented five-month-long campaign. It is the people’s referendum, and they

will have five months to decide what their voting future looks like.

This is an exciting prospect and one that builds upon the positive

momentum that our government has been able to build to restore the democratic

health of this province. British Columbians already, under our government’s

leadership, have modernized their system of financing elections in ten short

months. We’ve moved from the spectacle of being an international pariah on

campaign finance reform with the most unrestricted, unreformed system of

political party financing in North America to a place where today we can

proudly say to our citizens that we have restored ordinary citizens back to the

centre of politics by banning the corrosive influence of big money in our

politics.

We have also brought in strict reforms that regulate and bring

unprecedented transparency to the activity of lobbyists and special interests

in our political system. Now is the time for British Columbians to decide on a

further bold reform to make our democracy more representative, more respectful

of the wishes of voters by making each vote count in the composition of our

provincial parliament.

That is the proposition that is now part of a referendum process that

will unfold and be decided by B.C. voters next November. It is a proposition

that gives voters several options to make B.C.’s parliament more respectful of

their voting intent in every region of British Columbia or, if they wish, to

retain the current system.

But make no mistake. No matter what the hyperbole is of the opposition

here today or over the next five months, it will be the people of British

Columbia that decide the future of their voting system, not the Liberal Party

of British Columbia.

Judging by their instantaneous, ridiculously negative reaction to the

report yesterday, it’s sad that the B.C. Liberals have already closed their

minds to the prospect of reforming our democracy and moving towards a more

modern voting system. But they’ve made it clear. They’ve tied themselves to

politics of naked self-interest and entitlement that for 16 years gave them 100

percent of the unchecked power with a shade over 40 percent of the

vote.

That’s why they oppose the prospect of voting system change in British

Columbia. That’s their core message. They want to prevent change. They want to

go backwards. And it comes from a party that profited more than any from big

money in B.C. politics.

They resisted reform to ban big money. They resisted more oversight of

the lobbyist sector, and now they adamantly oppose a more representative voting

system. They prefer the disproportionate voting system that we have that gave

them artificial majorities for 16 long years, until they were finally ousted

from power. And now we know that….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, this House will come to order.

Hon. R. Fleming: We know their time in office is over because we’re having this very

debate here this afternoon. We know their time in office is over because we

have spent this legislative session debating a budget that invests in building

affordable housing, invests in schools, helps people get out of poverty and is

improving health care services in every community of British

Columbia.

The sad reality of a party that feels so long entitled to power is

demonstrated by what they will say to try and keep it. Eleven months ago the

opposition, with not enough seats to carry on, adopted a different position

than the one they’ve espoused today. In their 2017 throne speech in June, they

committed to — guess what — a referendum on proportional

representation.

Eleven months ago the Leader of the Opposition said something different

world. They function reasonably well. Some people think they function very well

because of this kind of compromise, because of this kind of joint position that

absorbs information, ideas from all parties for the betterment of British

Columbia.” I couldn’t agree more. I wish he still held that position

today.

[11:35 a.m.]

While he gave a supportive nod to Commonwealth countries like New

Zealand and Australia and their voting system, or three-quarters of the

success stories, like Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands and all of

those countries that were liberated by the Allied forces and, through their own

efforts, have become…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Fleming: …the most prosperous, successful, democratic governments in the world.

But now they’ve taken a different position.

Now that they are adamantly opposed to any discussion and move toward

proportional representation, the opposition will spend the five months glossing

over some things. They will gloss over the fact that the Brexit disaster was

caused by a first-past-the-post government and parliamentary result. They will

gloss over the fact that Donald Trump won in a winner-takes-all,

first-past-the-post system and is now harming our trade in Canada.

They will gloss over the fact that we had decades of near-death

experiences because first-past-the-post gave the separatist movement more seats

than they should have had in the Parliament of Canada, and we came to the brink

of breaking up our country. Certainly, the Leader of the Opposition will gloss

over the fact that 11 months ago…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Fleming: …he supported a referendum on proportional representation. And the

Leader of the Opposition will gloss over another thing. He’ll gloss over the

fact that if the B.C. Liberal Party had used first-past-the-post in choosing

its leader, we’d be talking to Dianne Watts today, not him. Perhaps that’s why

his back bench is having second thoughts about an alternative voting system.

They’re having buyer’s remorse over there.

Let’s try and understand the B.C. Liberal position. They held two

referendums on reforming the voting system, but now no other government is

allowed to. They promised a referendum 11 long months ago when they were trying

to cling to power, and now they attack a government that’s actually fulfilling

an election promise to hold that very same referendum. I’m confused.

We’re proud to be giving voters a choice on modernizing our voting

system. We’re proud to offer a new, democratic proportional electoral system

that can engage voters and reverse the worrying trends of declining voter

participation rates. That should be every party’s concern in British Columbia:

the appallingly low voter turnout rates of young people and their disengagement

from politics. That’s one of the reasons we’re offering a chance to vote on the

future of what the system looks like in British Columbia, and the people will

decide.

The evidence all around the world shows that proportional representation

reverses that decline. It increases participation rates in democratic society.

That’s what this referendum is about. It’s about reinvigorating our

democracy.

This is a generational opportunity that British Columbians have before

them. They will have five months to discuss in public, in their communities,

amongst themselves, with their families what the voting system that they prefer

is. And it is the people who will decide.

In conclusion, we’re proposing something that the B.C. Liberals once

supported, once opposed, supported again and now oppose once more. But the

reality is, it isn’t about them. It’s about the voters of B.C. and what they

want. It’s not about the B.C. Liberals. It is the people of British Columbia

who will ultimately decide, and thank goodness for that.

M. Lee: I would like to, first, acknowledge the end conclusion of the member for

Victoria–Swan Lake. We agree that this is about British Columbians. This is

about the vote that each of them will make in this referendum.

[11:40 a.m.]

We supported a third referendum on proportional representation in this

House, as the member said, 11 months ago, but we expected it to be a fair,

clear and transparent referendum. This is not what this is. This is what our

concern has been.

The immediate response we have been…. The instantaneous response the

member suggests we had to make on this was because the members on the other

side, this government, had 11 months, ten months since the date of their

agreement with the Green Party, to get this process right. They provided a

report yesterday — yesterday, Madame Speaker — with one day left in this House

to discuss that report. And now we have less than one hour to discuss

this.

What’s the tragedy? The tragedy is that we are talking about

fundamentally changing our democratic process in this province. This is not

just another election. This is not something that voters can digest in 30

days.

Interjection.

M. Lee: Yes, they have five months. But they don’t have the details in this

referendum. We don’t know what we’re voting on here.

There are over 24 items that have been identified in this report that

need to be turned over to an all-party committee, an all-party committee that

will be dominated by the NDP and Green Party members. That’s the nature of this

arrangement.

Coming back to this, the member for Prince George–Valemount spoke about

the importance of this, the importance to her constituents. Each member in this

House knows the importance to all of our constituents about how we get elected

to this House. It is so fundamentally important. As you can see with this

debate, in the short period of time that we’ve had, it’s not something for

partisan politics. It’s not something that parties are capable of doing. That’s

the reason why we’ve been asking for independence, the independent review of

this referendum process.

We talk about the largest engagement in the history of the province —

this survey. I appreciate the number of responses, as we have talked about with

the AG in estimates.

It’s the quality of the responses. It was benchmarked against 1,100

respondents by Ipsos-Reid. But when you look at the survey results, they are

skewed. There are many responses that are very different from the baseline.

This baseline was intended to represent the geographic, gender and age

diversity of this province, to name three types of diversity. Those results are

very different. It suggests, of course, that when proponents are active in

this, they will fill out the survey.

Interjection.

M. Lee: Well, I think people should be engaged, but when they’re engaged, they

should be voting and responding on things that are being put forward in this

survey. The two forms of PR, dual-member and rural-urban, were not even

included in the survey. We’re talking about consulting with 90,000 British

Columbians. They didn’t have the opportunity to even think about these two

forms of PR that have been derived. One of which, of course, was responded to

in a submission — I think it says 22 different submissions — to this survey.

They put it forward.

It’s Fair Vote. Fair Vote, of course, is going to be an active proponent

in this referendum. I appreciate that they’re part of this debate. They’re part

of this great democratic exercise that we’re about to embark on, in a flawed

way.

They are the ones who designed this rural-urban model. They are the ones

who will be campaigning in favour of that. And they are the ones who are about

to launch in a few days, as we understand. After a few days, this PR system

that nobody has ever seen, that is not in place anywhere else in this world,

all of a sudden is going to be able to launch. What is that about? It suggests,

of course, that this process has been rigged.

We come back to the timing of this. As the member for Prince

George–Valemount talked about at the end of her statements, the confidence and

supply agreement…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

M. Lee: …between the Green Party and the NDP said: “We’ll take this to a

referendum in the fall of 2018, coincident with the municipal elections.” There

are two things wrong with that. What’s the rush? The fall.

[11:45 a.m.]

Of course, we passed, and we did debate, legislation in this House,

tabled by the government, that set the deadline for the end of November. What’s

the rush? Whose timing are we dealing with?

Interjections.

M. Lee: Yes, it was last year, and this government has wasted the time. You have

wasted this time.

With the CASA arrangement, it said: “Let’s hold the referendum in

connection with the municipal elections.” That’s terrific. We’re going to have

this discussion, this important voting process…. The voting period will start

on October 22, two days after the municipal elections. The Premier, of course,

in his comments previously to the media has indicated: “Well, you know, British

Columbians won’t be that focused during barbecue season.”

This is the challenge, Madame Speaker. The challenge is, of course, that

just when British Columbians, after the summer, will be focused on municipal

campaigns all over this province for local government, voting on that on

October 20, we flip over into this referendum. This leaves very little time for

British Columbians to really know the details and to get their heads around

what will be a fundamental change to our democratic system.

Both the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Prince

George–Valemount talked repeatedly about the kinds of broken trust that the

Premier and this government have had with British Columbians. I think all

members of this House want to ensure that British Columbians have confidence in

the result of the vote. I don’t see how British Columbians can possibly vote on

forms of PR that have not been defined, and 24 different items need to be sent

to this committee or to Elections B.C., after the vote, to be defined. So how

does a British Columbian vote on this? How do they know the ramifications of

what they’re voting on?

Any one of these three choices…. Two of them are in theory. They don’t

exist anywhere in the world — dual-member and rural-urban. British Columbians

need more than theories. They need more than things that will be determined in

the future. They need to know, when they vote, what they’re voting on, what the

implications are. Therefore, as members on this side of the House have talked

about….

We’ve talked about the riding maps. Riding maps are not just about

electoral redistribution, as the Premier tried to indicate this morning. We’re

talking about changing our process of electoral voting in this province. We

need to know the implications.

Under a dual-member system, the number of ridings will be halved,

divided in two. Ridings will get larger. We need to know the implications of

all of that. British Columbians need to understand that. They understood it in

2009. Why can’t they understand it here? That is a flaw in this process. This

is the reason why, as the Leader of the Opposition and the House Leader here on

our side have indicated, this must go to a parliamentary committee.

There hasn’t been a consensus reached by British Columbians on this. The

results of this survey indicate that there was not one form of PR that British

Columbians could have consensus on. It’s not what the NDP and the Green Party

had agreed to. They had agreed that one form of proportional representation

would be put to British Columbians, and that’s not the case.

What the Attorney General has done is received this survey result. He

received 46 different submissions, two of which might be, arguably, in favour

of the current system. At least 44, by my look through the list, are not in

favour of our current system. It’s a skewed input.

I think that what we are seeing here today are systems of proportional

representation being raised that raise concerns, including about the equality

of voting power. When you look at the rural-urban proportional representation

model, there is an indication that that would treat rural and urban voters

differently, when under

section 3 of the Charter, every Canadian, every British

Columbian, has an equal right to vote.

[11:50 a.m.]

There are serious flaws with what’s being presented to this, and as I’ve

said, I urge strongly the Premier to reconsider moving forward with that

report, to bring this to an all-party committee, because we need to have the

discussion in this House of the types of issues of concern that I’ve just

outlined.

M. Polak: At the closing of this debate, I want to bring it back to the motion

that we’re discussing. We’re talking about whether or not this should be

referred to a parliamentary committee and having that done prior to the

referendum vote. Why?

Well, one of the reasons why has been displayed here quite evidently —

the scrutiny that’s required to actually have an effective presentation to

British Columbian voters so that they can make an informed choice. What have we

heard today in this House? Well, to be honest, I made notes of a whole bunch of

things we’ve heard — of people describing the current system who don’t

understand the current system.

For example, the way we represent British Columbians in this chamber and

have for, lo, these many years isn’t about parties representing constituents.

I’ve heard a number of members mention that. It actually isn’t. To believe that

parties represent constituents is one of the reasons people think: “Well, then

I want my party in the House, or I want this party in the House.” It’s actually

individual members. The only people who are part of government are

cabinet.

There is also this recurring statement that when a government gets a

majority, they have 100 percent of the power. That is a fundamental

misunderstanding of the way our chamber functions and the way governments

function.

I can tell you, and I’m sure the members on the other side…. There are a

number of them who know how impactful individual members of their caucus can

be. Any time — and especially now with the construct of that government — one

of those members or more decide that they no longer support the government of

the day, that government can be changed. It is one of the most powerful

features of our Westminster system, of our form of democracy.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

All of this points to the fact that we need to have that additional

scrutiny. Was the report presented to this House? No. It was presented steps

away from this chamber. It could have been brought here. It could have been

presented here for debate. No. That was something that we had to force and

negotiate.

Here we have the opportunity to send this report, the recommendations,

to a parliamentary committee prior to the vote to make sure there’s the

appropriate scrutiny, to make sure British Columbians are provided with the

appropriate information so they can make an informed choice — not one based on

misrepresentations of our current system and literally no representation of at

least two of the forms that they are being asked to consider.

This is such an important question that is being put before British

Columbians. I can only imagine that the reason the scrutiny is not desired, the

reason the information, like the maps, is not being put forward is because they

know that if British Columbians got all the information, British Columbians

would do what they’ve done twice already. They would reject the proposition,

and it would lose.

I really do hope that the government changes its mind and decides that

it’s time for some scrutiny, independent scrutiny, on this process.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, noting the hour and pursuant to the general provisions of

Standing Order 35, I invite the Government House Leader to adjourn the

House.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank all members for participating in this debate under Standing

Order 35.

With that, I move the House do now adjourn.

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 11:54 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